Shopping for a new provider is not something one would normally
equate with a Black Friday foray or a Cyber Week scramble. But if you
have a plan sponsor — or plan sponsor prospect — who’s thinking about
shopping for a new provider, here are some ideas to share.
Make a list — and yes, check it twice.
In an area fraught with as much potential complexity as searching for
a retirement plan provider, it’s easy to think you can learn what you
need to look for by simply going through the process. And while it’s
certainly a learning process, doing so without a sense of core needs is a
bit like going grocery shopping on an empty stomach; everything will
sound good, and you’ll likely overload on the “sugar” (and perhaps
overpay as well).
Even Santa Claus makes a list — so should you: of plan design features (real and anticipated) that you want supported.
Don’t neglect the problems.
Odds are if a plan sponsor is serious about a change in providers,
there’s a reason – and it’s usually a sign of trouble, a problem, or
worse – more than one problem. Even if that’s not the primary
motivation, even the most well-run plan and satisfied plan sponsor has
in their memory some issues, service shortfalls, or perhaps service
incapability that have left a bitter taste.
The best way to avoid disappointment is to be clear about
expectations – making sure that those are detailed and shared plainly
with potential providers, preferably with a preface of “what
procedures/protocols do you have in place to prevent something like….”
Give yourself plenty of time.
There’s nothing quite like the adrenaline rush of snagging that last
desired item from the store shelves or happening upon that cyber deal
minutes before it is slated to expire. And yet those moments are surely
outnumbered, if not eclipsed, by the many more times that those who
defer action until the last minute walk away empty-handed.
Human beings are, generally speaking, poor judges of time
requirements, particularly with things with which they don’t have a lot
experience (like provider searches) and that require the
involvement/input of committees (like provider searches). Even those who
are lucky enough to accurately gauge and/or have sway over the
multitude of unforeseen obstacles and distractions that inevitably
emerge, may well find that the provider of choice has time restrictions
of their own. The good ones tend to fill their on-boarding queues
quickly, after all – and plan sponsors who make their decisions late may
well find that opportunity door has closed.
Have — and know — your budget.
These services aren’t free, though we all know they may be packaged
in such a way that the plan sponsor doesn’t have to write a check. At a
minimum, plan sponsors should know how much they are able — and willing —
to pay. Beyond that, whether they write a check or not, they’d be
well-advised, as a plan fiduciary, to be attentive to the cost(s) of the
plan, who’s going to be pay them, and how those who provide services to
the plan will be paid, and by whom. And they should have a functional
understanding of how that compares with alternatives (including the
incumbent arrangement).
Remember that provider rankings are only a starting point.
I’ve never put much stock in online consumer ratings – even before we
discovered that some of those are bought and paid for by the
products/firms rated. Sometimes those ratings contain clues that can
help inform your decision, of course, but I’ve never really understood
the value in knowing what a complete stranger thinks/feels about a book,
music album, movie or restaurant. Complicating matters is the very
human tendency to “weigh in” mostly on things you absolutely love – or
absolutely loathe.
Think about it — a finite number of plan sponsors (often an
infinitesimally small percentage of their actual client base) about
which you know nothing – including all the things that factor into such
perspectives – the complexity of plan design, capabilities of staff or
breadth of perspective/experience or tenure with the provider – rate
those provider capabilities on some arbitrary point scale, and from that
some kind of satisfaction score is gleaned (sometimes, god forbid, it’s
an average of averages).
It’s not a bad place to start, if only to winnow the field of
consideration — but like those rankings on Amazon, they have a limited
value in predicting YOUR satisfaction with that platform. They’ll more
likely affirm your preexisting preferences or fuel your imbedded
concerns, but they aren’t much benefit in creating new ones.
Trust — but verify — references.
Anybody who’s paying attention will vet references before passing
them along. As a consequence, proffered references are, almost by
definition, going to be positive (though I never cease to be amazed how
many are simply dredged up from an old RPF file without being
refreshed).
But even vetted and verified references can provide insights. Press
for references that are similar in terms of plan size, design and
complexity. It’s often insightful to look for a similar plan who has
converted to their platform in the past year — better still, someone who
has left that platform in the past year (though it will likely be due
to M&A activity, not service or fees). Those who have recently
transitioned can be a fount of real-world wisdom on things such as what
questions they wished they had asked when they went through their
process.
Get help.
Unless they are a serial provider shopper (and if they are, watch
out), odds are they aren’t expert at the business of shopping for a
provider. It is a complicated and time-consuming process, with an
abundance of opportunities for disconnect in expectations simply because
the “right” question(s) aren’t asked, and sometimes because the “wrong”
answers aren’t recognized as such.
Plan sponsors are, of course, as an ERISA fiduciary, expected to
review (and subsequently monitor) those that provide services to the
plan with the skill and expertise of a prudent expert. Those who lack
that expertise are expected to engage the services of someone who does.
Lest they wind up finding that all that shiny wrapping is just covering up what turns out to be a lump of coal instead.
- Nevin E. Adams, JD
No comments:
Post a Comment