Trading Employee Engagement for Auto Features


The growing trend in retirement plans is toward the automatic. Auto-enrollment. Auto-escalation. Auto-rebalance. QDIAs. The benefits of these features are well documented. Studies like this one (here) show how automatic features seem to better prepare employees to replace their normal working wages than plans without these features.

But is there a trade off? Are we breeding apathy into these plans and using the apathy as the rationale for implementing these features?

Studies like one from the EBRI referenced above show that under their calculations, the employees will have better balances at retirement than those under plans without automatic features. For a moment, let’s assume that the other assumptions in those studies do not categorically disqualify them. But let’s look at the aspects that the study does not cover.

First,there is an assumption that participants will either stay in one job or maintain their accounts without cashing them in when changing jobs or take loans. In reality, we know that this happens. And it happens a lot. So much so that the Government Accountability Office mentions it in at least two separate studies (here and here). Cashing out costs employees in current taxes as well as retirement security.

Conversely, not rolling the balance to a new employer costs employers who pay recordkeepers and TPAs a per participant charge. Or it can cost the participant if those charges are passed along to the employee. There are provisions to roll smaller balances out of plans automatically, either to an IRA or a complete cash out. But are those provisions putting employees in a position to be better off in retirement than just staying in the plan? Depending on several variables, the participant may have lower expenses by staying in the plan.

Second, let’s assume that the participant gets to retirement with a bolstered balance due to automatic enrollment. I would suggest that participants who have not been properly engaged throughout the process (saving for retirement) are not appropriately trained to handle the control of such a large amount of money. While having lunch several years ago, I struck up a conversation with the man sitting next to me. Inevitably, the subject of work came up. After learning what I did, he shared with me what he had done with his retirement funds.

“I worked my whole life; I worked hard. And I did a good job saving. I retired with $150,000 in my 401k. So you know what I did? I treated myself to a new Cadillac.”

To be fair, I have no idea what other assets the man had. But it is conversations like this that leads the government to allow annuity features in retirement plans. And it causes others to wax nostalgic about how great pensions were. The reality is that people who have not been properly educated about financial matters who suddenly have access to a large pool of money tend to make bad decisions. Don’t believe me? A majority of people who win the lottery lose most of their new wealth within several years. And the same is true for professional athletes.

So the question becomes: Are we doing an unintended disservice to the participants in plans by removing steps of the process from their control? We know that financial education is not being taught in most schools. And we know that there are blind spots in participants understanding of finance. At least the old enrollment process gave us a chance to speak with the participants about how different asset classes and dollar cost averaging works. It gave them a chance to ask questions about financial subjects. If we are going to continue to automate other features of the plan, maybe some other activities could take their place. Should we be mandating that, in lieu of the standard enrollment meeting, there be some sort of financial education component? Should we redefine the educational component of 404(c) to make participants more financially savvy? As financial services professionals, what else can we do to help prepare participants for retirement?

The Iceberg of Retirement Plan Service


Everyone has seen the motivational posters with the iceberg, complete with the requisite statement about how there is so much below the surface.


This concept of an iceberg is very much like the fees conversation in the retirement plan world. We are all sick of hearing about it. We are sick of getting bashed in the press. We are sick of looking over our shoulders, waiting for an attorney to file a suit alleging that we have over charged and are on the hook for restitution to the plan. I think these suits and the negative press continue because like the tip of an iceberg, our clients only see what we do in the board room. We don’t take the time to show them the part of the iceberg that is under the water, which in this case is all of the other work that goes into a plan.

Most people outside our industry have no idea what it takes to run a plan. I am sure you have read articles about fees or studies that discuss how over-priced plans are. But no one ever discusses who is doing this work, or what steps are required to run a plan. Most of the articles I can find only talk about the cost of the investment portfolio, probably because that is the only piece of the equation that transfers from their other knowledge base. I’ll take that a step further: even a lot of people in our industry don’t know how much work goes into servicing a qualified plan. Think about other advisors in your office who don’t touch plans. Think about other professionals, like CPAs and attorneys, who ask questions leading you to believe that our craft is as foreign to them as rocket science is to most of us. Think about the last gathering that you attended where your specialty in plans came up and the person listening to you just stood there, mouth agape, when you told him what you do. It happens too often, right?

The reality is that there are a lot of moving pieces that many people, both in and out of the industry, do not understand. And that includes our clients.

Want proof (You knew that was going to come out if you are familiar with us)? Here it is: a client asks you to drop your fee, they most likely do not understand the time that goes into servicing his plan. Think about it for a minute. Most of what we know about someone else’s profession is limited to what we see them do, like the tip of the iceberg. In sports, many spectators do not understand the hours of daily practice professional athletes endure. Many of your clients probably only see the reports you provide at quarterly due diligence meetings and enrollment meetings. They see what you do when you are there with them and nothing more. Out of sight; out of mind.

