Experts Advise Investors to Accept Short-Term Volatility

They point out that volatility is the price investors pay for potential returns.

With financial market headlines dominated by events in Greece and China, market volatility has led to significant equity price swings in recent weeks.

Despite the ups and downs, investment managers and strategists overwhelmingly urge retirement plan advisers to counsel participants to remain invested and level-headed. They also say it is critical for advisers to consistently underscore the benefits of buy-and-hold investing so that when fluctuations do occur, the rationale and unyielding approach to investing has been firmly set.

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

“Volatility is the price you pay for good investment returns,” says Paul Blease, director of the CEO Advisor Institute at OppenheimerFunds in Dallas. “If you don’t want volatility, you will get a low, below-inflation rate return. I tell my clients that the ticket to high returns is being able to handle volatility.” In fact, Blease, along with Brian Levitt, senior investment strategist with OppenheimerFunds in New York, have written a book, “Compelling Wealth Management Conversations,” specifically to give advisers reasons they can give to investors to stay invested based on three principles of sound investing. These are “consistency, courage and balance.”

“If you cannot exercise courage, you will underperform in life, and the same is true of your investment portfolio,” Blease says. “We want to help clients understand that when you have those downdrafts, if you can’t exercise courage, you don’t belong in the markets.”

Susan Viston, client portfolio manager at Voya Investment Management in New York, agrees that managing the “psychological missteps” of investing is an important function of advisers. “Investors are more susceptible to that during heightened market volatility. Investors 10 years or less from retirement are probably the most vulnerable to market events, and it is even more important for them to stick with their long-term investing goals based on their risk tolerance and horizon. While they need to significantly reduce their equity exposure as they reach retirement, reacting to short-term headline news can harm their long-term goals.”

NEXT: Chasing performance doesn’t work

Viston points to a report from Dalbar published earlier this year, “21st Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior,” which suggests the average equity mutual fund investor underperformed the S&P 500 by 8.19 percentage points in 2014, with the average investor earning 5.50% compared with the S&P 500’s 13.69% return. In 2014, the average fixed-income mutual fund investor underperformed the Barclay’s Aggregate Bond Index by 4.81 percentage points (gaining 1.16% versus 5.97%).

The gap between the 20-year annualized return of the average equity mutual fund investor and the 20-year annualized return of the S&P 500 widened for the second year in a row from 4.20% to 4.66% due to the large underperformance of 2014, Dalbar said. “No matter what the state of the mutual fund industry—boom or bust—investment results are more dependent on investor behavior than on fund performance,” Dalbar says. “Mutual fund investors who hold on to their investments have been more successful than those who try to time the market.”

John Kulhavi, managing director with Merrill Lynch in Farmington Hills, Michigan, agrees that remaining invested in the stock market is a sound approach, especially for those retirement plan participants with a long time horizon. “Historically, over any reasonable period of time, stocks outperform bonds,” Kulhavi says. “Earnings drive stock prices. In between earnings, we may face economic and international challenges, but they are historically short lived and are good buying opportunities.”

As far as what is transpiring in Greece and China, Kulhavi says that Greece represents 1% of the Europe’s GDP and 0.03% of the world’s GDP. “What happens there is negligible,” he says. While the Greek economy contracted 25%, unemployment has risen to 20%, and it will be hard for it to pay back the $352.7 billion in debt that it owes to the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, “it has little impact on our country.”

China is a bit of a different story because of our exports to its neighbors, Kulhavi says. Putting fears of the economic contraction in China in perspective, he notes that “everyone is worried that their GDP growth will drop.” China only represents 7% of our exports, he adds, but 50% of our exports go to emerging markets. “They do business with China, so it could have some impact.”

NEXT: Volatility is here to stay

Whether it’s Greece or China, markets are always going to face volatility, Levitt says. “There has been a greater than 5% market correction every year going back to 1980,” he says. “Yet if you look at most calendar years, 26 out of the past 34, the stock market has been positive. Investors get worried, yes, but long-term investors who overlook political and economic factors and who stick with the principles of investing do quite well.”

Kulhavi notes that in the 10 years between 1995 and 2014, there was a lot of volatility, the worst of which was the 37% decline in the S&P 500 in 2008. “Yet, if you stayed fully invested, $1 then would be $6.50 today,” he says. This is why Merrill Lynch advisers spend 75% of their time managing portfolios and the rest managing emotions, he says.

Blease concurs: “There is always headline risk. You can’t find a six-month period of time in the country’s history when there wasn’t a reason to worry. Don’t allow the headlines to drive your investments.”

There will always be factors threatening the market, agrees Judy Ward, senior financial planner with T. Rowe Price in Baltimore. That’s why it is important that “investors focus on the factors they can control: how much they are saving and to be properly allocated according to their time horizon and risk tolerance,” Ward says. Advisers are in a great position to help investors have a balanced allocation they can stick with during periods of stress. “Advisers should tell them they have their best interest at heart and can help them through these periods of volatility.”

However, Mike Chadwick, president of Chadwick Financial Advisors in Unionville, Connecticut, is not a big proponent of buy-and-hold. In the event of a market downturn, he may reallocate his clients’ portfolios. “I will not sit back and watch a client’s portfolio get decimated,” he says. He also approaches investing for those who are 10 to 20 years away from retiring more cautiously. That said, Chadwick notes that market downturns present buying opportunities. “Volatility is a double-edged sword. That is when the best opportunities are available,” he says.

NEXT: The challenges of a 30-year retirement

While some advisers like Ward and Chadwick say that plan participants with only 10 or 20 years until they retire should scale back their equity exposure, others, like Blease, point out that as longevity is increasingly, investors may have no other choice but to maintain a fairly high exposure to equities. A 65-year-old retiring today needs to support a 25- or 30-year-long retirement, he observes.

