Direction-Less?

Generalizations are often misleading, but I think it’s fair to say that some people (specifically those of the male gender) are notoriously reluctant to ask for directions—even when it’s painfully clear to everyone else traveling in their company that they are “lost.” If you’re not one of those people, I’ll bet you know someone (and probably more than one someone) who is.¹

The rationalizations offered by those refusing to seek help are as varied and variable as the individual circumstances that bring those hesitations to light: a shortage of time; certainty that, however lost they seem, they actually know where they are (or will be shortly); a lack of trust in the reliability of the instructions they might receive; the inconvenience of stopping…this despite the knowledge (frequently even among those reluctant to ask directions) that the modest investment of time to seek assistance will likely be far less than the time (and aggravation) that they will expend trying to find their own way.

When it comes to retirement planning, reluctance to seek help seems even more widespread. In fact, the 2013 Retirement Confidence Survey found that fewer than half of workers surveyed have ever tried to calculate what they need to save for a comfortable retirement (see “Guess Work?”)—and that’s not a new finding in a survey that now spans nearly a quarter-century.

The use of retirement planning “help,” in the form of on-line calculators and professional retirement advisors, has been linked to higher levels of retirement confidence—and with justification, according to new EBRI research.³ Turns out that the respondents to the 2013 Retirement Confidence Survey² in the lowest-income quartile who had sought the input of a financial advisor cited savings goals that, compared with those who did not, would reduce the risk of running short of money in retirement by anywhere from 9 to nearly 13 percentage points, depending on family status and gender. Those in the lowest-income quartile who used calculators chose savings targets that would, if they achieved those goals, decrease their probability of running short of money in retirement by anywhere from 14 to more than 18 percentage points.

Unfortunately, only about one-fourth of the sample studied (25.6 percent) used either of these two methods.

Why, then, have so few sought direction? Doubtless the reasons for not doing so mirror those above: a lack of time, a lack of confidence in the directions, or in the individual providing that assistance. Perhaps in the case of retirement projection calculators, the tools may be too hard to find, too complicated to use, or simply just one thing too much to do in an already too-busy day. This, it seems fair to say, despite the knowledge that seeking help would surely provide a better outcome.

What about those who didn’t seek help, who “guessed” at those retirement savings targets? Well, there were more in that category in the RCS sampling (44.6 percent)—and, perhaps not surprisingly, they tended to underestimate their savings needs—in effect, citing a goal that would leave them short of their projected financial needs in retirement.

Baseball great Yogi Berra once cautioned that “You’ve got to be very careful if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might not get there.” When it comes to retirement, the problem generally isn’t getting there—it’s getting there before you are ready.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

¹ These individuals may be harder to spot these days with the widespread availability of GPS devices, but they can still be found.

² See the 2013 RCS, on-line here.

³ “A Little Help: The Impact of On-line Calculators and Financial Advisors on Setting Adequate Retirement-Savings Targets: Evidence from the 2013 Retirement Confidence Survey” on-line here.

Replacement “Window”

There is an old adage that cautions about the consequences “when you assume…”

And yet, the business of retirement planning is replete with any number of so-called “common wisdom” rules of thumb. Doubtless many have well-intentioned origins – to make complicated concepts easier to grasp, and thus to address.

One of the more pervasive notions is that a realistic target for retirement savings can be determined by accumulating a sum that will provide an income stream equal to a percentage of one’s pre-retirement earnings – a sum that is generally expressed as 70-80% of what you earn prior to retirement. This starting point - generally called
a "replacement ratio" - includes any number of imbedded assumptions, perhaps most significantly that the individual will need to spend less post-retirement, generally understood to be on things such as taxes, housing, and various work-related expenses (including saving for retirement).

Moreover, the replacement rate approach represents, at best, an indirect approach in evaluating whether retired workers can maintain their standard of living in retirement – because what matters is not how much you have to spend, but how much you need to spend. A recent research report sponsored by the Society of Actuaries’ Pension Section, “Moving Beyond the Limitations of Traditional Replacement Rates”, also highlights the limitations of relying on replacement rates. A recent paper published by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (“How Much to Save for a Secure Retirement”) acknowledges that “the most direct approach would be a comparison of household consumption while working with consumption after retirement” – before launching into a discussion that instead draws on a relatively simplistic series of assumptions , not the least of which is that the goal of retirement saving is a replacement rate of 80-percent of one’s pre-retirement income.

The problem is that these assumptions are just that – and, as a result, in some cases that 80% will be more than is required – and for some it will, unfortunately, be less. Furthermore, most of the assumptions underpinning such replacement ratio targets are implicitly using a 50 percent probability of success.

Additionally, these replacement rate models tend to ignore one – or more – of the most important retirement risks; investment risk, longevity risk, and risk of potentially catastrophic health care costs.

The reality is that there is no “correct” single replacement rate, but the factors that undermine those simplistic rules of thumb are quantifiable. Those factors, and the importance of probabilities in retirement planning are detailed in “Measuring Retirement Income Adequacy: Calculating Realistic Income Replacement Rates (EBRI Issue Brief No. 297).

After all, it isn’t what you have accumulated at retirement that matters, it’s how much you have left at the end of it.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Best for Success

Today PLANSPONSOR opens nominations for our Retirement Plan Adviser of the Year awards.

Each year we receive a number of inquiries from advisers and plan sponsors about the awards, and many of these fall into a category I tend to think of as “exploratory”—feelers as to what we are looking for.

At its core, what we hope to acknowledge—and, thus, what we are looking for—hasn’t changed from when we first launched the award in 2005: advisers who make a difference by enhancing the nation’s retirement security, through their support of plan sponsor and plan participant information, support, and education. Since its inception, we’ve focused on advisers who do so through quantifiable measures: increased participation, higher deferral rates, better plan and participant asset allocation, and delivering expanded service and/or better expense management.

A Different World

The world has, of course, undergone much change since we first launched those awards, and advisers now have an expanded array of tools at their disposal to make those results a reality—legislatively sanctioned automatic enrollment, contribution-acceleration designs, qualified default investment alternatives, and a broadly greater emphasis on transparency and disclosure of fees. These steps have been good for our industry, great for participant retirement security and, IMHO, have served to raise the bar for our award at the same time.

So, what will we be looking for this year? Well, there are many attributes that can make for a good adviser, or an adviser that is good for a particular plan. But when it comes to choosing an adviser or adviser team that stands apart from the rest, that not only sets an example, but a standard for the industry, I look for advisers that:

Have established measures and benchmarks for plan success. Those benchmarks should include the measures noted above: participation, deferral rates, asset allocation. If an adviser can’t tell me what those targets are and how your plan stands in relation to those targets, IMHO, they are using the “wrong” benchmarks. I’m also interested in advisers who not only use those as a matter of course in running their business, but who develop them in partnership with their plan sponsor clients—and who regularly and routinely communicate those results.


Fully and freely disclose their compensation. I’m frankly a lot less concerned with how advisers get paid than that their plan sponsor clients know what they are paying for those services.

Work at staying current on trends, regulations, and product offerings. The best advisers read, attend conferences and/or informational webcasts, have attained (and maintained) applicable designations, and commit to a regular course of continuing education during the course of the year. This business is constantly changing; if your adviser is not constantly learning, you are being left behind.

Encourage and inspire their clients. Client referrals have always been a key element in our award, and as the overall quantitative standards rise, the significance of the qualitative element afforded by client references (and award nominations) will almost certainly increase. How often does your adviser talk with you? How often do they visit? How—and how often—do they communicate with you regarding regulatory and legislative changes? Do you feel like they know what’s going on – or are you generally the one to break the news to your adviser?

