New Update: Rising Oil Costs are Affecting Retirement Plans. Will you be impacted?
Company:
Nokia
Plan Administrator:
600 mountain avenue
Murray Hill, NJ
07974-0636
972-374-3000
Â
Â
Â
The majority of Nokia employees we talk to bring up the difficulties of investing. Uncertainty is a constant in investing. Recent bias makes the current time, whenever that may be, feel more uncertain than ever. The post-pandemic era and modern conflicts presented us with truly unprecedented economic and health-related uncertainty, but stepping back to any point in history there is always a reason that this time is different; this is true in both bull and bear markets. Uncertainty is not necessarily a bad thing - if investing felt certain we would not expect to collect a meaningfully positive risk premium from owning risky assets. For long-term investors, stocks should deliver on their positive expected returns. The concept of hanging on through tough markets to benefit from long-term expected returns is relatively easy for most investors to understand. The tricky part is doing it, and it doesn’t get any trickier than making the decision to invest a lump sum of cash.
Â
The nagging uncertainty that comes with investing in the stock market seems to be particularly pronounced when it comes to investing “new money.†New money could be a windfall from selling a home or business, receiving an inheritance, or winning the lottery. Whatever its source, shifting from cash into stocks can be a nerve-racking experience. In the case of new money, it doesn’t help to know that long-term expected returns are positive when you are deciding to invest a large sum at a single point in time. Instead of investing a lump sum all at once, you might choose to enter the market gradually over some pre-determined period. This is commonly referred to as dollar-cost averaging. It seems intuitive that dollar cost averaging would lead to a better average outcome. You are buying more stocks when stocks are down and less when they are up, and you are avoiding the potential timing error of investing right before a crash. As usual, intuition and investment decisions don’t mix.
Â
This paper aims to compare dollar-cost averaging (DCA) to lump sum investing (LSI) through time for Nokia employees and retirees. We will examine average historical outcomes, the worst LSI outcomes, historical bear markets, and historically expensive markets. Neither this analysis nor its broad findings are new. A 1979 paper in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis by George Constantinides, A Note on the Suboptimality of Dollar-Cost Averaging as an Investment Policy, regards DCA as suboptimal through two propositions.
Â
This paper extends the analysis to include a closer look at the distribution of outcomes on average and under special circumstances commonly believed to be suboptimal for LSI.
Many Nokia employees and retirees have told us how difficult it feels to evaluate certain investment strategies. To evaluate DCA as an investment strategy we will compare it to lump sum investing for rolling 10-year investment periods with monthly steps. This means that starting with the first available month we will examine DCA and lump sum investing through the following decade of returns, and then move the start point one month ahead. For most data series in our sample, this results in 485 10-year periods. For Canada, we have 652 periods, and 1013 for the US. We will evaluate a 12-month DCA implementation, which means splitting up a lump sum into 12 equal monthly investments, against a single lump sum investment. The following chart shows an approximate allocation between cash and stocks over the course of a 12-month DCA period for $1,000,000 of starting cash.
Â
Figure 1 – Dollar-Cost Averaging Illustration
Â
Â
Before finalizing any estate plan, it is worth examining how Nokia's employer-sponsored benefits fit into the broader picture. According to publicly available information, Nokia maintains an active defined benefit pension plan, which provides retirement income based on factors such as years of service and compensation history. Nokia does not appear to offer a formal retiree healthcare program, making healthcare coverage planning an important consideration if you retire before age 65. Because the specifics of your pension formula, vesting schedule, and benefit eligibility depend on your individual employment history and plan documents, We encourage you to review your Summary Plan Description (SPD) or speak with Nokia's HR or benefits team for the most current details.
Source:Â Benjamin Felix, Portfolio Manager, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
In our model, the cash will earn interest at the rate of One-Month US Treasury Bills while it is waiting to be invested. The portfolios are 100% invested in stocks when fully implemented. All analysis has been conducted in US dollars using monthly returns for One-Month US Treasury Bills and the six global stock markets listed in Table 1.
Â
Table 1 – Stock Market Indexes
Â
Â
Source: Benjamin Felix, Portfolio Manager, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
In order to evaluate LSI relative to DCA, we have chosen to look at the ending performance of an investment after 10 years. First, we evaluated the full data series for each market to understand the average outcomes. We isolated the most extreme bad outcomes for LSI to examine how DCA performed in those periods. Knowing that we cannot predict when LSI will have its worst outcomes, we then compared LSI to DCA during bear markets and when stock prices are high.
The equity risk premium – the premium that stocks are expected to deliver over a risk-free asset – tends to be consistent over long periods of time. Using US stock data going back to 1926 we can observe the nature of the premium.
