Wednesday, July 27, 2016

Doing Your Due Diligence on Advisers and Actuaries

I read an interesting article this morning. In it, I read about a company that had used the same retirement plan adviser for quite a long time and developed a good relationship with them. After 13 years of this adviser assisting them with investment monitory, a fiduciary policy, and an investment policy, as well as manager searches, the company in question decided that just as part of due diligence, even though they figured there would only be about a 10% of chance of changing advisers to go through that due diligence process and bid those services out as well.

What the company, Dot Foods, found was that it was being charged perhaps more than a market competitive price and getting less than market competitive level of service. It was time for a change.

We could draw an analogy to lots of different kinds of services, but as consultants like to say, I'm going to drill down a little bit (I can't believe I used that term as hearing it always makes me hear a dentist's drill).

Let's put this in the context of a decent-sized, but not enormous defined benefit pension plan. To give some context, let's say that the plan has between $50 million and $1 billion in plan assets and let's assume that the plan is frozen (this is not an uncommon situation).

Now consider your plan advisers, particularly your actuary. Ask yourself these questions:

  • How long have you been working with your current actuarial firm?
  • Over that time, how many fresh ideas or analyses have they brought you with respect to your plan? When was the last time they brought you one that they didn't charge you for?
  • Reflecting the fact that your plan was frozen and that some of the work behind the actuarial valuation would be much simpler, did they voluntarily reduce your actuarial fees the year after you froze your plan?
  • Do you get as much attention from them as you did before your plan was frozen?
  • Have they given you a strategic plan to get to termination of your plan? Or, have they just told you that interest rates are too low now and you'll have to wait it out?
  • If they have given you a plan, was it provided in the context of your business or was it just their standard template?
You can pretty easily tell what the so-called best practice answers to all of these questions are. And, for your sake, I hope that after reflecting on your answers that you are able to tell yourself and your colleagues that most or all of those answers are what you would like them to be.

Suppose they're not. 

I know. You have a frozen plan and you think you are in set it and forget it mode. You don't really want to spend time both in the due diligence or RFP process to do this check and you certainly don't want to invest the time and effort that you think will be necessary during transition. 

Consider this scenario. You are able through that process to identify enough hard savings and soft savings that hiring a contractor or temporary employee to help with the transition would be a drop in the bucket in terms of cost compared to what you will be saving. During the RFP process, you get a freebie of some ideas that will help you to meet your strategic objectives with a promise of more to come. You learn that your actuary had gotten lazy and was delivering sub-optimal consulting.

Hmm ... there's an interesting term. What in the world is sub-optimal consulting

Sub-optimal consulting is a fancy way of saying that your actuary is just going through the motions. Everything they are providing you is correct, but none of it is the best correct answer.

I'm not implying here that your actuary should be doing anything underhanded or unethical. Quite to the contrary, your actuary should be following the law and Actuarial Standards of Practice to a tee. Oftentimes, however, within those constraints, there are a range of potential answers. Some are far more conducive to your business than others.

Consider this recent real example. A company, now a client, didn't like the news it was consistently getting from its actuary. That company didn't know if that news was the only way or if there was a better way. So, they asked. 

What they learned was that if their actuary did take the time to understand the interrelationship between their plan and their business that there was better news that they could be getting. The company came back to us and asked, "Can you save us money?" The answer was that there were hard dollar savings (fees) that would be small and other savings that would be significant. 

Perhaps you are the company that is getting great service and perhaps you maintain the plan for which everything is being done properly.

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Save Our Social Security Act

What a novel idea -- Congressman Reid Ribble (R-WI) who I was completely unfamiliar with previous to today, has introduced into the House of Representatives a bill that incorporates ideas espoused by both parties. That's right, it's somewhat of a compromise bill designed to save our Social Security system by adding some burden to high earners while also increasing retirement ages.

The sad part is that I think that most people will look at this bill and focus on the parts that they, philosophically, don't like rather than emphasizing that it represents an excellent effort at potential bipartisan compromise. I hope I'm wrong.

What's in the bill?


