Have You Hugged Your TPA Today?

If you work with TPAs—third party administrators—you might want to avoid bugging them this week. 

As you may well know (certainly if you work with TPAs), this year, Monday (Oct. 17th) is the deadline to file Form 5500s, and for most TPAs, that’s a pretty all-consuming focus. So much so that every year on the day AFTER the Form 5500 filing deadline, John Hancock declares an annual day of recognition for TPAs. 

Now, to its credit, John Hancock goes so far as to note that National TPA Day is also a reminder to financial professionals (especially those still getting established) that partnering with TPAs may be an important pathway to success. Not that everyone feels that way, of course.

I’m talking about the disconnects in focus between retirement plan advisors and TPAs—an issue that is, perhaps, as old as ERISA itself—this “tension” between these two critical roles. Not in every case, of course—there are plenty of advisors that will tell you how many times their TPA partner has gotten them out of a real mess, and TPAs that will commend the leadership demonstrated by their advisor teammate. But that, it seems, isn’t the majority experience, though it proves it can be that. 

As it turns out, I’ve spent some time on both sides of that “divide,” and a fair amount of time able to observe both from a distance. I’ve listened to groups of TPAs gripe about advisors who “won’t stay in their lanes”—and advisors frustrated with TPAs who, when asked what time it is, insist first on explaining how a watch is made. I can remember personal experiences trying to explain complex plan design decisions with real-world implications—only to have the decision-makers decide it was time to step out for the equivalent of “brandy and cigars” with the plan advisor, leaving the decisions—undecided.   

The beauty of these times—and our associations—is that I was able to reach out on an ad hoc basis to folks that I knew could also appreciate both sides of the “debate,” and who cared enough to try and do something about it. This core group—Mary Patch, Chad Johansen, JD Carlson, Shannon Edwards, Justin Bonestroo & Amanda Iverson—have given up a LOT of their time and energy over the past many months to this undertaking. COVID helped in some ways—nobody was travelling as much, and we’re all now well accustomed to meeting virtually to solve problems. 

Our collective sense was that what makes the difference in these relationships is having a shared set of goals and expectations, alongside role clarity and confidence in the perspectives and expertise of the partner(s). We started with posts that have run on NAPA-Net on a monthly basis beginning last year (links below), came to something of a crescendo with a special TPA panel at the 2022 NAPA 401(k) Summit, and ultimately culminated in a checklist of sorts that you can find here. Think of it as a relationship pre-screener.

That checklist alone (and we’re hoping you’ll reconsider Compliance Administrator or Compliance Consultant as replacements for that awful TPA moniker) won’t solve all communication/expectation issues, but we hope it will be a solid foundation to open a dialogue. At its most basic, it should allow you to find out what services potential (or current) TPA partners provide, which are standard to their practice(s), and which are “extra.” But ultimately—and most significantly—it is designed to align expectations. 

There may well be things on this list of which you are unfamiliar—if so, this would be a good time to find out more about them, as I assure you, they are important, and SOMEBODY should be attending to them.  The core team is now working on some background explanations—if some jump out at you for a quicker explanation, please let me know. I—and indeed the entire core team—would love for you to begin using this checklist in your partner discussions—and to let us know what works—and of course, what doesn’t in the days and weeks ahead.

My undying thanks again to the core team for the love, humor, friendship and passion on this effort–– and to about a dozen advisors (you know who you are) who provided some terrific insights and perspective as the checklist neared completion. 

And ultimately to you, gentle reader, for helping us build this bridge…

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Finding the Right TPA Partner

Bundled Versus Unbundled: 5 Myths

Resource ‘Full’?

What’s in a Name?     

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 Valuable ‘Commodity’

I’ve been on the road a lot over the past several weeks – and I’ve noted a remarkably diverse range of prices in gasoline across various locales.

I think it’s fair to label gasoline a “commodity[i]” – what the dictionary describes as “a reasonably interchangeable good or material, bought and sold freely as an article of commerce.”

Oh, sure – you may have a preference for one brand or another, you may not care for the political allegiances of their ownership… but when push comes to shove, it usually comes down to price – because, after all, when it comes to gasoline, it’s pretty much the same stuff.

For years, recordkeeping services – complex and difficult as they can be to provide accurately and consistently (not to mention profitably) – have been characterized (some might say disparaged) as a “commodity,” while fee compression (and the aforementioned complexities) continue to fuel consolidation in that industry.

Honestly, as a former recordkeeper, I’ve never understood how anyone who had any real appreciation for a business as varied, complex, and demanding as that of keeping up – and keeping up accurately – with individual participant accounts over the course of a working career – would be willing to refer to those services as “interchangeable.” Or why any firm that provides those complex services in these challenging times would be willing to let others do so. Certainly any participant, plan sponsor, or advisor who has seen the integrity of that data put at risk by clumsy and inattentive hands can attest to the impact that a failure to do so. Indeed, I’m shocked by the leaders in our industry who label it as such – leaders that I think might well feel differently if they had spent even a small amount of time in those shoes.


