Recordkeeper Consolidation: Good or Bad News for Small Managed Accounts?

Industry participants are mixed on whether recordkeeper consolidation will help or hinder business opportunities for managed accounts.

Art by Alex Eben Meyer


The recordkeeping industry’s ongoing consolidation is occurring at the same time interest is growing in offering managed accounts in 401(k) plans, either as the default option or as part of a plan’s investment lineup. The convergence of these trends raises an interesting question: Will recordkeeper consolidation prove to be a boon or a hindrance for smaller managed accounts?

Some industry members say the shrinking recordkeeper marketplace will not reduce business opportunities for managed accounts. Ronnie Cox, senior vice president, investments with Pensionmark Financial Group in Santa Barbara, California, says recordkeeper consolidation and managed account options are not correlated. “Through our experience with managed accounts and adviser managed accounts, we have not lost choice through recordkeeper consolidation,” he says. “I have seen more managed account providers and methodologies gain prominence as managed accounts have gained more traction in the industry.”

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

Other observers are less optimistic for smaller managers’ prospects. Audrey Wheat, leader of the vendor analysis team with CAPTRUST in Raleigh, North Carolina, thinks consolidation is more of a hindrance than a help. As an example, she cites a case from several years ago of a smaller managed account provider that worked with two recordkeepers, both of which were acquired by a larger firm. Post-merger, the managed account’s assets were transferred to the acquiring recordkeeper’s existing provider—a common development unless the plan sponsor can make an alternate election, she says. “So, typically the smaller managed account providers are on the wrong end of that transaction,” Wheat says.

Limited Lineups

One challenge is a cap—formal or informal—on the number of managed account providers on the recordkeeper’s platform. That limit can lead to a recordkeeper’s proprietary account receiving greater emphasis. Wheat notes that a few larger recordkeepers offer their own proprietary managed account, with perhaps one alternate off-the-shelf-solution. “However, because they offer a proprietary solution, they incentivize clients to go with that solution through basically pricing it lower than the off-the-shelf version,” Wheat says. “So, that way they can say they have another option, but its usage is typically very low.”

Smaller account managers face practical problems when seeking a lineup slot with recordkeepers. Integration is absolutely key with the recordkeeper, and smaller managers will find it difficult to connect to post-consolidation recordkeepers in a meaningful way, says Steve McCoy, CEO of iJoin in Scottsdale, Arizona. “As recordkeepers get larger, their development road maps are jampacked,” he says. “There’s just not the bandwidth available to connect to smaller or upstart managed account providers.”

Todd Lacey, chief revenue officer at Stadion Money Management in Watkinsville, Georgia, shares McCoy’s view that adding managed accounts to a recordkeeping platform is “a pretty substantial technology build” that requires resources the recordkeeper might prefer to use elsewhere. “At the end of the day, you’ve got tech integration, potential websites, user-experience builds, agreements that have to be drafted, marketing materials—there are a lot of pieces to it,” Lacey explains. The combined effect of those requirements can impose a limitation on managed account expansion, he says.

Cox compares the current environment to the early days of target-date funds. Most recordkeepers initially offered one proprietary fund option, but, over time, they expanded their lineups, particularly as plan advisers demanded more choice. He says he believes the industry will see a similar path evolve for managed accounts. The diversity of methodologies, costs and other features developing in the managed account industry, coupled with advisers’ demand for multiple providers, will spur the availability of multiple accounts on recordkeeping platforms, he maintains.

Getting On Board

Adviser demand might not lead to significant expansion opportunities in the short term, though. For example, Vestwell partners with Franklin Templeton to offer a proprietary adviser managed account feature based on the belief, says Joshua Forstater, senior vice president of sales for New York-based Vestwell, that “the next generation of managed account experiences needs to live natively in the recordkeeping platform in order to be effective.” While Vestwell is open to adding managed account partners, the company wants to maintain its “ability to have an adviser-friendly, frictionless experience,” Forstater emphasizes.

If a recordkeeper receives sufficient expressions of interest from advisers and plan sponsors in a particular account manager, the recordkeeper will be motivated to find more efficient ways to onboard managed accounts to accommodate that interest, says Lacey. “Some recordkeepers have already gone down this path, and I think they are putting themselves in a strong position to be leading managed account recordkeepers, as industry trends play out.”