  • The Social Security Wage Base, that is the amount subject to the 6.2% OASDI tax that is currently at $118,500, will increase as follows:
    • $156,550 in 2017
    • $194,600 in 2018
    • $232,650 in 2019
    • $270,700 in 2020
    • $308,750 in 2021
    • after 2021, to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury to capture 90% of all FICA-covered wages
  • Change the current 3-band formula for calculating Social Security benefits to a 4-band formula thus allowing that all compensation considered for purposes of Social Security taxes also be considered for Social Security benefits, but not increasing Social Security benefits for the highest earners.
  • Beginning in 2022, the Social Security Normal Retirement Age (SSNRA) would again begin to gradually increase. This would have little, if any, effect on people currently close to SSNRA, but would reflect longer work spans and life spans for younger workers. This piece of the bill would be reexamined by actuaries every 10 years to study the effects of mortality improvements.
  • Change the basis for calculating the annual COLA for current SS beneficiaries by putting more weight on, for example, food, clothing, and transportation, and by putting relatively lower weight on housing, medical care, and recreation. The intent is to more closely mirror the necessary spending of a senior citizen as compared to that of an average urban wage earner.
  • Create a minimum benefit at 125% of the poverty level
  • Increase the benefit amount (I can't quite determine how this will work) after a person has been eligible to have been in pay status for 20 years
  • Base the SS benefit on 38 years of SS wages rather than 35
  • No legislation can be considered that would temporarily lower SS revenue for a year
Is this what I think is the best solution for Social Security? Probably not.

On the other hand, is this the best solution that I have seen that has a chance of passing Congress and being signed into law by the President? In my opinion, it has the best chance since 1983.

Let's see where it goes.

Monday, July 25, 2016

The Plight of Retirement And It's No-Mention Status in the Election

We have a Presidential election coming up. We have 34 US Senate seats that need to be filled this year and 435 seats in the House of Representatives. I've looked pretty closely. I've not see a single comment from an individual running for one of those offices that mentions retirement policy or retirement plans. That, while a majority of working Americans either worry daily about the prospects of retirement or would and should have that worry if they came out from under that rock they have hidden under.

There has been far more emphasis on other areas of workers' rewards packages and frankly, that emphasis has not had a major positive effect on the bulk of those American workers. Perhaps you have seen differently, but the three things that have gotten lots of focus ordered only by the way that I choose to type them have been:


  • Health care (primarily the Affordable Care Act)
  • The need (according to many to reduce executive compensation
  • The hourly minimum wage
Let's assume for the moment that if you are reading this that you are over the age of 25 (if you're under 25 and you have an interest in what I write here, I expect that you will have a successful future) and that you have some useful skill set. If that's the case, then there is a good chance that you are employed, employable, and looking for work, not working by choice, or retired. 

If you are working and you fall into those categories, there is a very good chance that you have access to decent health care benefits and, in fact, you probably had them or would have had them had you been similarly situated, before the effective date of the Affordable Care Act. So, while the ACA may have made some changes to your health benefits, it's not likely that those differences were life-changing for you (yes, I understand that uncapping the lifetime maximum and allowing your kids up to age 26 on your policy could have had that big a difference for you).

Similarly, most of us are not executives and certainly not of the classification whose compensation draws the significant ire of others. As individuals, we might have opinions on levels of executive compensation or we might not, but most of us know that even reducing our CEO's pay by 75% would not change our compensation one iota. We are compensated roughly on our value in the marketplace. Our value does not change merely because our CEO takes a pay cut.

Finally, there is the hourly minimum wage. I could be wrong, but my observation is that there just aren't a whole lot of people earning less than $15 an hour (unless they are currently in school) who read this blog. So, for you, the hourly minimum wage probably doesn't make much of a personal difference (I understand that you may have very strong opinions on it, but those are from the standpoint of what's right and what's wrong).

Where is poor little retirement? Social Security gets debated. But, we all know that you just can't retire on Social Security. 

I'm not going to spout statistics here because I don't have them at my fingertips. But, my observation is that a generation ago, far more employees than not were covered by meaningful employer-provided defined benefit (DB) plans. And, among those who were not, likely the majority of the rest were in often generous money purchase or profit sharing plans. 401(k) plans were in their infancy. As I've written many times here, 401(k) plans were never intended to be a primary means of retirement savings. 

That was the way of the mid 70s through mid 80s. 

Today, as we know, more employees than not, have a 401(k) plan as their only employer-sponsored retirement plan. Many of them are not generous. Many are poorly invested. In a perfect world, the employees in many of those plans will find it difficult to retire with anywhere near the standards of living they are used to. 

It gets worse, of course. Many of us will have or have had work interruptions or, at the very least, periods where we need to reduce or even cease our 401(k) contributions.  

