Making a Move

My wife and I are in the process of moving to a new home—and it occurs to me that the process of changing homes is a lot like changing recordkeepers. Here’s how.

Know What You’re Looking For

We’ve made about a half dozen moves during our 37-year marriage—all driven by work, anchored by commuting concerns, and—in all but the first and last—school considerations. However, this particular move (my wife swears it’s the last one) literally started with a blank sheet of paper and a “so where would you like to live” conversation. Several conversations, actually. For this move, our high-level priorities involved climate (we’re not fans of snow, hurricanes, wildfires, or earthquakes), ready access to good healthcare (we’re not getting any younger), and proximity to cultural activities/things to do (we’re not THAT old). Indeed, with no particular ties to our current residence, and no external anchoring factors like grandchildren to consider (those with four legs don’t really “count”), we had a quick “oceans or mountains” discussion—and agreed on the latter.

Having established that high-level target, we then proceeded to look for specific houses—and that’s where things got tricky, in no small part because of the current “fluidity” in the real estate market. That said, the house we bought in 2011 to accommodate us, three kids and four dogs (that’s not a typo) was way more than the two of us (and just two dogs) now require. The multiple flights of stairs in our home that were once “interesting” were now a potential concern (particularly as they required scaling every time our dogs wanted to answer nature’s call). Oh, and there was the matter of price. 

That said, we had a geographic target, some guardrails for housing considerations, and while the latter in particular certainly limited our field of consideration(s), it made it easy(er) to conduct preliminary searches online—and ultimately to provide guidance to our realtor.

Effectively—and prudently—searching for a new recordkeeper requires a similar discipline. Simply pushing out a sample RFI or RFP with no clear idea of what you’re looking for (or looking to fix) will likely only confuse, complicate, and extend the process—and in all likelihood leave you with nothing but a general frustration. That means knowing what you like (and don’t) about your current situation, and doing just a bit of blue-skying as to things you’d really like to be able to consider. Who knows, that could be possible, even with your current provider… but you might need to ask.

Don’t Rely on the Marketing Brochures (or the Flowery RFP Responses)

As our targeted area was several hundred miles away, we did a LOT online (following the aforementioned driving around part), and relied pretty heavily on Zillow, where we found lots of good information about the properties, and generally speaking dozens of photographs. That said, it was pretty obvious that the written descriptions were almost pure marketing—flowery hyperbole that, from time to time, was good for a laugh if nothing else. 

The pictures did play a role in our reviews—until we discovered that while a picture may be worth a thousand words, the chosen angle and lens can make a room (or yard) look bigger than it is—and a neighbor’s home…vanish. Indeed, our own listing—though pictures were taken on a cloudy day, were “brightened” via photoshop. A picture may be worth a thousand words—but it pays to see things with your own two eyes. 

As for recordkeeping “homes,” one can hardly blame marketing/sales for putting their offerings’ best promotional foot forward in any commercial endeavor. In fact, those materials may well make statements or performance claims that are 100% accurate, and even understated. But—as was the case with our visualizations, I wouldn’t take any at face value without some level of validation.

Consider a Site Visit

As I noted, our previous moves had all been driven by considerations such as my commute, and we often had to make decisions based on distance and economics, rather than an appreciation for the characteristics of the community. Oh, we'd driven around with a realtor, and done some research online—but we never had (or at least felt we had) enough time to really get to experience what it would be like to live there.

While we were somewhat familiar with our targeted area (eastern Tennessee), that was mostly as tourists, and we hadn’t really had a chance to experience the surrounding communities—where we would actually live. So, earlier this year we made it a point to go spend some time driving around and getting a sense of the various communities. In the process we were able to rule out some as being too remote, others as being too built up, and still others that looked considerably different in person than they did on paper. We weren’t ready to make a decision yet, but having gotten a feel for the realities “on the ground,” it allowed us to better focus our online considerations later.

Admittedly, site visits to providers aren’t always instructive.[i] Let’s face it, however linear and production-flow oriented it may be, this business doesn’t generally lend itself to an assembly line visualization—and walking past row after row of (nearly) identical cubicles might not tell you a lot, however eloquent your guide(s). There is, however, something to be said for actually seeing the place where the “sausage” is made, to see how folks get along, to see the environment in which they operate.   

Hire a Professional ‘Inspector’

Some (perhaps all?) states require an inspection of the property by a licensed inspector. That said, the inspectors we’ve hired over the years have been distressingly inconsistent in the quality and thoroughness of their review (ditto the realtors we’ve engaged, but that’s a story for a different time)—and, generally speaking, (much) less discerning (it seems) than those engaged by the individuals buying OUR house(s). 