And as to whether a severe market correction like 2008 could threaten investors’ and retirees’ portfolios again, Kulvahi doubts it for two reasons: “The derivatives that the banks traded are now restricted, and the government has raised capital requirements on the banks.”

The government also exercised sound fiscal and monetary policies in the Great Recession, having learned lessons from the Great Depression, Blease says. “During the Great Depression, the Fed withheld capital from the system. As a result, 50% of all of the banks in the country failed. Businesses couldn’t operate, leading to massive unemployment,” he says. “In the Great Recession, we liquefied the market and kept the banks open. Only 0.6% of banks closed. This kept people employed. Compared to the Great Depression, it was a cakewalk.”

The bottom line is that because downturns and market pressures do occur, advisers must address the need to stick with the markets with their participants “throughout market cycles, so that when the bout of volatility occurs, those conversations have already taken place,” Levitt says.

Regulatory Change Brewing Beyond Fiduciary Rule

Focus on DOL’s fiduciary rulemaking is understandable—but there are other major regulatory changes in the works that will directly impact retirement plans.

It’s been a big week for the Department of Labor’s effort to install a fiduciary rule update.

Nearly a full working week of hearings took place in Washington, D.C., at the headquarters of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), where experts dug deeply into the workings of the pending fiduciary rule update. Dozens of investment industry representatives took turns debating whether an expanded fiduciary rule would drive positive change in the way retirement plan service providers treat and disclose conflicts of interest.   

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

The marathon hearings closely followed arguments shared in formal comment letters submitted to EBSA during the months leading up to the forum. The course of the hearings showed many service providers are still apparently convinced the rule will not just be bad for business—they suggest it will also harm investors by eliminating cheaper, non-fiduciary forms of education and advice many people rely on.

It’s a critical debate for retirement plan service providers and plan sponsors, but fiduciary issues aren’t the only piece of rulemaking they should be concerned about. Beyond its own focus on fiduciary advice issues, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is in the process of implementing major money market fund reform provided for under rulemaking adopted in July 2014.

The SEC is concerned the money market fund reforms could catch some plan sponsors and advisers unawares, so they are more aggressively warning about the changes qualified retirement plans will have to make to accommodate the reforms. In short, the rule amendments require providers to establish a floating net asset value (NAV) for institutional prime money market funds, which will allow the daily share prices of these funds to fluctuate along with changes in the market-based value of fund assets. The rule updates also provide non-government money market fund boards new tools, known as liquidity fees and redemption gates, to address potential runs on fund assets.  

NEXT: Money market reform warrants review

Chances are a given plan sponsor will be impacted by the money market reforms, with the PLANSPONSOR Defined Contribution Survey showing upwards of two-thirds of plans currently offer money market funds. While the SEC has said its rules will allow most plans to remain in retail money market funds, some are concerned the reforms could make this untenable from a fiduciary perspective, given the emergence of liquidity gates and fees.  

The new rules build upon earlier reforms adopted by the SEC, circa March 2010, that were designed to reduce the interest rate, credit and liquidity risks present within money market fund portfolios. The SEC says that, when it adopted the 2010 amendments, it soon after recognized that the recent financial crisis raised additional questions of whether more fundamental changes to money market funds might be warranted (see "SEC Analyzes Money Market Fund Reform").

At the time, SEC Chair Mary Jo White said the reforms would “fundamentally change the way that money market funds operate.” She suggested the changes, when they fully take effect in the fall of 2016, will “reduce the risk of runs in money market funds and provide important new tools that will help further protect investors and the financial system.”

Many commentators agreed that the changes would give investors a better idea about which funds are weaker and which are stronger. As White suggested, “It’s a better way to facilitate transparency about which funds offer a better chance of not losing principal.” 

No rulemaking effort is without its critics, however, and the money market reforms are no exception. Before the rulemaking was made final, more than a dozen trade groups formally protested the reforms in a comment letter, highlighting concerns about how the reforms would interact with the fiduciary duty of plan sponsors.

They claimed the new requirements would cause administrative difficulties for retirement plan officials and fiduciaries. They also argued the rule changes would fundamentally alter the structure of money market funds, making them less desirable for retirement savers and the plans they participate in.

NEXT: Challenging process ahead 

The widespread use of money market funds among retirement plans and other institutional investors means industry providers should be paying attention, and should be gearing up to help guide plan sponsors and their own sales representatives through the 2016 implementation.

Two business leaders at Voya Financial tell PLANADVISER their firm is proactively preparing for the money market changes. According to Susan Viston, client portfolio manager, and Paula Smith, senior vice president for investment products-only business, Voya is actively talking with plan sponsors about what the reforms mean.

“Probably half of them are still trying to decide what their next move is going to be, based on the money market reforms,” the pair explains. “We foresee some people just staying put, but others are eyeing stable value more closely. Especially in the mid- to large-plan space, we’re seeing more interest in stable value again. It’s something service providers are paying increasing attention to.”

Months ago, the concerned industry groups warned that, despite a relatively long window provided for the reforms to take effect, as we near the fall of 2016, huge numbers of plan sponsors will all at once turn to reexamining their money market options in light of their fiduciary duty to plans and participants. The industry groups say they worry plan sponsors will feel compelled to replace their retail money market funds with government money market funds, which will not have liquidity fees or redemption gates. Again, the SEC has highlighted carve-outs in its rulemaking to prevent this outcome, but providers and fiduciary sponsors are being cautious.   

«