Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes_Pension Joint_05/26/2016 MINUTES VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA RETIREMENT PLAN FINALIST June 15, 2016 RANKING � SELECTION CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Village Clerk Ms. Lori McWilliams. In attendance were: Merlene Reid, Human Resources Director; Jim Weinand, Fire Chief; Tatiana Racanati, Accounting Manager; Michelle Gload, Accounting Manager; Christopher Elg, Police Chief; Michael Montgomery, Managing Principal, Montgomery Retirement Plan Advisors; Ronald Letaw, Vice President, Retirement Plan Consultant, Montgomery Retirement Plan Advisors. Merlene Reid began by stating that eight submissions were received in response to a request for retirement plan proposals and Montgomery Retirement Plan Advisors was contracted to analyze and rank the plans and assist in the plan selection process. Mike Montgomery referenced a Vendor Search Analysis which was distributed to the attendees and spoke about the process of creating a Request for Proposal that included specific characteristics desired by the Village retirement plan committee to enable comparison of the current provider, ICMA, with the marketplace. He outlined the bidding, recommendation and selection process which involved six major analysis areas (recordkeeping, cost, technology, compliance, investment management and communication), described three types of retirement plan provider structures based on levels of fund choice (asset manager — limited choice; open architecture — virtually unlimited choice; asset gatherer — private funds relabeled) and discussed fund management fees. Mr. Montgomery's evaluation ranked Empower as number one, Voya as number two and Nationwide as number three. Each offered an open architecture structure, whereas ICMA did not so its fund selection was limited which could be problematic if a fund was terminated without the ability to replace it. He stated that if any of the top three were selected, the following would be attained: open architecture (with top rated funds available), a capped fee structure (any fees over those contractually stated would be paid back to the plan), equalized fees across funds and participants (everyone pays their fair share of record keeping expenses), at-will termination provisions (not bound to multi-year contract), good participant-level cost- competitive investment advice, participant websites, outsourcing withdrawal approval, drafting/delivery of participant notices, and employee education services (local representative). Mr. Montgomery reiterated that although some of the pages in the handout look similar, the firm he owns was independent yet affiliated with a national alliance of advisors (Retirement Plan Advisory Group) that requests updated data from providers in the same format. After some talk about fees, Merlene Reid stated that employees' main concerns were cost, education and an understandable website that does not bury fees. Continuing, Mr. Montgomery reviewed the current plan's assets, available funds and associated expenses which were one percent (the number they used to compare with other providers). The total cost of investing was one point three five percent or $43,753.00. As of the end of December Retirement Plan Finalist Ranking & Selection June 15, 2016 Page 2 2015, the 401 K contained $156,000 and the 457 plan $3,000,000.00. He singled out the Guaranteed (or Plus) Fund as it has a big impact on price, and reiterated that .35 percent goes toward net investment cost, 1% goes to ICMA thus the one year return earning rate on that account is 1.22%. He explained that investment companies lose money if plans are cashed out when interest rates go up and as a result, may choose to pay out more slowly than immediately. Ronald Letaw clarified that the payout comments applied at the plan level and not to individual participants who would have access to their money immediately. If the Village leaves the ICMA Plus fund, ICMA can hold the money for 12 months from when they are notified after which time they pay you 100 percent of the principle and interest earned without penalties. Most other companies do worse. Mr. Montgomery also clarified that the 1.22% earned was net of the 1.35% in fees paid and stated that current net returns for retirement plans range from .75 to 1.75% which individual investors cannot get in a guaranteed account like a money market. Mr. Montgomery next looked at ICMA's new proposed plan along with Empower, Voya and Nationwide (the top three recommended). ICMA quoted a limited fund menu. The others quoted open architecture plans with Voya requiring inclusion of their own fixed account and Nationwide requiring inclusion of their own Stable Value Fund. Discussion ensued as to the cost structures of fund offerings. With Empower at .31 %, Voya at .35% and Nationwide at .32%, they are close enough to be considered equivalent. Chief Weinand asked if Nationwide offers a 2% return on their Stable Fund versus 1.45% for Empower and most of the plan money is in the Stable Fund, why Montgomery did not rank Nationwide higher in their top three. Mr. Montgomery answered that if you change from Nationwide later on, the money won't be paid immediately but over five years, additionally, for five years after the relationship ceases, employees get two different statements, and refer to two different websites and phone numbers. This can also hurt employees if interest rates rise rapidly but the money is locked into a slower rising interest plan. Ronald Letaw expounded on Nationwide's price strategy stating that some funds have a higher charge than others which would help subsidize the 2% rate. This inequality plus Nationwide's exit provision (which Voya has also) is why they were not recommended higher on the list. Mr. Montgomery continued by comparing the plans' Stable Value fund exit provisions; ICMA offered a 12 month "put" (technical term for the delay in releasing funds) that they have the right to invoke or not; Empower has a 12-36 month "put" (as a single payout) with the Putnam Fund in particular having a 12 month "put" and transparent expense ratio; Voya offered a five year spread payment (1/6t" up front with the remaining paid out 1/5t" per year for the next five years). MVA stands for Market Value Adjustment which is a formula that determines whether the plan provider would be hurt or helped by a single payout. Based on this, less than 100% may be returned. This could sometimes be positive as if there was a gain behind the scenes, they have seen it paid back to the plan by Nationwide. He summarized that both Voya and Nationwide's exit strategies were five years or current market value. Mr. Montgomery addressed contract