In The News

While the dedicated retirement income solution market has proliferated over the past several years, many plan sponsors have struggled to evaluate their options strategically, according to NEPC’s 17th annual Defined Contribution (DC) Plan Trends and Fee Survey.

This year’s data reveals that retirement income solutions are more prevalent than what is typically discussed, with 84% of respondents currently offering their participants one — most often in the form of a target date fund (TDF) that includes the flexibility to take installment withdrawals as a source of income in retirement.

. . .

“As participants continue to demand retirement income solutions, plan sponsors are seeking trusted stewards to help them simplify what’s become a pretty complex evaluation and selection process,” notes Alison Lonstein, Principal and Senior Consultant on NEPC’s Defined Contribution team.

“This trend mirrors what we’ve seen in other segments of the retirement space — especially the increasingly complex ESG and legal environments. We’ve seen a significant uptick in clients asking for fiduciary training on the ESG landscape and requests for more insight and intel around legal news,” she adds.

. . .

“Off-the-shelf and custom TDFs can have wide-ranging risk allocations, expenses, and best practices for management and reporting — something recent regulation and court cases are looking to address,” observes Bill Ryan, Partner and Head of Defined Contribution Solutions. “As we’re likely to see continued focus on America’s retirement crisis in the years ahead, plan sponsors should be having hard conversations today about their fiduciary decision making and monitoring process for TDFs on their menu,” he adds.

Read the full article on NAPA’s website here.

Employers offering robust retirement income options for workers is but one piece of the puzzle to help workers manage the retirement assets they have accumulated over an entire working career.

Plan sponsors need to think longer about the different lifetime income withdrawal options for defined contribution plan sponsors, new NEPC data shows.

While 84% of plan sponsor respondents currently offer retirement income solutions—most often in a target-date fund—several challenges remain for employers, including the absence of a consensus on how to develop guaranteed retirement income solutions, the NEPC 2022 DC Plan Trends and Fees Survey found.

. . .

“Nine out of 10 of our [plan sponsor] clients [offer] a target-date fund with systematic distributions, so 90% of our clients have a retirement income solution, [but] there’s a discrepancy between when people think about retirement income and lifetime income,” he says. “We think five years from now, you may see target-date funds plus an annuity window as probably the more common way to address this problem.”

. . .

Because there are fewer private-sector pensions available for workers to retire on, many lack a secure stream of income in retirement and need to develop—through a guaranteed insurance product, such as an annuity, or via non-guaranteed income like 401(k) IRAs and stocks—a secure stream of income for retirement. Plan sponsors need to heed this, to support their employees’ retirement readiness, says Alison Lonstein, a principal and senior consultant at NEPC.

For plan sponsors to explore offering a lifetime income option with a guaranteed feature, a critical decision must be answered: the purpose of the workplace retirement plan.

“It could come down to one simple question: Do you believe your DC plan should be a savings or retirement plan?” she says. “There’s a lot of different paths [plan sponsors] could consider in thinking about how to build out the spending phase of their lineup.”

Read the full article on Plan Sponsor’s website here.

. . .

Market participants in private markets have already seen valuations falter, and private technology assets are not immune to the valuation crunch seen in the technology sector in public markets. “I think we’re going to see [valuations depreciating] more holistically [in 2023],” Beers says.

So-called ‘unicorn’ companies, or private companies with valuations greater than $1 billion, fell 48.3% last year to 308 at the end of November 2022, compared to 596 at the end of 2021, according to Pitchbook data. “When you think about simple investment theory—buy low and sell high—we think that it’s starting to set up for an environment where that could happen,” Beers offers, noting that the drop in valuations could create buying opportunities.

. . .

“The typical path for an exit of a technology company is an IPO,” Beers says. “We’ve come off a period in which IPOs have been fairly robust. Now that window is essentially closed, and I suspect it will be closed for some time.”

While Beers attributes the lack of activity in the IPO market to valuation concerns, Luiña says “not going public is more of a choice than it is the market forces upon them. In the late [1990s], venture companies were funded typically through Series A, Series B and Series C rounds. There was very little private growth equity capital available, so companies really needed to tap the public markets to continue their growth trajectory. A lot of the value creation and a lot of the growth in those companies happened within the public markets.”

Beers verifies that companies are not limited to simply going public to access financing options or exits, as was the case decades ago. “There’s been a growing trend of [general partner]-led secondaries-type transactions in the form of continuation funds,” he says. “Activity in the venture world will start to pick up, providing liquidity to [limited partners] and some longer funds.”

Click here to continue reading the full CIO article.