Imagine a scenario where you have to decide between two menus for all of the meals for the rest of your life. Would you choose the same meat and potatoes (maybe in different proportions) day in and day out? Or would you choose professionally prepared meals that would not only be more nourishing and satisfying, but ultimately lead to better overall long-term health and well-being?
当我们在401（k）阵线UPS内将相同的固定收益介绍状态应用相同的概念时会发生什么？“简单更好”的普遍接受的信念实际上导致计划参与者的退休结果改善？While simpler may be better when it comes to participant choice, consider this: in most defined contribution (DC) plans, 25-year olds and 65-year olds hold exactly the same fixed income portfolio, often a strategy benchmarked to the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Index.
这是逻辑吗？尽管可以提供丰富和多样化的固定收益工具，但持有相同的投资组合。大多数人可能会同意股权多样化对于年轻人来说很重要。然而，对于更接近退休的参与者而言，没有固定的收入多样化，可谓更为关键，并且拥有更大的计划余额，以及更迫切需要为其固定收入投资的目的制定的投资组合？
Consider corporate defined benefit (DB) plans, which have generally adopted a fine-tuned approach to matching fixed income sector allocation decisions to specific liability objectives. Many DB plans are able to make more meticulous portfolio construction decisions with respect to credit, duration, currency and yield curve exposures.
After all, what is a corporate DB plan? A portfolio that sets aside money today to meet an expected stream of future payments tied to a future retirement date. What is a DC plan? A portfolio set aside today to meet an expected stream of future payments tied to a future retirement date. Why then, do plan sponsors, often the same plan sponsors, approach fixed income portfolio construction so differently?
如果我们在白色标签投资选项中延长了固定的收益工具包 - 专业挥动，以保留参与者选择的简单性 - 并抓住机会提供DC规划参与者更精确的固定收入工具，类似于他们的DB同龄人？
我们争辩说，松开直流计划内的固定收入的人为限制可以帮助计划赞助商提供增强的多样化和更好的风险调整回报的潜力。此外，我们认为，更加定制的，精确的固定收益组合可以更好地服务于参与者的个人需求，肯定比依赖于单尺寸的所有索引的折衷，即DC计划在历史上遗传。
宏策略如何突变索引
We tend to think of the Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index as an unchanging monolith. The index is fixed income and vice versa; it’s virtually a mathematical identity. However, is this true? Or does this pervasive belief blind us to latent risks and the opportunity afforded by increased sector diversification within fixed income?
The Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index (the Index)—like most conventional indexes—is issuance-weighted. Since 2008, the U.S. government has actively sought to stimulate the economy through increased consumer and government expenditures, leading to an increase in U.S. government borrowing through unprecedented intervention in the U.S. Treasury markets. As a result, the Treasury component of the Index is about 35%, more than 10% higher than it was in 2008.
On the whole, government-related debt—including U.S. Treasury, agency, sovereign/supranational debt and securitized debt guaranteed by a federal agency or government sponsored enterprise —now represents more than 70% of the Index.1 However, cheap financing simultaneously triggered many corporations to borrow at record low interest rate levels. The changing composition of the Index resulting from these changes has consequences for the risk/reward profile of portfolios built with hefty servings of index-based exposure.
较低的收益率与较长的时间较长 - 该指数对低产，利率敏感的财务和对指数其他组成部分的普遍利率的相应变化对潜在的未来总体返回产生了影响。更重要的是，自2008年以来，指数的总体持续时间增加了50％（50％！），增加利率风险。
成分信贷质量分岔 - 与企业承担额外债务，指数中公司债券组成部分的平均信用质量已经下滑，因为BAA级公司债券的比例 - 最低允许的质量层 - 已增加10％。2这创造了一种越来越类似于功能失调的“杠铃”策略的情况。高质量的政府相关的债务与（越来越多）的较低质量的公司债务配对，以构建指数。
高度相关的索引组件——它似乎that the Index offers access to a diversified subset of sectors. In addition to Treasuries, there are also mortgages and investment grade corporates. In fact, the Index has moved largely in lockstep with U.S. Treasuries for the last 15 years, reflected by the high correlation between Treasuries and the Index of 0.90.3 Looking across the components of the Index, the lowest correlation is 0.57 over the same period—hardly compelling from a diversification perspective
(Figure 1). Without the ability to navigate outside of the Index to use potential sources of return and diversification, positioning for a changing interest-rate environment may be challenging.
