Pension Risk News & Analysis : Pension Governance, LLC : Pension Risk & Investment

As companies and government employers shed their traditional defined benefit ("DB") plan offerings, defined contribution schemes become absolutely and proportionally more important to individuals. In two new papers published by the National Bureau of Economic Research ("NEBR"), authors James Poterba, Steven Venti and David Wise conclude the following:

• Self-directed retirement assets will outflank DB plans by 2010, "even though defined benefit plans remain the most important source of retirement assets for federal, state, and local employees."
• The growth in self-directed retirement assets are influenced by a number of factors. These include (a) expected stock returns and bond yields (b) number of employees permitted to participate (not currently enrolled) and (c) asset allocation mix.

Citing data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation ("SIPP"), the research trio reveals that "only 5.8 percent of 44-yers old had 401(k)-type accounts" some 20 years ago. In 2003, that number had escalated to 44.3 percent. In 2000, per capita retirement assets for individuals about to exit the labor pool, and in their mid-60s, averaged nearly $30,000. A decade from now, available assets are projected to rise to $90,000 (in terms of year 2000 dollars). In 2040, the prediction is that nest eggs will topple $269,000.

Click here to order "Rise of 401(K) Plans, Lifetime Earnings, and Wealth at Retirement" (NBER Working Paper 13091) and "New Estimates of the Future Path of 401(K) Assets" (NBER Working Paper 13083).

Wall Street Journal reporter Jennifer Levitz offers a competing, albeit grim, reality. In "Americans Delay Retirement As Housing, Stocks Swoon," she writes that graying Americans favor longer work lives for a variety of reasons. Preservation of health benefits is one factor. Sagging equity returns in 2000-2002 didn't help, especially for those employees who had allocated a big chunk of their savings to stocks. Of course, no trend exists in isolation. A delay in retirement means younger workers will face more competition for promotions or even jobs though the impact is uneven across industries. Skilled workers are nearly always welcome, being indispensable for many knowledge-oriented businesses. Though written on April 1, her description of a brave new world is no April Fool's joke. Companies are fast being forced to reckon with changing demographics and altered employment patterns.

As a colleague aptly bemoans, the retirement trifecta (Social Security, juicy defined benefit plan payouts and hefty salaries, let alone a job) is a fantasy for most everyone still in the work force. For those who expect to live as well as your grandparents or parents, good luck. Start pinching those pennies hard and often.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Hot off the press, the U.S. House of Representatives says okay to amending the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to provide stockholders more power in approving executive pay. Click here to read the Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act. Arguably the rationale is to empower shareholders to veto executive pay packages deemed "excessive." One can argue about the efficacy of the legislation (and likely will). However, it begs an interesting question for citizens of pension land.

What type of say do they get about the operation of a defined contribution and/or defined benefit plan? How can they corral perceived conflicts of interest, alleged misdeeds and/or questionable decisions? On the flip side, how can they say "bravo" to effective investment stewards, perhaps voting for better financial rewards and job title recognition for good do bees (honest players)?

The answer - Not much!

This topic arose in 2005 when I was asked to appear on CNN Financial to talk about United Airlines. The anchor asked me to cite steps that defined benefit plan participants could take when they know a company is encountering financial difficulties and want to exit the plan or change their share of the investment mix. When I explained to the producer that employees are extremely limited in being able to exert influence over the management of the trust (other than through litigation, and only after losses have occurred), we all agreed that a gloomy message may not make for great ratings.

Sob - my fifteen seconds of fame, evaporated in a moment of candor.

So now that Congress is taking steps to empower shareholders, why not tackle the same for plan participants? Yes, post-Enron, reforms were made. No, to this day, plan participants still have little influence on whether a plan is well run or not.

Part of the problem arises because information is scattered, often obtuse when available and sometimes contradictory (depending on the source). And for those on the outside looking in, access to documents such as the Summary Plan Description (SPD) is nil.

Just an aside - This issue of limited beneficiary control extends to defined contribution plans as well.

Hence, plan participants MUST depend on the integrity, knowledge, experience and solid intentions of the persons in charge.

So to all of those plan beneficiaries everywhere - ask yourself this. How much do you know about the people in charge? Would you like to know more?

To plan stewards - If you aren't providing transparency about everyone with authority to make decisions about plan design and investment governance, wouldn't it be a good idea to do so? Besides creating a sense of "I don't want to hide anything," you open the door to suggestions for improvement and possibly close a door to litigation or otherwise unwanted scrutiny.

Why wait?

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link