Individual Retirement Advice Tool Launched

Still River Retirement Planning Software Inc. has released a retirement planning tool for individuals who are approaching retirement or already retired that provides advice based on a wide range of financial and non-financial information

The software, RetirementWORKS for YOU, uses the information supplied by individuals to identify specific concerns that apply to the individual’s household. It then recommends what actions an individual should take and evaluates the long-term adequacy of the user’s financial position, a press announcement said.

Specific questions answered for RetirementWORKS for YOU users include:

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

  • Can I afford to retire when I want to?
  • When should I sign up for Social Security benefits?
  • What should I be doing about health coverage and long-term care insurance?
  • Can I afford to stay in my home, or should I consider selling and downsizing?
  • If I stay in my home, should I pay off my mortgage, or tap into the equity?
  • Do I need more life insurance, or should I reduce the amount I already have?
  • Which of my assets should I liquidate first?
  • Do I have the right legal documents in case I die or become incapacitated?
  • What should I do to provide for my kids or a special needs relative who might survive me?
  • Would an annuity help me meet my financial goals?
  • What should I do about my pensions?

The cost for the software is $250 per family for the first year. More information can be found at www.StillRiverRetire.com/RW2/RW24U.asp.

IMHO: The 80/20 Rule

Sooner or later in your career, you are exposed to the 80/20 rule or, as purists term it, the Pareto principle.
Simply stated, it suggests that 80% of the consequences stem from 20% of the causes. You frequently hear how you get 80% of your revenues from 20% of your clients (and sometimes that 80% of your aggravation comes from that same minority).
Similarly, with all the furor of late focused on cost sensitivity, revenue-sharing, and the call for greater transparency, it’s easy to overlook the fact that most of that scrutiny and regulatory angst is being applied to 20% of the “problem’ of retirement plan fees.
Proportionate Shares
Traditional logic held that the fees on your “typical’ retirement account ran like this: 70% for investment management, 20% for recordkeeping, and 10% for miscellaneous things like trust/custody, audit, etc. That apportionment wasn’t perfect, of course, but it was a rule of thumb that has been applied fairly liberally over the years. Investment fees were typically drawn from plan assets and, thus, participants have been bearing more than two-thirds of the costs of these programs for a very long time now.
Of course, over the past 20 years, we have seen a gradual shift where more and more of the remaining third is also paid from plan assets—and then redistributed to the same parties that used to get a check from the plan sponsor. Despite the occasional “study’ from the Investment Company Institute to the contrary, 20 years ago, my sense is that mutual fund expenses were pretty much what they are now for the average 401(k) plan, at least for institutional class shares(1).
What’s Different?
So, while there is a growing sense that the participant is picking up a greater share of the plan costs, I’m reasonably sure that most are paying about what they used to, at least on a percentage basis. What’s different is those shareholder servicing fees that once upon a time simply rolled back into the pockets of the mutual fund complexes – now go to reimburse entities that actually perform those services for a retirement plan.
But while we agonize over how that 25-basis-point shareholder-servicing fee is parsed out between recordkeepers and advisers, the current debate barely acknowledges the fact that 70% or more of retirement plan fees paid by participants are the 50 to 100 basis points that come out of every participant dollar for “investment management.’
I’m not suggesting that investment management isn’t a skill to be highly prized and reasonably compensated. Nor am I suggesting that current investment management fees are disproportionate in every case to the value received. There may even be legitimate reasons why these funds grow from millions – to billions – of dollars in assets with no reduction in the expense ratios.
The 80/20 rule notwithstanding, IMHO, you won’t solve 100% of the problem by probing just 20% of the fees being taken from those participant accounts.
(1) The misuse of retail class shares, and the liberal application of “R’ shares, is a topic for another column.

«