Communicating Complicated Benefit Packages

It’s a significant challenge for sponsors of both DB and DC plans to take charge of communications and participant education.

“Plan sponsors [with both defined benefit and defined contribution plans], when they pick their consultant, need to make sure they pick a consultant that’s been in the business a long time,” says Brian Blach, vice president of CBIZ Retirement Plan Services, in San Jose, California. “Having both types of plans definitely has its challenges.”

For example, plan documents and summary plan descriptions (SPD) should clearly define the different classes of employee. “Those have to be very clear on what benefits groups of employees are eligible to receive,” he says. “The last thing we want is for the employee to think they’re going to get a benefit in a plan and not be eligible for that plan. So that outline is very critical.”

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

Matt Adamson, senior business leader of total rewards for MasterCard in Purchase, New York, notes his company is now in the final stages of terminating its pension plan. He says the decision was employee-driven, not a cost-saving measure, and is meant to help employees take better charge of their retirement savings effort.

“We started having populations that had different retirement benefits—some people had the pension plan, some people didn’t,” Adamson explains. “We had two different matching structures on the 401(k) to accommodate the difference between who had pensions and who didn’t.”

The feasibility and advisability of maintaining two plans is company specific, Adamson says, but retirement plan advisers can help their sponsor clients to weigh these options. “I definitely think it’s manageable, from a company perspective and the administration of it,” he says, but he warns that participants might get confused by the presence of multiple account options, so sponsors will have to be exceedingly diligent.

“Communication between the plan sponsor and the consultant is very critical,” Blach agrees.

NEXT: Communicating differences

“For success in this environment, you have to have literally two types of education pieces and material,” Blach says.

In a standard 401(k), he explains, the plan’s vendor or recordkeeper sends out the enrollment kits to participants. “When I have that defined benefit plan and 401(k) plan, we actually have the human resources people receive the kits and they hand them out.” In those kits, he says, his firm ensures that HR adds an introductory memo regarding the relationship between the two plans and addressing frequently asked questions.

For smaller plans, having the recordkeeper deliver the enrollment package to one location—instead of to each participant’s address—can be easier for them, and making those materials available in the workplace affords employees time to review the information with an expert nearby.

“Most books are pretty generic,” Blach says, “but they do outline the contribution formula. We have the summary plan description in there, we have the introduction memo. My clients can speak to one of the consultants here in our office or the human resource people.”

When MasterCard began the plan termination process, Anderson found “a lot of [messaging] is dictated by the legal process—there are so many notices you have to go through and different filings.” The key to handling participant communications, especially when juggling two plans, is to approach them “very carefully,” he says.

“We tried to supplement [the required notices] as much as possible with really simple language on what the options are, because it is kind of complicated,” Blach says. “We tried to make it as simple and as short as possible, and stay away from a lot of legalese.”

Advisers can help to develop those supplemental materials, for instance answering frequently asked questions or putting together cover memos to explain the required disclosures. They should be prepared to explain what is being sent, how it affects participants, and any action they may need to take.

NEXT: Cost considerations

“They represent are different costs,” Adamson says of DB and DC plans. With a DC plan, “you know what the fixed cost is of putting in a match every pay period. You know what your administrative costs are,” he notes. “With a pension it really depends on how the markets do. You might be faced with a year in which you don’t have to contribute to it, or you might be faced with a year when you have to put a substantial amount of money into it.”

“You’re now maintaining two plans,” Blach says. “I’m not going to say the administration cost is double, but there is some additional cost there.” Still, he adds, “It’s not a huge cost.”

When running these two types of plans, advisers need to make sure their plan sponsors understand the many variables that go into the defined benefit contribution each year. “How did the performance of the assets in the defined benefit do? Did they keep up with the market? Did they beat your targeted growth rate? Did they underperform the targeted growth rate?” Next, consider the plan's demographics—older employees cost more than younger.

At a minimum, Blach’s firm tries to provide two projections every year to help employers prepare for the defined benefit contribution they will owe. Given that many of these plans come up as a tax benefit, employers want to make the contribution right before the tax-filing deadline, which for most corporate year-end plans is September or October of a given year. However, it’s assumed that that money has been in the plan and earning interest since January 1; by delaying funding, participants have effectively missed out on nine months of potential earnings, which puts them at a disadvantage for the next year.

Plan advisers can help to explain that the sooner the funds get into the trust, the better off the plan will be from a funding standpoint. “We feel that if we can get out in front of the client and do those projected contribution analyses for them, we have a better opportunity to get that money into the trust earlier in the year,” he says. Remember that the DB requires a contribution each year—in good times and in bad—and the employer needs to be sure it can fund that contribution each year.

NEXT: Juggling two plans

“Make sure [plan sponsors] understand that it’s a complicated plan and that they need to be very proactive asking about the required contributions every year,” Blach says. “They need to be communicating with the actuary and the consultant where they are in the business cycle—good or bad.

“Most plan sponsors like to say when they’re having a great year, when they’re not having a good year,” he continues. When their cash flow is not as good, “they don’t like to talk about it.” However, he warns, “that’s part of the business cycle and [part of] making sure you picked the right partner so you can talk about those things so that they can guide the client the right way and give good advice.”

As for the recordkeeper’s communications to both sets of participants, Adamson says, “I think that all went pretty smoothly ... I think most providers, administratively, can accommodate two matching schedules.

