Fidelity Offers Roadmap for Improving Retirement Outcomes

Fidelity Investments has launched an initiative to help employers evaluate and improve the retirement readiness of their employees.

The Retirement Vision 2020 initiative has a central Web page, which contains a seven-minute video, as well as links to a related white paper, “Retirement Vision 2020: Fidelity’s Prescription to Help Drive Better Outcomes,” and infographic. This content highlights a four-step approach to improving retirement outcomes for employees and help them better prepare for retirement.

These steps include:

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

  • Designing the retirement plan for income;
  • Accounting for health care expenses;
  • Engaging and empowering employees via guidance and access to resources; and
  • Helping employees transition into retirement with confidence.

Designing for Income

Fidelity recommends designing a 401(k) plan with a targeted income replacement goal, keeping in mind factors such as other benefits offered and overall plan demographics.

Doug Fisher, senior vice president of Thought Leadership and Policy Development for Workplace Investing at Fidelity Investments, tells PLANADVISER that over the last few years, Fidelity has noted factors that are causing employers to question whether their plans are doing a good enough job of preparing employees for retirement.

One factor is several generations now coexist in the workforce, and not all of these age groups have the same retirement needs or preferred method for receiving information, says the Boston-based Fisher. Another factor is employers are now living with the third generation of defined contribution plans and are beginning to question whether these plans are helping employees save adequately for retirement.

“These factors led to conversations with plan sponsors, including the need for employers to have a snapshot of how employees are doing when it comes to income replacement for retirement,” says Fisher.

Accounting for Health Care Expenses

Fidelity encourages both employers and employees to recognize the role health care expenses are likely to play in retirement. Health care options such as high deductible health plans (HDHPs) and health savings accounts (HSAs) can potentially increase employee savings opportunities.

Fisher notes that plan sponsors are aware of increasing health care costs and are rethinking their health care benefits strategies to address this issue, as well as the impact of health care reforms such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Part of evaluating the effectiveness of their retirement plans, says Fisher, is ensuring that health care costs, for both pre- and post-retirement, are part of employees’ decisions about saving.

Engaging and Empowering Employees

Fidelity promotes the importance of providing employees with guidance about retirement and easy access to resources, which can drive engagement and affect behavior.

In terms of engaging employees, having multiple methods of delivering information is important, says Fisher. Designing content to be viewed via tablets, smartphone/mobile technology and the Web should all be included.

Helping Employees Transition

Plan sponsors should not only prompt employees to think about their future, but also assist them with decisions.

Fisher notes that one of the growing areas of interest with regard to engagement is the retirement readiness of employees age 50 and older. For this age group, services such as retiree health care transition, income replacement, Medicare selection and evaluating portfolio income generation come into play.

“For these issues, it’s important to start talking about them with employees earlier in their careers,” says Fisher. “You can’t afford to wait until the employee turns 65 and just assume that everything is going to be okay.”

What to Do Next

“The four main strategies outlined in our material act as a framework for employers to consider. Underneath these strategies, Fidelity can provide employers with related data and analytics, as well as products and services,” says Fisher.

He adds, “All employers have different needs, but reviewing the information on our Retirement Vision 2020 page can kick off a conversation with plan sponsors about how their plan is doing and what can be done to improve it.”

While services are only available to those with Fidelity retirement plans, Fisher points out that “the basic framework outlined in the white paper can be used by any retirement plan, regardless of whether it’s under Fidelity.”

Industry Responses Vary on TDF Disclosure Proposals

About 30 investment firms and other parties responded to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s latest call for comments about a still-pending 2010 proposal to strengthen target-date fund disclosures.

As Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Mary Jo White explained during a brief address preceding a recent SEC Investor Advisory Committee meeting, commenters have generally favored “appropriately tailored enhanced disclosure requirements for target-date fund marketing materials.” However, a number of commenters expressed concerns that standardized risk measures called for in the proposal are likely to confuse or mislead investors—while still others supported the proposal in full, citing the potential usefulness of a standardized risk measure for use target-date fund (TDF) benchmarking.

The original proposal covers a variety of potential changes that the SEC says would improve investors’ understanding of TDFs. For example, the rule amendments would require marketing materials for TDFs to include a table, chart or graph depicting the fund’s asset allocation changes over time—i.e. an illustration of the fund’s so-called asset allocation “glide path.”

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

SEC officials also hoped the reopened comment period could generate responses to a new question coming out of a 2013 proposal from the SEC’s Investor Advisory Committee, which urges the full SEC to take the additional and more challenging step of requiring a standardized TDF glide path illustration that factors in important risk considerations—not just asset allocation over time. SEC officials believe that to be truly helpful as a benchmarking and comparison tool, glide path illustrations should be based on a standardized measure of fund risk that would be more informative than an illustration based on asset allocation alone.

