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. 

Three ‘Scary’ Things That Give Plan Sponsors Chills

Halloween is the time of year when one’s thoughts turn to trick-or-treat, ghosts and goblins, and things that go bump in the night—and, for plan sponsors, and those who support them, a good time to think about the things that give us pause—that cause a chill to run down our spine… 

Things like…

Changing Providers

OK, they may not exactly be “scared” of changing providers, but it’s certainly not a process for the faint of heart—particularly with all of the competing focus priorities confronting plan sponsors on a daily basis. Industry surveys routinely point to a certain amount of regular provider “churn”—indeed, by some counts as many as 10% of the plans change providers in any given year. That said, industry surveys (and excessive fee litigation) are replete with indications that the vast majority of plans not only don’t change recordkeepers, but may not even undertake a formal review of services, fees and capabilities.

Now, any plan sponsor who has ever gone through a recordkeeping conversion knows that, however smooth the transition, and regardless how improved the experience on the new platform, moving is a lot of work. And, as with relocating your home, the longer you have been in a particular location, the harder it seems to be (there are inevitably a lot of “skeletons” in those closets). Knowing that, it’s little wonder that many plan sponsors make those changes only under a duress of sorts, forced by poor service, a lack of capabilities, (relatively) high fees—and sometimes more than one of the above. 

And that, of course, means that the transition, however badly needed or desired, will likely be rougher—and take longer—than anticipated or desired (see also 3 Things Plan Sponsors Should Know About Changing Providers). And who knows how many intentions to pursue a review have simply petered out on the altar of “not enough time” to do so?

ESG

In fairness, it’s probably not Environmental, Social & Governance (ESG) investing per se that seems to “scare” plan sponsors from offering these options, but rather concerns about their level of accountability for choosing to do so. Indeed, there’s plenty of survey data to suggest that workers, particularly younger ones, want these options. That said, workable, consistent definitions of ESG remain fluid, and perhaps as a result, the adoption rate among DC plans has been tepid—and the take-up rate among participants who have the option is even lower. Indeed, fewer than 3% of plan sponsor respondents included that option on their plan investment menu, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s 63^rd Annual Survey of 401(k) and Profit Sharing Plans, and only about 0.1% of plan assets were invested in those options. Those looking for a counterpoint might note that ESG options were more common among the largest plans (those with more than 5,000 participants) and the smallest (fewer than 50 participants), where 4.2% and 4.4%, respectively, offered that option.

The hesitancy likely comes (at least in part) from confusion about how the Labor Department views these options, or more precisely the prudence of including them as a participant investment option. For a long time there had “only” been Interpretive Bulletins (IBs) (in 1994, 2008 and 2016) and, more recently, a 2018 Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) on this subject. And while the 2016 IB was read as encouraging consideration of ESG factors (or at least not discouraging it), the 2018 FAB was widely viewed as pulling back on that stance, in the process establishing what had been called the “all things equal” standard, which meant that so long as two otherwise identical investments met all the requisite prudence standards, a fiduciary could (prudently) pick the one that (also) had ESG attributes. 

And then, roughly a year ago, the Trump administration weighed in with a proposed rule that was harshly critical of ESG (unless a “pecuniary”—that is, financial—rationale was evident)– and ultimately a final one that moved off that stance a bit, but still left room for caution. 

After first announcing that it had no intention of enforcing that rule, the Biden administration’s DOL has recently provided a (new) proposed rule that—arguably—puts these options in a more positive light. Indeed, in its current form it actually seems more supportive than the “all things equal” standard put forth by the Obama administration, though it remains a proposed rule, with comments being taken for consideration in shaping a final version.    

All of which arguably (still) leaves plan sponsors contemplating a shift to ESG with a lingering uncertainty. They may not be “scared,” but one can certainly understand a bit of as-yet-unresolved apprehension.

Lifetime Income Options

Speaking of apprehension, while DC plan fiduciaries aren’t exactly scared of retirement income, DC plans have long eschewed providing those options. That despite the unquestioned reality that participants need help structuring their income in retirement—and little doubt that a lifetime income option could help.

There are in-plan options available in the marketplace now, of course, and thus, logically, there are plan sponsors who have either derived the requisite assurances (or don’t find them necessary) or feel that the benefits and/or participant need for such options makes it worth the additional considerations. On the other hand, those industry surveys notwithstanding, for the most part participants don’t seem to be asking for the option (from anyone other than industry survey takers)—and when they do have access, mostly don’t take advantage. Let’s face it, even when DB pension plan participants have a choice, they opt for the lump sum. 

It’s ironic that programs designed to provide retirement income pay so little attention to the realization of that objective; only about half of DC plans currently provide an option for participants to establish a systematic series of periodic payments, much less an annuity or other in-plan retirement income option, and that’s despite the 2008 Safe Harbor regulation from the Labor Department regarding the selection of annuity providers under DC plans (which was designed to alleviate, though it did not eliminate, those concerns), not to mention a further attempt to close that comfort gap in 2015 (FAB 2015-02).

Proponents are even more hopeful that the SECURE Act’s provisions regarding lifetime income disclosures (though many recordkeepers already provide some version of this), enhanced portability (a serious logistical challenge if you ever want to move from a recordkeeper that provides the service to one that doesn’t, though solutions are emerging that claim to have made progress on this front) and, perhaps most importantly, an expanded fiduciary safe harbor for selection of lifetime income providers, will—finally—put those “fears” to rest. We’ll see.

The Standard

Don’t get me wrong—there are plenty of things for ERISA fiduciaries—who are, after all, personally liable not only for their actions, but those of their co-fiduciaries—to be worried about. The standards with which their conduct must comply are (as one court has put it) “the highest known to law,” and with good reason. Prudence is often associated with caution, and fiduciaries generally find more comfort in the middle of the trend “pack” than on its fringes.

That said, the standard is to act (solely) in the best interests of plan participants and beneficiaries—and even though it may be “scary” from time to time… the alternative is surely worse…

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

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.