The Need for a Better K-12 403(b) Plan Design

Lack of awareness, pressure by vendors that want to maintain the status quo and limited provider choice are hindering K-12 403(b) plan sponsors from consolidating vendors and improving their plans.

The traditional design of 403(b) plans as individual annuity contracts or custodial accounts for participants resulted in many plans having an unwieldy number of vendors associated with the plan.

This is especially true in 403(b) plans sponsored by K-12 public school systems. Although these plan sponsors may not have the same concerns about this plan design as do sponsors subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and heightened responsibility dictated by the 2007 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, having so many plan vendors can be an administrative headache, and K-12 school systems are realizing it may not be best for participants.

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

There is a small army forming of third-party administrators, plan advisers and K-12 403(b) plan sponsors that want to show K-12 school systems a better way.

David Hatter, president of advisory firm Invest-N-U, in Alpharetta, Georgia, says he has been traveling for the past several years telling K-12 403(b) plan sponsors they can improve both participant and employer outcomes, but they have to want to do it. Hatter points out that in the traditional, multiple annuity model, employees with little or no interest in becoming investment experts are in charge. Each individual employee must evaluate multiple service providers, scrutinize investment managers, and benchmark fees and expenses. No doubt that without the time, resources or interest in the subject, most employees are ill-equipped to chart an efficient course to their desired destination: Retirement. “Because they are not subject to ERISA, we can’t say to plan sponsors [making these changes] is the law, but we can say, ‘If you care about your employees and the future of your district, you should consider this,’” he tells PLANADVISER.

Hatter says many K-12 school systems are not aware that they can make substantial changes legally, and they have historically maintained a hands-off approach to their plans. In addition, some have fears—sometimes from scare tactics used by service providers interested in protecting the status quo, according to Hatter—that they may make employees or unions angry. That this widespread problem needed to be addressed came to Hatter after working within the status quo with several school systems in Georgia.

NEXT: Bentonville Public Schools finds a better way.

Dr. Sterling Ming, former director of finance with Bentonville Public Schools, tells PLANSADVISER that before he came to Bentonville, he worked at a district where there were 57 vendors that employees had to choose from for their 403(b) accounts. When he came to Bentonville in January 2006, he knew the district could do better for their employees. Additionally, he says the Bentonville Public Schools as a whole was not pleased with the products and service to participants. The agent servicing all the individual contracts sold multiple annuities, and they were from several different companies, so the annuities were not the same for all employees, and sometimes, after several years, the agent would change participants’ annuities to something different.

The school district also had administration issues with this model, according to Ming. It had to write multiple checks to multiple vendors, and the agent servicing the contracts did not leverage technology. Everything was handwritten and arrangements had to be made to get paperwork from the agent which was a 30-minute drive away. There were also problems with reconciling accounts; the school system would try to reconcile, but communication between the system and the service providers was very difficult, Ming says.

Ming put out a request for proposal for employee benefit advisors interested in assisting the district their employee benefit plan. Though this process, Ming and Invest-N-U connected and began by setting up a committee consisting of one representative from each school and one from each department. After  completing several hours of training and education, the committee decided they wanted a single source for employees and a provider to directly serve the school district. Hatter released information that the system was looking to consolidate to one provider, and only a few providers responded. He says he had a difficult time finding plan providers in the marketplace with the same vision about where the school system wanted to go with its plan design.

Hatter says it is difficult still today to find providers willing to work with school systems to try to move from individual contracts to a single platform of mutual funds. He explains that school system 403(b) plans have low participation (on average, less than 20%) and low account balances, so the profitability is not there for a provider in the beginning. “A vendor has to forego near term profit for potential long term gains,” he says. Only two providers responded to the Bentonville Public Schools’ request for proposals (RFP), and the one the system picked dropped the business after 18 months.

NEXT: A provider with a vision helps improve outcomes.

 

After performing another provider search, Bentonville Public Schools selected Lincoln Financial Group as the new 403(b) plan provider.

