Naughty or Nice?

“You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout…”

Those are, of course, the opening lyrics to that holiday classic, “Santa Claus is Coming to Town.” And while the tune is jaunty enough, the message—that there’s some kind of elfin “eye in the sky” keeping tabs on us has always struck me as just a little bit… creepy.

That said, once upon a time, as Christmas neared, it was not uncommon for my wife and I to caution our occasionally misbehaving brood that they had best be attentive to how their (not uncommon) misbehaviors might be viewed by the big guy at the North Pole.

In support of that notion, a few years back—well, now it’s quite a few years back—when my kids still believed in the (SPOILER ALERT) reality of Santa Claus, we discovered an ingenious website[i] that purported to offer a real-time assessment of their “naughty or nice” status.

Indeed, no amount of parental threats or admonishments—in fact, nothing we ever said or did—ever managed to have the impact of that website—if not on their behaviors (they were kids, after all), then certainly on the their level of concern about the consequences. 

In fact, in one of his final years as a “believer,” my son (who, it must be acknowledged, had been particularly “naughty” that year) was on the verge of tears, panic-stricken– following a particularly worrisome “reading[ii]”—concerned not so much that he’d misbehaved, and certainly not that he’d disappointed his parents with his misbehaviors—but that as a result, he'd find nothing under our Christmas tree but the lumps of coal[iii] he so surely “deserved.”

Making a List?

Every year about this time we read survey after survey recounting the “bad” savings behaviors of American workers. And, despite the regularity of these findings, must of those responding to the ubiquitous surveys about their (lack of) retirement confidence and their (lack of) preparations don’t offer much, if anything, in the way of rational responses to those shortcomings (even) though they (apparently) see a connection between their retirement needs and their savings (mis)behaviors. 

Now, arguably in this (yet another) pandemic-driven year, and now with inflation fears looming ever larger, those pressures have been magnified—but this is not a new concern. Indeed, the reality has long been that a significant number will, when asked to assess their retirement confidence, generally acknowledge that there are things they could—and know they should have—done differently. Retirees routinely bemoan and regret their lack of attention to such things. Sadly, if there’s anything as predictable as the end of year regrets, it’s the perennial list of new year’s resolutions to (finally) do something about it. 

So if they know they’ve been “naughty”—why don’t they do something about it? 

Well, some certainly can’t—or can’t for a time—but most who respond to these surveys seem to fall in another category. It’s not that they actually believe in a retirement version of St. Nick, though that’s essentially how they seem to (mis)behave. They carry on as though, somehow, these “naughty” savings behaviors throughout the year(s) notwithstanding, they'll be able to pull the wool over the eyes of that myopic, portly old gentleman in a red snowsuit—that at their retirement date, despite their lack of attentiveness during the year(s), that benevolent elf will descend their chimneys with a bag full of cold, hard cash from the North Pole. Or that sufficient time (or market gain) remains to remedy their “wrongs.”

Unfortunately, like my son in that week before Christmas, many worry too late to meaningfully influence the outcome.

A World of Possibilities

Now, the volume of presents under our Christmas tree never really had anything to do with our kids’ behavior. As parents, we nurtured their belief in Santa Claus as long as we thought we could (without subjecting them to the ridicule of their classmates), not because we truly expected it to modify their behavior (though we hoped, from time to time), but because we believed that children should have a chance to believe, if only for a little while, in those kinds of possibilities.

We all live in a world of possibilities, of course. But as adults we realize—or should—that those possibilities are frequently bounded in by the reality of our behaviors, as well as our circumstances. And while this is a season of giving, of coming together, of sharing with others, it is also a time of year when we should all be making a list and checking it twice—taking note, and making changes to what is “naughty and nice” about our personal behaviors—including our savings behaviors. To “be good,” not for “goodness” sake, but for what we all hope is the “goodness” of financial “freedom” in our lives.

Yes, Virginia,[iv] as it turns out, there is a retirement savings Santa Claus—but he looks a lot like you, assisted by “helpers” like your workplace retirement plan, your employer’s matching contributions—and your trusted retirement plan advisors and providers.

Happy Holidays!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] And it’s still online at http://www.claus.com/naughtyornice/index.php.htm.

[ii] And yes, though this was before smartphones, there was a tendency to constantly check in. That said, there do appear to be a number of apps online now that purport to fulfill a similar function. 

[iii] For those unfamiliar with that reference: https://abc7chicago.com/st-nicholas-day-saint-lumps-of-coal/4846172/

[iv] In case you’re curious as to that reference… https://www.newseum.org/exhibits/online/yes-virginia-there-is-a-santa-claus/

Bundled Versus Unbundled: 5 Myths

 As human beings, we’re often motivated to seek simpler solutions to life’s challenges. But sometimes “simpler”… isn’t. 

While there are some amazing bundled solutions, ERISA’s admonition to act solely in the interests of plan participants (and beneficiaries), alongside the requirement that those be reasonable in terms of cost and value, call for a careful and considered evaluation. 

