Mapping Industry Change Just Part of the Job

From a rapidly evolving recordkeeping provider landscape to a potential wholesale rewrite of the tax treatment of retirement assets, today’s environment puts advisers and their clients in a constant state of flux. 

Todd Lacey, chief business development officer at Stadion, recently visited the PLANADVISER office to introduce his firm’s new target-date fund (TDF) product line, and before long the conversation naturally turned to the myriad regulatory and legislative issues facing retirement plan advisers and their clients.

Lacey was also forthcoming about what he sees as both the challenges and opportunities associated with working closely with defined contribution (DC) plan recordkeepers. He observed that much of his thinking on these subjects is colored by his time spent at both Transamerica and his own independent advisory firm, which he ran from 2007 through 2011.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

“Like many people in this industry, I had a first career as a DC plan wholesaler,” Lacey explained. “I did that for a number of years before becoming an adviser and founding the (k)larity Group. As an interesting aside, right after I decided to sell that business and go back to Transamerica to run business development, PLANADVISER reached out to notify the firm it had been selected for finalist consideration as a Plan Adviser Team of the Year. That was exciting to hear for me, but unfortunate timing.”

Back at Transamerica, Lacey was asked to lead business development efforts and key account management, before spending his last two years working with the firm’s Latin America team. His introduction at the start of this year to Stadion was partly serendipity, in that the firm’s headquarters is located “something like four miles” from his house, so he “figured it could be a good fit.”

Nearly a year into his tenure at Stadion, Lacey continues to enjoy the role and its challenges. He oversees the team that manages relationships with recordkeeping partners, while also opening up distribution channels for the firm’s managed account and TDF products.

“It is an exciting time to do this work because people are willing to take a fresh look at what retirement plans are and what they should be—about how to invest for a future that is more uncertain than ever in a lot of ways,” Lacey said. “The shift from DB [defined benefit] to DC, the increasing role of technology and the seismic change in regulation and legislation affecting this space, all of these trends have a direct impact on the job. Not only Stadion, but many other firms have a great culture that will help us get through this environment and ultimately serve our customers best.”

NEXT: Growth amid uncertainty 

For Stadion, the emphasis amid uncertainty remains clearly on growth, demonstrated by the fact that the firm has a sales team of over 18 people in the field, which Lacey described as “kind of unique for the size of organization we are and for the fact that we were more or less a simply managed account provider in the past.”

“We are working with more advisers every single day, and whether they have two plans or 200, we can support them,” he added. This is a key trend he sees, from his perspective, on the investing side of the DC marketplace—that product development is benefitting both novice and specialist advisers.

“Providers now offer everything from sales-level support to ongoing client support and participant support,” Lacey observed. “We invest a lot in making it easier for DC plan advisers to do their job—it’s a big part of what we do, and it shows our commitment to the adviser industry.”

Given the importance of their own relationships with recordkeepers, advisers may be interested to hear about the aspects of Lacey’s job relating to negotiating and maintaining recordkeeper relationships. At a high level, he sees the large national recordkeepers “struggling with a variety of headwinds—from fee compression to regulatory change under the evolving fiduciary rule, to more exacting client demands and a perceived commoditization of services—which nonetheless remains expensive and time-consuming to provide.”

NEXT: The proprietary product challenge 

There is also the emerging challenge of proprietary product sales being challenged in federal courts.

“I came from a large recordkeeper, so I have seen it firsthand,” Lacey recalled. “The point of mentioning this is that recordkeepers are stretched thin, and one cannot always expect that their requests to a provider will become a priority.”

Under Lacey’s leadership, the Stadion sales effort has actually turned its attention to working with smaller, open-architecture regional recordkeepers. “We love our current partners,” he said, “but it is also important to diversity distribution, like any company. There is still a lot of dynamism and success in the smaller recordkeeping market.”

For advisers, it is important to keep in mind what this set of facts seems to say about the future: There is a division going on in the recordkeeping arena that will result in a bifurcated market. It will be the very large national recordkeepers that survive, based on their scale, and it will be these smaller, boutique, highly nimble recordkeepers that are able to continue, based on the strength of their specialized offerings and reputation. Surviving between the two poles is already difficult and will only become more so in the years ahead, Lacey agreed. (See “Recordkeeping Market Evolution Marches On.”) Tied into this, Lacey also argued, is an ongoing trend pushing the DC plan industry toward the open-architecture recordkeeping model.

