Can Trade Wars Disturb the Retirement Industry?

As recent trade wars heat up, investors question what this means for the retirement industry.

Considering the president’s signing of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act into legislation slightly over a year ago and the recent highly-publicized trade war between the U.S. and China, it’s unsurprising that retirement plan sponsors, participants and advisers are wondering whether, if at all, retirement savings will be affected.

In most minds, trade, as an economic event, is out of bounds in the retirement planning sphere, but this is wrong. While trade wars may be defined as unjust practices or penalties imposed by federal governments—such as unfair and expensive tariffs raised by countries in order to spite one another—the consequences impact investment classes, including equities and emerging markets, which affects defined contribution (DC) and defined benefit (DB) plans as well.

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

Trade sanctions, for example, can introduce greater risks for investment classes, which in turn reflects on these securities going forward, says Greg Woodward, managing director for the Portfolio Strategies Group at Manning & Napier. To combat this, he asks investors to consider the current economic climate, and whether purchased investments are appropriate.

“We should certainly look at the environment, look at the pricing and try to understand where we are in the cycle,” he says. “What types of equities are you buying? What kind of fixed-income are you buying? Try to position the portfolio for some of those risks.”

Impacts on DC and DB plans

In connection with DC and DB plan sponsors, effects from trade wars and sanctions can influence underlying equities and assumptions driving the return on plan assets, says Bill Kornitzer, CFA, portfolio manager at Buffalo Funds. 

While there is a risk, Kornitzer says plan sponsors mustn’t need to reconsider investment menus or plan asset allocations. They ought to instead focus on portfolio holdings.

 “They should check their holdings and make sure they understand what the potential effects of what the trade actions could be, with respect to their underlying investments,” he says. “For our portfolio holdings, in terms of what we’ve managed, we’ve looked at how these trade wars could impact our holdings’ fundamentals. We don’t see a lot there on specific company holdings, but there could be a little bit of overall economic pressure to various countries, depending upon how the actions actually come out.”

In the case where tariffs do or don’t effect plan participants, Woodward recommends plan sponsors consistently utilize all plan features and tools to keep them calm, from target-date funds (TDFs) to participant education communications.

“You should be thinking about the long run and diversification and what menus look like, irrespective of what happens in a year-to-year basis,” he notes. “I think you should regularly review your menu and make sure there are options for all types of participants, whether that’s participants who are going to have an automatic default option, or those participants who are going to choose on their own.”

Similar to DC plan sponsors, employers with DB plans must recognize particular industry risks with certain tariffs and keep an eye on underlying plan portfolios.

“They need to understand the specific industry risk around specific tariffs and how the tariffs might impact their business directly, and then look at the underlying portfolios for their plans, and make sure that they’re sheltered or hinged from any potential damage tariffs can have,” Kornitzer says.


Woodward echoes this statement, adding how investors managing DB plans must consider investing in particular environments, like one with lower expected economic growth, given the recent trade war between the U.S. and China, where the latter has previously held a substantial portion of global growth increases.

“It may mean taking some of your equity risk down,” he says. “Equity has compounded over a double-digit range in the last eight, nine, 10 years, probably well above kind of expected or actuarial rates of return. Investors in DB plans need to start thinking about derisking the portfolio a little bit, particularly if they’ve had elevated allocations to equities.”

Instead, DB plans may find success in moving to fixed-income exposures, but it comes with new sets of risks related to interest rates, Woodward points out.


Look for opportunity

Rather than fearing over trade wars and sanctions, Kornitzer recommends investors search for increased market volatility surrounding trade war talk.

“Buy out assets at better prices, which should help plan returns over time,” he says. “Now again, you have to be industry-specific and a little careful, and at least somewhat judicious of what you’re looking for, but in the overall scheme of things, it’s not a huge disaster.”

In reality, certain tariffs may only impact their respective industries. For example, steel and aluminum tariffs heavily affect steel producers who import to the United States. Kornitzer explains that while this could hurt underlying economies of those companies, it may also benefit U.S. companies in the steel and aluminum industries as they hold price floors and ceilings to raise prices against foreign steel.