In that vein, there are some “myths” that seem to be prevalent regarding those choices, perceptions that persist even today. Here are some points to consider:

An unbundled approach is more expensive.

The reality is, it can be—depending on the point of comparison. If all other things are “equal,” then certainly engaging another level of service and compliance oversight can bring with it additional costs. Then again, engaging the services of a third-party administrator[i] (TPA)—at least the right TPA—is hardly an “all other things equal” comparison. Their involvement and engagement may well streamline the time involved in reconciling data and contribution flows, could provide insights on plan design that could save money and enhance benefits, positions them to coordinate communications on plan audits—and, significantly, likely forestalls the need for plan corrections, fees and fines. 

It might appear to cost more on the front-end—but it could more than pay for itself in other ways.

With bundled solutions, there is a single point of contact.

With most bundled solutions, it’s probably more accurate to say that there is a single starting point of contact. No matter how gifted, talented and powerful the designated point of contact for a given plan is, there are inevitably silos of information and resolution. For example, legal questions are routinely passed along to other departments, payroll reconciliations in another—those resources are not only in another department, they may often be in another state—or time zone. 

That doesn’t mean there’s no value in that single designated contact—but it’s rarely a “one-stop” shop. 

Using a third party complicates communications.

Without question, adding a TPA to the plan’s “phone tree” does add another point of contact when it comes to communications regarding plan compliance or administration. On the other hand, the right TPA can actually centralize and even streamline critical communications between the plan sponsor and recordkeeper, or with payroll. It might look like another point of contact—but it could actually simplify and consolidate the number of calls that have to be made—and, more importantly, could reduce the need for calls to correct the misunderstandings inevitable in telephone “tag.”

TPAs are best suited for smaller plans.

Smaller plans—where plan designs frequently take into account specific objectives of the business owner (including complications of things like top-heavy testing)—are certainly a good fit for the expertise of a TPA. That said, issues with payroll, compensation definitions, eligibility evaluation and vesting determination are issues with which plans of every size and shape must deal—not to mention the correction process with the DOL and IRS when things don’t happen as they are supposed to. A good TPA can mitigate the former, and smooth the way with the latter, should the need arise. 

All TPAs are the same.

All of the responses above are conditional—on engaging the “right” TPA, or a good TPA. But TPAs, like bundled providers (and advisors), are comprised of individuals of varying levels of skill, talent, experience and commitment. It’s important to find the one(s) that fit your needs—and those of your plan sponsor clients. 

Things—administration, compliance, and yes, correction—have grown significantly more complicated over the years and today TPAs not only keep up with participant accounts, they can be an invaluable resource to plan sponsors—and advisors—on issues like regulatory compliance and plan design.  

That makes it hard to obtain an apples-to-apples comparison. Indeed, the fact that each record keeper has a different process for… just about everything, makes it easy for things to fall by the wayside if you don’t have a clear assignment of responsibilities with every party involved.

Those looking for a good place to start that assessment can find it in this year’s NAPA-Net Black Book listing of TPAs—or among the membership of our sister association, the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (ASPPA). 

Because sometimes the best way to keep things “together” is to break them apart…  

See also “What’s in a Name?” and Resource ‘Full’?

---

[i] It’s worth noting that your recordkeeper is a TPA.

An Insiders' Perspectve(s)

There’s nothing like the NAPA 401(k) Summit—particularly being at the NAPA 401(k) Summit after the many months and a worldwide pandemic that kept us all apart. 

Each year for the past four years we’ve taken advantage of that gathering (including in 2020 when we gathered “virtually”) to reach out[i] to the nation’s top retirement plan advisors to glean their perspective on a wide range of issues relating to their practice—and practices. 

This year’s Summit Insider was no exception—as we “consulted” with more than 500 retirement plan advisors and home office staff on a range of issues—the criteria in selecting—and rejecting—key business relationships, the things that are over-hyped—and the things that no one is talking about—but that everyone, at least in the eyes of these “Insiders,” should be. We also got some insights on retirement income, important features in choosing target-date funds, rollovers and outcomes. 

We’ve included a number of verbatim comments on what these “Insiders” wish that plan sponsors knew, or knew better. Sometimes those words are harsh, sometimes reassuring—but we asked advisors for their insights, and they were generous in doing so. I only wish we had room to share them all.