We have a crisis. 

There, I said it. I believe it. 

In fact, it affects and will affect more Americans more profoundly than most of the issues being hotly debated. It certainly affects us more than does knowledge about Hillary Clinton's emails or Donald Trump's tax returns.

Yet, the candidates remain silent.

So very sad.

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

Opinion: American Workers Need Pensions and They Should Look Like This

Since I last blogged, I've seen a lot of survey data. Among the very compelling themes has been that Americans are afraid that they will not have enough money with which to retire. Those fears are well founded for many.

As I've written here many times, the 401(k) plan was never intended to be the primary retirement source of retirement income for American workers. Neither was Social Security. Rather, Social Security was intended to be a supplement to bridge people for what was usually just a few years of retirement before death. Section 401(k) was a throw-in in a late 70s tax law that was suddenly discovered. It was intended to give companies a way to help their employees to save more tax effectively. And, remember, in the late 70s, the norm was that whatever company employed you at age 35 was likely to be your last full-time employer. ERISA had recently become law and most American workers had defined benefit pensions. These plans were designed to assist employers in recruiting and retaining employees.

Then, again, as I've written many times, along came change through the government and through quasi-governmental organizations. Employers didn't like the mismatch between cash flow requirements and financial accounting charges. New pension funding laws, beginning in 1987, were designed not to ensure responsible funding of pension plans, but to provide an offset to tax expenditures (a fancy name for tax breaks and government overspending). Looking at it from the standpoint of someone in Congress trying to decrease tax expenditures, if you can decrease required company contributions, you decrease their tax deductions, and thus cut those evil tax expenditures.

Nearly 30 years later, pensions have tried hard to go the way of the dinosaur. The fact is, however, that there are still lots of defined benefit pension plans out there. But, they don't look the same as they did 30 years ago. The laws have changed, creative minds have been at work, and new and better designs have emerged.

American workers generally should have employer-provided defined benefit pension plans. But, since these creative minds have been at work, what exactly should these new plans look like?


  • While they offer a sense of stability in retirement, annuity payments do not appeal to many Americans and they do not necessarily understand them. So, while all defined benefit plans must have annuity options, they should also have lump sum options.
  • The plans should not be "back-loaded" (a term that means that most of your accruals and therefore cost to your employer emerges late in your career). The typical final average pay plan of yesteryear was designed so that most of your accruals occurred close to or after you were eligible to retire. This made some sense when you spent your whole career with one employer. But, in 2016, that very rarely happens. So, plans should accrue benefits fairly ratably.
  • Benefits should be portable. That is, you should be able to take them with you either to an IRA or to another employer. This works best if there is a lump sum option through which you can take a direct rollover and maintain the tax-deferred status.
  • Employer costs should be predictable and stable. This can be achieved when there is no longer a mismatch between assets and liabilities in a plan.
  • Employers should see that plan assets are professionally managed, but fluctuations in asset returns from those that are expected can be borne by plan participants.
This sounds like pension nirvana, doesn't it? Such plans and designs can't possibly exist.

Well, they do. 

The plan design that accomplishes this is often known as a Market Return Cash Balance Plan (MRCB).

While an MRCB carries with it all of the required characteristics of defined benefit plan and it looks a lot like a 401(k) or other defined contribution plan, it brings with it additional benefits. It satisfies all of the bullets I've outlined above. Budgeting gets easy and predictable. There is no "leakage" due to sudden expenses when a participant's car decides to break down or an unexpected flood ravages their house.

An MRCB is very suitable to be a primary retirement plan. You want to save a bit extra? That's what your 401(k) plan is for. 

If you are an employer and you're reading this, you really need to know more, don't you?

Thursday, June 2, 2016

The Easy Benefits Answer May be Compliance

I ran into an interesting situation the other day. I can't disclose enough of the details for reasons of confidentiality to use that as a case study. The point of the exercise, though, was that a client was looking for a loophole to escape the claws of what it was told is a horrible provision of the Internal Revenue Code. After analysis, however, I was able to determine that the loophole, as they put it, just doesn't work for them.

There, was a better and simpler solution, though. Just follow the law (without regard to the loophole).

While I can't use this week's example, it harkens back to the late 80s and early 90s (yes, I was doing similar work even then). Readers in their 50s or older may recall that the first Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86) regulations to come out were the proposed 401(l) regulations that graced the pages of the Federal Register in late 1988. Lawyers, consultants, and actuaries (me among them) raced to digest those regulations and to be the first to tell their clients and prospects how to comply.