“Look for the opportunities in investments, because overall, we’re talking about a slowdown in the rate of growth in these massive economies,” he says. “Will it impact one industry a little bit more than the other? Sure, depending on what industry the trade barriers are erected in, but that potentially provides opportunities within similar industries or within companies that do the same business within the U.S. or whichever companies are erecting the trade barriers.”

Brace for change

Because of trade sanctions between the U.S. and China, Woodward warns, it is wise for investors to expect adjustments. If the current trade war continues, he says, risk will increase and may potentially raise volatility. In an environment where low volatility has reigned for the past several years, trade sanctions may interrupt that momentum.


“When you think about where we are—eight, nine years into a market cycle, we’ve had terrific performance in just about every asset class. No matter where you’ve invested, you’ve done quite well, and I think that makes investors make decisions where they may be taking on additional risk cause they’re not expecting anything bad to happen,” he says.


To prevent investors from experiencing trouble, Woodward suggests plan sponsors and advisers keep an eye on the current, and prospective, market climate.

“Investors need to have that mindset, that we may have more risk, more volatility, and they need to start preparing their portfolios for that,” he says. “We don’t want to suggest or predict that anything bad will start to happen, but we think investors will need to start thinking about an environment going forward that may be quite different from what they’ve seen in the last seven to nine years.”

ERISA 404(c) Compliance Well Worth the Effort

Frederick Reish, partner in the Drinker Biddle & Reath Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Practice Group and Chair of the Financial Services ERISA Team, suggests a good way to think about ERISA Section 404(c) is as “a relatively inexpensive insurance policy.”

When followed in its entirety, Section 404(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provides a safe harbor for fiduciaries related to the investment actions of participants.

According to an informative white paper published by Wells Fargo, “Section 404(c) compliance: Added protection makes it worth the effort,” Section 404(c) of ERISA dates all the way back to 1974, but plan sponsors and fiduciary service providers are still trying to figure out what it means for their defined contribution (DC) plans. In a phrase, 404(c) is designed to protect plan sponsors from employees’ poor investment choices.

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

“While the protection it provides to plan fiduciaries is valuable, the list of requirements can be intimidating,” the paper warns.

At the most basic level, to be 404(c) compliant, a DC plan must offer a broad range of investment options and make it possible for participants to easily view and control their investments. Again, while the prescription sounds simple, it can be quite confusing in practice, especially for new plan sponsors unfamiliar with complex jargon of ERISA requirements and enforcement.

Frederick Reish, partner in the Drinker Biddle & Reath Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Practice Group and Chair of the Financial Services ERISA Team, suggests a good way to think about Section 404(c) is as “a relatively inexpensive insurance policy.” According to Reish, plan sponsors and fiduciaries should make every effort to obtain its protections.

“The investment provisions of ERISA are based on generally accepted investment principles, such as modern portfolio theory,” Reish explains. “Applied at the participant level, that means the law assumes that participants will be invested in portfolios. In other words, participants are expected to either select among the plan’s investments to craft portfolios in their accounts or, alternatively, to select professionally designed portfolios such as target-date funds.”

Unfortunately, Reish observes, most participants don’t know how to construct portfolios or don’t realize the importance of balanced portfolio investing. This is the basic reason why ERISA provides in 404(c) that, if plans satisfy certain conditions making participant investing success possible, fiduciaries will not be liable for imprudent investment decisions by participants.

“However, in my experience, many plans don’t satisfy all those conditions,” Reish warns. “In these cases, fiduciaries should protect against possible claims by helping participants improve their investing. And, even if a plan satisfies 404(c), giving fiduciaries a defense against claims for losses due to imprudent participant investing, there is an important reason for improving participant investing—to help participants reach their retirement goals.”

Despite such advice from experts like Reish, the Wells Fargo white paper suggests some plan sponsors inappropriately feel the cost of compliance with 404(c) is not worth the protection.