Key Findings

Among the key findings:

• Glidepath philosophy topped the criteria on selecting target-date funds, slightly outpacing 5-year performance.
• More than half of the advisors surveyed focus on measuring outcomes at the plan level during every plan review.
• Nearly two-thirds deliver financial wellness as a component of their current service offerings—another 17% do so through an external partner.
• ESG remains the most “overhyped” trend in the industry, outpacing robo-advice and MEPs/PEPs by a significant margin.
• Portability was deemed the most influential/compelling factor to respondents’ plan sponsor clients in considering a retirement income solution. It was also the most cited factor influencing advisor considerations.
• Client support and market intel were tied as the most-valued support from the DC wholesaler partners.
• Service was—still—the dominant criteria in selecting a TPA partner.  
• Rollovers, the SECURE Act’s expansion of a retirement income safe harbor, including lifetime income disclosures on participant statements, managed accounts, and e-delivery were all rated as “positive game changers.” However, a third rated managed accounts as “much ado about not much.”
• Legislation to allow student loan repayment matching was cited as a positive gain changer by 7 in 10, and legislation to expand emergency savings accounts drew “positive game changer” support of 60%. 
• The Labor Department’s fiduciary (re)proposal? A plurality (43%) said it was “too soon to say.” Which, as we’re still waiting for it, seems reasonable (if not obvious). 
• Recordkeeper consolidation was viewed as a negative game changer by nearly half (46%), though a quarter (23%) saw it as a positive.

As for what they wished plan sponsors knew more about, the list included “their roles and responsibilities,” the role(s) of other parties servicing the plan, fees, plan design, plan operations—oh, and “our roles,” of course. The verbatim quotes here are, as you might imagine, “priceless.”

A special thanks to the hundreds of retirement plan advisors who took the time to provide such thoughtful responses—and to the sponsors of this fourth edition of the Summit Insider. Which NAPA members can find in your mail—or online at https://www.napa-net.org/industry-intel/summit-insider.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

The 4% "Solution?"

A recent white paper has garnered a lot of discussion by casting “shade” on a traditional premise about retirement plan withdrawals.

The premise—a so-called “rule of thumb[i]”—isn’t all that old, actually; it dates back only to 1994, when financial planner William Bengen[ii] claimed that over every rolling 30-year time horizon since 1926, retirees holding a portfolio that consisted 50% of stocks and 50% of fixed-income securities could have safely withdrawn an annual amount equal to 4% of their original assets, adjusted for inflation without… running out of money. 

That said, even though it was predicated on a number of assumptions that might not be true in the real world—a 30-year withdrawal period, a 50/50 portfolio mix of stocks and bonds, assumptions about inflation—oh, and a schedule of withdrawals unaltered by life’s changing circumstances (not to mention a 90% probability of success)—a recent Morningstar paper challenged its conclusions in view of “current conditions.”

The controversy, if it warrants that name, was that Morningstar said that 4% might no longer be “feasible”—that there might be a better number—more specifically that the “confluence of low starting yields on bonds and equity valuations that are high relative to historical norms, retirees are unlikely to receive returns that match those of the past”—and thus, “using forward-looking estimates for investment performance and inflation,” the Morningstar authors said that the standard rule of thumb should be lowered to 3.3% from 4%. 

Said another way, your retirement savings likely won’t last as long as you might have thought they would, and with surging inflation in the headlines, that conclusion certainly engendered a lot of media attention.

Now, in fairness, the paper states at the outset that they are not recommending a withdrawal rate of 3.3%, which they characterize as “conservative.” How so? Well, they note that it is based on four factors: 

1. a time horizon that exceeds most retirees’ expected life spans; 
2. it fully adjusts all withdrawals for the effect of inflation; 
3. it does not react to changes in the investment markets; and 
4. it’s based on a “high projected success rate”—90%.

Moreover—and significantly, despite the ensuing headlines of other publications—they explain that “by adjusting one or more of those levers, current retirees can safely withdraw a significantly higher amount that the 3.3% initial projection might suggest.”

Now, there’s been plenty of evidence—both empirical and anecdotal—that retirement “spends” aren’t nice, even streams. Life’s circumstances change, of course—and our health care, and health care costs, are notoriously variable. There’s a sense that the pace of spending earlier in retirement is more like that anticipated in most retirement education brochures—travelling and such—but that pace slows down as we do. 

In fact, I remember my one and only conversation with my father about retirement income. He had already decided to quit working, and had gathered his assorted papers regarding his savings, insurance, etc. for me to review. Determined to “dazzle” Dad with my years of accumulated financial acumen, I proceeded to outline an impressive array of options that offered different degrees of security and opportunities for growth, the pros and cons of annuities, and how best to integrate it all with his Social Security.

And yet, when I was all done, he looked over all the materials I had spread out before him, then turned to me and said—“So how much will I have to live on each month?”

At its core, once you stipulate certain assumptions about the length of retirement, portfolio mix/returns, and inflation, a guideline like the 4% “rule” is really just a mathematical exercise. A 4% “rule” may be simplistic, but it’s also simple—and when it comes to getting your arms around complex financial concepts and distant future events, there’s something to be said for that. 

But looking for a 4% ”solution” is arguably looking to solve the wrong problem.  

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] And the origins of that phrase are likely different from what you’ve been told—see https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/rule-of-thumb.html.

[ii] Who, interestingly enough, opined earlier this year that it might now be a 4.5% rule…