That said, this last round our inspector did a world-class review of a property that we’d likely have purchased absent his findings. He went places we didn’t (and in some cases, couldn’t), brought to our attention things I hadn’t considered—and in that process not only documented potential issues, he also noted which were minor and those that would require significant expenditures. Now, admittedly that’s what he was SUPPOSED to do—but we’ve paid more only to have others do less (and then later paid more to remedy the issues they should have identified). It saved us time and money, and I am thrilled that he also did the inspection on the house we chose next. 

There’s a lot that goes into making a change in providers, and it requires information and expertise that most plan sponsors don’t have, and don’t really have an opportunity to become expert in. Change can be difficult, but a change that makes a bad situation worse, or that belies the promises in the marketing brochures and sales pitch—well, that can be a nightmare—albeit one that frequently doesn’t manifest itself right away. All the more so in view of the fiduciary responsibility—and personal liability—for decisions that aren’t in the best interests of plan participants and beneficiaries.

In sum, you’re not required to be an expert in such matters—but ERISA requires that, if you’re not, you engage the services of those who are. And that’s an essential element in “making a move” to a new home—or deciding not to.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] Failing that, there’s something to be said for the perspective of experts who HAVE made that visit—and/or the references of current (and preferably EX) clients. 

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.

A Change in Providers

We really hadn’t been focused on making a change, though the subject had come up from time to time. 

In fact, considering how long we had been thinking about making a change without actually doing anything about it, the change itself felt almost accidental in its suddenness. So sudden, in fact, that, in hindsight, I found myself wondering if we were “hasty” – perhaps too hasty.

Make no mistake – we had been happy enough with our current provider, certainly at first. In fact, we had been with them for a number of years and had, over time, expanded that relationship to include a fully bundled package of services. That made certain aspects simpler, of course – though we discovered pretty quickly that the “bundle” was presented as being more seamless than it actually was. Still, net/net, we were ahead of the game financially, and certainly no worse on the delivery side; we were just a bit disappointed in the disconnect between the sale and the service levels.

And all was fine for a while – or so it seemed. Looking back, there were signs of trouble that we could have seen – if we had been looking. There were unexpected charges on the invoices, and services that we were sure had been described as being part of the bundle that turned out not to be. There was the monitoring service that was supposed to be in place that we found out wasn’t – quite by accident, and months later. Over time we cut back on the services included, but the prices just kept going up. We were, quite simply, getting less and paying more, and getting less than we thought we were paying for. And it grated on us.

In hindsight, perhaps we should have been more vocal about our discontent. I’ve wondered what might have happened if we had called up and questioned those invoice charges, or made a bigger fuss about the sporadic outages. But, in the overall scheme of things, the charges weren’t large, just not what we expected. We figured that perhaps we had been the ones to misunderstand – and didn’t want to look “stupid” by calling to complain about a charge that some fine print in some document somewhere said was perfectly legitimate. Meaning always to go check that out sometime, the time to do so never materialized. Instead, we grumbled among ourselves about how aggravating it was – and how we should do something about it… sometime.

Unfortunately, change is painful and time-consuming. The emotional and fiscal toll these changes took, while annoying, simply wasn’t enough to put change at the top of the to-do list. So, we talked about a change – and every so often asked friends and acquaintances about their experience(s). Of course, it was hard to find someone else who was in exactly the same situation – and a surprising number simply empathized with our plight, being stuck in much the same situation themselves. All of which conveyed – to us, anyway – a sense that, uncomfortable as we might be with the current service package, we were probably about as well-positioned as we could be.

Then, one day, out of the blue, an opportunity presented itself. We weren’t looking for it, as I said earlier, but the months of frustration left us open to a casual message from an enterprising salesman – one who not only knew his product, he clearly knew the problems that others like us had with our current provider.

He did more than empathize with our situation. He did not pump me for information about what I was looking for, or what I didn’t like about my current situation. Rather, he was able to speak about the features/benefits that his firm offered… and, to my ears anyway, essentially ran through the list of concerns I had – but had not articulated – with our current situation. In fact, before our conversation was done, he had pointed out to me things that his firm offered as a matter of course that the current provider hadn’t even mentioned in all the years we had been associated – things I had assumed we couldn’t get, or couldn’t get without paying a lot more.

We made the change two weeks ago – and while it’s early yet, I’m thrilled with the results.

Ultimately, our former provider set themselves up by taking our business for granted, for (apparently) caring more about attracting new customers than in attending to our concerns, and for (apparently) assuming that “quiet” meant satisfied.

Provider changes can be fraught with uncertainty, if not peril. Little wonder that it often takes a pretty serious misstep (or a consistent history of smaller missteps) on the part of an incumbent to warrant such a response. So, are your clients happy, content, and “quiet”?

Or have they just quit complaining?

- Nevin E. Adams, JD
 
Note: For the record, the provider change recounted above involves my cable company.