Are willing to accept fiduciary status with the plans they serve. This is an area our judges have debated vigorously over the years. I’ll admit some great advisers have been blocked from accepting fiduciary status by forces they don’t control. I’m not (yet) saying you have to be willing to accept fiduciary status in order to get my vote, but it’s a factor—and, IMHO, an increasingly important one.

That’s what I’m looking for—and looking forward to acknowledging—this year. If your adviser – or adviser team – is worthy of that recognition, I hope you will take the time to nominate them today!

You can nominate an adviser colleague or associate for PLANSPONSOR’s Retirement Plan Adviser of the Year, or Retirement Plan Adviser Team of the Year at https://www.research.net/s/5XYL2KR

Out of Proportion

Without question the retirement plan industry has prospered from the long-standing practice of relying heavily – and in some situations, completely - on asset-based fees.

Now, you can certainly argue that that has resulted in plans paying for services they would not otherwise have engaged, and that it has, in some cases, led to plans paying more than they might if they had been more cognizant of the dollars expended. Indeed, one can argue that the imbedding of those fees inside the fund structure has made it easy, perhaps too easy, for the industry to collect its tolls without drawing the kind of scrutiny they were entitled to.

On the other hand, that structure has made it easier for the industry to provide a broad-based level of sophisticated services to plans of all sizes, and has doubtless made it possible for plans to contemplate hiring an adviser that, regardless of the need and/or benefit, would otherwise have been discouraged by an explicit charge for those services.


That said, there are some issues attendant with the current asset-based fee structure that, IMHO, bear discussion:

Asset-based fees go up – pretty much all the time.

For most of the existence of the 401(k), the markets have been fairly good, and as they say, a rising tide lifts all boats. In this particular case, rising markets have also meant rising fees. Proportionately rising fees, of course, but rising fees nonetheless. That, in turn, has meant that those who make their living off asset-based fees have seen some pretty nice pay increases over time – without necessarily having to do anything more or different to “earn” them. Even in bad markets, the steady flow of contributions has cushioned the blow that might otherwise have tamped them down.

Asset-based fees go down when the work – and risks – go up.

One of the great ironies of asset-based fees is that they do sometimes go down, and at the most “inconvenient” times. One need look back only as far as the fourth quarter of 2008 to remember a precipitous decline in asset values – and asset-value-based fees - at the very same time that many noted a steep increase in the “care and feeding” of plan sponsors and participants who had been shaken by what was happening to their retirement plans (not to mention their plans for retirement). Of course, it would probably be viewed as unseemly (at best) to raise your fees during such times – but that is when your work, and your risks, are generally rising.

The bigger your balance, the more you pay.

Admittedly, when you’re talking about fees based on assets, it makes sense that the more assets you have, the more fees you pay. Perhaps that makes a modicum of sense when you are talking about things like investment management (even then, it seems to me that those with large balances are carrying an ironically disproportionate, albeit proportionate amount of the fees). As “industry insiders”, we all know this – indeed, some go so far as to see a more high-minded result; the “rich” underwriting the costs of the less rich, if you will.

On the other hand, it’s not just the rich that have larger balances – frequently those are the balances of lower-income workers who have, nonetheless, been long-time diligent savers. So, said another way, it’s older, longer-tenured workers are underwriting the costs of the folks who have just joined the plan.

Different funds “share” differently

We all know that different types (and brands) of mutual funds charge different fees. What is less obvious to many plan sponsors is that different types (and brands) of mutual funds provide different amounts of revenue sharing. It is not atypical for a plan sponsor to sit down with a recordkeeper, to figure out what the recordkeeping charges will be, to determine what the aggregate amount of the revenue-sharing rebates will be, and then to determine how to manage the difference. But if some funds provide higher levels of revenue-sharing, then the participants investing in those funds are, effectively, shouldering a larger proportion of the administrative costs of the plan.

There are administrative ways to “level” these fee allocations, but many plan sponsors aren’t even aware that this has crept in.

Out of “sight” IS out of mind.

To me the biggest issue with those “imbedded” asset-based fees is that you never really see how much actual money you’re paying. Oh, it’s not like the fees aren’t “disclosed”, and it’s not as though it’s rocket science to figure it out, at least at a high level. But most plan sponsors are lured into what I consider to be the faux comparisons of basis points, rather than actually stopping to figure out what 100 basis points times the assets in a particular fund actually adds up to – and who gets how much for what.


The reality of our world is that a large, and growing number, of retirement plan advisers are already “fee for service”, and the fee disclosure regulations are widely seen as accelerating that trend.

That said, our industry has gotten comfortable, some even complacent, with a fee system structure that tends to raise, not lower, fees over time, a system that apportions fees on a basis that often has little to do with the costs of providing the services it supports, and one that tends to obscure the real costs of the services they ostensibly underwrite.

The current structure may have been “convenient” – but just because it’s “proportionate”, doesn’t mean it’s always fair.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

The Enemy of the Good?

Over the past couple of years 401(k) evaluation service BrightScope has made quite a splash.

Early on, most folks I spoke with were quite keen on what was being undertaken by the firm. 401(k) fees were unfortunately still mystery meat to many plan sponsors, and thus a service that purported to help them make sense - not only of what they paid, but how it compared to other programs - looked to be a godsend.

As time has worn on, there have been questions and concerns. The data that underlaid Brightscope’s computations was drawn from government files – and while that made it “official”, it apparently didn’t always mean it was accurate, and it surely didn’t make it timely (though the latter is getting better all the time). Moreover, BrightScope employs a proprietary methodology that relies on certain weightings and assumptions that not everyone would agree with – but then, it’s a proprietary methodology, after all. If you don’t like it, or don’t think it does a fair job of representing the real situation, one has only to say so.

What made them different, at least at the outset, was that they went public with that information – and by public, we mean all the way to retail participants - with data for a vast number of plans, and with a good deal of press coverage, to boot.
That created a modest amount of consternation for some plan sponsors and advisers – not because they had a problem (though some surely did), but because the data presented to the public about their plan and its relative competitiveness vis-à-vis other programs (particularly on the sensitive issue of fees) was, as noted above, incomplete, inaccurate, and/or out of date. None of which the BrightScope folks contested, by the way. But in the couple of conversations I have had with them on the subject, their response has been “if our data is wrong, tell us and we’ll fix it.”


Last week BrightScope turned its attention to financial advisers with its BrightScope Advisor Pages; not to rank them or rate them (though who would be surprised to see that come to the fore one day – particularly since there are already placeholders for “qualifications”, “experience”, and “conduct” on the new adviser tool), but rather to provide information to the public. Data that, like the retirement plan information noted above, wasn’t in one place, wasn’t easy to find, and surely isn’t easy to understand for many. And then, as it had with the retirement plan analytics information that launched the firm, it rolled its adviser database out – to everyone.

Well, advisers are sensitive about such things (with good reason), and a number have already checked out the database and found “issues.” Mike Alfred, co-founder and CEO of BrightScope told me last week that “…many of the “errors” we’re being accused of are really just issues with the advisor’s ADV or U-4 which they did not notice until it was published in this format”. And, as was the case with the retirement plan filings, Mike noted that “Once we get the updated information from a public filing, we will always move quickly to have it updated on the site because our foremost concern is having accurate data”.

Of course, I’m guessing that getting “updated information from a public filing” isn’t an overnight process, and Mike acknowledged that the BrightScope team has been “slammed by a very large volume of incoming requests to claim the Advisor Pages profile as well as general messages of both support and dismay.” More troubling have been the published reports and emails from advisers who say they’ve been told they will have to pay to have their information corrected (or at least strongly encouraged to do so), though Alfred dismissed that as “totally untrue.”

Still, the public release of data that may be old, inaccurate, and/or outdated is surely cause for some concern, and hopefully speedy remediation by BrightScope, where appropriate.