On the question of doing all this work in such an uncertain political, regulatory, judicial and legislative environment, Lacey agreed it adds another level of difficulty. But like many others who have spoken on the subject, he also feels the mass amount of uncertainty is causing providers to focus on what is certain—and that is the tried and true principles of running a quality business.

“Advisers in particular are on the front line of this issue; many have had to completely rethink their business model, and that is never going to be easy,” Lacey concluded. “When I had my advisory firm, we were already serving as an independent RIA [Registered Investment Adviser], and we were a fiduciary. That is where firms are clearly being pushed right now, and it will continue to be the case even if the fiduciary rule is delayed for some time, or even overturned.” 

Fidelity Dismissed from Verizon Plan Investments Suit

Although the court dismissed claims regarding risky investments in TDFs and participant fee disclosure failures, Verizon still faces a charge regarding an underperforming investment.

A federal court judge has dismissed claims against Verizon Communications retirement plan fiduciaries and Fidelity Investments over underlying investments in target-date funds (TDFs) and a lack of disclosures about revenue sharing in participant fee statements.

A participant in one of the Verizon retirement plans filed suit on her behalf as well as on behalf of participants in all of Verizon’s defined contribution (DC) plans, alleging Verizon created white label funds which include underlying funds and multiple layers of fess “that are nearly impossible for participant in Verizon’s plans to understand or evaluate.” The lawsuit specifically calls out target-date funds offered in the plans which include these white label funds as well as risky alternative investments.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

The lawsuit alleges that all the TDFs underperformed low-fee, passively managed TDFs offered by Vanguard.

U.S. District Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found the plaintiff’s claims to be insufficient. First, Gardephe noted that regarding TDFs, the Department of Labor (DOL) requires a plan to offer a “broad range of investment alternatives” that are “diversified” and have “materially different risk and return characteristics.” He also noted that a year after alternative investment funds were added to the TDFs, the rate of return for the TDF actually increased from 13.47% to 15.50%. According to Gardephe, asset allocations of TDFs are not required to take into account risk tolerances, investments or preferences of an individual participant.

In addition, according to the court opinion, while the plaintiff offered two charts labeled “Verizon vs. Vanguard Target Date Funds” and “Verizon vs. Custom Index Target Date Funds,” neither demonstrates Vanguard’s superior performance and none of the referenced Vanguard funds is a target-date fund.

Finally, Gardephe said, “Decisions in which courts have allowed allegations of imprudence to go forward rested on allegations that the defendants selected certain funds out of self-interest or demonstrated clear imcompetence.” Neither was alleged in the case, so the judge dismissed this claim.

NEXT: Allegations Regarding Fee Disclosures

The plaintiff in the case claimed Verizon defendants and Fidelity breached their fiduciaries duties when Fidelity failed to disclose its compensation and Verizon failed to correct the failure per the DOL’s 404(a)(5) participant fee disclosure rules.

Gardephe found that under the regulations, where an investment fund offered in a plan transfers to the recordkeeper some portion of its fees (revenue-sharing), plan administrators need not disclose the exact amounts remitted to the recorkeeper. Instead the regulations instructs plan administrators to provide an explanation that some of the plan’s administrative expenses are paid from the total annual operating expenses of one or more of the plans designated investment funds, either through revenue-sharing arrangements, 12b-1 fees or sub-transfer agent fees. Verizon’s participant fee disclosure include such an explanation.

The plaintiff also alleged that Fidelity breached its duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by making misrepresentations of fees on the plans’ annual Form 5500 reports. Gardephe found lower courts have ruled that participants lack standing to assert a claim based on an alleged misrepresentation in a Form 5500.

He dismissed this claim and as the plaintiff had not alleged that Fidelity had any fiduciary duty of participant disclosure of fees or with respect to filing Form 5500, Gardephe dismissed Fidelity as a defendant in the lawsuit.

A Win on the Prudent Investment Claim 

The plaintiff alleged that Verizon defendants breached their fiduciary duty with regard to the Global Opportunity Fund, which she says had “obvious and long-term underperformance over a ten-year period.”

Gardephe concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations were sufficient to state a claim. He noted that the complaints pleadings that the fund was a “core asset” of most of the Verizon plans’ investment options, that it wildly underperformed its benchmark over a ten-year period and barely surpassed the return of a money market investment, and that it charged an expense ratio higher than any other investment option available to participants were “sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss.”

«