Risk Reminders for a Volatile Period

Managing director of AB’s alternatives and multi-asset arm offers helpful reminders amid rocky markets—most notably, that volatility is normal and actually a key source of opportunity.

Before taking on the role of managing director leading AB’s Alternatives and Multi-Asset Group, Richard Brink’s career focused primarily on building fixed-income portfolios.

It was enjoyable work, he tells PLANADVISER, and it’s also given him an interesting perspective into the way investors react to increasing risk and volatility in the markets—as they currently are.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

“I think the one blanket statement to make regarding the current market environment is that bouts of volatility, while uncomfortable in many respects, are actually normal from a historical perspective,” Brink explains. “It’s the previous five years of really smooth returns that were somewhat abnormal. We saw remarkably consistently growth characterized by central bank policies essentially pre-paying people for future returns, based on the promise of future economic growth and the support that would come with it.”

U.S.-based equity markets in particular saw really strong average returns, Brink says, with the S&P 500, for example, climbing 17% on average per year between 2010 and 2014. Perhaps more important than the strong top-level growth was the fact that widely different asset classes had all continued to perform well, boosted as they were by easy global monetary policy, Brink adds. This meant low dispersion and high inter-market correlation across regions and economies, giving investors a deep sense of comfort and security with the markets that lasted for years and soothed lingering fears from the financial crisis.

Simply put, the last quarter of 2015 and the rocky start to 2016 have really shaken that confidence and corrected people’s understanding of the way markets work, Brink says. “Suddenly winners and losers have reemerged in the equity markets,” fueled not by the actions of market-overseers or regulators but instead by the fundamental cyclical and systemic factors. This implies greater and greater asset class dispersion and single-stock dispersion in coming years, Brink predicts.

NEXT: Tailwinds for alternatives? 

With all this in mind, Brink still has no problem describing the current market environment as rife with opportunity, both for individual investors and their advisers.

“The opportunity is still out there to find strong performers and to build portfolios that are very strong from a risk-versus-reward perspective,” he notes. “As an adviser, you do actually have to be able to identify and pick the winners, however. It’s an environment in which the boats are more important than the tide, if you want to say it that way.”

Plugging for the portfolio pros in his own firm and others, Brink says the emergence of greater volatility and market risk has boosted advisers’ and participants’ interest in alternative investments, “and anything else that promises to help smooth the ride.”

“For advisers, this will mean the notions of relative value capture and downside value protection will really be front and center in client conversations,” Brink notes. “This, in turn, means advisers are looking for new modules, tools and strategies around alternatives products due diligence, for example—that’s one area of focus for us. They’re looking for new ways to help investors in alternatives portfolio construction.”

Like others familiar with the intricacies of defined contribution (DC) plan investment menus, Brink feels alternatives will best serve investors in a “behind-the-scenes type approach.”

“This is one of the interesting parallels between the fixed-income work I used to do and the alternatives work I focus on now,” Brink concludes. “Oftentimes, the investments that do the most good for an average investor’s portfolio are not necessarily going to be easy to understand or use correctly, so it’s probably going to be important to have them packaged, say in a target-date fund or through some other pre-diversified vehicle. Otherwise the opportunity to make mistakes and overlook really important nuance is strong. Alternatives are clearly in this camp.”

Overfunding Makes Challenge to DB Plan Management Moot

In the years following the filing of a lawsuit against U.S. Bank, it has made changes to its DB plan investing practices that have resulted in the plan being overfunded.

A lawsuit filed by participants in U.S. Bank’s defined benefit (DB) retirement plan has been dismissed as moot because the plan is now overfunded. 

Plaintiffs in the case challenged U.S. Bank’s management of its DB plan from September 30, 2007, to December 31, 2010. They challenged the bank’s adoption of a risky strategy of investing plan assets exclusively in equities and its continued pursuit of that strategy in the face of a deteriorating stock market, the bank’s investment of plan assets in the bank subsidiary FAF Advisors, and FAF Advisors’ actions with regard to a securities lending portfolio. The plaintiffs seek to recover plan losses, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and/or other relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). 

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

The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota previously dismissed the 100% equities strategy allegations and granted summary judgment for U.S. Bank on the securities lending program claims, but held that the affiliated funds allegations survived in part. The court found that these allegations adequately alleged an injury in fact: that as measured by ERISA’s minimum funding requirements, “the plan lacked a surplus large enough to absorb the losses at issue.” 

However, in the current court opinion, U.S. District Judge Joan N. Ericksen, noted that the plan is now overfunded by ERISA measures, and citing other court cases, she determined that the case is moot because the issues presented are no longer “live” and the plaintiffs lack a legally cognizable interest in any outcome. In addition, she found it is impossible to grant any effectual relief now that the plan is overfunded. 

NEXT: No expectation for misconduct to continue

Ericksen cited a 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that said allowing participants in an overfunded plan to pursue their claims "would not advance ERISA's primary purpose of protecting individual pension rights, because the pension rights of such plaintiffs are fully protected, and would if anything be adversely affected by subjecting the plan and its fiduciaries to costly litigation."

However, Ericksen noted that where the defendant initiates an event or events that might moot a case, the defendant bears a burden under what is called the "voluntary cessation" exception to mootness of showing that it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur. Since the case was filed, U.S. Bank abandoned its 100% equities investment strategy and "meaningfully began to diversify into asset classes other than equities," the opinion said. In addition, the bank sold FAF Advisors in 2010 and "ceased to use parties in interest to manage a significant portion of the plan's assets."

Ericksen found that the plaintiffs offered nothing but speculation that the alleged misconduct will resume, and concluded their concerns about U.S. Bank’s potential future misconduct are "too conjectural or hypothetical to present an actual controversy" and cannot save the case from mootness now that the plan is overfunded.

«