But recordkeepers need an incentive to prioritize an integration request, says Shawn O’Brien, associate director, retirement at Cerulli Associates in Boston. He cites the hypothetical example of an influential adviser or consultant or a large plan sponsor asking for the implementation. Cases that bring substantial assets to the recordkeeper can also receive higher priority. “There needs to be a proper incentivization for the recordkeeper to say, ‘We’ll make time for this—we’ll allocate resources integrating the solution,’” O’Brien says. “Otherwise, it’s not really worth their time.”

Getting on a recordkeeper’s platform remains a daunting task, though, according to Cox. He says it can be extremely challenging, if not impossible, particularly for small adviser firms or managers. “If you’re a smaller adviser or managed account service provider that can’t make the business case to the recordkeeper, it may be a while before your preferred service becomes available, if at all,” he says.

Looking Ahead

Sources varied on whether recordkeeper consolidation will benefit or hinder small managed accounts in the short term. O’Brien doesn’t see it as a boon or hindrance, he says.

Lacey observes that most recordkeepers now offer managed accounts, and these have become a more important part of their business, a development he views positively. “I think there’s a lot of tailwind leading to the growth of managed accounts, and I think consolidation would probably do nothing but enhance that,” he says.

According to Cox, it’s too early to tell how the trends will interact. Recordkeeper consolidation may provide additional scale to managed account providers in order to drive costs down, he speculates. But consolidation might give recordkeepers increased pricing power or, with decreased competition, the ability to build their own in-house managed account services, he adds. Those services could serve as a wide moat to other managed account providers trying to integrate to those recordkeepers’ platforms. “In either case, I believe it is too early to tell how consolidation will [affect] managed accounts,” he concludes.

Bridging the Racial Retirement Gap: A Conversation With Spencer Williams

The CEO and president of the Retirement Clearinghouse talks about his decades-long project with Bob Johnson to implement 401(k) auto-portability.

Art by Melinda Beck


After entrepreneur and business executive Bob Johnson sold his Black Entertainment Television network to Viacom for about $3 billion in 2001, he started investing in often Black-owned businesses. One was RolloverSystems LLC, a Charlotte-based firm that automated retirement saving rollovers into individual retirement accounts chosen by participants.

In 2007, Johnson tapped Spencer Williams, a retirement industry executive who had been with MassMutual Financial Group and Federated Investors Inc., to run the firm that was eventually renamed the Retirement Clearinghouse LLC. At the time, Williams says, the two men quickly came to realize that the so-called “small account problem” was not just a business issue, but a societal problem. Due to the at-times onerous rollover process, as well as a need for cash, Williams found that lower-income workers were often cashing out of their plans—taking both the immediate tax hit and losing out on longer-term retirement savings. This plan “leakage,” they found, was disproportionately hitting the Black population and women.

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

More than 15 years and many meetings later, the Retirement Clearinghouse is getting closer to its goal of auto-portability. This week, it saw Empower Retirement join its consortium of recordkeepers agreeing to automate rollovers for workers with less than $5,000 in their account when they change jobs. That group now includes the country’s four largest recordkeepers, representing millions of participants. Meanwhile, the recently passed SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 codified auto-portability into law, a decision Williams and Retirement Clearinghouse sees as a major victory in making permanent the system it helped develop.

PLANADVISER caught up with Williams for an update on how he believes auto-portability will help bridge the racial retirement gap in the U.S., along with the challenges still ahead to meet that goal.

PLANADVISER: Tell us about how you first started working with Bob Johnson on the issue of auto-portability, and how you have both kept focus on it for over 15 years.

Williams: When I met Bob [Johnson], we hit it off immediately. He was entrepreneurial and is still amazingly entrepreneurial today in his mid-70s. He’s still got that hunger to do stuff. When we started working together, we didn’t say explicitly, ‘What can we do for minority savers?’ We had invested in this business and had, in a sense, a fresh slate. It was then that we hit upon the idea of auto-portability.

As we dug into [auto-portability], that’s when it got really fascinating. We had identified the problem—there is no such thing as an entrepreneur who is not trying to solve a problem—which was solving for leakage, or cash-outs from retirement plans. As we dug into it and did the research, we found that the cash-out problem was significantly worse for the Black population and women when compared to the total population.

