What Plan Sponsors Should Expect From a Retirement Plan Adviser

As plan sponsors look to evaluate their relationship with their financial advisers, experts say it is critical that advisers understand more than just retirement.



Many plan sponsors are evaluating their relationships with plan advisers as they look for more guidance on managing their benefits, according to retirement industry veterans who spoke during a recent edition of the 2022 Plan Progress webinar series.

The Great Resignation has only complicated matters, said Jim Scheinberg, founder and managing partner at North Pier Fiduciary Management, as firms are seeing both high turnover and a reduction of staff across the board. While most human resources and finance teams used to comprise four to five team members, now there may be fewer people with the same volume of work spread among them, he said.

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

“We’re also seeing that reflected on the service provider side, with recordkeepers or administrators, where their service teams are being stretched a lot thinner,” Scheinberg said. “You’re seeing that reflected in response times, hold times, getting resolution to various items that may be normal in the course of governing your plan, or maybe one-off items.”

As a result, many with such heightened responsibilities are looking for more help with understanding how they should proceed as they review certain tasks, Scheinberg said. As plan sponsors look to their adviser for help, many are beginning to see the difference, and it can become an issue when the adviser fails to deliver for their client.

Many plan sponsors are struggling to locate experienced talent and are seeking out advice from their adviser more often than ever, because they lack the in-house expertise in reviewing plan documents or plan audits, said Robert Massa, managing director at Qualified Plan Advisors. In his view, advisers must be able to understand more than just retirement—they also have to understand where and how retirement fits into the whole benefits scheme.

Scheinberg noted that, as plan sponsors look to reevaluate their relationships with their retirement plan adviser, they may simply be validating the original reason for working with an adviser, or they could be looking for a change. Mergers and acquisitions may also prompt reevaluation, as there has recently been a “tremendous” amount of consolidation in the adviser space and sponsors may want to vet the service structure or culture of the new organization, he said.

“Where we see the most of our search work is when the committee chair itself or a very senior staff person has a very heavy hand on the management of the plan,” Scheinberg said. “When that role has changed, the new person comes in and gets settled for the first six months or so, and then they want to start looking around and making sure that, ultimately, they like the team they’re with—or possibly want to consider something new.”

As plan sponsors evaluate their relationships, they should be prepared to ask “culturally uncomfortable” questions that are generally acceptable in the financial services industry, said David Morehead, vice president at OneDigital. Questions like “how much are you getting paid?” or “what is your compensation for this plan?” are straightforward, important questions to ask, because fiduciaries should be aware of an adviser’s or service provider’s pricing model, he said.

When vetting to fill an adviser role, plan sponsors should expect advisers to be able to answer their questions about most general retirement issues on the spot, Massa said.

“I think this is part of the interview process. Am I dealing with a competent professional or am I dealing with someone who doesn’t deal with this every day?” Massa said. “I would take some time to try to come up with a few of those questions. Some may affect your company, some may not … but it tells you a lot about their knowledge of ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act], their knowledge of the IRS tax code and whether they are a professional in retirement or just an investment professional.”

It’s also important for advisers to explain exactly what they are going to do when it comes to how they handle things such as managed account investments, or how exactly they plan to give participants advice, Massa said.

“You want to make sure that they’re going to spend time with that employee, they’re going to actually educate them and they’re not just going to hand them off to a computer program … to me, that’s not advice,” Massa said. “You really need to ask a lot of questions about that adviser to ultimately get them to disclose whether they’re in this for you or for them—because they’re supposed to work for you. That’s their job.”

Lawsuit For Wake Forest University Retirement Plan Proceeds

The judge has allowed the case to go forward and the ‘plaintiffs should be afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery.’



A federal judge has allowed an Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit to procced.

The lawsuit against the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, the board of directors of the University Baptist Medical Center, the retirement benefit committee and 30 unnamed individuals survived the defendants’ motion to dismiss, according to the order from District Court Judge William Lindsay Osteen, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

“This court finds Plaintiffs should be afforded an opportunity to conduct discovery” as to whether participants were harmed because of high-cost mutual funds, Osteen Jr. wrote.

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

Defendants previously alleged—in the original and amended complaint—that the 403(b) university plan was mismanaged by plan fiduciaries because it was filled with excessive-fee investments, that the plan fiduciaries misused revenue sharing to pay for administrative expenses and that they failed to conduct periodic bids to the market to ensure that the recordkeeping and administrative costs remained competitive.

The defendants had sought to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims on the grounds of failure to state a claim and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, according to the judge’s order.

The original complaint was filed in 2021 before the same court.

The plaintiffs are former plan participants, according to court documents. The plaintiffs have alleged that because of the size of the Wake Forest University Medical Center 403(b) plan in 2019—$1.8 billion in retirement plan assets for 19,000 participants—the plan qualifies as a “jumbo” plan and as such plan fiduciaries should have been able to secure lower-fee arrangements with service providers.

Plaintiffs alleged that many of the mutual funds in the Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center 403(b) Retirement Savings plan were more expensive than comparable funds common to similarly sized plans with more than $1 billion of assets. For example, the defendants stated that the plan’s investment expense ratios for funds were up to 280%, in one case, and 273%, in another—higher than median expense ratios for funds in the same investment category.

TIAA is the plan’s recordkeeper and Capital Group’s American Funds provided target-date investments for the 403(b) plan.

A request for comment to the Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center was not returned.

«