Wait, SECURE 2.0 Might Not Pass?

The legislative package may be running out of time, suggested Senator Ben Cardin at the EBRI Retirement Summit.



Senator Ben Cardin, D-Maryland, expressed concern that the SECURE 2.0 retirement reform legislation might not pass this year while speaking at Thursday’s Employee Benefit Research Institute Retirement Summit on Thursday.

Cardin participated in an online discussion with retiring Senator Rob Portman, R-Ohio, hosted by Eric Stevenson, president of Nationwide Retirement Plans. Cardin and Portman are both well known for their longstanding advocacy on retirement issues.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

Though Cardin said he was “optimistic” that SECURE 2.0 would pass and that there is no “controversy on substance,” he expressed misgivings that there would be enough time for the legislative package to pass both chambers of Congress before the next Congress is sworn in on January 3, 2023.

Cardin explained that they are looking for “a vehicle” (most likely a must-pass budget bill) to get the legislation passed, such as an end-of-year omnibus spending bill. He also said Congress has many other priorities this month, and there simply might not be time for SECURE to pass.

Cardin even went so far as to encourage those in attendance to reach out to their legislators and tell them to pass SECURE 2.0. This remark at a minimum suggests genuine concern that SECURE 2.0 might get deprioritized and fail to pass.

Portman neither elaborated on nor challenged Cardin’s characterization of the situation.

Though industry watchers had been optimistic that SECURE 2.0 would pass in December, Cardin and Portman are both members of the Senate Committee on Finance, which unanimously passed the Enhancing American Retirement Now (EARN) Act. It is one of three bills, another in the Senate and one in the House, that would need to be reconciled into one before being passed in both houses.

The legislation aims to expand access to employer-sponsored retirement plans through a range of provisions such as allowing student debt payments to be matched as employer retirement contributions, providing tax incentives to businesses to start plans and creating emergency savings accounts.

If SECURE 2.0 does not pass this year, the legislation must be re-proposed in both houses. Legislators would be free to borrow from the old text and earlier negotiations in the new proposal. However, restarting the process afresh, even if not revising the substance, could significantly delay the timing of its passage.

Since SECURE 2.0 has widespread bipartisan support, it is unlikely that Republican control of the House of Representatives in the new Congress would obstruct the passage of the legislation.

Asset Managers Scramble to Offer In-Demand Investment Vehicles

Asset managers are replicating existing mutual fund investment strategies in separately managed accounts and collective investment trusts to meet demand from retirement advisers and sponsors, according to new findings from Cerulli.



The demand from clients including retirement plan advisers and providers  for separately managed accounts (SMA) and collective investment trust (CIT) options is likely further eroding the demand for more traditional mutual funds, and even gaining on more recently popular exchange-traded funds, according to research released Wednesday by Cerulli Associates.

More than half (56%) of about 30 asset managers surveyed by Cerulli say they are prioritizing CITs as an opportunity, and even more (60%) are prioritizing SMAs. The two investment vehicles, which tout lower fees, tax advantages, and more customization, are not far behind exchange-traded funds in terms of growth, and are continuing a five year trend of outdueling open-ended mutual funds, the firm says in the research report.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

“Asset managers are trying to keep pace with the requests of legacy mutual fund clients that want similar or identical strategies in different wrappers,” Cerulli said in the report. “As such, more firms over the next year are planning to replicate existing strategies than are planning to build out new strategies in vehicles such as CITs, SMAs, and ETFs.” 

Creating new investment vehicles is the highest priority for 69% of asset managers polled by Cerulli, outpacing last year’s 41%, according to the research.

“Asset managers can do well to cement relationships with large retirement plans by offering lower fees, which will often be needed as the plan fiduciaries fight to keep retirement assets for their participants,” says Matt Apkarian, an associate director with Cerulli. 

Mutual funds have lagged ETF, SMA, and CIT asset growth rates for years, Cerulli notes, a trend the consultancy expects to continue due to demand from retirement plan managers. At least 83% of asset managers are choosing to replicate strategies using CITs due to requests from plan advisers, consultants, or plan sponsors.

While interest in both SMAs and CITs within defined contribution plans has been rising, there are still implementation concerns from advisers and plan sponsors. That may be changing as the investment vehicles become more familiar. CITs are now on pace to overtake mutual funds as the most popular target-date vehicle for DC plans in the coming years, according to March research from data provider Morningstar. CITs make up 45% of total target-date strategy assets, up from 32% five years ago.

Cerulli warns that asset managers should be careful not to only replicate existing strategies in the vehicles, but to consider the best strategy for the client.

“Successful managers will find that they can safeguard against a declining mutual fund business, and also ultimately lead investors to find more value in financial services and better long-term investment options through customization and tax optimization,” Apkarian said.

The research found that asset managers’ second-highest priority was building out illiquid alternative investment options to meet the demand for greater diversification. The firm said 62% of those polled put the offering as a high priority

«