After all fees are deducted your ‘stable value fund’ might show negative returns if circumstances change. Care must be taken when employment structure changes.
While stable value investment strategies have performed relatively well during the past few years compared to money market strategies, we believe the changed environment means investors should revisit these with a view to understanding all the risks now associated with this investment strategy,” said Peter Schmit, research manager in Towers Watson’s investment business and coauthor of the paper. “Regardless of upcoming regulatory decisions, we believe there has been a structural shift in competitive advantage away from plan sponsors and stable-value managers over to insurance providers and the investment strategy now faces distinct market risks and regulatory headwinds.”According to the research, stable value has long been a popular investment option in defined contribution (DC) plans, as plan participants have appreciated the principal preservation, benefit responsiveness, liquidity and consistently higher returns compared with money market options, with a similar risk profile.
However, Towers Watson notes that plan sponsors should be aware of the type of events that may trigger a violation of the wrap agreements and cause a potential market-value adjustment, such as a workforce reduction or the addition of a competing fund option (money market or self-directed brokerage option) within the DC plan.
Such risks include counterparty, term, credit and liquidity (at the plan level) and are exacerbated by:
- Lack of standardization
- Less-than-ideal transparency
- Changing markets prompted by uncertainty over Dodd-Frank, swap legislation, diminishing capacity and evolution of the wrap market
- The reality of higher wrap fees and lower yields
There is no such thing as risk free.
Please comment or call to discuss how this could affect your company retirement plan.