The Pace of Trump’s Policy Agenda - Three Big ‘Ifs’

It’s hard to believe that U.S. President Donald Trump has only been in office for a month, given the dizzying activity in Washington. Yet, at PIMCO, our observations from before the inauguration seem to be holding true, at least so far: Governing is indeed harder than campaigning.

This is especially the case when it comes to the ambitious legislative agenda of President Trump and congressional Republicans, which includes overhauling the healthcare system, reforming the tax code, rolling back financial regulation and boosting infrastructure spending. Addressing even one of these complex issues in one year would be tough under the best of circumstances; moving all of them would be downright Herculean.

Reality check

Why do we expect a slower pace for President Trump’s legislative agenda? For one thing, it was the Founding Fathers’ intent for Congress, particularly the Senate, to take a deliberative (read: slow) approach to lawmaking to provide the checks and balances to the executive branch. This is especially relevant for issues as complex as an overhaul of the healthcare system or tax reform. Further complicating matters is the lack of a unified vision among Republicans and President Trump on how to proceed; debate continues about how to roll back and replace Obamacare, and the controversial border adjustment tax is snarling tax reform discussions.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news. 

Additionally, while Republicans have a significant majority in the House and can pass legislation readily, it is a different story in the Senate: With 52 seats, Republicans lack the all-important 60-vote filibuster-proof majority. This means that to pass legislation, Republicans must either secure at least eight Democratic votes (which seems unlikely in an increasingly partisan Washington), or use an arcane process known as budget reconciliation, which allows the Senate to pass legislation with only 50 votes – but comes with strings attached.

Because of the way the reconciliation process will work in this Congress, Republicans would have to address Obamacare before they can bring up tax reform, should they want to use reconciliation to pass both bills (which is the plan). This is a key point, given that a healthcare overhaul could take all year (it took President Obama 14 months, even with the benefit of higher approval ratings, healthier majorities in both chambers and a shared vision for healthcare overhaul within his party). Tax reform could easily slip into 2018 (pushing back financial reform and infrastructure). And if it gets too close to the midterm elections in November of that year, tax reform may prove elusive.

Three ‘Ifs’

That said, it is still early days in the new Congress and administration, and if we know anything about Washington, it’s that things can change quickly and headwinds can rapidly turn into tailwinds.

What could change our outlook? It comes down to three (big) “ifs”:

If Republicans can quickly unite on a vision to repair or replace Obamacare
If policymakers can resolve the direction of tax reform, especially related to the border adjustment tax
If President Trump, who has sent somewhat mixed messages on tax reform and Obamacare, uses his bully pulpit to expedite the legislative process. (The president’s joint address to Congress on 28 February may give some indication of his approach.)

But all told, we think the prospects that President Trump will push through his policy agenda in the first year look tenuous at best.

Commentary by Libby Cantrill, PIMCO’s head of public policy

* The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of CIO or Strategic Insight.

The UK government has issued a pension reform Green Paper that includes proposals that could significantly reduce retirement benefits to millions of Britons.

The Green Paper contains proposals calling for companies to lower their pension indexation, which is the annual rate at which they increase payments to compensate for inflation. It is suggested that this could be done by allowing plans to reduce indexation to the statutory minimum, or to allow plans that base their indexation on the Retail Price Index (RPI) to switch to the Consumer Price Index (CPI).

“There may be a case for rationalizing indexation so that there is a level playing field across the sector,” said the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions, which issued the Green Paper.

Although the UK Government switched its indexation from RPI to CPI for pension purposes in 2010, some 75% of private pension plans in the UK still base their indexation on RPI.

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter. 

Because the CPI has been lower than RPI in nine of out the last 10 years, and 22 years out of the last 27, up to 2015, allowing pension to move from RPI to CPI would likely have a considerable impact on retirees’ benefits. According to pension consultants Hymans Robertson, switching from RPI to CPI would take away £20,000 in benefits over an average pension participant’s life. The group also said that moving to statutory indexation was an even more extreme measure that would “ride roughshod over schemes trust deed and rules.”

The statutory minimum applies to defined benefit pensions (also known as final salary pensions) accrued after April 1997, and before 2005, and which must be increased each year by inflation capped at 5%. Pensions accrued after 2005 must be increased by inflation capped at 2.5% each year.

Despite calling for pension reform proposals, the British government maintains a relatively positive outlook on the future of British pension funds. While “recognizing that the system may not be operating optimally in all areas, our main conclusion is that there is not a significant structural problem with the regulatory and legislative framework” of defined benefit pension plans,” said the Green Paper’s executive summary.

The Green Paper will review the powers of The Pensions Regulator, and encourage a debate making a fair compromise between the needs employers, members, the Pension Protection Fund, according to the Department for Work and Pensions.

“People need to have confidence in their pension and it is vital that they feel that they are secure,” Richard Harrington, the UK’s Minister for Pensions, said in a release. “With recent high-profile cases highlighting the risks inherent in defined benefit pensions, we want to ensure that these important pension schemes remain sustainable for the future and that the right protections are in place for members.”

After the 2008 financial crisis, record-low interest rates and reduced expectations for future investment returns have increased estimates of deficits in UK. pension funds, and pension liabilities have grown more than their assets have.

“This has led to a number of commentators to declare that there is a fundamental problem with DB schemes,” said the Green Paper. “The Government understands people’s concerns; however, it does not recognize this view of the pensions system,” and “we also expect the vast majority of members to receive their benefits in full.”

Despite the government’s relatively positive view of the state of the pension fund system, it does acknowledge that there is room for improvement. “This Green Paper seeks to identify where there may be particular problems or issues in order to start an informed discussion on the best way to improve the management and oversight of the risks inherent in providing [defined benefit] pensions.”

In the UK, the average defined benefit pension in payment is a little under £7,000 per year, which is equal to approximately 25% of the median gross earnings of full-time employees in the country, according to the Office for National Statistics. There are approximately 11 million people relying on defined benefit plans, which hold around £1.5 trillion of assets.

The number of Britons participating in private sector defined benefit schemes has been in steady decline, as active memberships have fallen by more than 50% over the past 10 years, according to the UK’s Pension Protection Fund. And the proportion of defined benefit plans open to new members has dropped to 13% in 2016, from 35% in 2006.

By Michael Katz

The Pace of Trump’s Policy Agenda – Three Big ‘Ifs’

Proposed UK Pension Reform Could Cut Benefits for Millions