News

Institutions likely to be hit by CDO problems by Heather Dale 09-08-2007 GLOBAL – Experts have warned that institutions are likely to lose significant amounts of money as part of the shockwaves from the ongoing problems in the US securitised mortgage debt market. Gary Motyl, chief investment officer for global equities at Templeton Institutional, exclusively revealed to Global Pensions his forecast following the problems in the market for collateralised debt obligations (CDOs). Motyl explained that holders of illiquid derivative and securitised instruments exposed to housing have been once again reminded of what happens to prices when buyers retrench and leave a market. “It is fairly likely that more institutions will lose significant amounts of money as more CDO tranches turn bad,” said Motyl. He warned that until the credit cycle unwinds, the full implications would not be known for buyers who have less than a full understanding of the complex securities they are purchasing and the lack of due diligence on credit risk. Neptune Investment Management’s head of US equities, Felix Wintle, also believes the current conditions are potentially dangerous for pension funds. Wintle said: “If pension funds have bought CDOs the chances are they will lose money, and those who are holding risky securites will be trouble. But it all depends who is holding the securities as to who is affected.” Despite it being a serious issue, Wintle said he did not expect it to spill out onto the broader market and cause a meltdown. “It is something the market can and will absorb,” said Wintle. The warning came as BNP Paribas announced it had frozen assets in three of its funds, as the US securitisation market had made it impossible to value the assets. In a statement BNP Paribas said: “The complete evaporation of liquidity in certain market segments of the US securitisation market has made it impossible to value certain assets fairly regardless of their quality or credit rating.”   http://globalpensions.com/?id=me/17/news/39/46898/0/

Canada.com

Chicago Board of Trade faces merger delay after lawsuit
Financial News Online US - 6 hours ago
A US pension scheme has filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Board of Trade that threatens to delay its planned merger with its rival derivatives exchange, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
CBOT says increased CME offer tops ICE’s bid MarketWatch
CME, CBOT revise terms of merger agreement People’s Daily Online
Agriculture Online - PR Newswire (press release) - Briefing.com
all 345 news articles »

Chicago Board of Trade faces merger delay after lawsuit Shanny Basar in New York

14 May 2007

A US pension scheme has filed a lawsuit against the Chicago Board of Trade that threatens to delay its planned merger with its rival derivatives exchange, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees’ Retirement System filed a potential class action lawsuit on behalf of itself and CBOT shareholders, alleging the exchange’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to consider transactions other than the CME and not obtaining the highest possible price.

The lawsuit adds further pressure to the CBOT and could delay any merger, after the decision last week by antitrust authorities at the US Department of Justice to investigate the proposed merger with the CME.

This month, the Futures Industry Association also warned that a merger between CBOT and CME would “kill the competition”.

Last Friday, the CME raised its offer by16% from $7.9bn (€5.8bn) to $9.2bn in an attempt to beat a rival offer from US electronic options market Intercontinental Exchange.

The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, according to a filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The filing said: “One of the conditions to the closing of the CME merger is that there is no injunction issued by any court prohibiting the consummation of the merger.

While CBOT believes these claims are without merit, no assurance can be given that the purported class action lawsuit will not result in such an injunction being issued, which could prevent or delay a closing of the CME merger.”

The court has allowed the pension fund to undertake limited discovery. CBOT filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit on April 9 that are pending.

CBOT and CME agreed to merge last October and expected the transaction to close by the middle of this year. In March, CBOT received an unsolicited approach from Intercontinental Exchange, which it is reviewing.

CBOT was unavailable for comment.

……………………………

Efforts to deny pensions to convicted public workers controversial
Shreveport Times, LA - Apr 18, 2007
Louisiana law sets the amount, which can fluctuate from year to year, that public employers contribute to their employees‘ retirement. …

Countrywide suspected of backdating options The News Journal, DE - Apr 22, 2007 The Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System is asking vice chancellor John Noble to order Countrywide to turn over documents regarding the … CFC

Caremark investor accepts settlement in CVS takeover dispute
International Herald Tribune, France - Apr 22, 2007
… said Stuart Grant, a lawyer representing the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees‘ Retirement System, which filed the suit in Delaware state court. …
CVS

Verizon on alternatives edge

Adds absolute return and private real estate to 401(k)

By Jenna Gottlieb

Posted: April 30, 2007, 6:01 AM EST

Verizon wanted to help participants ‘earn pension-like returns,’ said David Beik.