We owe it to ourselves to show more. We cannot complain about being pressed for fees if we don’t educate our clients about our work. Do your clients know how much time you spend building the reports for the quarterly and annual meetings? Do they know how much time you spend answering phone calls and e-mails from participants? Do they understand the amount of time it takes to find a suitable replacement fund that will meet the standards of the Investment Policy Statement? Do they know how much work can go into ADP/ACP testing? When I sat down to write out all of the different tasks associated with servicing a plan, I was amazed. These are all real activities that take real time and real experience to manage effectively and efficiently. These are activities that you want done by a professional who is properly incented to do a good job. I have often said that I unsubscribed to Groupon because their ads were for things for which I want to pay full price- parachuting, dental work, and appendectomies. Our business should be no different. Retirement is too important to take a cheap approach.

Do our clients know how much of the service iceberg is below the surface? And let’s take that a step further: do you know all of these details? Have you put the effort into tracking the data so that you know how to price a case? Think about it from a business perspective. If you don’t know how much time you are spending on a given project, how do you know where to make your process more efficient? If you don’t know how much time a case takes to service, how do you know how many cases you can adequately service? How do you know when and where to add staff? Or software?

As we see the 408(b)2 disclosures evolve and the media continue to bash us for high fees, let’s start to give them a look at everything below the surface. We owe it to ourselves and our clients. We owe it to our profession.

Is the Education Component of 404(c) in Need of an Update?


My uncle used to be an attorney and a judge in town. I remember seeing the wall of books in his office and wondering how any one person could remember all of that material. Of course, that was 20+ years ago. Since that time there we have seen the addition of the Pension Protection Act, which itself added a staggering 900+ pages to the Code for our industry alone. And as I look at some of the laws on the books, I can’t help but wonder if there are laws that need to be updated because their application is outdated. As you can guess from the title of this post, I think that you could make a solid case for updating the education component of 404(c).

As the law stands, a fiduciary is liable for the investment decisions of the participants in their plan. However, a fiduciary can claim exemption from that liability if they meet certain qualifications, including an education component. “The participant or beneficiary is provided or has the opportunity to obtain sufficient information to make informed investment decisions with regard to investment alternatives available under the plan, and incidents of ownership appurtenant to such investments”(complete law text can be found here). In short, a participant must have enough information about the investment offerings to make a decision. Originally, this was interpreted to mean that the participant was entitled to the entire prospectus. I was originally licensed in 2000 and have yet to meet anyone who has read a prospectus voluntarily for a reason other than trying to cure insomnia. It wasn’t until Field Assistance Bulletin 2009-03 that it was determined that a one pager would be sufficient to give a participant all of the information that he needs to make an informed decision.

Let’s dig into this for a minute. Part of the assumption around this law is that there is already a process in place to scrub funds to be in line with the goals of the plan. So the assumption is that the funds themselves are good. The second presumption here is that participants need only decide which of the funds appropriately meet their investment objectives. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that with this limited amount of disclosure, participants don’t make optimal choices. Here is one example: here. Most record keepers try to help by building their enrollment kits with a risk assessment. We don’t have time here and now to get into the merits and downfalls of that approach. Stay tuned- we will dig into that in a future blog.

If we look at the current state of financial education, it is no wonder that participants are having trouble. Here are some quick facts:

  • Currently four states (Missouri, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia) require a high school students to take a personal finance course in order to graduate;
  • Only 19 states require a course in Personal Finance be offered;
  • 24 states require that an Economics class be offered;
  • Since 2011, three states (Hawaii, Illinois, and New York) have dropped Personal Finance as a part of the K-12 standard.

Sources 1 and 2

It is fair to assume that there are a lot of children who are not getting this education at home. If these future workers and participants are unfamiliar with basic personal finance, is it realistic to believe that they have the skills required to read even a summary prospectus? Don’t take that wrong. There are a lot of good, hard-working people in this group. But they may not have the skills required to make these decisions. Let’s drive this home a little further. Many of us have the mental capability to allow us to do electrical work, but we may not have the requisite education to do it safely. I know that I don’t. But let’s go back to the assumption of a plan sponsor. All decisions for a fiduciary are held to a level of prudence. Would a prudent person assume, given the statistics above, that participants have enough finance background to appropriately assimilate the information in a sales slick to make a decision on where to invest their 401(k)? Would a prudent person force a person to make a decision knowing that person lacks the skill and knowledge to make an informed decision?

The advantage to a Fiduciary who claims exemption under 404(c) is that he is no longer liable for the investment decisions of the participants. In all aspects of the law, we have seen an evolution. Fund due diligence has myriad tools available to provide staggering insight into the benefits and shortcomings of an investment. Software packages provide robust tracking and document retention capabilities. Documents have been created to help a responsible plan fiduciary navigate through many of the decisions that he is required to make. A fiduciary is armed to the teeth when it comes to making decisions. Yet, we have, for the most part, stagnated when it comes to arming the individual from whom we are trying to shield ourselves.

It may be unrealistic to think that we could come to a consensus regarding what education should be offered. We cannot even come to a conclusion on the fiduciary standard for plans. And though I marveled at my uncle’s law books as young man, I am not in favor of adding laws or responsibility for the sake of adding them. But doesn’t the question at least deserve to be asked: are we doing ourselves a disservice by not requiring more under the educational component of 404(c)?