4 Problems at the Intersection of Finance and HR

They are two of the most visible departments in corporations even though neither directly produces revenue, but does require expenditures -- Finance and HR. Historically, they have been at odds neither particularly caring about the worries of the other despite being inextricably linked. This occurs in many ways, but I'm going to focus on four in the order that they seem to arise:

1. Recruiting
2. Cost control and stability
3. Retention
4. Workforce transition

Of course there are many more, but I have some thoughts that link all four of these together. In 2019, that's not always easy as there are constant pushes in Congress to tell employers how much they must pay, which benefits they must provide, and at what costs. How then does one company differentiate itself from another?

To the extent possible, every employer today seems to offer teleworking, flexible work hours, and paid time off banks. While they once were, those are no longer differentiators. After the Affordable Care Act took effect, the health plans at Company X started to look a lot like the health plans at Company Y.

I have a different idea and while I am probably biased by my consulting focus, I am also biased by research that I read. Employees are worried about retiring someday. They are worried about whether they will have enough money or even if they have any way of knowing if they will have enough money. They are worried about outliving their wealth (or lack thereof). They are worried about having the means to support their health in retirement.

I know -- you think I have veered horribly from my original thesis. We're coming back.

Today, most good-sized companies have 401(k) plans and in an awful lot of those cases, they are safe harbor plans. They are an expectation, so having one does not help you the employer in recruiting. While once they had pizzazz, today they are routine. 

Cost stability seems a given, but it's not. Common benchmarks for the success of a 401(k) plan including the percentage of employees that participate at various levels. You score better if your employees do participate and at higher levels. But, that costs more money.

If there's nothing about that program that sets you apart, it doesn't help you to retain your employees. And, as we all have learned, the cost of unwanted turnover is massive often exceeding a year's salary. In other words, if you lose a desirable employee earning $100,000 per year, it is estimated that the total true cost of replacing her is about $100,000. That would have paid for a lot of years of retirement plan costs for her.

There will come a time, however, that our desirable employee thinks it's time to retire. But, she's not certain if she is able. And, even if she works out that she is able, retirement is so sudden. One day, she's getting up and working all nine to five and the next, she has to fill that void. Wouldn't it be great to be able to transition her into retirement gradually while she transitions her skills and knowledge to her replacement?

You need a differentiator. You need something different, exciting, and better. You need to be the kid on the block that everyone else envies. 

You would be the envy of all the others if you won at recruiting, kept your costs level (as a percentage of payroll) and on budget, retained key employees, and had a vehicle that allows for that smooth transition.

I had a conversation with a key hiring executive earlier this month. He said he cannot get mid-career people to come to his organization from [and he mentioned another peer organization]. He was exasperated. He said, "We're better and everyone knows it, but their best people won't come over." I asked him why. He said, "It's that pension and I can't get one put in here." I asked him to tell me more and he explained it as one of those new-fangled cash balance plans with guaranteed return of principal -- i.e., no investment risk for participants, professionally managed assets, the ability to receive 401(k) rollovers, and the option to take a lump sum or various annuity options at retirement. He said that it's the "talk of the town over there" and that even though it seems mundane when you first hear about it, it's their differentiator and it wins for them.

We talked for a while. He wants one. He wants one for himself and he wants one to be as special as his competitor. He wants to be envied too. We talked more.

Stay tuned for their new market-based cash balance plan ... maybe. He and I hope that maybe becomes reality.

Are You Better Off than You Were 20 Years Ago?

Nearly 40 years ago, Ronald Reagan asked voters if they were better off than they were four years earlier. And, that was the beginning of the end for Jimmy Carter's reelection hopes. So, without trying to end anything for you, I ask if you are better off from a retirement standpoint than you were 20 years ago.

For Americans as a group, I think the answer is a clear no. Our retirement system has been broken by the momentum that has gathered around the 401(k) plan. After all, when Section 401(k) was added to the Internal Revenue Code in the Revenue Act of 1978, it was never intended to be a primary retirement vehicle. In fact, it was a throw in that even among those who were there, there doesn't seem to be much agreement on why it was thrown into the Act.

When it was, however, defined benefit (DB) pension plans were in their heyday. People who were fortunate enough to be in those plans then are now retired and an awful lot of them are living very well in retirement. On the other hand, people who are now retiring having been in 401(k) plans only have their retirement fates scattered all over the place. Some are very well off, bit others are essentially living off of Social Security.

