Millennial Clients Can Be Picky Advice Shoppers

More than one in 10 Millennials seeking professional financial advice has fired an adviser during the last year. 

A research study from Spectrem Group finds wealthy investors “most often fire advisers for a lack of proactive ideas, while less wealthy investors fire advisers for a lack of frequent contact.”

Beyond this theme, however, Spectrem says the reasons behind a decision to fire an adviser vary greatly depending on factors such as age, net worth and investing objectives. The study, “Why Investors Switch Advisors,” reveals more than half of high net worth investors switched financial advice providers within their lifetime. Nearly a quarter switched in the last five years.

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

Unsurprisingly, Millennials are more likely than the older generations in the workforce to believe an adviser should provide information and services through mobile technology. Advisers should also “understand social media,” according to younger investors, but limits prescribed by the Securities and Exchange Commission continue to hold advisers back from fully leveraging the potentially promising communication channel.

It’s a big enough issue that the SEC issued a series of investor bulletins in the last several years, warning of the risks of social media fraud. At the same time, social media is undeniably joining traditional financial news media as a key source of information used by investors, both individual and institutional.

It makes sense, Spectrem says, that investors who are more involved with their portfolios and enjoy investing are more likely to switch advisers than those who don’t have the time or interest to be deeply involved with their investment portfolios. The former group is looking for advisers “who stay in contact with them in addition to offering new investment ideas and forward thinking,” Spectrem says.

Other recent research from Spectrem Group finds a majority of investors are critical of the communication tools advisers rely on to build relationships. Notably, Spectrem finds less than 60% of investors consider any of the communication tools used by investment providers and advisers to be of “excellent” quality. 

NEXT: Preferred communication tools

“The communication tools in question include account statements, face-to-face meetings with advisers, the [written] financial plan, access to the firm’s management or experts, newsletters and blogs,” Spectrem Group explains. “An ‘excellent’ rating was hard to come by.”

In fact, only 58% of investors with a net worth between $100,000 and $1 million say their account statements and other communications are “excellent.” Those investors with more than a million dollars displayed nearly the same level of satisfaction, suggesting some advisers who have won these coveted clients aren’t exactly delivering stellar service.

More than half (54%) of investors with more than $100,000 saved said that current face-to-face meetings with advisers were “excellent,” and just slightly more (55%) millionaires reported the same. “All other communication tools dropped below 50% excellent,” Spectrem notes.

“In regards to the written word, newsletters were deemed ‘excellent’ by only one-quarter of investors,” the research shows. “Even worse were blogs, with only 10% of blogs being deemed 'excellent' by mass affluent investors and only 9% deemed ‘excellent’ by millionaire investors.”

While excellence in communication is lacking, Spectrem also shares some encouraging results. Researchers find very few investors rated adviser communication tools outright poorly, “with overall percentages always ranging around 5% or below.” Newsletters seem to be favored somewhat more by older investors, while blogs are not well received among the group. 

The Challenges of Picking a QDIA

Clarifying regulations could help plan sponsors choose plan investments, the GAO says.

The Department of Labor (DOL) created a regulatory safe harbor in 2007 to limit the liability of a plan sponsor that invested contributions on behalf of employees into default investments. The safe harbor allowed plan sponsors to choose from three default investments that would qualify a plan for safe harbor protection.

In “401(k)Plans: Clearer Regulations Could Help Plan Sponsors Choose Investments for Participants,” the Government Accountability Office (GAO) set out to examine which options plan sponsors selected as default investments and why; how plan sponsors monitor their default investment selections; and what challenges, if any, plan sponsors report facing when adopting a default investment for their plan.

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

GAO finds companies that sponsor a 401(k) plan use a range of qualified default investment alternatives (QDIAs) to automatically enroll employees. From 2009 through 2013, a strong majority of employers used a target-date fund (TDF) as their default, according to data from three annual industry surveys that GAO reviewed.

Fewer plan sponsors reported using the other two default investment types that the Department of Labor (DOL) identified: balanced funds or managed account services. The characteristics plan sponsors looked for when selecting a default investment are asset diversification, ease of participant understanding, limited fiduciary liability, and a fit with participant characteristics.

Some stakeholders also identified positive attributes of each default investment type and mentioned other factors—plan sponsor preferences; plan circumstances; or changes in the plan’s environment, such as a plan merger or court decision—that could influence a plan sponsor’s default investment selection in the future.

The report takes a look at the various factors plan sponsors consider when they monitor default investments, and the results of their monitoring efforts, which hinge on plan-specific considerations.

NEXT: What affects a plan’s ability to monitor investments?

Stakeholders generally said that the type of default investment and a plan’s circumstances—such as the availability of resources and expertise devoted to investment monitoring—can affect the extent of a plan sponsor’s monitoring efforts and the response to monitoring results.

Plan sponsors and stakeholders said that after an extensive default selection process, some plan sponsors may be reluctant to change the default investment regardless of monitoring results. For example, a plan sponsor and service provider may have negotiated a reduction in overall plan investment management fees in exchange for using a provider’s investment as a plan’s default, making it more difficult to change. Plan sponsors cited regulatory uncertainty, liability protection, and the adoption of innovative products as significant challenges when adopting one of the three default investments.

The structure and features of each QDIA type affects how plan sponsors and stakeholders monitor them, the report found. For example, plan sponsors and stakeholders said that quantitative performance data across similar investments varied by QDIA type. Balanced funds and off-the-shelf TDFs have more data with which to compare peer funds and benchmarks than custom TDFs and managed accounts, for example.

Some sponsors noted that the fixed asset allocation of balanced funds facilitated easier point-in-time comparisons of the QDIA’s returns, risks, and costs against other individual balanced funds, a balanced fund peer group, or other relevant benchmarks. The glide path of a TDF, on the other hand, requires more sophisticated performance monitoring of a series of funds. 

Often, according to the GAO report, the variation in glide paths among target-date series makes it difficult for the sponsor to identify peer TDFs (or appropriate benchmarks) with similar objectives, asset allocations and risk attributes.

NEXT: Are some investments easier to monitor?

In contrast, plan sponsors with a managed account as the QDIA reported that they monitor only the account provider to ensure that the contracted services are being provided rather than considering investment performance. Plan sponsors are generally unable to compare managed account services across providers because of a lack of consistent performance information.

DOL regulations outline several specific conditions that plan sponsors must adhere to in order to receive relief from liability for any investment losses to participants that occur as a result of the investment. Plan sponsors and stakeholders generally said that the regulations were unclear on several points, such as how sponsors could fulfill the regulatory requirement to factor the ages of participants into their default investment selection; whether each default investment provided the same level of protection; and whether they were allowed to incorporate other retirement features, such as products offering guaranteed retirement income, into a plan’s default investment.

These uncertainties could lead some plan sponsors to make suboptimal choices when selecting a plan’s default investment that could have long-lasting negative effects on participants’ retirement savings

Because QDIAs have played a significant part in boosting worker participation in defined contribution plans since they were first authorized, the report recommends that the DOL assess the challenges of plan sponsors and stakeholders, including the extent to which these challenges can be addressed, and implement corrective actions.

To produce the report, the GAO reviewed relevant federal laws and guidance; analyzed industry survey data on the prevalence of default investment use; analyzed non-generalizable responses from 227 plan sponsors who completed a Web-based questionnaire; and interviewed 96 stakeholders, including service providers, advocacy groups, and research organization representatives, as well as academicians.

“401(k)Plans: Clearer Regulations Could Help Plan Sponsors Choose Investments for Participants” can be accessed here.

«