PANC 2015: Using Alternatives in Rising-Rate Environment

Two panelists speaking at the PLANADVISER National Conference suggest liquid alternative investments present compelling opportunities in a rising interest rate environment.

“We have done a lot of analysis, and we are very confident that a wide blend of alternatives will perform well in a rising interest rate environment,” said Ben Rotenberg, a portfolio manager specializing in alternative investments for Principal Funds. “In particular, a liquid basket of diversified hedge fund strategies should be a very compelling investment option in the years ahead, inside and outside defined contribution [DC] plans.”

Sirion Skulpone, head of liquid alternatives product strategy for Goldman Sachs Asset Management, agreed with the sentiment that now’s about as good a time as any for DC plans to consider adding liquid alternatives. Like Rotenberg, she advocated for a diversified basket of hedge fund strategies, “which tend to have low to negative correlations with the Barclays Capital Aggregate Bond Index.”

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

“In fact, six or eight weeks ago probably would have been the best time to move into these strategies, before this latest round of volatility really took off, but the timing is still right,” Skulpone said. “Beyond the very likely prospect of rising interest rates, equity valuations also make a good case for turning to liquid alternatives. Valuations have come down somewhat with the losses of recent weeks, but even given the volatility, equities are still relatively highly valued compared with historic averages.”

Rotenberg agreed, noting the “traditional 60/40 portfolio of stocks and bonds” has had a good run in the last three decades, as bonds have ridden interest rates down over the last 35 years. But will this continue? Unlikely, he said.

“It’s been a great time from an absolute and risk-adjusted perspective to own this portfolio,” Rotenberg. “Frankly, it’s been hard to beat, but we need to ask whether the last 35 years look like the next 35 years, and especially the next five years. The next five years will not look like the last five years.”

Both Rotenberg and Skulpone suggested the risk-adjusted return on a 60/40 portfolio is going to come down, so that makes today a sensible time to consider including some alternatives.

NEXT: Will the 60/40 portfolio hold its own? 

“Some ways of thinking about building an allocation—it’s going to have to be 10% of the portfolio at a minimum to have a real impact,” Rotenberg said. “Is 20% better than 10%? Yes. Is 30% better than 20%? Yes. Obviously you have to take liquidity into account, and the portfolio probably shouldn’t be all alternatives, but we’re strong advocates for including a substantial alternatives allocation in a DC plan portfolio.”

Skulpone agreed, noting the vast majority of institutional users of alternatives are allocating to a group of managers and a bucket of different strategies. “You need to know what you’re getting from a risk-return perspective,” she said. “There are single-strategy funds out there that are quite risky, for example, so you need to be sure you are pursuing the right alternative approaches. Again, it’s the bucket of diversified alternative strategies that are most appropriate for DC plans.”

In terms of what part of the portfolio should be reduced to add alternatives exposure, Skulpone generally recommends “funding this out of equities.”

“We think about alternatives as a tool to reduce risk and improve risk-adjusted returns, so it makes sense to fund from equities, from that perspective,” she said. “This could change, however, given what we have said about a new environment that is emerging. If you’re bearish on fixed-income going forward, you can consider funding from that portion of the portfolio. But alternatives are not less risky than bonds for the most part, so you’ll actually be increasing risk and potential volatility.”

Rotenberg agreed that alternatives allocations should probably come out of the equity portion of the existing portfolio.

“Hedge funds and alts have lower risk than equity, but they are more risky for the most part than fixed income, so keep that in mind,” he concluded. “Alternatives will boost the return profile over bonds, but [they] will also boost the risk profile.”

GAO Calls for ERISA Amendment

To expand private-sector coverage, a new report from the GAO calls for Congress to amend the ERISA pre-emption provision.

The report, “Retirement Security: Federal Action Could Help State Efforts to Expand Private Sector Coverage,” discusses stakeholders’ concerns about—and potential solutions for—the millions of Americans who are currently not enrolled in a retirement savings program. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) analyzed data from the 2012 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). While it found that actual, W–2-adjusted participation rates are higher than self-reported levels—54.1% vs. 45.2% of private-sector workers—that still leaves roughly half not participating in a retirement plan. Among non-participants, the GAO found, just 16% elected not to enroll in a plan for which they were eligible. Sixty-eight percent were not offered a plan, and 16% were not eligible for an offered program.

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

Therefore, some states are looking to establish state-run plans for private-sector workers. Strategies that have boosted private-sector participation rates—a simplified program, workplace access, automatic enrollment and financial incentives—may be implemented in publicly run plans as well, and state programs would reduce the administrative and financial concerns that have prevented many employers from offering their own in-house plans. One significant hurdle, however, is the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)’s pre-emption provision, which invalidates “any and all state laws that ‘relate to’ any private sector employee benefit plan.” 

This “enables employers to establish uniform plans and administrative schemes,” the GAO writes, “preventing them from having to comply with different requirements for employees located in different states.” It also promises litigation for states that attempt to establish retirement plans for their citizens.

According to the report: “One national stakeholder indicated that it might be beneficial for a state to implement a program and go through resulting litigation to resolve some of the areas of legal uncertainty and clear the way for other states to implement similar programs.” Whether any state volunteered for this trailblazing opportunity was not reported.

NEXT: DOL guidance, GAO recommendations.

In lieu of court case trial and error, this summer, President Obama charged the Department of Labor (DOL) with publishing a proposed rule to address the lack of clarity under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)’s pre-emption provision, which the department submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) earlier this month. 

Without interference from Congress, though, officials from the department claim that their hands are tied under ERISA. To enable further change, the GAO report recommended addressing uncertainty by:

 

  • Amending ERISA’s pre-emption provision. Some stakeholders suggested that Congress add an exception for state efforts to expand coverage in workplace retirement savings programs.
  • Developing a pilot program. DOL officials reportedly told the GAO that such a program, proposed in the Fiscal Year 2016 President’s Budget Submission, could identify actions for states to take when developing their own retirement plan.
  • Instituting a safe harbor. According to the GAO, the DOL and a national stakeholder said that Congress could authorize the department to institute a regulatory safe harbor for certain state efforts.

 

The report can be viewed in full here.

«