I digress for a moment to explain why this could have been so important. 401(l) explained how to integrate certain qualified retirement plans with Social Security in order for those plans to be exempt from the general test for nondiscrimination under Code Section 401(a)(4). Prior to TRA86, permissible integration was determined under Revenue Ruling 71-446, and whether or not a group of plans was discriminatory in nature was determined under the comparability rules of Revenue Ruling 81-202. What was different, though, was that if you had an integrated plan and you couldn't prove that it was properly integrated per RR 71-446, you risked your qualified status. Under TRA86, proper integration was more of a convenience.

Returning to the main plot, we all rushed out to our clients and many with defined benefit (DB) plans redesigned them to be properly integrated making them safe harbor. Those clients then needed to deal with transition rules under Notice 88-131. Some with good memories will remember racking our brains over choices between Options II and III and Alternative II-D.

Other sponsors made a different decision. They chose to not redesign their plans. That meant that they had to comply with the general test for nondiscrimination.

Well, for most, that turned out not to be such a big deal. It meant that every year or two years or three years, they had to engage their actuary to perform a test that was usually pretty easy to pass. What they got in return was a lack of disruption. For them, the easiest answer was not to find a way out of testing, but simply to pass a test that they could easily pass.

Returning finally to my initial point from this post, the client in question was trying to get out of a rule that counsel had told them was pretty horrible. And, it's true, it can be a horrible rule. But, in this specific case, the compliance burden associated with this rule will be minimal.

And, that means that what is perhaps the optimal solution will be simple.

Sometimes, the right answer has nothing to do with loopholes. Sometimes, the easiest (and best) answer is compliance.

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

The Truth About Actuarial Valuations of Pension Plans

I've heard the same comments for years. I've heard that a company loves its actuary, but they can't give you one reason why. I've heard that actuarial work is a commodity and that everyone produces the same numbers, so you might as well go with the lowest bidder. There's more; there's lots more.

I'm here to tell you that it's all wrong and it's wrong now more than ever.

Let's revisit history a little bit. In the beginning (well, not quite the beginning), there was ERISA. And, Congress saw that it was good ... for a while.

ERISA brought us rules and choices. The rules said that plan sponsors had to fund the sum of the annual cost of benefits that were accruing (normal cost) plus a portion of the amount by which the plan was underfunded using some fairly complex formulas. But, those calculations were pretty malleable. In fact, there were many methods by which to calculate those numbers and if you couldn't find the methods to get you the answers you wanted, you could likely talk your actuary into selecting assumptions to get you to those numbers. That's the way the game was played from the mid-70s through the mid-80s.

Then, the rules began to change. Congress saw that corporate tax deductions for funding pensions were a significant drag on the federal budget. So, Congress sought to limit those deductions by bringing in multiple funding regimes. So, was passed the Pension Protection Act of 1987 as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987. And, Congress saw that is was good ... for a while.

Multiple funding regimes theoretically brought multiple choices, but with the 90s came the era of full funding. With the use of high discount rates tied to assumed rates of returns on plan assets, those assets exceeded the calculated liabilities of the plan. More plans than not had no required contributions. Pensions were cheap.

And, then came the perfect storm. Interest rates fell, asset values fell, and Congress had to do something. In 2006, Congress passed another Pension Protection Act (PPA). And, Congress saw that it was good.

But, there was something different about PPA. It severely limited flexibility in calculating the actuarial liabilities of a pension plan. In fact, with very limited exceptions, without any knowledge of the actuarial assumptions being selected, another actuary could fairly well reproduce that calculation of actuarial liabilities (at least within in a few percent).

But, what we have now is a tangled web. There are so many liabilities and percentages. Every single one of them affects the cost of your plan. There is the funding target, the plan termination liability, the liability for purposes of calculating PBGC premiums. There's the FTAP, the AFTAP, and various other funding percentages.

While each individual calculation is simple, getting to the correct answer is not.

And, that's why your choice of actuary for your plan is actually far more important today than it used to be.

Suppose I told you that your actuary's lack of attention to your plan as compared to the rules was costing you more money annually than you pay in actuarial fees.

Suppose I told you that your actuary's not focusing on your business's cash flow needs was forcing you to borrow unnecessarily.