直流计划中的白色标签案例
自然问题 - 如何在DC投资组合的固定收入组成部分内计划赞助商如何在DC投资组合的固定收入组成部分中多样化？我们了解不愿意提供高产债券或杠杆贷款作为独立投资选项。相反，我们认为使用白标选项可以有效地“破解代码”，以便计划提案国提供他们的参与者在不通过这种复杂性的情况下建立更广泛多样化的定制投资组合的能力。事实上，考虑到固定收入市场的广度，白标多管理者选项可能是必不可少的，帮助参与者充分利用其投资组合的固定收入部分。
White-Label，多管理员选项使计划赞助商能够以简单，易于使用的封装包装的参与者提供复杂的投资组合。毕竟，当我们去餐馆时，我们没有指定厨师应该使用的确切成分列表;相反，我们从完整的Entrées简化的菜单中选择我们的餐点。
白色标签有助于许多目标：最简单，它用于重命名单一投资，并通过基金的风格或资产类别（例如，固定收入）进行一般描述。但是，更复杂的部署提供了计划赞助商和/或其顾问，以构建包括暴露于核心菜单上的固定收入部门的多管理员投资选项的机制。
Using the Right Ingredients
Why go through the effort of adopting white-labeling and creating more sophisticated portfolios? Perhaps the more pointed question is why not? When the tools, partners, expertise, benefits and risks are available and understood, what is the justification for continuing to force a one-size-fits-all design on all participants? Our reasoning is two-fold, and both are critical to achieving better retirement outcomes through:
• Potentially better portfolio risk-return trade-offs – The addition of lower-correlated asset classes can improve the risk/return trade-off in a portfolio; in many respects, diversification remains the closest thing to a “free lunch” in investing. A larger opportunity set creates more opportunities to use the right strategies for the job.
•更多定制 - 白色标签设计允许计划改变不同参与者的固定收益组合设计，也可以是独立的选项或在定制目标日期基金（TDFS）中。例如，年轻的员工可以拥有更具侵略性的投资组合，与高产和新兴市场债务更高的暴露，而参与者更接近退休，则可能拥有目的地
portfolios designed to help manage the transition between saving and spending, including higher-quality and shorter-duration debt.
Better Diversification
TDF Plide路径以及大多数生命周期财务文献表明，股权拨款应拒绝参与者的工作职业生涯。要说明这一点，这也意味着固定的收入分配正在增加;the average fixed income allocation of TDF mutual funds aimed at 25-year olds is 9.18% and for 65-year olds, it’s 52.65%.4 With today’s limited fixed income menus, are we offering an effective set of diversifying tools, or are we blandly asking if they would like more potatoes with their potatoes?
When it comes to diversification, it is generally true that more is better, as long as the additional assets offer the potential to improve the risk/return profile of the overall portfolio. We have certainly taken that lesson to heart on the equity side. Much has been said about equity diversification in portfolios and plan line-ups reflect it. Today, most plan menus include 10-12 equity options, covering the range of style boxes. Even in a “modern” streamlined plan menu, there are typically multiple equity options paired with a limited selection of one or two fixed income choices—usually an option tied to the Index and a capital preservation choice (e.g., a money market fund or stable value investment option).
We are not challenging the wisdom of offering a diversified set of equity investment options; as a general matter, we should provide tools for younger participants to build diversified, equity-focused portfolios (in addition to building widely diversified TDF portfolios). If you look at a correlation table across the typical nine style boxes (e.g., large, mid, small, value, core, growth) plus international and emerging market equity over the last 15 years, the lowest cross correlation is a still-high 0.70 between U.S. small value stocks and emerging market equity. While this may be enough to achieve adequate portfolio diversification, it may not be enough to dramatically reshape an efficient frontier.