“Once again, that’s a communication thing that the employer has to make sure the employees understand,” Adamson says, particularly when it comes to individual classifications. Advisers can help the plan sponsor to clarify which groups of employees are eligible for each level of benefit, and to communicate that with participants. 

Voya Asks DOL to Ease Up on Fiduciary Rule

The financial firm says the proposal has “unduly complicated” provisions.

Voya Financial says it understands it is the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s)  intent to better protect workers and retirees, but it is “very concerned” that the DOL’s new fiduciary proposal would likely do the opposite, jeopardizing retirement income, accelerating leakage from retirement plans and limiting participants’ and IRA owners’ access to information.

In a comment letter to the DOL, Voya says the proposal has unduly complicated provisions and its proposed new restrictions on educational information will make it more difficult and costly for service providers to reach and help participants and IRA owners, an outcome that is not in the participants’ and IRA owners’ best interests.

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

“One primary reason is that the proposal would impose procedural burdens on even very basic communications resulting from recasting many of these communications as ERISA fiduciary ‘investment advice.’” the letter says. “Rather than erecting barriers, the proposal should facilitate these vital discussions. Otherwise, the combination of burdens in the proposal as well as the substantial penalties and other legal liabilities that can result from inadvertent fiduciary status may have the unintended effect of decreasing the level of professional assistance and the range of retirement products and services available to many plan participants, particularly terminated plan participants and IRA owners.”

Among other issues discussed in the letter, Voya says it believes the proposed defintion of when a person is rendering “investment advice”—and, thus, is acting as a fiduciary—is too broad and vague. More specifically, an “understanding” that a “recommendation” is “directed to” a plan is too subjective.

As an example, Voya says, under the proposal, simply providing investment-related information could be alleged by a recipient to have been investment advice. It could be construed to include a mailing addressed to a recipient by name that discusses an investment product. In a similar vein, enrolling a new participant in an employer’s retirement plan often involves offering that individual an opportunity to transfer funds from a prior plan to a new plan where permitted. The proposal would likely make these discussions fiduciary advice, requiring an analysis of the prior plan and the current plan to develop specific advice to engage in the transfer. As a consequence, these services may be dramatically reduced or eliminated.                   

“The Department should clarify that, where a person performs an actuarial, accounting, legal function, or acts as a ministerial service provider merely making participants aware of services, benefits, rights and features available under a plan, the services will not be deemed to be ‘investment advice’ or give rise to fiduciary status,” the letter says.

Voya also notes that as currently written, the Seller’s Carve-Out in the fiduciary proposal would apply only to certain large plans as defined by asset size or number of participants. The proposal notes, “[t]he overall purpose of this carve-out is to avoid imposing ERISA fiduciary obligations on sales pitches that are part of arm’s length transactions where neither side assumes that the counterparty to the plan is acting as an impartial trusted adviser….” Like larger plans, smaller plans benefit from more, not less information; restricting the Seller’s Carve-Out will lead to less information being provided to them, Voya says.

In addition, the language currently in the Seller’s Carve-Out covers only a sale, purchase, loan or bilateral contract, leaving other interactions somewhat ambiguous, including information provided to a plan sponsor as part of a request for proposal (RFP) by a prospective service provider or as part of an on-going service model geared to facilitate the plan sponsor’s fulfilment of its fiduciary responsibilities, according to Voya. The company suggests that the language in the Seller’s Carve-Out should be broadened to cover any services and other interactions with plans where the terms of the carve-out are otherwise met, including, for example, where services are pursuant to a service agreement with a plan sponsor for ministerial services for a reasonable fee to ensure the orderly administration of a plan.

In its letter, Voya contends the complexities and practical challenges of applying the proposal’s “Best Interest Contract” (BIC) exemption to day-to-day activities of many financial advisers render it unworkable and would ultimately prove counterproductive. Voya notes that an individual’s request for even basic guidance could cause an adviser to suspend the discussion and send the individual a contract. This would draw out the process and may make the individual uncomfortable. In addition, if an individual is comparison shopping, he or she could experience multiple scenarios such as this.

“The end result may be that many individuals simply eschew seeking basic guidance, instead making decisions on their own or based on friends’ or co-workers’ guidance. Alternatively, individuals may decide simply to pull their money from tax-advantaged retirement vehicles altogether. Neither of these outcomes are the type of result aimed at by the proposal,” the letter says.               

In addition, Voya notes, due to costs and complexities, many advisers will no longer be willing or able to service individual IRAs or small companies that offer their employees IRA retirement vehicles, and if an adviser determined to continue serving these accounts and plans, the fees for doing so would rise substantially, due to significantly increased fiduciary exposure, the additional time and resources to provide fiduciary services, and the cost and resources needed to provide the required new disclosures.

Voya suggests that rather than requiring a document that must be executed and returned by potential customers—which will likely not occur in many situations, forestalling an informed conversation—the DOL should consider a more user-friendly form of basic disclosures that would serve much the same purpose. “This disclosure—a customer’s Bill of Rights, if you will, receipt of which could be acknowledged by the recipient—could set out key disclosures, terms and the potential conflicts that an adviser faces (if applicable). Such a disclosure document could be required to be delivered before money is invested or a fee is received.”

Voya’s comment letter may be viewed here. All comments submitted to the DOL may be viewed here.

«