Suppose I told you that that renegotiation of a loan covenant that you just went through because your pension plan had too low a funded percentage could have been avoided.

The scary thing is that I have told companies all of those things. We're in an era now where calculation is easy, but strategy is difficult. In fact, more plans than not are using a suboptimal strategy. Don't you need to know if you are spending more money than you need to or if you are spending it inefficiently?

Monday, May 9, 2016

Multiemployer Law Fails to Work for the Plan it was Most Likely Developed For

In mid-2014, Congress enacted and the President signed into law the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act (MPRA) sometimes known as the Kline-Miller Act (for its original sponsors). MPRA was unique in modern political circles as it was sponsored by John Kline, a Republican from Minnesota and George Miller, a Democrat from California. It was also unique in that it had support from unions, from companies that employ union workers, from affected government agencies and from industry groups specializing in multiemployer plans.

All that makes it sound like a law that was practically perfect.

Some background for those who don't spend their days in the multiemployer plan world is useful. Generally, multiemployer plans exist in industries where an individual working in that industry may provide services to many different employers. In the Teamsters Unions (primarily truck drivers), for example, drivers may drive on behalf of many different employers. Each employer agrees to contribute an amount to the plan based on the amount of service provided to it by each worker under the agreement. So, for example, in the case of a Teamsters Union, contributions could be set at some number of dollars per thousand miles driven. Retirement benefits are set based on the levels that the trust can support.

Benefits under multiemployer plans are insured (to some extent) by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). One of the reasons for the passage of MPRA was to protect the PBGC. This was to be accomplished by allowing plans that met a set of requirements (more later) to reduce benefits that had already accrued. As many of the industries often covered by multiemployer plans dwindle, the plans themselves are unable to support the levels of benefits that had been promised. There are just not enough dollars coming into the plans.

Based on data published initially by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the single plan that was viewed as potentially most problematic was the Central States, Southeast, and Southwest Areas Pension Plan. With more than 400,000 member, a funded ratio just barely above 50%, and nearly 5 times as many inactives as actives (all as of 2012), the plan was estimated to become insolvent in 12 years. Many plans were projected to become insolvent sooner, but not represented nearly the liability of the Central States Plan.

As MPRA should have, it placed a strict set of conditions (see Code Section 432(e)(9)) on such suspensions. Cutting back retirement benefits had essentially never been permitted in an ERISA plan. Such a cutback needed to be in everyone's best interests.

The process for determining that was generally to be that the Trustees of a Plan would apply to the Treasury Department for such a suspension (the technical term for such a reduction). The application would need to demonstrate that the suspension met all of the conditions referenced above.

In the case of the Central States application, Special Master Ken Feinberg determined that some of those conditions were not met.

Specifically,


  • The suspension must be reasonably estimated to avoid insolvency
    • In making its projections, the Trustees or the outside consultants used by the Trustees assumed a rate of return on plan assets that for every asset class in the plan exceeded the 75th percentile (according to survey data) for that class
    • The entry age for new participants under the plan was assumed to be 32. While data shows that 32 is the average age, that is misleading because a group of new entrants at age 32 would have no new retirees in the next 20 years. On the other hand, a group with average age 32, including some who are much older, would have new retirees representing cash outflow from the plan far sooner than that.
  • The suspension of benefits must be equitably distributed meaning that a particular class of participants is not adversely affected more than other classes
    • The Trustees sought to make use of participants who are or were UPS employees under the plan. UPS had completely withdrawn from the plan and made withdrawal liability payments under the plan. In doing so, UPS had fulfilled its obligations with respect to the plan.
    • But, UPS made those participants whole under a different plan. In its application, the Trustees considered only the portion of UPS benefits attributable to the make-whole agreement. This was judged not to be an equitable distribution.
  • Upon application for suspension of benefits, notices must be distributed to participants explaining the suspension and the reasons for it
    • The notices must be understandable by the typical participant, but in fact contained lots of technical jargon.
    • In the notice's worst blemish, it contains a 98-word sentence with 4 technical terms not defined anywhere in the notice.
For all these reasons, the application was denied.

What does this do?

It leaves the Central States Plan in a position where it is likely within roughly 7 or 8 years of becoming insolvent. This means that the PBGC will become responsible for an extremely large liability for which its multiemployer fund does not have sufficient assets.

Who wins? Nobody.

Who loses? The PBGC, the plan participants, and the multiemployer system.

We might as well say that Americans are the losers.