Â
Â
Â
Data source:Â Dimensional Returns Web, CRSP, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
The monthly US equity premium has been remarkably consistent, within a range, throughout history. It has an arithmetic average of 0.65%, and it has been positive 60% of the time. There tend to be periods, visible in Figure 2, where the monthly premium becomes more volatile; volatility clustering is a well-known phenomenon. Over periods longer than one month we also observe characteristic negative skewness - frequent small gains and a few extreme losses.
Â
Given the nature of stock returns, we would expect a stock investor to achieve positive returns with roughly the same frequency as the equity risk premium being positive. For the remainder of this paper, we will be comparing lump sum investing to dollar-cost averaging in terms of absolute returns, as opposed to observing their risk premiums. US stock returns have been positive in absolute terms 63% of the time in the historical data.
For most markets, and on average across markets, we find that roughly two-thirds of the time LSI beats DCA over 10-year periods in terms of ending assets. The exception is Japan which is unsurprising given its unique long-term stock market outcome; Japan’s equity market has trailed One-Month US Treasury Bills since 1990.
Â
Table 2 – LSI vs. DCA for 10-Year Historical Periods
Â
Â
Data source: Dimensional Returns Web, CRSP, MSCI, S&P Dow Jones Indices, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
The basic insight that we draw from this result is that, on average, LSI leads to greater ending wealth than DCA. To quantify the extent to which LSI tends to beat DCA we examined the 10-year annualized performance difference for the full sample. An annualized figure stated as a percentage makes for an easy comparison to familiar items like fees and withholding taxes. On average, DCA is leaving a meaningful amount of expected returns on the table at 0.38% annualized over ten years in the historical data; this should not be a surprise considering that DCA delays exposure to higher expected returning stocks.
Â
Table 3 – LSI vs. DCA Annualized 10-Year Performance Difference
Â
Â
Â
Comparing average outcomes is interesting but it does not speak to the dispersion of outcomes. Even if DCA is worse on average in terms of expected average outcomes, maybe it offers some protection on the downside. To assess this, we calculate the difference in annualized returns for LSI and DCA over 10-year periods and sort the data into percentiles. The 10th percentile is the bottom 10% of outcomes, the 50th percentile is the median, and the 90th percentile is the top 10%.
Â
Table 4 – Difference in Annualized Returns (LSI – DCA)
Â
Â
Data source:Â Dimensional Returns Web, CRSP, MSCI, S&P Dow Jones Indices, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
It should be clear from Table 4 that LSI is beating DCA by a healthy margin on average. In the best 10% of outcomes (90th percentile), more has been gained by LSI over DCA than what has been lost in the worst 10% of outcomes. The median outcome is positive, and the distribution is negatively skewed. None of this should be a surprise considering the positive expected risk premium of stocks over treasury bills, and the left-skewed distribution of stock returns. Figure 3 shows the shape of the distribution of the differences in outcomes for LSI less DCA in terms of 10-year annualized returns.
Â
Figure 3 – Distribution of Differences in 10-Year Annualized Outcomes (LSI - DCA)
Â
Â
Data source:Â Dimensional Returns Web, CRSP, MSCI, S&P Dow Jones Indices, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
At the most extreme, the far left and right tails of the distribution, LSI does look worse than DCA. This observation is consistent with a negatively skewed distribution; we see that most of the outcomes are good, but the worst outcomes are more extreme than the best outcomes. This validates the idea that DCA might be able to offer protection from the worst outcomes, but it comes at a significant cost in terms of expected returns.
Average historical outcomes may be of limited psychological value when making investment decisions under conditions of uncertainty. An investor doesn’t necessarily care to know about average outcomes – any point in time will never feel average to those living in it. Investors want to minimize their perception of the downside risk associated with investing a large sum of cash in an uncertain market. It is important for Nokia employees to note that this exercise is distinct from examining the percentiles in Table 4. Table 4 demonstrates the distribution of differences in outcomes. That is the magnitude of the average performance difference between LSI and DCA across the full data set.
Â
Â
Table 5 – LSI vs. DCA in the 10th Percentile LSI Historical Periods
Â
Â
Data source:Â Dimensional Returns Web, CRSP, MSCI, S&P Dow Jones Indices, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
In half of our markets, LSI still beats DCA most of the time even when LSI has delivered its worst historical outcomes; this is also true with an equal-weighted average of all markets in the sample. The results are not as strongly in favor of LSI as the full data series but remember that we have intentionally selected the worst LSI outcomes for this sample. While the number of outcomes is evenly matched, the bad outcomes in this case are worse in magnitude than the good ones. The result is a negative difference in annualized 10-year performance. This should not be surprising considering our intentional selection of the worst LSI outcomes in the sample.