White added that the Department of Labor has also proposed to amend TDF disclosures and require a glide path illustration for target-date funds subject to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) oversight. The comment period for that initiative also closed earlier this month.

“[The SEC] staff is carefully considering the comment letters we received and will coordinate with the Department of Labor on our respective initiatives, as appropriate,” White said.

A full list of the comment letters, including the text of the comments and the dates they were received, is available on the SEC’s website. Industry responses were varied in both style and substance—from one paragraph statements of a general distrust for expanded disclosure requirements to lengthy analyses of whether risk glide path disclosure should be required for TDFs that have no official target level of risk.

For example, Lincoln Investment Advisors Corporation submitted a comment letter that urges the SEC to distinguish between disclosures of target-risk levels and disclosures based on projections of risk based on historical performance (whether of the fund or of asset classes). A target-risk glide path, according to Daniel Hayes, vice president and head of funds management for Lincoln Investment Advisors, shows how the explicit target risk of the fund will change over time. In contrast, a “projected-risk” glide path would be a projection of the fund’s risk based on the historical behavior of the asset classes the fund plans to own.

“A projected-risk glide path is inherently conjectural, and does not tell investors anything about how the fund will actually be managed,” Hayes warns. “Risk, in the sense of historical volatility, is a performance metric. The Commission has for decades prohibited disclosure of performance projections, and with good reason. Investors can easily be misled by performance projections, and this problem generally cannot be adequately addressed by disclaimers explaining the conjectural nature of the projections.”

Projected-risk glide paths would thus risk misleading investors without providing useful information, Hayes says, adding, “With investors already confused about the nature of target-date funds, the Commission should continue to prohibit performance projections, including projections of risk.”

Charles Miller, a Wilmette, Illinois-based financial services communication consultant, argues in another letter that increased disclosures could actually have an adverse effect on novice investors. He makes the age-old argument that participants in retirement plans are already given much more information than they can digest, and every measure of increased disclosure will require some amount of education to actually impact real investors.

“Instead of a simple glide path illustration of the equity/debt percentages, I suggest a graph with five-year ‘waypoints’ that show not only the classes but also the types of equity and debt, and a simple description of risk,” Miller suggests. “You would have your glide path when you connect the waypoints.”

Stephen M Batzza, chief executive officer at MTL Insurance Company, shared a similar opinion, but he says he generally supports the SEC’s effort to make TDFs more transparent. “My initial reaction is that a risk-based illustration may create more confusion than enlightenment,” he writes. “With that said, it would be beneficial to see an example of what such an illustration would look like. The level of its complexity may determine whether such a disclosure is worthwhile.”

Louis Harvey, president and CEO of DALBAR Inc., shared one of the longest comment letters, about 40 pages in all. Harvey says he agrees with the SEC that it is in the best interests of retirement plan participants to develop a simplified system that allows people to understand the “true purpose” of a given TDF. That said, he doesn’t believe people who aren’t sophisticated with finance should be expected to decipher complex charts and other forms of data.

“We need to develop guidelines for TDF names and marketing that facilitate effective communication to that group,” he writes.

Many of the industry concerns shared during the recent comment period had also been raised in 2010 and 2011 after the original release of the proposed SEC rule change (see “Charts and Graphs are Good, but Don’t Change Fund Names”). For instance, Chip Castille, managing director and head of BlackRock's U.S. Retirement Group, commented that what is most important for retirement investors to understand is how asset allocation changes over time, and disclosure of this information via a graph or chart would, as the SEC suggests, permit investors to visualize the glide path in relation to their own time horizon.

BlackRock and others suggested that text accompanying the chart should state explicitly that the asset allocation could change from what the chart illustrates based on changes in the managers' assumptions as to retirement readiness, longevity and market risk. Further, the disclosures should also state what types of investments are included in each asset class, Castille said, and investors should be specifically informed that investments in TDFs, like all investments in securities, are not guaranteed. Like many of the recent commenters, Castille warned the SEC to be cautious not to require so much information that DC plan participants are overwhelmed and thereby distracted from making sound decisions about their retirement assets.

Others suggested that target-date fund providers should be impelled to include the table of data from which they derive their glide path graphics, saying supplying one without the other makes it difficult to accurately compare multiple TDF series. Morningstar, for example, suggested that the SEC require further disclosures of a fund’s intended sub-asset class allocation within broader asset classes, based on the understanding that two funds with identical equity-bond-cash allocations may have very different risk profiles depending on the underlying holdings.

«