After all, Voltaire once famously said that the perfect is the enemy of the good. But IMHO, the real enemy of the good is more often “not ready yet”.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

“Smoke” Signals

Plan sponsors spend a lot of time wondering—and worrying—about the “right” way to do things. They rely on the guidance of experts, the insights of publications like ours, the black—though often gray—letter of the law, and sometimes they must rely on the occasionally contradictory adjudications of the courts.

Those contradictions have been much in evidence in the series of 401(k) revenue-sharing lawsuits, which, IMHO, continue to suffer from what seems to be a confusing “flexibility” in judicial discernment regarding the standards of fiduciary responsibility and application of ERISA’s 404(c) safe harbors. In fact, it is only a matter of time until some plan sponsor somewhere files an injury claim for whiplash incurred from simply trying to keep up with the direction of these decisions.

The most recent example was the case of Gerald George vs. Kraft Foods Global (see Appellate Court Sends Back Kraft Fee Case), a case the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded (albeit in a split 2-1 decision) for further deliberation to a District Court—which had already determined that there was no issue presented that required a formal adjudication, while granting the employer-defendant’s motion for summary judgment (see Kraft Excessive Fee Case Thrown Out).

That District Court, which relied heavily on the decision of this same federal appellate court ruling in Hecker v. Deere & Co., reasoned that ERISA requires only that fiduciaries use a “reasoned decisionmaking process” that utilizes the appropriate methods to decide on a proper course of action in running a plan, and that in continuing to employ its current recordkeeper (Hewitt Associates) , the Kraft fiduciaries were under no obligation “to scour the market” for the cheapest fund or service provider (see “Reasonable Redoubts”).


However, in the recent appellate decision, we find that, since hiring Hewitt in 1995, the plan’s fiduciaries had not solicited competitive bids from other recordkeepers—a finding that raised my eyebrows, as it doubtless would most retirement professionals. Now, one should always be careful in reading judicial explanations of the facts on which they based their decisions as a complete picture, but this court said that the defendants “…emphasized that they engaged several independent consultants for advice as to the reasonableness of Hewitt’s fee and argued that in doing so they satisfied their duty to ensure that Hewitt’s fees were reasonable”—a statement that the appellate court juxtaposed against a statement that, over a 10-year period, “fees paid to Hewitt ranged between $43 and $65 per participant per year.”

The implication seemed to be that casual conversations with “independent consultants” were no replacement for a full-blown competitive bidding process—and the fee trend, lacking context, was an eye-opener as well. But the District Court outlined a series of plan changes and negotiations over that time period that painted a very different picture and were anything but “casual.” True, one might well wonder why a full RFP wasn’t issued, but the District Court opinion paints a picture of lots of merger-related plan changes; an active discussion, review, and comparison of fees; alongside a pattern of negotiation that both reduced fees and/or expanded services over the period in question. In sum, the picture painted by the lower court’s opinion was the kind of thing you might expect to come from a full competitive bid without the time, pain, and—yes—expense of undertaking it. And, yes, it was documented.

That said, the appellate court found error in the District Court’s dismissal based on a finding that the “defendants satisfied their duty of prudence by relying on the advice of their consultants”, going on to note that “although the fact that defendants engaged consultants and relied on their advice with respect to Hewitt’s fee is certainly evidence of prudence, it is not sufficient to entitle defendants to judgment as a matter of law” (1).

Ultimately, while some commentators have painted this opinion as a reversal of fortunes for employers in these cases, I am disinclined to see it that way. Rather, to my reading, you have a court that sees just enough smoke2 to wonder if there might be a fire; a large plan that went a decade without a formal RFP3. Determining not that not doing so was inherently imprudent4—but that making that determination would require a more complete airing of the facts.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

1 In explaining its determination, the court cited Donovan v. Cunningham, 716 F.2d 1455, 1474 (5th Cir. 1983) (stating that “[a]n independent appraisal is not a magic wand that fiduciaries may simply waive over a transaction to ensure that their responsibilities are fulfilled”).

2 There were also issues raised about the use of two different accounting structures in two different plans for its company stock funds, and questions about how float was accounted for, in addition to questions about the use of actively managed funds. In fact, considering the volume of the opinion dedicated to it, the company stock accounting may well have been the most compelling triable issue of fact for the appellate court.

3 The appellate court also took issue with the District Court’s dismissal of testimony by an expert witness by the plaintiffs. According to the appellate court, Lawrence R. Johnson reviewed the process that defendants followed when they extended Hewitt’s contract and opined that defendants acted imprudently by extending the contract without first soliciting bids from other recordkeepers. The District Court found his expertise was limited to mid-size plans and dismissed it, while the appellate court said that “defendants have not pointed to any differences between the recordkeeping needs of mid-sized and large plans that would make experience with mid-sized plans an insufficient qualification for rendering an opinion about the recordkeeping needs of a large plan.”

4 In a “spirited” dissent, Judge Richard D. Cudahy, who characterized the lawsuit as an “implausible class action based on nitpicking with respect to perfectly legitimate practices of the fiduciaries,” noted that “[i]f plaintiffs can find one ‘expert’ who will testify that the fee is too high, must there be a trial? Here, the trustees have a relationship with Hewitt going back fifteen years. They have a good sense of the dimensions of the job and Hewitt’s performance in carrying it out. Must they substitute any lower bidder that happens along?”

Expert Opinions

I learned a long time ago that when it comes to things like automobile maintenance, home repair, or gardening, I’m better off hiring an expert. Now, I have friends who derive great pleasure from things like “puttering around” in the backyard, who relish the accomplishment of laying down their own carpet or wallpapering a bathroom, who derive great satisfaction from installing their own car stereo or home entertainment center. But as for me, I’m happy to support our nation’s economy by paying someone who actually knows how to do such things. It’s not that I CAN’T do those things, mind you—it’s just that they take time I don’t have to do things I’m not good at for a final result with which I am never completely satisfied.

And, if I’m honest, because I don’t like those tasks, I put off doing them—as long as humanly possible.


One of the most common information requests I get from advisers is help in proving to sceptical plan sponsors that they should hire an adviser. While I don’t always know the particulars, the vast majority of these situations don’t arise where an adviser is already involved. Rather, these tend to be situations in which the plan sponsor has not previously hired an adviser and is questioning why he or she needs to undertake that additional expense to do something they (still) feel perfectly capable of doing themselves.

In truth, by the time you take into account the types of programs many providers now make available, with screened investment menus, pre-packaged investment policy statements, automatic enrollment and contribution acceleration campaigns, not to mention an expanding array of qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) choices and materials that tout the support of a large, sophisticated financial institution, you can hardly fault a plan sponsor for wondering why he or she needs an adviser.

To me, the reason is simple: because, while a plan sponsor probably can fulfill his/her fiduciary duties without the assistance of an independent financial adviser, IMHO, left to their own devices, they are, quite simply, less likely to do so. They are more likely (perhaps much more likely) to be beholden to a limited investment menu and “standard” fee structures, less likely to have regular and productive investment committee meetings, less likely to renegotiate their current arrangements on a regular basis, less likely to undertake needed change, and far less likely to exercise the discipline of a consistent process in doing so. Like those “distasteful” household chores, even among the most committed plan sponsors, these complicated decisions tend to drift to the back burner of life.

Hiring an adviser is no panacea for a plan sponsor who is not willing to own up to its fiduciary obligations—but, with the right adviser, that decision can go a long way toward helping ensure that those fiduciary obligations are met.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

Hire Powers

One of the first things you learn in any kind of ERISA primer is that, as a fiduciary, you are expected to conduct yourself either as if you are an expert, or hire someone to help you who is. This so-called “prudent expert” rule is, of course, a significantly higher standard than the one applied to mere common- law fiduciaries—in fact, it is generally described as the highest legal standard. Of course, plan sponsors have long relied on the help of experts—attorneys, third-party administrators, investment managers, and recordkeepers—if only because so much of what a plan sponsor must do in operating their retirement program requires their active involvement.