STAMFORD, Conn. — Verizon Communications Inc. added private real estate and absolute-return investment options to its 401(k) plans for salaried employees, making the telecommunications company the first non-financial plan sponsor offering the alternatives to plan participants.

Verizon is in a league of its own, said Martha Spano, senior consultant for Watson Wyatt Worldwide, Washington. Defined benefit plans — which are considered more sophisticated with investments — only are “now starting to add private equity to their lineup; for most DC plans, it’s a trend about 10 years off,” she said.

Verizon Investment Management Co. added the strategies — plus a new emerging markets equity investment option — to the $9.5 billion business and management 401(k) plans in the first quarter. The emerging markets option is being unitized from the company’s defined benefit plans, said Michael Riak, director of Verizon’s savings plans.

“From the Verizon Investment Management side, we wanted to fill in the investments available to participants and to give them the opportunity to earn pension-like returns,” said David Beik, executive director for investment management at company’s money management unit, which oversees investments for Verizon’s $62.6 billion in total retirement assets. “We wanted to help avoid the situation where DC plan participants are too conservative.”

The changes were made following Verizon’s decision to freeze its $39 billion cash balance plan for management employees in June 2006.

Verizon’s move is history-making, consultants said. William Schneider, managing director at DiMeo Schneider & Associates LLC, Chicago, said adding absolute return and private real estate options in a DC plan is virtually unheard of.

“In a DC environment, it’s about what vehicle” you use for real estate and absolute return, he said. “Some vendors have those types of products, but they’re not the premier vendors. We’re not seeing interest in private real estate. A lot of our clients have had REITs since 2000, but not private real estate,” Mr. Schneider added.

Stacy Schaus, senior vice president and defined contribution practice leader for Pacific Investment Management Co., Newport Beach, Calif., said that while more plan sponsors are discussing these asset classes, none besides Verizon has added the options.

“There’s tremendous hesitance in the marketplace and it will be a while before we see these strategies taking off,” said Ms. Schaus.

Liquidity issues

Interest is limited in those asset classes because it is challenging to include them in DC plans, said Mr. Schneider.

“The whole essence of private real estate is that it’s private. There are no public appraisals. For REITs, you’re so far removed” from actual property holdings, he said.

Adding absolute return and private real estate options typically pose redemption and liquidity challenges for DC plans. Verizon’s plan, however, has overcome those hurdles, but Mr. Riak declined to provide details.

“The absolute return strategy and the private real estate funds are both daily-valued and are available for daily trading to the participants. There are no restrictions in trading in either fund. They both have cash and more liquid securities attached to them, which allow for daily cash flows,” said Mr. Riak.

The same goes for absolute-return strategies, he said.

“It is unique,” said Mr. Schneider. “It would have to be a very large plan sponsor, like a Verizon, to do this.”

“We’re going to see this evolving,” said Watson Wyatt’s Ms. Spano. “Plan sponsors are struggling right now to get participants to invest in equity for the most part. I’ve had clients ask about private equity, but none of the committees feel comfortable yet.”

It is common for financial services companies to provide alternative investments as part of their internal DC plans. Prudential Financial Inc., Newark, N.J., for example, has a private real estate option managed by the firm in its $5.3 billion 401(k) plan, confirmed spokesman Darrell Oliver. Goldman Sachs Group Inc., New York, reportedly provides an absolute-return option in its internal 401(k) plan.

Four managers

In Verizon’s plan, Prudential manages the real estate option, while three managers provide the absolute-return strategy, said Mr. Riak. He would not identify the managers.

Verizon also added an emerging markets equity strategy, an asset class many large DC plans have added or considered recently. That strategy is managed by Morgan Stanley Investment Management, New York; AllianceBernstein Institutional Investments, New York; and Dimensional Fund Advisors, Santa Monica, Calif., Mr. Riak said.

“We do tend to steer towards institutional commingled and separate accounts. If there is a change with the fund, we could have more control. And it’s a lower-cost option for us,” said Mr. Riak.

Besides increasing the total number of core investment options to 23 from 20, Verizon officials implemented automatic enrollment and increased the company’s match to one dollar for every dollar contributed by employees up to 6% of salary, from a dollar-for-dollar match up to 5% of salary. Verizon also added a Roth 401(k) contribution feature and added target-date asset allocation funds managed by Russell Investment Group, Tacoma, Wash.