Without question, recordkeeping is not only a challenging business, it is expensive to stay current with technology, to keep processes and programs current not only with changes both in the laws and regulations, but the nuances of individual plan designs. And as if that weren’t enough, cybersecurity has recently emerged as a significant threat – little wonder in view of the enormous amount of sensitive financial data to which these “commodity” producers are entrusted.

Where recordkeeping does seem to have been “transformed” into a commodity business is in the pricing of those services. Like the gasoline drawn from a pump, economists would tell you that, since commodity products are “interchangeable,” they compete (only) on price – and to do so (profitably) requires that that you have to achieve economies of scale – and the continued downward pressure on fees for those services continues to force firms to exit or flee to the embrace of larger players.

Further fueling those trends, the plaintiffs’ bar has latched onto the “commodity” concept, having (apparently) determined that it is “appropriate” to be compensated for these services by a flat per-participant charge ($35 seems to be their notion of “reasonable,” at least for the multi-billion-dollar plans targeted, though the courts don’t seem ready to buy into that presumption just yet).
I know that over the years there has been an ongoing attempt to “functionalize,” to break the complex process of recordkeeping (I tend to think of it as participant accounting) down into component parts like some kind of mass assembly line – and perhaps some quarters have done so successfully. Perhaps then, at least in some venues, that once ornate, vibrant (though often complicated and tedious) process has actually been reduced to one so regimented and segmented, so parsed out between segregated operational touchpoints that it might there truly be considered a “commodity.”

But my personal experience is that those who find themselves working with a service provider or TPA that views those critical services as a “commodity” will, in short order, wish they weren’t.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i]Now, if you’ve ever had the opportunity to shop for groceries in different parts of the country, you pretty quickly become aware of some incredible price differences in a variety of items, including things as basic as produce or milk. But it’s gasoline that tends to draw my attention, not only because it’s something I buy regularly, but because I don’t even have to walk into a store to compare prices.

Why Your Recordkeeper Might Not Be an Automatic Enrollment Fan

I recently wrote about what’s wrong with automatic enrollment. Turns out there’s more – and it has to do with when things actually go “wrong” with automatic enrollment.

See, it’s one thing to say that eligible employees should be automatically enrolled – and yet another to actually get them enrolled automatically. Even the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) goes so far as to acknowledge that two common errors found in 401(k) plans are: (1) not giving an eligible employee the opportunity to make elective contributions; and (2) failing to execute an employee’s salary deferral election.

Now, as it turns out, both are “fixable” – through the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS). But that’s only the start of things. See, in both of those situations you’re looking at a corrective contribution of 50% of the missed deferral (adjusted for earnings) for the affected employee. And then fully vesting the employee in those contributions – contributions that are subject to the same restrictions on withdrawal that apply to elective deferrals.

The only difference in the correction for the two situations outlined is the calculation of the amount of the missed deferral. In the case of an erroneously excluded employee, the missed deferral is based on the average of the deferral percentages (ADPs) for other employees in the employee’s category (for example, non-highly compensated employees), whereas if the error involves failing to implement an employee’s election, the missed deferral is based on the employee’s elected deferral percentage, or in the case of missed automatic contributions, the automatic contribution percentage. For plans with automatic contributions, however, the corrective contribution for the missed deferrals is reduced to 0% or 25% of the missed deferrals, depending upon how soon the error is corrected.

Your head starting to hurt?

Hold on – those corrective contributions also need to be adjusted for earnings – from the date that the elective deferrals should have been made through the date of the corrective contribution.1 In all cases the employer must contribute any missed matching contributions, adjusted for earnings.

‘Tell’ Tales

Now, in addition to the regular array of plan notices that will now be required for those new participants, automatic enrollment has its own special set of notices. While most larger plans rely on what is called an eligible automatic contribution arrangement (EACA), smaller programs may have in place what is called a qualified automatic contribution arrangement (QACA), a type of automatic enrollment 401(k) plan that automatically passes certain kinds of annual required testing (generally referred to as a safe harbor plan). A QACA must include certain features, such as a fixed schedule of automatic employee contributions, employer contributions, a special vesting schedule and specific notice requirements.

The automatic enrollment notice details the plan’s automatic enrollment process and participant rights. The notice must specify the deferral percentage, the participant’s right to change that percentage or not to make automatic contributions, and the default investment. The participant generally must receive the initial notice at least 30 days, but not more than 90 days, before eligibility to participate in the plan or the first investment. Subject to certain conditions, the notice may be provided, and an employee may be enrolled in the plan, on the first day of work. An annual notice must be provided to participants and all eligible employees at least 30 days, but not more than 90 days, prior to the beginning of each subsequent plan year. And guess what happens if those notices don’t go out when they are supposed to?