Let's consider where those people went wrong. For many, when they first had the opportunity to defer, they chose not to. They had bills to pay and they just couldn't make ends meet if they didn't take that current income. By the time they realized that they should have been saving all along, they couldn't catch up.

For others, they were doing well until they lost a job. Where could they get current income? They took a 401(k) distribution.

Yes, I am very well aware that the models show that people who are auto-enrolled and auto-escalated in a 401(k) plan with a safe harbor match will fare quite well. Those models all assume no disruptions and constant returns on account balances of usually around 7%.

Let's return to reality. The reality is that young workers are (likely because of all the campaigns telling them to do so) deferring liberally when they start in the workforce. The problem is, and I get this anecdotally from young workers, that more of them than not reach a point where they just can't defer at those levels any more. They get married, buy a house, and have kids, and the financial equation doesn't work. So, they cut back on deferrals. I know a number who have gutted one or more of their 401(k) plans in order to buy a house. The fact is that it's not easy to defer, for example, 10% of your pay into your 401(k), another 5% into your health savings account (HSA), and save money for a down payment on a house.

Where were we 20 years ago? For many Americans, they were about to be getting those notices that their DB plans were getting frozen. Congress killed those DB plans. The FASB killed those DB plans.

When I got into this business in 1985, most (not all) corporate pension plans were being funded responsibly. And, this status was helped, albeit for only a year or two by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (shortening amortization periods). One of the big keys, and this will be understood largely by actuaries, is that we had choices of actuarial cost methods. My favorite then and it would be now as well for traditional DB plans is known as the entry age normal (EAN) method. The reason for this is that under EAN, the current (or normal) cost of a plan was either a level cost per participant (for non pay-related plans) or a level percentage of payroll for pay-related plans. Put yourself in the position of a CFO -- that makes it really easy to budget for.

But Congress and the FASB knew better. In the Pension Protection Act of 1987 (often referred to OBRA 87 because it was one title of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act), we had it imposed on us that we must perform a Unit Credit (another actuarial cost method) valuation for all DB plans. And, in doing that Unit Credit (UC) valuation, we were given prescribed discount rates. At about the same time (most companies adopted what was then called FAS 87 and is now part of ASC 715), DB plan sponsors also had to start doing a separate accounting valuation using the Projected Unit Credit (PUC)  (Unit Credit for non-pay related plans) actuarial cost method. Most of those sponsors found that their fees would be less if they just used these various unit credit methods for their regular valuations as well and we were off and running ... in the wrong direction.

You see, PUC generally produced lower funding requirements than EAN and the arbitrary limits on funding put in place by that second funding regime known as current liability (the UC valuation) and most DB plans had what is known as a $0 full funding limit. In other words, they could not make deductible contributions to their DB plans during much of the 1990s. And, it stayed that way until prescribed discount rates plummeted and there were a few years of investment losses.

What happened then?

CFOs balked. They had gotten used to running these plans for free. Suddenly they had to contribute to them and because the funding rules were entirely broken, the amounts that they had to contribute were volatile and unpredictable. That's a bad combination.

So, one after another, sponsors began to freeze those DB plans. And, they did it at just the time that their workers could least afford it.

For all the data and models that tell us that it should be otherwise, more people than ever before are working into their 70s, generally, in my opinion, because they have to, not because they want to. As a population, we're not better off in this regard than we were 20 years ago In fact we are far worse off.

Even for those people who did accumulate large account balances, many of them don't know how to handle that money in retirement and they don't have longevity protection.

We need a fresh start. We need funding rules that makes sense and we need a plan of the future. It shouldn't be that difficult. I'd like to think that my actuarial brethren are smart people and that they can design that cadre of plans. They'll be understandable, they'll be portable as people change jobs, they'll have lump sum options and annuity options , and they'll even have longevity insurance. They'll allow participants the ability to combine all those in, for example, taking 30% of their benefit as a lump sum, using 55% for an annuity from the plan beginning at retirement, and 15% to "buy" cost-of-living protection from the plan.

That's great, isn't it? Even most of the 535 people in Congress would probably tell you that it is.

But those same 535 people don't really understand a lick about DB plans or generally about retirement plans (there are a few exceptions, but very few). In order to get that fresh start, we need laws that will allow those designs to work.

We surely don't have them now.

Over the years, Congress has punished the many plan sponsors because of a few bad actors. If 95% of DB plans were being funded responsibly, then Congress changed the funding rules for 100% of plans to be more punitive because of the other 5%.

Isn't it time to go back to the future to get this all fixed?

Let's kill the 401(k) as a primary retirement plan and develop the plan of the future. It could be here much sooner than you think.

DOL Suggests Rules on Lifetime Income Illustrations

Earlier this week, the Employee Benefit Security Administration (EBSA) of the Department of Labor (DOL) released three items related lifetime income illustrations for benefit statements for defined contribution plan participants. I know, that's a mouthful. Here's what we got from them:

• An advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) under Section 105 of ERISA that gives us an idea of what future regulations might look like and to seek comments
• A "fact sheet" discussing briefly what they have done
• A lifetime income calculator using the methodology expressed as a safe harbor in the notice

For background, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) established a requirement for annual benefit statements from qualified retirement plans. All these years later, we don't know how to do the required lifetime income illustrations.

The ANPR tells us that any set up of assumptions that we use that employ generally accepted investment theory will probably be considered reasonable. EBSA also gave us safe harbor assumptions. When push comes to shove, we expect that most sponsors (or their vendors), once the regulations become effective, will opt for simplicity and use the DOL's safe harbor assumptions.

What are they, you ask?

• Contributions continue to normal retirement age at the current (dollar amount), increased by 3% per year
• Investments return 7% per year
• Discount rate of 3%
• To convert account balances to annuities, use the interest rate on Constant Maturity 10-year T-bills
• Use a 417(e)(3) mortality assumption (for those who don't keep their noses mired in the Internal Revenue Code, this means that the mortality assumption is to be the one currently used for most pension purposes under the law)
• If you're married, you and your spouse were born on the same day ... even if you weren't
• For purposes of converting the current account balance to a lifetime income stream, payments begin immediately and you are assumed to be your current age or normal retirement age, whichever is older

To me, some of these assumptions are not bad and some are ... well, they're not not bad. Let's start at the top. For people who stay in the workforce continuously until retirement, the 3% annual increase in contributions is probably as reasonable as anything else. But, very few people stay in the workforce continuously anymore. There are all of maternity leave, paternity leave, layoffs, reductions-in-force, and then there are the companies that freeze pay or cut benefits making the 3% annual increase assumption a bit lofty.

How about investment returns of 7% per year combined with a 3% discount rate? That's a 4% real rate of return, net of expenses. Did anyone watch the Frontline special on PBS telling you how your account balances are eroded by expenses? If you did, I bet you don't think a 4% real rate of return is reasonable.

What a participant is to receive in his or her statement are four numbers:

• Current account balance on the effective date of the statement
• Projected account balance on the later of the effective date of the statement or normal retirement date
• The amount of lifetime income that could be received on the current account balance over the lifetime of the participant or joint lifetime of the participant and spouse if married
• The amount of lifetime income that could be received on the projected account balance over the lifetime of the participant or joint lifetime of the participant and spouse if married

I see several outcomes from this exercise.

• Participants will have an overly rosy view of their defined contribution plans
• Despite that, they will suddenly think that their 401(k)-only retirement program isn't very good
• Most participants will not achieve the lifetime income projections that the illustrations suggest

So, what happens?

• Just as they do with Summary Annual Reports, participants find the nearest trash can or recycling bin and insert these statements, or
• Participants read the statements and ask their generally unknowledgeable friends what they mean
• Participants go to HR and ask HR what it means
• When participants start to understand, they learn that a 401(k)-only retirement program is generally not very lucrative unless they defer far more than they are currently which they probably don't they can afford

Some will complain. Some will jump ship.

What can an employer do? An employer can say that this result is fine and move on as if nothing happened. Or, an employer can decide paternalistically that it has some responsibility here and revisit retirement design. Perhaps the answer is that old dinosaur, defined benefit. Perhaps the answer is another old dinosaur, profit sharing. Either way, both have far more flexibility in design than do 401(k) plans.

The DOL needs intelligent comments on this one. I hope it gets them.