幸运的是，一旦采用了白色标签结构，计划赞助商不再限于索引中内置的选择。事实上，在广泛的固定收入景观中，固定收入相关性可能会低得多，甚至有一些负相关（图2）。在投资组合的固定收入组成部分内多样化可能在资产类别和市场之间的天气变化方面提供更大的能力，具有潜在的波动性。
在固定收入宇宙中设定的机会远远大于指数中所代表的市场。美国财政部总额，政府有关，机构和证券化债务 - 指数的部门组成部分 - 仅占全球固定收入投资宇宙的30％（图3）。愿意冒险超越传统核心固定收入的投资者可以通过广泛的行业，质量，成熟和地区进行广泛的全球机会。全球企业和政府债务，市，高收益公司和银行贷款债务可以提供额外的返回来源，并获得可能胜过美国固定收入部门的市场增长。当然，在某些市场情景或条件下，包括风险扇区的投资组合可能表现不佳。这些部门还可以提出将投资者风险暴露远离指数占指数的持续时间风险。
For example, several sectors outside of traditional fixed income are generating yields significantly higher than U.S. core fixed income. While traditional sources of income yield a fraction of what they used to, attractive yields are available to those willing to invest in less traditional and potentially more risky strategies—for example, emerging market and global debt (Figure 4). The global high-yield market has grown significantly and offers some of the lowest correlations to the Index. Moreover, global high-yield currently offers shorter duration and higher credit spreads and may outperform in a market driven by interest rates.
更精确
Let’s go back to a notion we raised at the start: DB plans and DC plans are different formulas trying to solve the same retirement security equation. So why are the tools we use so different, especially for plans that are of a similar size?
Arguably, individual DC plan participants face a more complex retirement investment and spending equation than the chief investment officer of a DB plan: they can’t pool risk and their liability is naturally inflation-sensitive (while most DB plan chief investment officers are concerned with nominal liabilities). DC plan sponsors can help their participants avoid the consequences of making either an asset allocation or a spending mistake. Many individuals in this situation no longer have the luxury of additional years of future contributions or investment returns to get back on track, and returning to the workforce may not be an option. Nonetheless, we are asking these participants to solve this complex and high-stakes problem with very limited tools.
We can do more. What about thinking about DC plans in liability-driven investing terms? The bond market provides nearly limitless customizability; sponsors could create fixed income portfolios based on plan demographic characteristics that much more closely match an individual’s spending or withdrawal needs. For example, an individual planning on retiring early and using her DC plan to delay claiming Social Security until age 70 versus someone opting for a more conventional retirement at 65 may have different spending and withdrawal needs. Those portfolios could be built from common underlying building blocks (sliced by credit quality and duration, for example) and combined in different proportions.
It’s Too Hard?
不，它不是。我们所概述的可能看起来令人生畏，复杂和新。这可能甚至可能会带来更多的信托风险。但是，通过该过程帮助管理的专业知识和经验是易于访问的。此外，这些原因不足以避免探索当前参与者和未来退休人员的潜在益处。我们知道它可以完成，我们相信提供复杂，机构和定制的投资组合和工具 - 正确的成分 - 可以帮助创造更安全的退休。
这种材料是提供信息purposes only and nothing herein constitutes investment, legal, accounting or tax advice, or a recommendation to buy, sell or hold a security. This material should not be relied upon as a basis for making an investment decision. Information is current as of the date of this material and obtained from sources deemed reliable, but there is no representation or warranty as to its accuracy, completeness or reliability. Because market and economic changes are subject to rapid change, the information, analysis and opinions provided may change without notice and we disclaim responsibility for updating this material. Franklin Templeton accepts no liability whatsoever for any direct or indirect consequential loss arising from the use of any information, opinion or estimate herein. Any views or opinions expressed may not reflect those of Franklin Templeton Investments as a whole. Investing entails risks, including possible loss of principal. Indexes are unmanaged and are not available for direct investment. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
借助于：CFA，CYA，CFA，CFA，高级副总裁，玛丽比哈特·格罗茨巴赫，机构DCIO和Christopher Franta，CFA，高级产品经理，固定收益副总裁CFA
Contact Information
ºDrew Carrington, CFA, CAIA
一个富兰克林大道
San Mateo, CA 94403
drew.carrington@franklintempleton.com.
www.ftinstitutional.com/dc.
© 2015 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The Morningstar information contained herein: (1) is proprietary to Morningstar and/or its content providers; (2) may not be copied or distributed; and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information.©2015 Franklin Templeton Investments. All Rights Reserved.