Not so retirement plan advisers, who, for many plan sponsors, remain something of an optional enhancement to their program. That said, in an environment that remains a legislative, regulatory, and operational thicket for even the most active and engaged plan sponsor, it is a plan option that is rapidly becoming standard equipment. Well-intentioned as such hires often are, they can be done for the wrong reasons. In the February issue of PLANSPONSOR, we asked previous winners of our Retirement Plan Adviser of the Year how plan sponsors can find the “right” adviser.

Today I’d like to turn that around. How can you, as an adviser, get connected with plan sponsors that will not only hire you, but will allow you to do your very best work for them, and for their plan participants?


Start with your friends and/or professional associations. Long a primary source of business for the advisers in our special “panel,” this is now the only channel for many of them. Now, for plan sponsors, this gives them the benefit of a personal reference from a colleague who knows and has perhaps already worked with you. But it also turns out to be a good way for you to “vet” the plan sponsor for a good philosophical fit.

Give them a chance to see you in action. It’s one thing to meet them at the Rotary Club, perhaps even better when you share some kind of board affiliation, but more and more advisers offer local seminars on topics of interest to plan sponsors. It gives you a chance to demonstrate your expertise—and you’ll get a chance to do so in front of potential clients who, by their attendance, have already expressed a more-than-passing interest in the topic.

Don’t be shy about references. This is admittedly a sensitive issue for advisers. After all, having spent a lot of time, energy, and money to develop those relationships, the last thing you want is to put those in the hands of folks who might try to steal them from you. But the top advisers I spoke with didn’t “hide” those references behind a “furnished upon request” curtain. For them, it was a statement of confidence not only in their ability to retain those relationships regardless of a potential “poaching,” but also a testament to the scope of their expertise and the tenure over which those relationships had been developed.

Be clear and concise about your fees. The regulatory winds are making this less of an issue than it once was, but it remains a way to distinguish yourself and your services from those who are less serious about working with retirement plans. I often tell plan sponsors that a good adviser will nearly always be able to save their plan money—though I also caution them that if saving money is their primary motivation, they are likely going to be disappointed.

Be able to demonstrate your commitment. Plan sponsors are increasingly wary of recordkeepers teetering on the brink of “exiting the business,” but when it comes to retirement plan advisers, the worry is that, for you, retirement plans are just a “hobby.” There are any number of ways to do it, but having the answers to the questions below will put your practice in the appropriate light.

Don’t take the relationship for granted. Like any relationship, things change and needs evolve—and that’s true for your relationship with a plan sponsor plan as well as the plan sponsor. Birds of a feather flock together, and ultimately you can really only do your best work if you are working with plan sponsors who are not only committed to their plan, but are open to, and supportive of, your recommendations to make it better.

But IMHO, if they are interested in hiring you as a retirement plan adviser—well, that’s a good sign.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD
You can read the article from PLANSPONSOR magazine here


How to prove your commitment to the retirement plan business.

1. What percent of your firm’s revenue is from retirement plan consulting?
2. How long have you been servicing retirement plan clients? Can this be documented?
3. What recognition have you achieved from independent sources that establishes your expertise and credibility?
4. How many retirement plan clients are handled by the team that will work on a prospective client’s plan? Does that team have individuals with different specialties?
5. How many different vendors do you work with for their existing clients?
6. Can you document ways in which you have helped clients through DoL audits, IRS audits, voluntary compliance issues, partial plan termination determinations, plan mergers or spin offs, plan terminations, and corrective contributions?
7. How—and how often—do you inform clients of regulatory changes and updates?

Source: Chad Larsen, Moreton Retirement Partners

Service Charges

As Valentine’s Day looms, you have perhaps seen those increasingly ubiquitous advertisements for a certain online florist.

Now, I’ve used that particular service on many an occasion over the past several years; they are not only convenient, they deliver a quality product, and on time (yes, some “assembly” is required). In sum, I’ve used them before and will doubtless use them again.

That said, if you’ve been lured to their Web site by their ads touting a dozen roses for $19.99—well, let’s just say you could be in for a surprise. See, that advertised price doesn’t include a vase (well, not a pretty one, anyway), the delivery charge (which, depending on when you want it delivered, adds another 50%, or more, to the price), not to mention the standard “care & handling” charge of $3 (regardless of when you want it delivered). A guaranteed morning delivery on Valentine’s Day is another $15. Oh, and if you’ve procrastinated until the last week or so, you’ll find an additional $9.99 charge for “guaranteed Valentine’s Day delivery.” In sum, depending on when you get around to ordering those $20 roses, you could easily wind up spending three or four times that amount (but, hey—what’s it worth to you to stay in your sweetheart’s good graces?). And, most of that disclosure doesn’t happen until the screen right before you place your order.1

Of late, I have been talking about 2011 as “the year of disclosure.” It’s the year when I think most plan sponsors will begin really looking at those new 5500 disclosures, perhaps alongside those newly minted 408(b)2 disclosures (or would have until Friday’s announcement from the Labor Department that the deadline was being pushed back six months (see “EBSA Sets New 408(b)(2) Deadline for January 2012”).
Additionally, the issue of participant fee disclosure is back on the table, an outcome that will surely heighten the focus of plan sponsors on the issue.

The question, of course, is what will plan sponsors DO in response? For years now, there has been an undercurrent of thought that, once they saw what they were paying (and to whom), plan sponsors would rise up and demand change and/or a change in providers. Advisers would lead this charge, armed with these expanded disclosures, and the federal government would even play a role by not only mandating these disclosures, but providing plan fiduciaries with some “sticks” to spur compliance by reluctant providers (personally, I’d just find some new providers, but…). Indeed, all of this is being brought to bear at the same time, and the prospects for expanded, if not enhanced, disclosures seem bright.

Interestingly enough, these disclosures don’t really change the obligations or responsibility of plan fiduciaries to ensure that the fees paid and services rendered to the plan are reasonable. Indeed, most of the burden for disclosure falls on those who provide services to the plan, not the plan sponsor. That said, once the plan sponsor/fiduciary is apprised of such things in black and white (not to mention the Labor Department via the Form 5500), IMHO, it will be a lot harder to profess ignorance of such things.

Ultimately, I think those who provide services to these plans will be more thoughtful about the services they offer and what (and how) they charge for those services, and surely some will decide to no longer offer those services in this market and/or at those prices. Surely it will be easier—at least eventually—for advisers to help plan sponsors make apples-to-apples comparisons of services and costs, to make a more thoughtful—and prudent—determination.

That doesn’t mean that plan sponsors will act on that information. But then, if the process of disclosure has the kind of antiseptic effect we might hope it could have on the business of fees charged, then it’s entirely possible they won’t have to.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

1 However startled one might be by the additional service charges on that online flower order, odds are your local florist charges about the same thing for the total package (with fewer options), perhaps without detailing the “extras.”

Making a List

Believe it or not, PLANADVISER Magazine is five years old this year.

As such, we wanted to commemorate our fifth anniversary by recognizing as “legends” five individuals who had made a “significant personal impact to the retirement plan industry and the advisers who support it”.

Now, perhaps you think that would be easy—but I can promise you it’s harder than it looks. And over the past several weeks we have gone through our list—moving some off, bringing others on, and “sleeping on it” more nights than you might think.

First off, we limited the list to five individuals (for five years), and we also tried to focus in on the past five years. Limiting the list to five was hard enough (certainly once we got started), but trying to focus in on the period since we launched the magazine created an even more daunting task. Sure, it was “only” five years ago, but it’s amazing how much has happened during that time. That was the year the Pension Protection Act was signed into law, after all, not to mention the year that the first wave of revenue-sharing lawsuits was filed, and the year that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), responding in the aftermath of the mutual fund trading scandal, introduced rule 22c-2. In fact, the cover story of the first issue of PLANADVISER was titled simply, “Now What?”.