The plan uses a three-tier investment approach; participants can choose from a suite of target-date funds (TDFs), from five different model portfolios ranging from capital preservation to aggressive, or from a menu of 17 funds with which employees can build their own portfolios. Ming says employees have the option of transferring assets from their individual annuities into the plan with very little difficulty; some have done so, while some still maintain their annuity contracts.

Hatter says Lincoln has information-sharing agreements with most of the prior vendors, but some would not cooperate. Lincoln also offered surrender reimbursement when they took over as recordkeeper, a provision with which participants can transfer their annuity contract assets into the plan and Lincoln will reimburse them for any surrender charges incurred.

Since the change, participants are better diversified to meet their retirement savings objectives, and costs are lower. According to Hatter, the average cost per employee per annuity was around 2.5%, and this did not include punitive surrender charges that can be as high as 15%. Employee costs are now around 1.25%, which includes administration and investment management. He notes that K-12 school employees are completely unaware of what they are paying for individual annuities; many think they pay nothing. Expense information for annuities are buried in complicated prospectuses, but Bentonville Public Schools employees now have full disclosure on the fees they are paying in the plan on their quarterly account statements.

Hatter says, in 2006, the plan’s participation rate was 7% or 8% (employees are also covered by a state defined benefit plan), and now it is greater than 90%. He notes that vendors trying to stop progress will say that moving to a single provider does not increase participation. “It is true that, by itself, it does not, but it is one of many ingredients that when combined can really move the needle,” he says. Over the years, the school system has also added auto features to the plan. 

As for administration, Ming says the transfer of information between the school system and Lincoln is “so seamless electronically.” He adds that, “When we send a reconciliation report, they verify it and send it back.”

NEXT: Getting the board on board helps.

 

 

Ming says the school system superintendent was on board with the desired changes to the 403(b) plan and did a good job of educating the school board about the problems with the old plan design. Bentonville Public Schools didn’t have a problem moving forward with the change, and the district has no teachers’ union; the members of the committee set up by Ming are its voice.

But, Hatter notes that the desire to make a change is not well-supported by leadership for many school systems; politics and the decision-making hierarchy can create obstacles. Further, many systems cannot make decisions without the complications of labor agreements.

According to Hatter, on a fairly regular basis, Bentonville Public Schools’ staff receive inquiries from vendors interested in moving it back to a multiple vendor arrangement. “They attempt to scare school officials that don’t know how to defend it,” he says. “If it weren’t for the senior administration support, the system’s efforts wouldn’t have stood.” In addition to ongoing investment supervision, leading committee meetings and providing education to employees about saving for retirement, Invest-N-U assists leadership in defending the new plan design.

According to Ming, moving to a single vendor takes someone who is committed to the process and will devote time to employees. Administrators and the school board will need to be committed to it.

Hatter adds that success for K-12 plans in improving outcomes requires strong support from senior administration for both implementation and ongoing maintenance. In addition, it takes an adviser and recordkeeper that are willing to forego near-term profit for long-term potential. “It takes a lot of experience and knowledge about how employees think about these plans and what questions they will ask,” he says.

Ming concludes: “The magic is not consolidating to one vendor. What school districts need to do is decide what they want to accomplish. If moving to a single vendor helps accomplish it, then do so. We wanted to improve service and investment products, lower fees, and provide the best opportunity for employees to be able to retire.”

 

DOL Receives Flood of Comment Letters on Fiduciary Rule

With Tuesday’s deadline to submit comment letters about the fiduciary proposal, announcements came from many organizations.

Letters are flooding into the Department of Labor (DOL) about the fiduciary reproposal. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) sent eight letters on Monday; other organizations are making suggestions about the rule, raising concerns or giving it a thumbs-up. 

Comments range from anxiety that the re-proposal, as it stands, will hinder low- and middle-income earners’ ability to save by creating red tape and conflicts with other regulations (according to the Financial Services Roundtable) to concerns about increased regulatory burdens and costs (ERIC, the ERISA Industry Committee).

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

Overwhelmingly the organizations are in favor of a standard that would have advisers acting in the best interest of the investor, but the details are what need to be hammered out. For example, the Financial Services Roundtable (FSR) is urging the DOL to adopt its “SIMPLE” proposal, intended to accomplish a client best-interest standard in a more straightforward manner. FSR calls the DOL proposal well-intended but too long, unnecessarily complicated and impractical.

FSR’s SIMPLE acronym—for Simple Investment Management Principles and Expectations—requires financial professionals and institutions to put their customers’ interests first and allows advisers to receive only reasonable compensation for their services. It also requires financial professionals and institutions to provide customers with clear and concise disclosures in plain English, and it empowers regulators to hold financial advisers and their companies accountable for any violation of rules.

NEXT:  Best interest contract exemption “a game-changer.”

The Institute for the Fiduciary Standard kept its comments to the areas it felt needed “particular attention to ensure that the administration of the rule meets vital objective and the high aspirations of the rule.” They were particularly interested in the conflict of interest rule as well as some of the points raised by the proposed Best Interest Contract Exemption. 

Calling the exemption a game-changer, the Institute for the Fiduciary Standard says it seeks to address circumstances in an unconventional way, letting firms continue to use conflicted compensation arrangements if the firm and broker/dealer or adviser also contractually agree to adhere to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) best interest standard. In other words, after decades of associating the word “conflicts” with the word “prohibited,” the DOL now associates it with the word “permitted.”

The Insured Retirement Institute (IRI) weighed in on the re-proposal in a staggering 69 pages. “We are deeply concerned that the extensive requirements contained within this proposal would have serious and far-reaching unintended consequences for millions of American retirement savers,” IRI President and CEO Cathy Weatherford said in a statement.

Financial professionals should, of course, work in the best interest of their clients when recommending investments to retirement savers, Weatherford said, but IRI stressed that an unintended consequence of the proposal could be limiting consumers’ access to annuity products “at a time when we should be encouraging and promoting lifetime income strategies as a source of retirement income that cannot be outlived.”

IRI outlines a number of revisions to the rule that it says would establish a best interest standard while preserving consumers’ access to retirement planning advice and retirement income products.

NEXT: Amendments could limit income options for retirement savers, IRI contends.

IRI is concerned that the amendments to Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 84-24 as currently proposed will limit the availability of lifetime income options for retirement savers. In the context of the IRA market, the exemption currently would only apply to fixed annuities. Variable annuities, like fixed annuities, offer guaranteed lifetime income features, which are a primary driver of their use by consumers. To ensure a continued robust market of lifetime income options for consumers, IRI has requested the proposal be revised to make relief under the exemption available to all annuities.

The main points raised by the Insured Retirement Institute (IRI) are:

  • Financial professionals should be held to a best interest standard when recommending investments to retirement savers.
  • Consumers are entitled to freedom of access to retirement income guarantees.
  • In the post-defined benefit plan era, the availability of guaranteed retirement income through IRA rollovers meets a critical consumer need.
  • Rules for annuity products must be specifically crafted to account for their guaranteed lifetime income features.
  • Competitive annuity markets serve consumer interests.
  • Consumers have a right to choose their preferred source of retirement advice, including the option to work with advice providers who are experts on proprietary products, and how their advice provider is compensated.
  • The Administration’s public policy position in favor of access to and utilization of guaranteed lifetime income products should be advanced.

IRI’s comment letter can be seen here.

NEXT: “Long overdue” rule is workable for advisers and firms.

Meanwhile, the Financial Planning Coalition (FPC) issued a statement of its strong support for the re-proposal, calling the rule “long overdue, needed for retirement investors and workable for advisers and firms.”

FPC’s letter addresses three areas:

Consumer protection and fiduciary accountability. “The rule will provide much needed protections to help retirement investors navigate the complex and confusing financial services marketplace.”

Misplaced arguments from others in the industry. ” Opposition arguments against the re-proposed rule . . . are unsupported or rebutted by empirical research, and are inconsistent with the Coalition’s experience in establishing a fiduciary obligation for its stakeholders. “

Several modifications to strengthen the final rule. “Some clarifications and changes will only strengthen an already comprehensive rule proposal, ensuring protections for retirement investors while providing advisers and financial institutions flexibility in implementing the final rule.”

