固定缴款赞助商利用集体探讨tment Trusts

随着婴儿潮一代的时间耗尽了牛肉的退休储蓄，丹尼尔·奥尔博利组合经理Daniel Oldroyd在界定缴费计划中获得了牵引力的集体投资信托。除了提供不相关的，积极管理的资产 - 从股票到商品的房地产的一切 - 这些定制解决方案可能比共同资金的费用较低。纽约摩根资产管理全球多档集团的纽约执行董事Owsoloyd表示，“界定缴费计划的使用增加了多样化以帮助参与者获得更好的组合成果来增加替代和扩展资产课程以帮助参与者获得更好的投资组合结果。”“我们可以更轻松地实现集体投资信托。”jpam于2005年开始提供其第一个目标日期计划的CITS;今天，他们占该公司的Smartrement基金的150亿美元的一半。“投资灵活性更大，”Oldroyd注意，引用直接房地产投资与房地产投资信托，一个选择不适合共同资金的选项。仍然仅销售到合格的退休计划，CITS还提供灵活的费用结构。尽管艰难的劳动力费用披露指引，下个月生效，但顾问期望这些传统的不透明基金使其成为其共同基金的大部分经营成本优势。从计划赞助商可以做得比仅购买零售产品更好的计划参与者的压力是帮助推动养老金计划，解释了休斯顿的休斯顿福利福利公司首席执行官的大卫手，该福利计划的福利行政服务部门， New York, that provides CIT valuation services. “Large plans, like defined benefit plans, negotiate directly with managers, who place the funds in other investments, including CITs.” Initial investment minimums, once as high as $100 million, are another draw. In 2007, JPAM lowered the minimum for plans wanting to invest in its target-date-style funds, which use CITs, from $50 million in assets to $25 million. CITs, which have been around since the late 1920s, are invested by bank trustees and trust companies, and overseen by banking regulators such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Unlike mutual funds, CITs are exempt from Securities and Exchange Commission regulations on disclosure, but both vehicles must comply with Department of Labor and ERISA rules. As for CITs’ share of the defined contribution market, there’s no definitive picture. Of the $4.8 trillion in U.S. defined-contribution-plan assets at the end of 2011, $2.3 trillion was invested in mutual funds, compared with some $2 trillion in CITs, according to Phillip Chiricotti, president of the Center for Due Diligence, a data research firm in Western Springs, Illinois. Chiricotti, who wants to see standardized reporting for CITs, predicts “significant growth” in their use by defined contribution plans as custom solutions become more popular. In many cases CITs may offer better pricing than mutual funds, says Steven Rabitz, a partner in the employee benefits and executive compensation practice group of New York–based law firm Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. Whereas mutual funds charge retail investors and defined contribution plans the same fees, sponsors can negotiate with CITs. “As assets grow, fees can drop in incremental steps,” says Thomas Applegate, a New York–based client portfolio manager for ING Group, which manages $2.5 billion in CITs. Under the DoL’s new disclosure rules, CITs that want to be offered as ERISA retirement vehicles must be as transparent as mutual funds, with one exception: If the plan negotiates management fees so they’re embedded in the expense ratio, quarterly disclosure isn’t mandatory. “Some might argue that essentially leaving participants in the dark about financial adviser compensation is contrary to the spirit of Dodd-Frank and DoL goals regarding fee transparency,” says Marcia Wagner, managing partner at Boston-based Wagner Law Group, an ERISA specialist. Mutual funds can have significantly higher expense ratios than CITs do. The ING Target Solution Trust Series 2055, a $13.45 billion CIT fund that’s 95 percent invested in U.S. equities, estimates its fees at 0.60 percent. By comparison, the $9.46 billion T. Rowe Price New Horizons Fund, a small-cap equity mutual fund, incurs 0.81 percent in fees. And mutual fund expense ratios don’t include the turnover costs for transactions, which can chop a full percentage point off a participant’s earnings, says James Peters Jr., CEO of Birmingham, Michigan–based CIT subadviser Tactical Allocation Group.

As CITs pay more for increased disclosure, could higher fees erode their cost advantage? Providers must eat those expenses or pass them on to investors, JPAM’s Oldroyd says. However, he adds, “very few investment managers really want to raise their fees.” • •