When it came to compiling that list, however, while some names were, IMHO, obvious,
some were perhaps “too” obvious. There are those who have had an impact, albeit a controversial one, while others have arguably had an impact, but one that is softer, quieter, or perhaps simply not as pervasive as others.

The discipline of a finite list forces you to make tough choices, but it also inevitably leaves you wanting to create a list that is longer, and perhaps more inclusive, if only to give full recognition to the many professionals who have had—and continue to have—that “significant personal impact.” That said, we have chosen five individuals.

They come up in conversation with advisers all the time, and for good reason.
They are people we have watched and are watching—and people who bear watching in the years to come.

They are, quite simply, legends—and on Tuesday we’ll “introduce” them to you.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

The PLANADVISER “legends” will be featured in the fifth anniversary issue of PLANADVISER and will be honored at our annual Awards for Excellence celebration in New York City on March 24. At that event, along with sister publication PLANSPONSOR, we will also be honoring our Retirement Plan Advisers and Adviser Teams of the Year, as well as our Plan Sponsors of the Year, as well as other retirement industry luminaries.

What Lies Ahead - Part 2

If 2010 was not quite the return to “normal” we might have hoped, there was more than enough—both new and old—to draw the attention of plan sponsors. Here is the second part of our look at the trends that were on our mind this past year—and those just over the horizon.

Stop Gaps: Closing the Pension Funding Gap

What we said last year: It remains more expensive—and complicated—to walk away from pension commitments than most realize, though many employers remain committed to their pension plans for reasons that transcend those financial considerations. Still, it seems likely that freezes, both hard and soft, will continue to be applied, certainly in the private sector. The public sector’s commitment to pensions remains largely unabated—and yet, a sense remains that it may only be a matter of time before fiscal realities bring about a different result.

Where we are: For the very most part, little has changed. Pension funding remains a challenge, with the funding gap seemingly constantly buffeted between the ups and downs of the markets and interest rates, despite the conscientious efforts of most plan sponsors to keep up with ever-tightening funding requirements.


What’s ahead: It remains more expensive—and complicated—to walk away from pension commitments than most realize, though many employers remain committed to their pension plans for reasons that transcend those financial considerations. Still, it seems likely that freezes, both hard and soft, will continue to be applied, certainly in the private sector, while in the public sector, financial pressures seem likely to result in a different future solution for newer hires. Sound familiar?

Conflicts of Interests—Advice Regulations

What we said: Will we ever get final advice regulations? Almost certainly, though almost certainly regulations very different from the ones put forth a year ago. Or perhaps they will not come until after the concepts embodied in the PPA have been recrafted by legislators, such as Congressman Rob Andrews (D-New Jersey), who has already introduced legislation (the aptly named “The Conflicted Investment Advice Prohibition Act of 2009”) that would do just that. Between now and then, participants will continue to get advice the way they always have—or have not.

Where we are: Well, we now have those regulations—a proposed final version, anyway. For the most part, they seem to have restored and shored the status quo. Not that that’s a bad thing.

What’s ahead: The final proposed regulations will, likely, become the final regulations, at least in the important areas. The big change in advice seems more likely to emerge from a different direction—the recently proposed regulations on the definition of a fiduciary, not so much because it will change the rules on advice, but because the controversy on advice has largely revolved around trying to avoid becoming a fiduciary while offering advice (and getting paid for doing so). And it seems likely that if the proposed fiduciary regulations become law, the advice net some have tried so hard to become ensnared in will, quite simply, be inescapable.

Tax Treatment—Paying Now or Paying Later

Where we are: For years, much of the impetus for the growth in tax-deferred savings plans has been the premise that one’s taxes and/or income would be lower in one’s retirement future. Those prospects no longer seem quite so certain, and new Roth provisions for workplace retirement plans offer today’s retirement savers a different kind of choice. That, coupled with a unique window of opportunity to convert tax-deferred balances (albeit at a price), has some seeing the benefits of tax-deferred saving in a whole new light.

What’s ahead: As with self-directed brokerage accounts, the Roth conversion window (and its affiliated tax acceleration) seems most likely to appeal to the highly compensated minority. Of course, the impetus for the conversion itself is not only the timing window, but also the (still) looming sunset of the Bush Administration’s tax cuts (well, it was looming when I wrote this). Of course, the real issue may be a shift in assumptions about taxes; what if they won’t be dependably lower in retirement?

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

Editor’s Note: If you missed it, you can check out the rest of the list HERE

What Lies Ahead

If 2010 was not quite the return to “normal” we might have hoped, there was more than enough—both new and old—to draw the attention of plan sponsors. Here is a look at the trends that were on our mind this past year—and those just over the horizon.

Doctor Bill? "Curing" Health Care?

What we said: It is still hard to believe that the Senate and House positions on any number of key issues can be reconciled—but then, there was a point in the summer of 2006 when many felt the same way about the Pension Protection Act. But if it does pass—or if it does not—it seems safe to say that the issue is not going away any time soon. What remains to be seen is if the “cure” is worse than what it aims to remedy.

Where we are: Given the legislative hurdles that the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act (PPACA) faced a year ago, it still seems amazing that the legislation passed. Of course, the dominant majorities in Congress that were necessary to carry that off are no more (some would argue in no small part because of their role in passing the legislation), legal challenges have been filed by roughly half the states, and the newly resurgent Republicans in Congress are threatening to “repeal and replace.”

What’s ahead: Common wisdom is that the legal challenges will fall short, and that President Obama’s certain veto of any attempt to repeal (much less replace) the legislation will keep those efforts at bay as well. Those in support of the legislation continue to believe that the American public will eventually warm to the idea (in fairness, many already do), while those opposed find vindication in the results of the recent mid-term elections. My guess is that we will still be talking about this a year from now—and that the issue will loom large in the 2012 election cycle.


Fee Fie? Revenue-Sharing Litigation

What we said: Barring a smoking gun discovery among the cases already filed, it seems likely that the laws—and disclosures—will change before the litigation has any real impact. On the other hand, it is entirely possible that the mere existence of that litigation—and the ever-present litigation threat—will serve to reform the system in a way, and on a schedule, that would not otherwise have been possible.

Where we are: No smoking gun yet, but four years in, a number of the cases have settled, another group has been dismissed and, by my count, only one has been fully adjudicated (and that in favor of the plaintiffs). The courts are split on the issues, and many have been willing to extend plan fiduciaries the benefit of the doubt, so long as participants had the ability to make their own investment choices. As litigation worries go, this brand drew the highest level of concern in PLANSPONSOR’s annual Defined Contribution Survey—but it wasn’t much. As for that much-anticipated “second generation” of lawsuits? Well, somewhat surprisingly, it has yet to materialize.

What’s ahead: This year the Form 5500 took a big first step in prompting a new level of fee disclosures, and the near-final proposed regulations on 408(b)2 should carry that one step further. The Labor Department continues to challenge the courts’ generous application of ERISA 404(c)’s shield—and has gone so far as to make its point clearer on the application of 404(c) with the addition of language in the recently proposed participant fee-disclosure regulations. Many seem to think that more disclosure—and the more public disclosure in the form of Form 5500—will simply serve to provide the plaintiffs’ bar with fuel for the fire, while others believe that more, and more consistent, disclosure will make it easier for fiduciaries to know what they are paying and if it is reasonable. My guess is that both will turn out to be correct.

Auto-Premonition—Doing It for Participants

What we said: Automatic enrollment may have taken something of a “holiday,” but it seems unlikely to be “over” as a trend. Look for it to pick up the pace again in 2010—and for the Obama Administration to turn its attention to the issue in the next year (or two).