Matt Smith, managing director of retirement services at Russell Investment Group, said Verizon’s plan design is very different from most large corporate plans. “It feels like the early ’80s when everything was new,” he said, regarding the new investment options.

More changes possible

Phil Storms, director of human resources for Verizon, said managed account services and investment advice also are being considered for the two 401(k) plans.

“Managed accounts are something we have talked about. It’s not out of the picture and may be something we consider in the future. We’re trying not to overwhelm employees with too much.” Mr. Storms added that Verizon is considering adding investment advice: “We do have a significant population that would be interested.”

The changes do not affect Verizon’s three union plans, said Mr. Riak, adding that subject to union negotiations, those plans, with a combined $8 billion in assets, could undergo design changes. “If the union wanted to pursue changes, it’s something that could happen in the future,” he said.

http://www.pionline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070430/PRINTSUB/70427061/1010

Most companies planning big changes in DC plans, survey says

By Arundhati Parmar

Posted: April 30, 2007, 6:01 AM EST

NEW YORK — More U.S. corporations are planning major changes to their defined contribution plans this year, spurred by laws allowing investment advice and by employers’ desire to provide retirement income security to employees.

A survey by Buck Consultants LLC found that 65.2% of plan sponsors intend to change the design and plan communication of their defined contribution plans in 2007, compared with 36.8% that altered plans last year. Significantly, 82% of respondents said one of their top priorities in the next few years is providing “retirement income adequacy.” The survey polled 255 U.S. public, private, non-profit and government employers in December.

The focus on providing adequate retirement income is in turn creating a bonanza for consulting and investment advice companies. The survey found that 29% of companies now offer investment advice to plan participants and that 57% of those that don’t, plan to do so.

“Pure advice firms will benefit, and the two firms that have staked out a big position are Financial Engines and Morningstar,” said Alan Vorchheimer, principal at the retirement consulting practice of Buck Consultants in New York. “The other group is the mutual fund companies — Fidelity is launching a product by the end of the year to get into this market.”

In fact, Chicago-based Morningstar Inc.’s wholly owned subsidiary — Ibbotson Associates, which among other services offers investment consulting and managed account services — has seen a significant increase in retirement assets and the number of plan participants tapping into the firm’s investment advice program.

“In 2006 we had over a 100% increase in number of plan participants and in assets, and at the end of the year we had $8 billion in assets,” said Peng Chen, president of Ibbotson Associates, which was acquired by Morningstar in March 2006.

Mr. Chen agreed with the Buck Consultant report’s findings that companies are increasingly looking for diversified investment options while designing defined contribution plans. The survey found that 55% of respondents offer life-cycle/lifestyle funds to participants, with 38.9% adding the feature in 2006 alone; 32.6% said they plan to do so.

In addition, 42% of respondents use life-cycle funds as their plan’s default investment option, while 42.5% use money market/stable value. Although stable value is slightly ahead, Messrs. Chen and Vorchheimer both predicted it would take a back seat to life cycle in the next few years.

“It used to be that if we didn’t get an election from you, we would just put money in a stable value fund because our biggest concern was that you would lose money. That’s clearly changing now with people moving to these multiasset-class … life-cycle funds,” Mr. Vorchheimer said.

He believes the explosion of life-cycle funds will be slowed only if the stock markets become bearish.

“Money market will be left behind by life-cycle funds until and unless there is a major correction in the stock markets,” Mr. Vorchheimer said. “If there’s a correction, I don’t think it will go back to money market; it will go back to something called a balanced fund that has 60(%) equities, 30(%) bonds and 10(%) cash.”

Mr. Vorchheimer said survey responses were similar regardless of company size, except for when companies were asked what type of firm functions as the primary DC plan adviser. Smaller plans tended to pick record keepers, while larger companies chose consultants.

“Record-keeping vendors provide (consulting) advice as part of their standard fees. So since it’s free, it’s very unlikely that small companies will go outside and hire that expertise,” Mr. Vorchheimer said. “I certainly would never imply that these companies aren’t very professional and don’t do an excellent job.”

But Ibbotson’s Mr. Chen said his company often works with record keepers to provide advice to plan participants. The record keepers eat the cost of providing it or in some cases pass the cost on to the plan participants, he said. Other than record keepers, Ibbotson also works with 401(k) providers such as Merrill Lynch and AIG to provide investment advice.

Regardless of which provider is used, plan sponsors are going to be tapping into investment advice expertise in the future. It goes back to providing “retirement income adequacy,” Mr. Vorchheimer said. However, despite the focus on that, only 28% of companies actually monitor employee savings and investments to determine whether they are investing wisely.

That was surprising, Mr. Vorchheimer said.

“If I am concerned with their retirement income adequacy, I would increase their benefits, but that’s not the response we got” he added. “(Companies) are saying, ‘We are going to give you every chance (to save), but ultimately it’s up to you.’ ”

http://www.pionline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070430/REG/70427041/1030

Chile Funds Sidestep Investment Limit, Move More Money Abroad
By James Attwood

May 10 (Bloomberg) — Chile’s national pension funds are moving money out of the country, raising concern that the Chilean stock market may cool after a five-year rally.

The six pension funds own 11 percent of the country’s stocks and are awash with cash as they take in almost $300 million a month. Managers of the so-called AFPs are circumventing rules that limit foreign securities to 30 percent of holdings by placing money in mutual funds that invest abroad.

They can thus buy shares of such companies as Brazilian retailer Lojas Renner SA at a time when Chilean stocks are twice as expensive as those in Brazil, on average. Renner is two- thirds the price of Cencosud SA, a comparable Chilean retailer. The investments are deemed to be local, provided the mutual funds have at least half their money in Chile.

“The market is being distorted by AFPs not being able to invest more abroad,” said Ben Laidler, head of Southern Cone and Andean Research at UBS Pactual in Santiago. “Allowing them to do so could deflate that small bubble.”

Lawmakers are discussing raising the cap on pension funds’ international investments to 80 percent as part of a package of changes in the retirement system proposed by President Michelle Bachelet.

Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in 1981 put the country’s pension funds in the hands of private managers. Under a model that didn’t exist elsewhere, the AFPs put workers’ compulsory contributions into local stocks and bonds.

Chile’s Rally

Pension funds and other investors benefited in the past five years as a surge in global commodity and equity markets and a series of free trade agreements helped lift Chile’s economy. The benchmark IPSA index has nearly quadrupled in value since October 2002. Chile is the world’s biggest producer of copper.

The IPSA has risen 24 percent in dollar terms this year, setting a record this month. A Latin American stock benchmark from Morgan Stanley Capital International has gained 15 percent.

Stocks are cheaper elsewhere in the region. Companies in Brazil’s benchmark Bovespa Index on average fetch 13 times earnings for the past year, and the MSCI Latin America Index has a price-earnings ratio of 15.8. The IPSA’s ratio is 25.

“I’d buy more Brazil than Chile” if the limits were lifted, said Eric Conrads, who manages $10 billion in stocks, as chief investment officer at AFP Santa Maria, in Santiago. Shares of companies in position to benefit from increased consumer spending, such as retailers, are especially attractive, he said.

Comparison Shopping

Lojas Renner’s 22.19 trailing price-to-earnings ratio compares with a 33.13 multiple for Cencosud, according to Bloomberg data. The Brazilian retailer has a “buy” rating from 67 percent of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg, compared with 44 percent for Cencosud.

Empresa Nacional de Electricidad SA, Chile’s biggest power producer, is trading at 40.48 times trailing earnings, almost double the multiple of Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA, Brazil’s biggest energy generator, which has a 22.9 price-to- earnings multiple.

Now the pension funds are using a loophole in the rules to put money into Chile-based mutual funds, managed by companies such as Celfin Capital SA, that invest as much as 49 percent of their portfolios overseas.

“It’s a way to get more foreign exposure and avoid pushing up the local market while waiting for the changes,” Conrads said.

`Absurd’ Rules

The so-called 51/49 investment vehicles are “against the spirit” of the current limits, he said. “But the regulations are absurd and detrimental to my clients.”

Santiago-based Compass Chile SA and Celfin manage nearly $1 billion in 51/49 funds. At least one other Chilean financial services company, Larrain Vial, plans to enter the market.

Chile’s six pension funds hold $16 billion of their $91 billion worth of assets in local stocks such as retailer Cencosud and power producer Empresa Nacional de Electricidad, up from $12 billion a year ago. Their holdings account for 11 percent of the IPSA’s $143 billion market value.

The AFPs’ influence in the local market was made clear in February when speculation that the limits would be lifted sooner than expected sent the IPSA on a 12 percent tailspin over seven days, a week before global markets plunged.

Even so, a shift into foreign stocks is likely to cool, not terminate, the local market’s surge, said Max Pinto, head of investments at Santander Investments in Santiago.

Easing In

Under the proposed legislation, the central bank will ease the caps gradually and not until the second half of 2008.

Rather than selling stocks to raise money to buy foreign securities, the AFPs are likely to use some of their nearly $17 billion in term deposits, said Matthew Hickman, who manages $5 billion at Credit Suisse Group in New York.

Also, rising investments from individuals and foreign institutions, as near-record commodity prices keep the economy growing, mean the IPSA is less dependent on AFPs, said Pinto.

“I don’t see a stampede out of equity investments here,” he said. “It could lower the temperature a little, but not change the direction.”

The AFPs’ growing allocations outside of Chile through the mutual funds have caught the attention of the government.

“It’s a topic that concerns us,” said Solange Berstein, Chile’s chief pension regulator, who is preparing a report to ensure that pension fund contributors are aware of the practice. The investments are legal, she said.

Berstein said the government is confident that Chile’s stock market can absorb the lifting of foreign limits to 80 percent. She cited the calm response by AFPs and markets during increases over the last decade to the current 30 percent level.

This time, the pension fund managers may be more aggressive in taking up the chance to tap Brazil’s falling interest rates and rising consumption, as Chile’s rates stay steady, Santa Maria’s Conrads said.

“The AFPs are such an important investor in the Chilean bourse that if the have the opportunity to invest elsewhere it will create competition for Chile,” said Hugo Avendano, head of equities research at Banchile Corredores de Bolsa. “Logically it could weaken the Chilean market a little.”

To contact the reporter on this story: James Attwood in Santiago at jattwood3@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: May 10, 2007 00:09 EDT

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aWgfmrUbs478&refer=news

http://www.finextra.com/fullsolns.asp?id=2993 

Current vs. retirement income: How much do I need?

Figuring out how much of your current income you’ll need to live on when you retire can be tricky. Our expert points you to some useful tools.

By Walter Updegrave, Money Magazine senior editor

May 4 2007: 12:39 PM EDT

NEW YORK (Money) — Question: I don’t understand the rule that you need 85 percent of your pre-retirement salary in retirement. After all, if you’re contributing 15 percent to a 401(k) or other savings plan and you’re paying Social Security and other taxes, you’re already living on much less than 85 percent of your salary. And if you pay off your mortgage before retiring, I figure you’re still ahead of the game if you shoot for 70 percent. What do you think? -Clifford, Orange, Conn.

Answer: First, I think there’s no real agreement on what this rule is. I know some people say you need 70 percent of pre-retirement income after retiring, while others claim it’s 80 percent, 85 percent or 90 percent.

But whatever version of this rule you hear, I think you need to take it with a very large block of salt. Of course, that’s true of all rules of thumb, whether it’s the percentage of pre-retirement income you need, “the 4 percent rule” on withdrawing funds from your portfolio in retirement, the “save 10 percent for retirement rule” or any other benchmark.

After all, rules of thumb are shortcuts; they’re solutions that are supposed to work for the “average” person. In this case, the percentages you hear can be traced back to the Retirement Income Replacement Ratio studies by Aon Consulting and Georgia State University.

Using data primarily from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Expenditures Survey, every three years researchers calculate the percentage of their pre-retirement salary retirees need to maintain their standard of living. The 2007 survey is scheduled for release in November, but you can read the 2004 version by clicking here.

I should add that the study doesn’t give a single percentage. It calculates a variety of percentages that range from 75 percent to 89 percent based on several factors, including one’s pre-retirement income. But whatever figure is quoted, it’s still based on an average for some group.

We’re all individuals, however, and our specific situations probably won’t mesh seamlessly with any average. Some of us wear down the magnetic strip on our credit cards from non-stop swiping; others among us are such committed savers that we make the ant in Aesop’s fable seem profligate. Some people are adamant about going into retirement debt-free. Others are doing cash-out refis at 55. There’s no way that any single figure, whether it’s 85 percent, 70 percent or 95 percent, can be the right one for all of us.

And when you consider that retirement can be decades away and that even when you reach it you’ll likely be living decades longer, it’s unlikely that any of us can really pinpoint a number or percentage and expect it to be absolutely positively correct. All of which is to say that none of these figures are carved in sacred tablets that are handed down from the retirement-planning gods. They’re estimates.

So where does that leave you for your retirement planning? After all, you do need some target, some sense of how much income you’ll need in retirement so you have an idea of how large a nest egg you must accumulate. One thing you can do is try to get a more realistic percentage than just accepting whatever version of the replacement income rule you hear.

For example, if you go to Aon’s report, you can find replacement ratios for different income levels. If you dig around a bit more, you can also make adjustments based on how much you save. You might also factor in what sort of retirement lifestyle you envision for yourself.

The larger you plan to live, the more income you’ll need, and the more you’ll have to save. Granted, this won’t give you an accurate-to-the-tenth-decimal-point figure. But you should be able to come up with a percentage that in your judgment is reasonable. You can then plug this figure into our Retirement Planner or a similar calculator and get a sense of what you need to do to hit that target.

If all this is too much trouble, there’s an easier route you can take. Researchers recently published a study in the Journal of Financial Planning that provided guidelines for how much you need to save for retirement based on your age and income. The percentages they provide assume you will want to replace 80 percent of your pre-retirement income, except - and this is important - that 80 percent is after deducting the amount you save for retirement.

So, for example, if you earn $80,000 a year and save $10,000, the researchers assumed you would need 80 percent of $70,000, or $56,000 in retirement. The idea is that you don’t need to replace the dollars you’re saving for retirement since they don’t reflect our pre-retirement spending. You can read the study by clicking here (Table 2 is the one you want to read).

Or, if you just want a quick read on how much you should be saving given your age, income and the amount you’ve already stashed away, you can check out the What You Need To Save Calculator we built based on the study.

Of course, the figure you’ll get there isn’t perfect either. It has a host of assumptions embedded in it, ranging from the return you’ll earn on your investments, to the expected inflation rate, to the fact that you’ll want only 80 percent of your pre-retirement salary after deducting savings. If you feel you’ll need a higher percentage of income - maybe after all those years of savings you want to splurge a bit - then you’ll have to increase the amount our calculator suggests you save.

As you get closer to retirement - say, within five or 10 years - a clear picture should begin to emerge of what expenses you’ll actually face in retirement. At that point, you can start factoring in actual estimates of your retirement spending into your planning. The more detailed and accurate the estimates, the better the sense you’ll have of how large a nest egg you’re likely to have and how long it’s likely to support you.

You can work out these estimates on your own or you could sit down with a planner or you could go to an online calculator such as Fidelity’s Retirement Income Planner, which has an interactive retirement budgeting worksheet that allows you to plug in expenses in 49 categories, make adjustments for ones that may expire during retirement (such as your mortgage) and even apply different rates of inflation for different expenses. (The calculator is free, but if you’re not a Fidelity customer, you’ll have to register to use it.)

One final thing to keep in mind. Retirement planning isn’t something you do one time and then assume you’re set for the next 20 or 30 years. Too many things can change. Your investments may do better or worse than you project. Your savings habits may improve, or a job layoff might force you to dip into savings. You may want to retire earlier than you originally intended - or you may decide you want to ditch your current career and start a new one in retirement.

All of these factors and more can affect how much you’ll need to retire comfortably or, indeed, whether you’re ready to retire at all. So go over your retirement plans periodically to monitor your progress, to see if there are problem areas you need to address and to be sure the assumptions you’re making still apply.

How often should you do this? I’d say about once a year. But please consider that a suggestion, not a rule of thumb.  

401(k) flubs - 5 to avoid

Money 101: Planning for retirement

Ask Walter a question: Click here or e-mail us at asktheexpert@turner.com

U.K. Pension Funds Rose for Third Straight Quarter, Mellon Says
By David Clarke

April 27 (Bloomberg) — U.K. balanced pension funds advanced 2.3 percent in the first quarter, the third straight three-month stretch of gains, according to Mellon Financial Corp.

The best performer was Glasgow Investment Managers’ 46 million-pound ($92 million) fund, which advanced 3.9 percent, Mellon’s London-based fund measurement unit said in an e-mailed statement today. The laggard of the 57 funds was the 229 million-pound St James’s Place Newton GBL Fund, which fell 0.5 percent, Mellon said.

Balanced funds invest in a variety of stocks, bonds and other assets and are used by pension funds seeking to put money into a range of securities. The U.K’s FTSE 100 index advanced 1.4 percent in the first quarter of the year.

To contact the reporter for this story: David Clarke in Edinburgh at dclarke3@bloomberg.net

Last Updated: April 27, 2007 07:24 EDT

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601014&sid=aK9AqmpQpsBE&refer=funds