“While cost is always a valid concern, be sure to consider the long-term relief from the risk of liability for making investment decisions for participant retirement dollars in a 404(c) compliant plan and not simply the short-term costs of complying,” the paper states. “The passage of the Pension Protection Act offered clarification regarding some of the most controversial aspects of plan administration and 404(c) compliance. Armed with this information, almost any plan sponsor can become 404(c) compliant.”

Basic requirements of 404(c)

According to Reish and the Wells Fargo paper, to be 404(c) compliant, a plan must meet two general requirements. The first is that the plan must offer a “broad range” of investment options.

“A broad range is defined as at least three investment alternatives,” Wells Fargo explains. “Each option must be diversified, offer risk/return characteristics different from the others, and offer diversification for a participant’s overall portfolio when combined. Most defined contribution plans today already meet this requirement without a problem.”

The second requirement is a bit more confusing, the experts agree. This requirement is that the plan must make it possible for participants to become informed about and to smoothly direct their investments.

As the white paper explains, regulators tend to think about this requirement by asking whether or not plan participants can exercise informed control of their accounts—which means that a DC plan must allow participants to obtain written confirmation of their decisions, and to receive sufficient information to make informed investment decisions.

“In addition, participants must be able to make changes to their investments at least quarterly,” Wells Fargo explains. “However, if an investment option is sufficiently volatile, more frequent opportunities to change investments may be required. If your plan allows daily transfers for all options, you’ll fulfill this requirement without needing to quantify ‘sufficient volatility.’”

Important to note, beyond this type of information that must be automatically supplied to participants, there are other types of information that must be made available upon request. An example of this type of information includes a description of the annual operating expenses for each designated investment option—which should be expressed as a percentage of average net assets of the investment. Plan sponsors must also make available upon request copies of any prospectuses, financial statements, and reports, and any other materials relating to the investment options available under the plan, to the extent such information is provided to the plan.

The Wells Fargo paper further points out that there are special requirements under 404(c) when it comes to the treatment of employer stock. One such requirement is that the plan sponsor must formally establish procedures regarding the confidentiality of participant actions with regard to employer stock. Furthermore, a description of the procedures must be given to participants, and a fiduciary must be designated to ensure such procedures are met.

PPA impact on 404(c)

According to Wells Fargo, the Pension Protection Act (PPA) importantly clarified that a reasonable remapping of assets will not in itself jeopardize 404(c) compliance, even if there is a short-term blackout period for participants.

“This provision allows 404(c) plans to map funds from one investment to another, if the new investment is reasonably similar in characteristics,” the white paper explains. “Other conditions must also be met, including a notice to participants. 404(c) protection is also available for fiduciaries during blackout periods if the fiduciaries follow ERISA’s requirements related to blackout periods.”

Probably most important, the Pension Protection Act established a new safe harbor for plan sponsors selecting a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) on behalf of participants that are automatically enrolled without making an investment selection on their own.

“This legislation and the proposed regulation were designed for the plan sponsor who wants both 404(c) protection and an automatic enrollment feature for their plan,” Wells Fargo explains. “Following the safe harbor for a QDIA allows the plan sponsor or plan administrator to place participant retirement dollars into a default investment option within the plan while still otherwise maintaining a 404(c) plan.”

Provider support

For plan sponsors unsure of their 404(c) compliance status, Wells Fargo says the first step should be to initiate a detailed discussion with the plan provider. Many providers can help set up automatic controls to help sponsors fulfill at least part of their ongoing 404(c) responsibilities.

“Find out which of the 404(c) requirements the plan provider offers and whether it creates a paper trail,” the white paper suggests. “After this important step, examine what requirements remain to be fulfilled and implement a process for completion. The process should include ongoing needs and creating the documentation to substantiate what you have done. By taking advantage of what may already be in place for your plan, the task of 404(c) compliance may be much less daunting than tackling the initial list on your own.”

The full Wells Fargo white paper, which includes much more detailed lists about what is required under 404(c), is available for download here.

«