Where we are: Well, in many respects, it was déjà vu all over again—with a sluggish economy doubtless contributing (no pun intended) to another flat year for automatic enrollment adoption rates. Still, while the overall adoption rate in PLANSPONSOR’s annual Defined Contribution Survey was slightly lower this year, there was a discernable uptick in adoption at the largest programs—even if small and micro plans showed no change at all. That said, the primary motivation this year, as it has been the past two, has been to be more proactive in helping workers save, and there’s every indication that it will remain so in the future.

What’s ahead: I’m sure plans will continue to adopt the design—for all the right reasons—but it is hard to see anything leading to any kind of major acceleration in the trend in the short term.

Default Lines—Targeting Target-Dates

What we said: We don’t know yet what regulators may try to do to help ensure that investors—particularly near-retirees—are not misled by the simplicity of a fund title and marketing pitch. Plan sponsors are on notice that there are differences here and, with luck, will continue to ask pointed questions. Because, after all, when you’re selling “you don’t have to worry about it,” somebody has to.

Where we are: Much of the “damage” from 2008 has been restored, providers have taken pains to ensure that buyers understand their underlying glide path assumptions (certainly those having to do with equity allocations at age 65), and regulatory bodies have taken some baby steps in helping individual investors better understand these offerings. All in all, the storm seems, for the very most part, to have passed.

What’s ahead: More and better disclosures, a growing interest in offerings that take more into account than mere retirement date (including managed accounts), and more discussion around the importance of open architecture solutions and concerns about the (lack of) ERISA fiduciary status for the providers who bundle their own offerings together. But as for real change—failing another sharp stumble in the markets—most seem to be content with the way things are.


Next up: Pension Funding, Advice, and the Roth 401(k)

Liability Driven?

Having recently had a couple of new members join our 401(k) investment committee, I asked our investment adviser to conduct a briefing so that the new members – and those already serving on the committee – would have a better understanding of the responsibilities of being on that committee.

Most of that session focused on what was expected of them: the requirement to act solely in the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries, the importance of process (and documenting that process), and the implications of the prudent expert rule.

However, aside from the obvious motivations in helping my co-fiduciaries know what was expected of them1, at the conclusion of our session, I tried to summarize for our committee three things I think every investment committee member should know—and that, IMHO, kept top of mind, serve to keep an appropriate focus on those responsibilities:

You are an ERISA fiduciary.

Even as a small and relatively silent member of the committee, you direct and influence retirement plan money. I’m not saying that some crafty attorney couldn’t cobble together some kind of legal or practice exclusion that would technically suffice to erect some kind of legal shield—but I suspect that even that would be readily penetrated by a court2.


As an ERISA fiduciary, your liability is personal.

You may be required to restore any losses to the plan or to restore any profits gained through improper use of plan assets. Now, you can obtain insurance to protect against that personal liability—but that’s probably not the fiduciary liability insurance you may already have in place, or the fidelity bond that is often carried to protect the plan against loss resulting from fraudulent or dishonest acts of those covered by the bond. If you’re not sure what you have, find out. Today.

You are responsible for the actions of other plan fiduciaries.

All fiduciaries have potential liability for the actions of their co-fiduciaries. For example, the Department of Labor notes that if a fiduciary knowingly participates in another fiduciary’s breach of responsibility, conceals the breach, or does not act to correct it, that fiduciary is liable as well. So, it’s a good idea to know who your co-fiduciaries are—and to keep an eye on what they do, and are permitted to do.


—Nevin E. Adams, JD

1 As an ERISA fiduciary, you are expected to act SOLELY in the interests of plan participants and their beneficiaries, and with the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them; to carry out those duties prudently (and by prudent, it is intended that you be a prudent expert); to follow the terms of the plan documents (unless inconsistent with ERISA); to diversifying plan investments (specifically with an eye toward minimizing the risk of large investment losses to the plan); and to ensure that the plan pays only reasonable plan expenses for the services it engages.

A couple of points of clarification: IMHO you can’t follow the terms of the plan documents if you haven’t read them, nor can you ensure that the plan pays only reasonable expenses if you don’t know what the plan is paying, or for what.

2 IMHO, “you don’t have to be a fiduciary to be on the investment committee” should be added to the list of great lies—like “the check is in the mail….”

Thanks Giving

Thanksgiving has been called a “uniquely American” holiday, and one on which, IMHO, it is fitting to reflect on all we have to be thankful for.

Here's my list for 2010:

I’m thankful that the vast majority of plan sponsors continued to support their workplace retirement programs with the same match and options as they had in previous years—and that so many of those who had to cut back in 2009 made the commitment to restore some or all of it in 2010.

I’m thankful that participants, by and large, hung in there with their commitment to retirement savings, despite the lingering economic uncertainty. I’m especially thankful that many who saw their balances reduced by market volatility and, in some cases, a reduction in their employer match were willing and able to fill those gaps, in most cases by increasing their personal deferrals.

I’m thankful that most workers defaulted into retirement savings programs tend to remain there—and that there are mechanisms in place to help them save and invest better than they might otherwise.

I’m thankful for the time, cost, and effort employers expend each year on health-care coverage for their workforce—never more so than this year with the absorption and assimilation of requirements under the new health-care law.


I’m thankful that those who regulate our industry continue to seek the input of those in the industry—and that that input continues to be shared broadly in open forums. I’m thankful that so many in our industry take the time to provide that input.

I’m thankful that so many employers have remained committed to their defined benefit plans and—often despite media reporting to the contrary—continue to make serious, consistent efforts to meet funding requirements that are quite different than when most initially decided to offer these programs.

I’m thankful that plan sponsors will soon have better access to more information about the expenses paid by their plans—and optimistic that it won’t be as bad as some fear. I’m thankful that we’re no longer talking about whether fees should be disclosed to participants, and are now trying to figure out how to do it.

I’m thankful that a growing number of advisers—and the firms that employ them—are willing to accept responsibility as an ERISA fiduciary.

I’m thankful that the “plot” to kill the 401(k)…hasn’t…yet.

I’m thankful that we might—finally—be ready to have a national, adult conversation about retirement income and entitlement programs.

I’m thankful to be part of a growing company in an important industry at a critical time. I’m thankful to be able, in some small way, to make a difference on a daily basis.

I'm thankful for the warmth with which readers, both old and new, have embraced me, and the work we do here. I'm thankful for all of you who have supported—and I hope benefited from—our various conferences, designation program, and communications throughout the year. I’m thankful for the constant—and enthusiastic—support of our advertisers.

But most of all, I’m once again thankful for the unconditional love and patience of my family, the camaraderie of dear friends and colleagues, the opportunity to write and share these thoughts—and for the ongoing support and appreciation of readers like you.

Thank you!

"Sure" Things

In a very real sense, this has been a “rebuilding” year for many plan sponsors and participants: a time spent rebuilding account balances, resurrecting and/or reviving employer matching contributions, a time for shoring up participation rates, and—in some cases—restoring trust. The markets, overall, have been sympathetic to those causes, but in many respects, the still-soft economic trends doubtless weighed on the kinds of dramatic trend shifts that we have seen in recent years.

That said, only a quarter (24.9%) of some 6,000 plan sponsor respondents said that “all or nearly all” of their participants were deferring enough to take full advantage of the employer match, a reading that declines sharply with plan size. Additionally, participation rates were roughly flat with a year ago; with responding plans reporting a combined participation rate of 71.5%, compared with 72.3% a year ago. The median participation rate was also lower; 75.0% in 2010, compared with 78% in last year’s survey.