This is a very strong theme for Bob Johnson: He likes to pursue social problems that can be solved with business solutions. … When he talks about auto-portability, he talks about how we can lend our hand to closing the wealth gap without some giant government program, or subsidies, or transfer payments and all those types of things—that’s the real bullseye for us: to be able to solve a social problem with a business solution.

PLANADVISER: As you’ve noted before, the retirement industry can sometimes move slowly. Walk us through the path that took this from an idea to getting the buy-in of both the industry and regulators.

Williams: In 2014, we brought a group of recordkeepers together to discuss-auto portability. … Everybody loved the idea. It is a really interesting idea that solves a problem, and not just a problem for participants, but for recordkeepers who have to keep these small accounts and all the costs associated with that. What they said is: ‘We need you to get us some regulatory guidance. We live in a litigious age, and without the regulatory guidance, we can’t get our plan sponsors to adopt this. They just won’t.’

From there, we went to Steve Saxon of Groom Law. He’s the real dean of the industry when it comes to ERISA. We asked him how we could do this with “negative consent.” We wanted to model [auto-portability] after auto-enrollment, because it simply flips the decision process. He said, ‘You’ve got to go to the [Department of Labor].’ That ended up taking six years.

We eventually got guidance from the DOL in late 2018 and finished it off in 2019. Bob went out and got endorsements from the National Urban League and the NAACP. We told them that we were in the business of fixing a longstanding problem that points straight to the racial wealth gap. We had tons of research, we had all kinds of other people discussing the issue, writing articles. … All of this became very influential in getting auto-portability included in SECURE 2.0.

Another key player was Tom Johnson [on the leadership committee of the Retirement Clearinghouse]. Tom and I spent almost 10 years on the road, just creating this base of understanding. All the time we’re getting at the central problem, and by doing this, you’re creating a coalition of the willing in the policy world. We never let up talking to any of the recordkeepers and all of the influencers in the retirement industry. There was no one we wouldn’t meet with, because we knew that, ultimately, we had to get to a point where we had critical mass of recordkeepers. It took us a little while to understand that we had to build the technology infrastructure, because no one was going to sign on if we were saying, ‘You go build it.’

PLANADVISER: You were bringing together firms that are, at their core, competing for business. How does that work?

Williams: The answer is, in one word: reciprocity. This is a principal that we baked into auto-portability very early on, recognizing that if we didn’t have complete reciprocity in the system, that the playing field could get tilted. A good example of reciprocity is that every recordkeeper and every plan sponsor signs the same contract. They agree in those contracts to not only be a receiving recordkeeper, but they also agree to be a sending recordkeeper. That is the crown jewel of-auto portability: When we stop leakage, we get more dollars in the system. We get better customers in the system. So there is, in fact, a business foundation underneath auto-portability, which is to preserve the money in the system, in which case we’re also doing good for our businesses.

When we established the Portability Services Network LLC [the partnership between recordkeepers and the Retirement Clearinghouse], we started with three recordkeepers. … We also created three more seats at the table, and by the end of March, we should have all three filled. With that, we’d have six recordkeepers and about 65% to 70% of the market represented in the six board seats held by recordkeepers, with Bob as the chair. This isn’t a monopoly-type goal—it’s about the fact that the more people we have participating in the clearinghouse, the better the outcome for everyone, especially participants.

PLANADVISER: Let’s get back to the mission you referenced in helping bridge the racial wealth gap. If auto-portability gains traction, how will you measure success?

Williams: The data will be sitting in the clearinghouse, and we can produce a kind of scorecard for every plan that participates. Of course, the recordkeeper will want their scorecards—and if we bring it back to the DE&I category—we don’t have that information on participants. But the plan sponsors do have that information about their own employees, so from our perspective, this is a highly measurable DE&I initiative. We can tell when transactions start occurring, and we can apply the raw data to a plan sponsor’s data to tell us how many people are using it, how much money is being kept or lost and who the participants are that are doing it.

That is our Rosetta Stone: to be able to demonstrate in cooperation with the recordkeepers and the plan sponsors that we did what we set out to do. That we helped more people save for retirement and have more financially secure lives.

«