So, it’s not as though you just have to flip a switch on payroll and you’re done.

Even When It Works

There are, of course, issues, even if there are no processing missteps. Cost, particularly as it relates to the match – which may have been designed to encourage workers to sign up, and which, with automatic enrollment, may no longer need to – and which may have been budgeted for a 70% participation rate that, thanks to automatic enrollment, may be more like 95%. Turnover can leave behind smaller 401(k) balances, which incur additional recordkeeping costs, and which can prove to be a real administrative burden with ongoing notice and communication requirements. Which again, if those notices aren’t going out when they should…

The bottom line is that automatic enrollment is an important component of helping more Americans save, and save effectively. But as is often the case, it’s not as easy as it sounds, and plan sponsors looking to embrace this design – and advisors who tout it – should do so with a full awareness and appreciation of all the implications.

For some other issues, see “Why Doesn’t Every Plan Have Automatic Enrollment?”

Nevin E. Adams, JD

1. Not that that’s not an improvement from how it used to be. Under Rev. Proc. 2015-28, if the error is detected within 9½ months after the year of the failure, no corrective qualified non-elective contribution (QNEC) is required to an affected participant’s account for the missed deferral opportunity, as long as the person is enrolled within the 9½ month period (or earlier if the affected employee notifies the employer of the mistake).

3 Things Plan Sponsors Should Know About Changing Providers

By most industry estimates, approximately 10% of plans change providers every year.  Of course, far more consider making a change (without actually acting on it), and many changes are thrust upon plan sponsors, a consequence of poor service, or provider consolidation.

Regardless of the motivation for undertaking the change, here are three things that in my experience every advisor (and provider) wishes plan sponsors understood about recordkeeping conversions — before setting them in motion.

Your provider search will take longer than you think.

Human beings are, generally speaking, poor judges of time requirements, particularly with things with which they don’t have a lot experience (like provider searches) and that require the involvement/input of committees (like provider searches).

We tend to assume that we’ll have more time available for such things than actually winds up being the case, and we tend to assume that such things will take less time than they actually do. We also tend to make those types of assumptions about the participation of other members of the team. It’s not just that those assumptions tend to be optimistic, it’s that, all too frequently, they are wildly optimistic.

Your provider and/or advisor will likely make a good faith effort to provide a timetable of events, and will likely take pains to emphasize to you the amount of time it will take to actually conduct this process. Doubtless they will remind you — and remind you more than once — just how important it is that you make the time commitment, and deadlines, noted in that timetable.

My advice: Take whatever timetable they give you — and double it.

A big part of the reason your provider search will take longer than you think…is you.

A change of providers inevitably brings with it additional work, greater time commitments, and what sometimes feels like an incessant series of questions about things to which you never previously gave much thought. Moreover, you’ll have to think about how to communicate this change to your participants — and deal with the inevitable flurry of questions from them about how to do things to which they never previously gave much thought.

However, these realities are generally not top of mind when we enter into discussions about making a provider change. So, while the search is generally set forth on a wave of optimism and hope, it can, before long, find itself bogged down in the inevitable administrative minutia that consumes so much of a plan sponsor’s time. And the longer it takes, the worse it can become.

The bottom line is, at the outset you probably didn’t have 25% of your day just sitting there waiting for some big project to fill it. Even the most committed will, at some point (and likely at several some points) be tempted to push off that update call, to set aside responding to some integral data definition, to dither on making a determination that will hold up the entire project.  A good project plan will account for some of these. But not an indefinite number.

(Almost) Everybody wants to change providers on January 1. Everybody can’t.

If your plan year-end is Dec. 31 (and it is, for the vast majority of plans), there are some real benefits to making a provider change at that point in time. Plan reporting — both participant and regulatory (Form 5500) — is quite simply neater when you finish the reporting year at the same time you conclude your arrangements with a provider. Anything else is going to require someone somewhere to “splice” together reports at some point. Doing so doesn’t have to be a big deal — but it can be “awkward.”

There are some reasons not to make those kinds of changes at year-end, of course. First off, there’s generally quite a queue wanting to do so. You may well be able to get in that queue, but your new provider will likely have their hands full with a lot of plans just like yours. More significantly, your soon-to-be-ex provider likely will as well — and guess who is likely to get the most/best attention?

Bear in mind also that a 1/1 change means that a lot of the preparation, review, and/or testing— not to mention participant communications — will happen during a time of the year when people are generally more inclined to be worrying about other things.

What’s Next?

So, considering those issues, what should a plan sponsor thinking about making a provider change do?

Well, I would suggest you start early, allow plenty of time for slippage in schedule, and be open to the possibility of making a mid-year change instead.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD