Report Dissects the Major DB Plan Expenses

A new survey report from Penbridge Advisors finds the largest expenses paid by defined benefit (DB) plan sponsors are attributable to the broad category of investment management—especially in the areas of alternative investments and active management.

The findings are from Penbridge’s Defined Benefit Expense Survey, which follows the ongoing expenses and management practices of a set of 22 corporate DB sponsors in the United States. Data from the rolling survey shows that on a weighted average basis, pension investment management expenses were even higher than they are when measured on an unweighted average basis. This reflects relatively higher investment expenses paid by the largest plan sponsors, Penbridge says, most likely due to their higher allocation to alternatives and their greater use of active management.

The second-highest cost faced by DB plan sponsors comes in the form of Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) premiums, followed closely by the cost of internal administration. Other significant expenses include trust and custody, investment advisory services and actuarial consulting.

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

While large plans pay more for investment management, their total expense ratios tend to be lower than their smaller counterparts. According to Penbridge, most plans’ total expense ratios are between 0.50% and 1.50%, while the average expense ratio for all plans was 0.97%. When calculated on a weighted basis (i.e. based on plan assets), the average expense ratio was even better, at 0.73%. Penbridge says the numbers clearly indicate that larger plans operate more efficiently, despite facing investment costs that are often higher than their smaller counterparts.

Up Next: Who Foots the DB Plan Bill?

Penbridge finds the sources of payment for investment management, PBGC premiums and the numerous other pension plan expenses vary widely by plan. Survey respondents identified both plan assets and direct payment from plan sponsors as significant sources of payment for each plan expense category.

“These findings indicate that a complete view of a DB plan’s expenses is not available on a Form 5500,” the survey report explains. “Interestingly, in every expense category there are some plan sponsors who pay those expenses entirely from plan assets, and there are some who do not use plan assets at all. Relatively few expenses are paid partially from plan assets.”

In another important finding, Penbridge shows in-house pension management resources are seriously constrained. The average internal headcount devoted to DB plan management for all plan sponsors that participated in the survey was 2.5—compared with 3.8 for plans more than $1 billion; 2.1 for plans with $100 million to $1 billion; and 1.8 for plans less than $100 million.

“Anecdotally, sponsors across the size spectrum communicated an ability to focus only on the highest priority activities,” Penbridge notes. “Many of the plan sponsors that participated in the survey acknowledged the time spent completing the survey was extremely valuable in enhancing their benchmarking efforts, identifying potential cost savings, and improving overall plan governance.”

The survey results are based on comprehensive DB plan expenses gathered from 22 plan sponsors representing $52 billion in plan assets. Additional findings and informative graphics are available here.

Roll-Ins Could Be Answer to 401(k) Cash-Outs

Lack of an accessible roll-in process could be to blame for more cash-outs, a new survey finds.

Why can’t 401(k) plans be more portable? According to Retirement Clearinghouse’s research, that’s what most participants want: the ability to roll over assets easily from a plan held with a former employer to the plan of their new employer. Yet cash-outs are a persistent problem when people change jobs, putting retirement savings at risk for all age groups. 

Retirement Clearinghouse, which provides account portability and consolidation services, found that 34% of Millennials, 34% of Gen-Xers and 24% of Baby Boomers have cashed out at least one retirement account during their careers.

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

After cashing out, participants tend to regret the decision as they get older and realize the negative impact for their retirement savings. Perhaps because their savings horizon is longer, 64% of Millennials have no regrets about cashing out. But Baby Boomers (53%) and Gen X members (46%), with retirement looming or at least more in their sights, feel differently.

One problem is that plan-to-plan rollovers are far from automatic, and rolling assets into an individual retirement account (IRA) is often an easier solution, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found in a report. Participants should be given concise, standardized information about their distribution options at the time of separation, the GAO recommended, and processes should be designed to make it easier for participants to roll assets into a new institutional plan.

Retirement plan participants are extremely receptive to using their 401(k) plans as their primary retirement accounts during their working years, says Retirement Clearinghouse, which is beginning to approach plan sponsors with an auto-option to enable new employees to more easily bring over their assets from a previous plan.

Next: What makes it so difficult to port assets from one 401(k) plan into another?

Roll-ins Are Not on Auto

The sticking point is that the current roll-in process is confusing, difficult to decipher and time-consuming. According to Warren Cormier, author of the study and chief executive of Boston Research Technologies, portability was designed into the U.S. retirement system but never fully developed or delivered.

“The resultant cost of system-wide friction is large and growing,” Cormier says. “The research confirms something we suspected but wanted to prove, namely that cash-outs and stranded accounts trace their common roots to the fact that most participants want to keep their accounts with them when they change jobs, but don’t know where or how to begin the process.”

Interest in a service that rolls in account balances from a previous plan is strong. Even though Millennials express a generally low level of awareness of the impact of cash-outs, they are more receptive to consolidating retirement balances than members of older generations. Nearly three-quarters of Millennials (73%), two-thirds of Gen X (66%) and half of Baby Boomers (51%) said they’d be willing to use such a service.

But the roll-in process is surprisingly cumbersome. Most Millennials and Gen X members are willing to roll in balances from previous plans, Retirement Clearinghouse found, but the process takes much longer than they expected. Participants can expect to spend 19 hours of personal time to complete all the steps in an asset roll-in. The study also found that roll-ins took an average five to six weeks to complete. Slightly more than a quarter of participants (27%) who undertook roll-ins said the transfer took more than two months from beginning to end.

Next: A clunky process cuts into portability of retirement assets.

Participants in the study who left balances behind were asked why they didn’t roll the assets into their new employers’ plans. Twenty-two percent said they weren’t sure how to do it; 17% said roll-ins “seemed very hard to do” and another 17% said they couldn’t spare the time to complete the process.

Roll-ins could be a new tool for plan sponsors to give their participants, Retirement Clearinghouse contends. Account consolidation and roll-ins can be less confusing and time-consuming, which has the added benefit of improving participant retirement readiness. Roll-ins can be as streamlined as cash-outs. All that’s needed is a system that facilitates an automatic two-way flow of assets—into one retirement plan and out of another—but shields the participant from any complexity in the process.

The best way to curb cash-outs, which are the primary source of asset leakage in the U.S. retirement system, is for plan sponsors to fully understand the information about the underlying reasons why plan participants make their decisions. “Plan sponsors can utilize our data as a resource to identify the services they need to implement on behalf of participants, and the pinpointed messages they must disseminate to ensure different groups of participants understand the long-term benefits of account consolidation,” Cormier says.

Boston Research Technologies surveyed 5,000 retirement plan participants in collaboration with Retirement Clearinghouse in April to understand the behavior and psychology underlying retirement plan distribution decisions. More information about the study and its findings is available at Retirement Clearinghouse’s website.

«