The coalition comprises three industry organizations: the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards (CFP Board), the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA). Its 35-page comment letter can be read here.

NEXT: The rule will clamp down harmful industry practices, Consumer Federation of America says.

Also supportive of the re-proposal is the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), which applauds the DOL for strengthening protections for retirement savers and reining in what it says are harmful industry practices.

CFA’s 83-page comment letter cites the following as essential components of the proposed rule:

It adopts a functional definition of investment advice that ensures that all those who provide individualized, actionable investment recommendations to retirement plans, plan participants, or individual retirement account (IRA) investors will be subject to a fiduciary duty under ERISA.

It includes within the definition of investment advice recommendations regarding rollovers and benefit withdrawals, the most important financial decision many workers and retirees will face in their lifetime and an area of documented abuses.

It provides an exemption for sales-based advisers that enables them to continue receiving commissions, 12b-1 fees, and other forms of conflicted compensation while holding them to a legally enforceable fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their customers without regard to their own financial or other interests.

It backs that best interest standard with a requirement that firms eliminate common industry practices that encourage and reward recommendations that are not in the best interest of their customers.

CFA’s letter is here.

NEXT: ERIC suggests taming regulatory burdens and costs.

In its 19-page letter to the DOL, ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) expressed concern that the new rule will increase regulatory burdens and costs, and create uncertainty for plan sponsors and participants, as well as service providers. The organization suggested nine areas where the so-called fiduciary rule could be improved. Among them:

The DOL needs to clarify who qualifies as a fiduciary. “The regulation should be much more clear about which employees from a plan sponsor can offer authoritative investment advice,” ERIC says. The committee recommends narrowly defining a fiduciary as an employee whose “normal job duties include providing the investment information.”

The investment education carve-out.
 The section’s “investment education” provision should be modified to allow plan sponsors to identify certain investment options so that employees with varying levels of investment knowledge can participate.

A suggestion is not a recommendation. ERIC recommends narrowly defining a recommendation about investment advice to exclude activities that do not constitute an endorsement of, or encouragement to, invest in a particular way.

Call-center employees are not investment advisers. Employers should not incur liability for the investment advice provided by third party call center employees who provide investment advice. In a recent survey of ERIC members, 64% of respondents said they do use third parties to provide 401(k) advice. And 74% of them provide it as a bundled service contract with third party administrators.

ERIC’s letter is here.

NEXT: Will the rule limit access to investors with small balances?

Empower (formerly the retirement plan services businesses of Great-West Financial) is worried about unforeseen consequences. In its 19-page letter, it says it has grave concerns “that the current regulatory proposal will have the unintended consequence of limiting access for those individuals most in need of guidance.”

The firm points to what it sees as a bias toward fee-for-service compensation arrangements, apparent in the structure of the rule and in the best interest contract exemption, that would be “particularly burdensome” for small account holders, most of whom rely on broker/dealers and call centers for guidance, Empower contends.

The American Retirement Association reiterates its support of aligning the interests of retirement plan advisers to individual retirement investors through a best interest standard. 

However, the association’s 19-page letter also suggests a number of what it calls “modest, but critical improvements . . .  needed so that the implementation of the best interest standard doesn’t impede advisers and providers from being able to assist plan participants with key concerns, including rollovers or investment education.”

The association calls on five principles in its comments:

  • Plan advisers should be encouraged to help plan participants with rollovers, not penalized for providing advice to the plan;
  • Restrictions on investment education shouldn’t make participant education harder to translate into practice, and thus less helpful to participants;
  • A best interest standard shouldn’t discourage advisers from wanting to work with small businesses;
  • The platform marketing carve-out has to extend from the platform providers to third-party administrators (TPAs) and others that actually market the platforms or it won't work; and
  • There must be a two-year transition period after publication of the final rule to allow adequate time to transition existing relationships to the new requirements.

The association has proposed a separate exemption for advisers that provide “levelized compensation advice,” so that retirement plan advisers will not be at a competitive disadvantage in helping participants make critical rollover decisions compared with advisers who had no previous relationship with the participant in the plan.

The association's letter is here.

«