terms which was the company's guarantee to you of their fees barring a great change in the number of employees or assets and an implied commitment back to keep them as provider for that certain period of time. The goal was to have a short term with the ability to break the contract without having to prove cause. Currently ICMA has no "for cause" Retirement Plan Finalist Ranking & Selection June 15, 2016 Page 3 provision which means you could leave at any time with no penalties. Their new quote has a three- year term or prove to them the reason to break the contract. The other three plans let you leave "at will". Mr. Letaw pointed out that Voya quoted a three-year period but included a five-year option at a lower price yet still "at will" so it is only an implied commitment that the contract would remain with them for five years but with the benefit of the lower rate. Mr. Montgomery noted that evaluations of the other companies that did not make the top three followed if anyone wanted to discuss them. Chief Elg asked about the educational days per year. Mr. Letaw answered that an initial meeting and thereafter annual benefits fair with employees was included in the Request for Proposal. Empower offered four days total. Chief Elg then requested a review of MassMutual based on the return of 2.85% stated in their bid. Mr. Montgomery explained that it was higher than the others as the expenses elsewhere were higher and were being transferred to the guaranteed account. So while it looked better, it was a bit of an illusion as those investing in other mutual funds were paying for it while other employees were benefiting from it. Chief Elg further noted that although the expenses were higher, the higher return more than offsets the expenses to which Mr. Montgomery replied that the higher fees from everyone are essentially being used to subsidize the guaranteed account. Ronald Letaw then added that Florida adopted the ERISA standard of oversight for retirement plans which is to do things in the best interest of all participants. If MassMutual's expenses were closer to that of the top three, they might be more inclined to include them, otherwise, it is difficult to justify or defend the difference. The ultimate decision still lies with the Village. Michelle Gload questioned why anyone would choose to invest in other mutual funds given a 2.85% guaranteed return, to which Mr. Montgomery answered that diversified funds have the potential to make more of a return. Ronald Letaw further explained that money in a guaranteed fund carried little to no risk and was typically for use in the short term. They do not usually beat the inflation rate. Michelle Gload restated that those who choose more aggressive funds are paying higher fees that are then used to pay the return on the not so aggressive funds. Mr. Letaw confirmed that in this (MassMutual) scenario, that is correct. Mr. Montgomery cautioned that employers don't want to be in the position of telling employees how to invest. It is better to stay neutral and let everyone make their own decisions with fair results. Mr. Montgomery offered to review any of the other companies that hadn't yet been discussed. Mr. Letaw reiterated that with the open architecture fund offerings, some better quality funds may be available in certain categories and an equitable fee structure was desirable as well. Chief Elg asked if a rate of return was available for each of the plans but Mr. Letaw explained that there is no such number as the plans simply provide the structure within which employees pick the funds and the performance of those funds was the same regardless of the plan through which it was offered. Mr. Montgomery gave an overview of the similarities and differences in the core competencies of each plan. Empower was the only one that did not require participation in their guaranteed fixed account although pricing was more attractive if there was participation. Empower and Voya allowed employers to build their own menu of funds. Nationwide was the only one in the top three that would not permit that. A point the committee had asked to be addressed was how much financial Retirement Plan Finalist Ranking & Selection June 15, 2016 Page 4 advice would be available to those close to or in retirement. Empower and ICMA both offered conversion to an income stream. Administration (how providers helped the Village with its responsibilities in encouraging employees to donate and in how to take distributions) was mentioned along with the suggestion that demo websites should be visited to determine what level of paperwork would be handled there. Nationwide was the only one that didn't have a website to manage these things. The plans varied in the types of mailings and notifications they perform. He went on to talk about the way in which a provider helped the employees (in person, tools). Empower, Voya and MassMutual were strong in this area. Some offered personalized advice for a fee to the particular participant but all of them met the compliance support requirements of the IRS. To underscore their impartiality in the selection process, Michael Montgomery gave examples of the outcomes of his company matching providers with other organizations and stated that the focus was on what was best for the Village. Detailed discussion ensued by Chief Elg, Merlene Reid, Michelle Gload and the Montgomery representatives as to the amount of contributions employees were permitted to contribute pre-tax versus after tax to 401A and 457 accounts. Another consideration was whether an employee's 401 K or 403B money can be rolled into the new plan, which was up to the Village. Merlene Reid asked whether there were any questions and suggested that if there were none, a decision could be made to accept the recommendations rather than bring the individual companies in to present the same information. Mr. Letaw revealed the value in a presentation was the ability to meet the actual representative who was your contact and hearing their story which resulted in cross productive conversations and confirmation of a good cultural fit. Chief Elg suggested having Empower present and depending on the result, move on to the next for a presentation. Jim Weinand was impressed enough with the numbers alone to move forward with a decision, and consensus of the committee agreed. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 12:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lori McWilliams, MMC Village Clerk Note: These summary minutes are prepared in compliance with 286.011 F.S. and are not verbatim transcripts of the meeting. A verbatim audio record is available from the Office of the Village Clerk. All referenced attachments are on file in the Village C{erk's office.