Fidelity Urges Advisers to Tackle HSA Market

Health savings account holders with a DC employer match contributed $1,054 more to their HSAs in 2016 than those with no DC employer match, according to data shared by Fidelity. 

Recently the topic of health savings accounts (HSAs) has become a common theme in conversations with defined contribution (DC) retirement plan providers.

That was certainly the case during a recent interview with Fidelity executives. Besides challenges like the Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rule and the glut of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) litigation, the firm is also focused on aggressively pursuing growth opportunities. Among these stands the rapidly expanding HSA marketplace.

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

Currently in the Fidelity book of business just about two-thirds of active HSA contributors are male. Their average age is 45 years; average income is $118,000; and the active HSA users contribute an average of 10.6% of their salary to a DC retirement plan.

Key to note in the data Fidelity shared is that owning an HSA account is not a drag on DC plan savings—in fact the opposite effect seems to be true to some extent. Overall, those employees in the Fidelity book of business who own an HSA contribute more than 10% of their salary to a DC plan, while those without HSA access contribute an average 8.2% to the DC plan. In the aggregate the effect is dramatic, such that those who own HSA accounts have on average saved $119,000 more than their counterparts lacking HSA access.

Fidelity urges financial advisers to think about what these numbers imply—how strongly performing DC plans can be complemented by HSA programming. And there is a huge education gap around HSAs that advisers can dive right into. For example, according to Fidelity, 39% of those who already own an HSA do not fully understand that their balance is not “use it or lose it,” in the manner of a traditional flexible spending account. Half of HSA owners do not know that they can invest their whole balance or a portion of their balance in mutual funds.

Fidelity’s data shows 26.8% of HSA account holders called for assistance in 2016, up slightly from 2015, and 39.8% took action, down from 45% in 2015, yet higher than overall DC.

The Fidelity executives conclude their arguments with a simple warning: The average retiree hitting age 65 today will need as much as $260,000 to cover out-of-pocket health care expenses in retirement. They agreed that for many people the only way to even get anywhere close to this figure will be decades of aggressive saving (and investing) within an HSA.

Smart Beta Could be the Next Step in TDF Innovation

In a world of heightened fee pressure and low long-term returns, asset managers are redesigning widely used TDFs and some are turning to strategic beta. 

The defined contribution (DC) space is currently dominated by target-date funds (TDFs). These professionally managed portfolios rebalance participant assets over time by shifting more weight toward bonds and other income-driven investments as opposed to more volatile securities like stocks. But, critics argue that these funds don’t account for individual risk tolerance and they can’t always protect against volatility especially during a market downturn —  a matter that’s especially threatening to those nearing retirement.

In response, fund managers are redesigning these widely-used funds and turning to new strategies including smart beta. According to global research firm Cerulli Associates, 38% of asset managers surveyed believe it is highly likely for smart beta to become a feature of next-generation U.S. target-date products. Fifty percent believe it is somewhat likely.

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

Strategic beta or “smart beta” strategies aim for enhanced, risk-adjusted returns by tracking an index based on specific rules or preferences. As opposed to conventional market-cap-weighted passive allocations, these funds weigh securities based on specific factors such as performance, dividends, value, volatility and more. In this sense, smart beta seeks to outperform passive indices by taking an active investing approach.

“In a target-date market dominated by low-cost, passive providers, strategic beta strategies are a way for active managers to compete with pure passive on cost while retaining some of the value-add tenets associated with active management,” explains Dan Cook, analyst at Cerulli. “For the larger target-date providers, strategic beta series can also serve as another option in their target-date product suite, giving plan sponsors the choice between passive, active, and strategic beta.”

Cerulli notes that the increased scrutiny of investment management fees in a low-return DC environment has supported the argument to incorporate smart beta strategies into TDF innovation. Add to that the uncertain interest rate climate and reports indicating overall low returns for the foreseeable future, and smart beta may seem appealing to some fund managers.

Some providers have already rolled out smart beta TDFs. Blackrock recently ran an analysis comparing the performance of several market-cap indices through a hypothetical working lifetime against its smart beta portfolios. It found that in each case, the strategic beta portfolios outperformed their indices.

According to the latest report by Cerulli, “Asset managers incorporating strategic beta into their target-date series could find success by positioning their products as cost-effective strategies capable of reducing volatility and sequencing risk for retirement investors when markets decline.”

Cerulli puts the general cost of smart beta at 25 to 50 basis points depending on the complexity of the strategy.

But while smart beta strategies may help TDF investors mitigate risks and improve their retirement readiness, it likely would complicate the due diligence process at the plan level. This is especially important for DC plan fiduciaries who would have to navigate the ever evolving regulatory space following the implementation of the Department of Labor’s Conflict of Interest Rule. The fiduciary scope will likely tighten as TDFs continue to grow as one of the main drivers behind Americans’ retirement readiness in the DC space. Cerulli finds that as of 2016, TDFs accounted for $1 trillion of 401(k) assets or 52% of all 401(k) contributions. The firm projects that figure will jump to 75% by 2020. Thus, asset managers bringing new TDF products into the DC market will also have to bring all the necessary material to help fiduciaries administrate these products through a well-structured due diligence process.

Cerulli concludes that “Innovation from industry players and increased focus from plan participants could move the retirement readiness needle in the right direction.”

These findings are drawn from the second quarter 2017 issue of “The Cerulli Edge – U.S. Retirement Edition.” Information on obtaining a copy of the report can be found at Cerulli.com.

«