As for automatic enrollment, the 2010 trend line was mixed. While the overall adoption rate was slightly lower this year, there was a discernable uptick in adoption at the largest programs (62.7% in 2010, compared with 52.3% a year ago) and about a 10% increase in the number of mid-size and large programs—but small and micro plans showed no change at all. The overall pace of contribution acceleration—that process of providing for annual increases in the rate of deferral—slipped from a 15.5% adoption rate in 2009 to just one in 10 plans this year (though most of that decline came from the smallest plans). However, even the adoption rate at the largest plans was effectively flat from a year ago.


The number of plans not offering some form of financial/investment advice continued to shrink. In this year’s survey, fewer than one in four plan sponsors did not offer that support, though larger programs were more likely to eschew the option. Relying on a financial adviser outside the plan was the preference for 37.5% of this year’s respondents, though that option was significantly more appealing to micro and smaller employers. While there continued to be different trend lines in different market segments, there was a distinct and noticeable trend across market segments toward offering—and accepting—“help.”

But as I sorted through the results of our annual Defined Contribution Survey, the one thing that emerged as something of a theme across multiple categories was—a lack of clarity. Plan sponsor respondents—and I maintain that those who respond to our survey are some of the most knowledgeable and actively engaged in their responsibilities—expressed what I thought were relatively high levels of uncertainty around several key plan-design elements: fees, target-date glide paths, retirement-income offerings, the focus of their investment policy statements, and even the “best” option for a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA).

Now, that may simply be a reflection of the wide array of choices available, the pace of new product development, and the unsettling effects of volatile markets. In fact, it might even reflect a certain level of prudent humility on the part of serious plan fiduciaries, who are aware of just how much they don’t know in the midst of that change and turbulence and are willing to own up to that reality.

After all, as Mark Twain once said, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

"Interests" Bearing

Last week the Labor Department issued a proposal that would, by its reckoning, provide the first update to the definition of an ERISA fiduciary since shortly after the birth of the federal regulation (see DoL Broadens Fiduciary Net.

The move was much-anticipated and, in the eyes of many, long overdue. Clearly, the Labor Department wanted to narrow the exceptions to that definition (that were, somewhat ironically, put in place by the Labor Department of 1975) and, in the process, subject more advisers to ERISA’s fiduciary standards.

At a high level, the Labor Department is seeking to restore the two-part test for fiduciary status found in ERISA, one that was expanded to be a five-part test in the 1975 regulations. The proposal seeks to set aside the additional conditions that the advice be rendered “on a regular basis,” that the advice would serve as a “primary basis” for investment decisions with respect to plan assets, that the recommendations are individualized for the plan, and that the advice be provided pursuant to a mutual understanding of the parties. Instead, the new proposal would impose fiduciary status when a person renders investment advice with respect to any moneys or other property of a plan, or has any authority or responsibility to do so, and receives payment (direct or indirect) for that advice.




The Implications

That change is almost certainly going to drive some of those advisers (and their sponsoring organizations) away from these programs, though I am hard-pressed to mourn that loss (the proposal left intact the exemption for education, and if those lines are easily crossed, by now surely we all know where they are). Those who remain may well charge more for their services in compensation for the extra exposure, certainly in the short run. However, those who do so will be competing against organizations and advisers that made that commitment years ago and who appear to be competing quite successfully already. Consequently, if the newly “converted” seek to profit by a rapid escalation of their fees, I suspect they won’t find that to be a successful strategy.

Those responsible for closely held stock valuations are most likely to feel some pain in the short run. After all, they have long enjoyed a special dispensation from fiduciary status At this writing, I’m not altogether sure how one conducts a security valuation that is exclusively in the interests of the plan participants and beneficiaries—but I’m no more comfortable with the notion of a valuation that ignores the impact that those valuations could have on the exposure of the plan that takes on those assets based on that valuation.

One of the most interesting aspects of the proposal was the Labor Department’s expressed interest in reconsidering its position that a recommendation to a plan participant to take a permissible plan distribution would not constitute investment advice, even when combined with a recommendation as to how the distribution should be invested. Said another way, the DoL is now willing to consider that such encouragement could constitute advice at a level sufficient to trigger ERISA fiduciary status. In announcing its interest, the DoL noted that “[c]oncerns have been expressed that, as a result of this position, plan participants may not be adequately protected from advisers who provide distribution recommendations that subordinate participants’ interests to the advisers’ own interests.” In fact, there has already been litigation involving rollover advice—and there are any number of stories out there about advisers persuading participants to take advantage of early withdrawal provisions and pull their money out of the plan to put it in their hands. Not that that couldn’t be advantageous for the participant—but shouldn’t the adviser encouraging them to pull money from ERISA’s environs be held to that same standard of care?

Of course, at this point, the proposal is just that—though it will be interesting to see the comments that are made on this new definition over the next 90 days (1).

As for where this takes us, it has not always been clear that all plan sponsors fully appreciated the significance of working with advisers willing to put plan and participant interests ahead of their own. But they should; and, IMHO, this proposal will improve the chances that they—and their participants—will benefit from that protection, whether they seek it or not.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1)Comments on the proposal can be submitted electronically by e-mail to e-ORI@dol.gov (enter into subject line: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule) or by using the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov.

Scale "Model"

I’ve long had an issue with weight scales, for the perhaps obvious reason that, these days, they frequently deliver a message I’d just as soon not receive. See, even when I’m feeling pretty good about the way I look and feel, those scales generally remind me that is at a weight that I know is not “appropriate” for my height.

Over the years, I have rationalized that gap in any number of ways; that those scales are frequently inaccurate, that the definitions of “appropriate” are skewed, even that I’m wearing clothes (or shoes) at the moment that are throwing things off (hey, I’ve got pretty big feet). But since I know, deep down, that those are, after all, mere rationalizations for avoiding the truth, these days I pretty much just treat stepping on scales as I would stepping on a rusty nail—which is to say, I avoid them at all costs…at least until I manage to get back on a regular exercise regimen.

My sense has long been that that is how participants approach the issue of figuring out how much they need to save for retirement. It’s not that they don’t know they should know that number, and not always that they just don’t have time to deal with it. Mostly, they have a sense that the number will be larger than they would like it to be, and that, coupled with a sense that the savings they have accumulated will be smaller than it is “supposed” to be—well, let’s just say they don’t want to be reminded that their retirement plan health isn’t good.

There was some of that in the “National 401(k) Evaluation” published by Financial Engines (see Report Highlights Savings Gaps, Ways To Close Them). The report was, in fact, replete with signs that most participants in the sampling are not in very good shape when it comes to retirement, with roughly three-fourths not on track to replace 70% of their pre-retirement income at age 65. When you consider that about a third have badly allocated portfolios (the report somewhat euphemistically terms these “inefficient”), and that nearly 40% are not contributing enough to receive the full match—well, let’s just say that there are some obvious reasons for the gap.

IMHO, it’s more than a bit ironic that studies routinely show that participants who take the time to make that retirement assessment feel better—and are more confident—about their retirement preparations than those who don’t. Of course, it could be that the only ones taking the time to check things out are those who are already reasonably confident that they’ll get a good result; unfortunately, I don’t recall ever seeing a connection between pre-assessment confidence and post-assessment (nor, for that matter, do these confidence assessments typically correlate confidence with savings that justify that sentiment).

Still, I like to think that those who take the time to do the assessment find out that things are perhaps not as hopeless as they had thought—and that, following the assessment, they walk away with a specific action plan for either staying on track, or closing the gap between needs and reality.

Inside the Financial Engines report there are a couple of examples that illustrate the point. One is a 45-year-old participant making $50,000/year who currently has a $50,000 account balance and who is deferring 4% in a portfolio that is overly risky—a combination that the report says will leave him 27% below his idea goal (if the market performs “typically”). But the report notes that if this participant reallocates at an “appropriate” risk level, they can narrow the gap to 23%; if they do that AND save 2% more per year, they can cut the gap to 14%; and if they do both AND delay retirement two years—well, they’re on track. Or, this participant could simply save 8% more a year to achieve the same gap-closing result.