Â
Table 6 – Difference in Annualized Returns for 10th Percentile LSI Outcomes (LSI – DCA)
Â
Â
Data source:Â Dimensional Returns Web, CRSP, MSCI, S&P Dow Jones Indices, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
Even under artificial conditions of a known bad future outcome for LSI, DCA offers less than a 50% shot at an improvement. DCA does however offer an edge when the magnitude of positive and negative outcomes is considered – despite the roughly even split between good and bad outcomes, the bad outcomes are worse than the good outcomes are good. This seems to give credence to the mythical ability of DCA to improve an extremely bad LSI outcome. An important nuance in the data is that the worst LSI outcomes relative to other LSI outcomes do not correspond with the worst LSI outcomes relative to DCA outcomes. The most extreme instances of underperformance for LSI relative to DCA have less to do with the LSI outcome being extremely bad and more to do with the DCA outcome being extremely good. In other words, lucky timing for DCA, as opposed to avoiding unlucky timing for LSI, drives the difference in the most extreme cases.
Â
Given that it is impossible to predict which time periods will result in the worst outcomes for a lump sum investment, we next turn to two signals commonly believed to offer forward-looking insight into future investment returns.
One seemingly obvious case where DCA feels like it should shine is during bear markets - market drops of 20% or more. Stock market volatility tends to cluster; when markets are turbulent, they tend to remain so for some time. Spreading an investment out over 12 months in the face of a bear market seems like a reasonable approach to improving the expected outcome. To be clear, we are assuming that the 20% drop has already happened when we are making the LSI or DCA decision.
Â
For this sample, we have defined a bear market as a monthly drop of 20% or more from the previous peak. We will begin the LSI and DCA samples in the month following the drop, with the idea being that an investor with new cash has just observed a 20% or greater drop in the market and is now deciding between LSI and DCA.
Â
Â
Â
Data source:Â Dimensional Returns Web, CRSP, MSCI, S&P Dow Jones Indices, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
We again find that LSI produces a better outcome than DCA most of the time in most countries in the sample. Nokia employees and retirees should note that the US experience is significantly impacted by the enormous volatility and seemingly perpetual market drops in the 1930s. We find that, on average, LSI beats DCA by a 10-year annualized 0.25% when the investment period begins with the month after a drop of 20% or more has occurred. Echoing the experience of the full data series we also see that there has historically been more to gain from LSI in the 90th percentile of outcomes than there has been to lose in the 10th percentile. DCA is not offering protection from bad outcomes without also exposing us to a greater risk of missing good outcomes.
Â
Table 8 – Difference in Annualized Returns Starting at Bear Markets (LSI – DCA)
Â
Â
Data source:Â Dimensional Returns Web, CRSP, MSCI, S&P Dow Jones Indices, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
It's important for Nokia employees to keep in mind that our trigger to begin the investment period is a 20% drop. In some cases, a 20% drop is followed by more drops, while in other cases it is followed by a rebound. Based on the data in Tables 7 and 8 we can see that rebounds are more impactful, on average than further drops. This results in LSI delivering a better result than DCA most of the time, even during periods of market volatility.
In bear markets prices falls due to increased uncertainty, causing concern for investors deploying new cash. High prices can similarly make investors uneasy for fear of investing at a peak. To observe the relationship between market valuations and the relative performance of LSI and DCA we use the monthly Shiller CAPE ratio. Based on data availability we only observe US stock data. We will define expensive as the Shiller CAPE being in the 95th percentile of all historical monthly observations (February 1872 – May 2026). Comparing LSI to DCA when the market is in its 95th percentile of expensiveness, LSI beats DCA 54.24% of the time.Â
Â
Â
Â
Data source:Â Dimensional Returns Web, CRSP, Barclays Research, PWL Capital Inc.
Â
While it may seem concerning, this observation suffers from a massive bias: at any point in time we do not have the full set of past and future Shiller CAPE data to base a decision - we only have past data in our possession. We adjust for this by measuring the market’s expensiveness only relative to historical data for each data point. For example, for January 1926 we are comparing the Shiller CAPE to the set of data from February 1872 to January 1926, not from February 1872 to May 2026 to test for expansiveness. In this case, LSI beats DCA 63.70% of the time.
Â
Table 10 – LSI vs. DCA when Stock Prices are High Relative to Backward-looking History
Â
This exercise is to remind Nokia employees and retirees that while valuations may look high at a point in time, they can always get higher. Japan might be a particularly interesting case study on the usefulness of market valuations in making the LSI vs. DCA decision. We have less data for Japan, so instead of comparing historical Japanese data, we will compare Japanese valuations to US data to determine expensiveness. The highest level of the monthly Shiller CAPE for the full US historical data series is 44.19 which occurred in December 1999. Japan exceeded this level in May 1986 with a Shiller CAPE of 44.31. While the Japanese market did eventually crash in 1990, there are 29 monthly observations following May 1986 where LSI beats DCA by a wide margin. Even starting in November 1988, with a Shiller CAPE of 72.07, LSI beats DCA in Japan in terms of 10-year annualized returns.
Â
It is well-known that future returns tend to be relatively low when valuations are relatively high. Despite this, using valuation as a signal to time the LSI vs. DCA decision has historically resulted in unfavorable outcomes most of the time.
Â
If DCA seems like a solution to avoiding pain when investing new money, we think that it is a reasonable strategy. However, we also think that if the fear of loss is so great that DCA needs to be employed to make an asset allocation decision palatable, that asset allocation may be too aggressive. It should feel comfortable to invest a lump sum in a risk-appropriate portfolio. We do not want to imply that DCA should never be employed, but we do believe that if it feels necessary to use DCA in order to implement an asset allocation decision, it may be wise to revisit the portfolio altogether.
Dollar-cost averaging is the decision to gradually deploy a lump sum of cash into the stock market in order to avoid ex-post regretful timing. We have shown that, on average, dollar-cost averaging consistently trails lump sum investing about two-thirds of the time. This is true across stock markets and throughout history, and it is consistent with the historical nature of the equity risk premium. The implicit historical cost of dollar-cost averaging has been an annualized 0.38% over 10 years when compared to investing a lump sum.
Â
When lump sum investing has historically delivered its worst outcomes dollar-cost averaging has looked better than average, but it has not been a consistent remedy. It is not possible to know when lump sum investing will deliver its worst outcomes ahead of time, so we test two forward-looking measures.
Â
We find poor results for dollar-cost averaging during bear markets and when stock prices are high. Dollar-cost averaging tends to underperform lump sum investing during bear markets (53.66% of the time) and when stocks are trading in the 95th percentile of historical valuations (63.70% of the time).
Â
It's important for Nokia employees to note that given the data that supports lump sum investing, we believe that there is a strong statistical argument to avoid dollar cost averaging unless it is absolutely necessary from a psychological perspective, and if that is the case, we believe that the long-term asset allocation may need to be revised toward a more conservative portfolio.
The Retirement Group is a nation-wide group of financial advisors who work together as a team.
Â
We focus entirely on retirement planning and the design of retirement portfolios for transitioning corporate employees. Each representative of the group has been hand selected by The Retirement Group in select cities of the United States. Each advisor was selected based on their pension expertise, experience in financial planning, and portfolio construction knowledge.
What unique features and benefits does the Nokia Retirement Income Plan offer to its participants, and how can these benefits be maximized by current employees of Nokia of America Corporation? Additionally, what resources are available for employees to educate themselves about the various aspects of the plan, including eligibility, distribution options, and potential tax implications?
The Nokia Retirement Income Plan offers participants a defined benefit plan designed to provide financial security through retirement by supplementing Social Security and other retirement savings. Benefits can be maximized through strategies like ensuring accurate service records, understanding distribution options such as lump-sum payments or annuities, and consulting financial advisors to align these benefits with long-term retirement goals(Nokia of America Corpor…).
How does participation in the Nokia Retirement Income Plan facilitate financial security in retirement for employees, specifically in terms of pension benefit calculations and options such as lump-sum distributions or annuities? Moreover, what are some strategies that Nokia of America Corporation employees can employ to ensure they are fully prepared to utilize their retirement benefits as they transition towards retirement?
Participation in the Nokia Retirement Income Plan ensures financial security in retirement through pension benefit calculations based on service years and salary history. Employees can choose from options like lump-sum distributions or lifetime annuities. By carefully selecting a distribution option and incorporating it into a broader retirement strategy, employees can optimize financial outcomes(Nokia of America Corpor…).
With respect to changes in personal circumstances, such as marriage or divorce, what provisions does the Nokia Retirement Income Plan have to protect the benefits of employees from Nokia of America Corporation? How can employees navigate the complexities of Qualified Domestic Relations Orders (QDROs) within the context of their pension benefits, and what resources are available to assist them in this process?
The Nokia Retirement Income Plan protects benefits in cases of personal changes such as marriage or divorce through provisions like the Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO). Employees can consult the Nokia Benefits Resource Center for assistance in navigating QDROs to ensure a fair division of benefits. Guidance is available for understanding the QDRO requirements and how they apply to their pension(Nokia of America Corpor…).
What steps must employees take to initiate the commencement of their benefits from the Nokia Retirement Income Plan once they reach retirement age? Furthermore, what are the important considerations employees need to keep in mind regarding the selection of a payment form and any potential impact this may have on their overall financial strategy during retirement?
To initiate pension benefits under the Nokia Retirement Income Plan, employees must submit a claim when they reach retirement age. They should consider factors such as payment form options (lump sum or annuity) and the impact on long-term financial plans. Choosing the appropriate payment form is critical to maximizing retirement income(Nokia of America Corpor…).
How can employees of Nokia of America Corporation ensure their beneficiaries are properly designated under the Nokia Retirement Income Plan, and what implications does this designation have for benefit distribution in the event of their death? Additionally, what steps should employees take to update their beneficiary designations in light of significant life events?
Employees can ensure their beneficiaries are properly designated by updating their beneficiary forms through the Nokia Benefits Resource Center. Proper designation affects how benefits are distributed in the event of their death, and it is crucial to update designations after life events like marriage, divorce, or the birth of a child(Nokia of America Corpor…).
In terms of compliance with federal regulations, how does the Nokia Retirement Income Plan adhere to ERISA guidelines concerning employee benefits, and what rights do employees of Nokia of America Corporation possess under these regulations? Also, how can employees exercise their rights effectively if they encounter issues regarding their pension benefits?
The Nokia Retirement Income Plan complies with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), giving employees the right to receive information about their benefits and hold fiduciaries accountable. If employees face issues with their pension, they can exercise their rights through claims and appeals, with recourse available through legal action if necessary(Nokia of America Corpor…).
How does the Nokia of America Corporation support employees who might be eligible for a disability pension under the Nokia Retirement Income Plan, and what specific eligibility criteria must be met? Additionally, what resources are available to assist employees in understanding this facet of their retirement benefits?
Employees eligible for a disability pension under the Nokia Retirement Income Plan must meet specific criteria, such as proving permanent disability before reaching retirement age. Resources like the Nokia Benefits Resource Center can provide guidance on the eligibility process and required documentation(Nokia of America Corpor…).
What specific actions should an employee of Nokia of America Corporation take when applying for a pension benefit under the Nokia Retirement Income Plan, and what documentation is typically required to streamline this process? Furthermore, in the event of a claim denial, what recourse do employees have to challenge the decision through the plan's appeal process?
When applying for pension benefits, employees should provide documentation such as proof of age and employment history. In case of a denial, they have the right to appeal through the Employee Benefits Committee. If necessary, employees can further appeal to federal courts under ERISA(Nokia of America Corpor…).
How does the pension benefit guarantee from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) apply to employees of Nokia of America Corporation, and what are the limitations of this guarantee in protecting retirement benefits? Additionally, how can understanding these protections help employees make informed decisions regarding their retirement planning?
The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) guarantees benefits under the Nokia Retirement Income Plan in case the plan terminates. However, there are limitations, such as caps on benefit amounts. Understanding these protections helps employees make informed decisions about their retirement planning(Nokia of America Corpor…).
How can employees contact the Nokia Benefits Resource Center to gain more information about their benefits and the specific resources available under the Nokia Retirement Income Plan? What are the recommended communication channels and hours for reaching out to ensure timely and effective assistance?
Employees can contact the Nokia Benefits Resource Center through the Your Benefits Resources (YBR) website or by calling the designated phone line. It is recommended to use these channels during business hours (9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET) for timely assistance with pension-related questions(Nokia of America Corpor…).
For more information you can reach the plan administrator for Nokia at 600 mountain avenue Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636; or by calling them at 972-374-3000.
https://www.nokia.com/documents/pension-plan-2022.pdf - Page 5 https://www.nokia.com/documents/pension-plan-2023.pdf - Page 12 https://www.nokia.com/documents/pension-plan-2024.pdf - Page 15 https://www.nokia.com/documents/401k-plan-2022.pdf - Page 8 https://www.nokia.com/documents/401k-plan-2023.pdf - Page 22 https://www.nokia.com/documents/401k-plan-2024.pdf - Page 28 https://www.nokia.com/documents/rsu-plan-2022.pdf - Page 20 https://www.nokia.com/documents/rsu-plan-2023.pdf - Page 14 https://www.nokia.com/documents/rsu-plan-2024.pdf - Page 17 https://www.nokia.com/documents/healthcare-plan-2022.pdf - Page 23
Choose the topics you’d love to read more about. Your input helps us focus on content that matters to you.