Now, like with my bathroom scale, you can quibble with the assumptions, but the important thing, IMHO, isn’t taking the time to figure out you have a gap—most of us probably have that sense before we ever sit down with our retirement plan statement. Rather, it’s the plan that comes out of that process—the plan that helps us get back where we need to be—that not only helps us feel better, but gives us a reason for that feeling. And, like that bathroom scale model, the longer you put that off, the longer that “recovery” will take – and the harder it will be.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

Listening Post

With our PLANADVISER National Conference just one week away, I found myself turning back to my notes from the PLANSPONSOR National Conference in June.

Some of these came from presentations, others originated from the audience, and still others arose in the dozens of side conversations at breaks and such in between the official conference sessions. Some, honestly, are something of a synergy among the three. See if they don’t get YOU thinking…


You may not be responsible for the outcomes of your retirement plan designs, but someone should be.

How you spend your weekend is a microcosm of retirement.

“Free money” isn’t.

Retirement income is a lot less of a problem when you have saved a pile of money.

You can lead a horse to water, after all—but you can’t make him think.

No one expects taxes to be lower in retirement any more.

Auto-enrollment is still viewed as a very paternalistic type of event.

When it comes to fee comparisons, eventually there will be better sources of information, but right now it’s still a bit mystical.

Providing revenue-sharing information to participants is like giving car keys and whiskey to teenage boys.

If you don’t know how much you’re paying, you can’t know if it’s reasonable.

You want your provider to be profitable, not go out of business.

Retirement income is a challenge to solve, not a product to build.

If you’re having trouble connecting with an employee group, find—or create—a missionary within that group.

When selecting plan investments, keep in mind the 80-10-10 rule: 80% of participants are not investment savvy, 10% are, and the other 10% think they know enough—and usually chase returns.

While it’s a good idea to have fiduciary insurance in place to cover a loss, you should have a well-documented fiduciary process in place to avoid claims in the first place.

Now is a good time to renegotiate fees.

When advisers are examined, their plan clients usually are also.

Never ignore a letter from the IRS.

Left to their own devices, participants still don’t do anything.

Tax payers effectively subsidize the benefits of 401(k)s. Of course, they also subsidize the ability of many Americans to no longer pay federal income taxes.

A corollary: The tax benefits of 401(k)s are tiered toward those who actually pay taxes.

The best way to stay out of court is to avoid situations where participants lose money. The second best way is to have a well-documented prudent process.

Annuitization of defined contribution balances only makes sense if those balances are big enough to annuitize.

Some participants do opt out of automatic enrollment.

“Free money” is still a powerful incentive for participants.

The biggest mistake a plan fiduciary can make is not seeking the help of experts.

You can be in favor of fee disclosure and transparency and still think that legislation telling you how to do it is misguided.

The single most effective way for individuals to ensure that they have sufficient income in retirement is to accumulate more wealth; the amount of their savings before retirement defines their options in retirement.


I’m often asked how we come up with our conference and magazine topics, how we manage to keep our pulse not only on what’s coming down the road, but what people are focused on in the here and now.

The simple answer is—we listen. And when we listen, we all learn.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

“Left” Field

I participate in a number of LinkedIn groups (and “sponsor” a couple). In one of those groups last week, a member said they were interviewing potential new 401(k) recordkeepers/advisers—and asked a provocative question: What is the one question that you will be sure to ask the next time that you interview potential 401(k) providers?

Of course, we all know that the search for a new provider entails a lot more than a single question. And, as I skimmed my way through the suggestions that had already been proffered, there were a number of important and familiar inquiries; things having to do with the fees charged, fee disclosure, the quality of support staff, willingness to stand in as a plan fiduciary…. These are all important—so important, in fact, it was hard to imagine that they wouldn’t be routinely included in even the most casually composed RFP.

Having read the question—and skimmed the answers—I was about ready to move on. Ironically, the way this question was phrased (or at least how I read how that question was phrased) intrigued me; what WAS that one question I would ask the next time?

Now, having spent a fair amount of my career on the other side of that question (including a period of time when the group that prepared RFPs for a large financial services organization reported to me), I can tell you there are a nearly infinite number of ways to respond “yes” (with a clear conscience) without really meaning "yes, all the time"; ways to gloss over things like high turnover, to offer broad organizational-level expositions designed to assuage nagging concerns about profitability or “commitment to the business”; even ways to assure, without committing, on the subject of whether the provider will "stand in" in the event of a lawsuit, audit, or investigation. None of which should discourage or dissuade one from asking those questions, of course.(1)

That said, when it comes down to that one question, I kept coming back to one that gets asked all the time. One that you probably asked on your last RFP. One to which you may have gotten a response, but, I suspect, not an answer.

The question I would ask is, Can I get the contact information for three clients that have left you in the last 18 months?

Not that you'll get it, though you might—or that the selections won't be "tailored"—but the response (or lack thereof) can, IMHO, be "enlightening."

—Nevin E. Adams, JD


(1) If you want to frustrate a potential provider, just make them respond to an RFP where the questions are worded such that the only acceptable answers are “yes” or “no” (or make them put their “explanations” in a separate document). What many (still) don’t seem to appreciate is that most advisers/consultants take all that fancy verbiage and filter it down to a checkbox on a spreadsheet anyway.

IMHO: Why Bother?

Here’s a question to ask your plan sponsor clients: “Why do you offer a 401(k) plan?”

I’m guessing that many, perhaps most, would say simply, perhaps without giving it much thought, “to attract and retain good employees.” That’s what more than half of the plan sponsors canvassed in a recent Wells Fargo survey said (see “Survey Suggests Gaps in Plan Sponsor Goals, Roles”), and it’s one of the top reasons cited by none other than the Department of Labor . I’m guessing a similarly high number would say that they “have” to offer the plan as part of their benefit offerings to be competitive.

In fact, I was surprised that 45% of the respondents to the Wells Fargo survey indicated that a primary goal of the program was to provider workers with the means to arrange for a financially sound retirement. Not that that isn’t in the back of plan sponsor minds; I just don’t think it looms large as a rationale for the time, energy, and expense of establishing and keeping these programs in place.

Still, I think for most employers, these programs remain a “take-it-or-leave-it” proposition. Oh, they want employees to take advantage of them—and participation rate remains a key metric for many programs. But I suspect that most employers think that, if they offer a program that allows workers to save efficiently and effectively (and at a reasonable price), well, I suspect they feel that they have lived up to their end of the bargain.

Of course, we all know that the employer plays a key role in the true success of these programs, and that an active and engaged plan sponsor is worth their weight in gold (literally) in terms of getting workers to participate, and to participate at levels that eventually can help ensure their financial independence.

We all know who they are. Generally speaking, they are the ones who go above and beyond the mere requirements of the law regarding plan information and communication. They are the ones who not only inspire confidence in their plan, but in the ability of their co-workers to take an active role in helping ensure their own financial well-being. They are the ones who adopted automatic enrollment before it was “cool” (or sanctioned via the Pension Protection Act); who probably know exactly how much their plan costs; and, yes, who probably, early on, saw the advantages in bringing the help of a financial adviser to their program. And, yes, odds are they are also the ones who have plans with higher participation and deferral rates, and a more motivated group of participant savers, to boot.

I’m sure many who don’t take those steps are nonetheless attentive to the requirements and obligations of their duty as a plan fiduciary—they simply lack the time, energy, or volition to make that kind of commitment. Some, I’m sure, worry that going beyond the law’s requirements places their firm—and them personally—at risk.

But, in my experience, employers who adopt a “take-it-or-leave-it” approach often find that that is exactly how their workers feel about their retirement plan.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD