Balancing Business Needs and Participant Support

Retirement plans must meet the needs of the participants invested in them, but they are also an important business tool.

During a presentation at the 2022 PLANSPONSOR National Conference in Orlando, Brian Bender, managing director and head of retirement plan services at Schwab Retirement Plan Services, said recent cultural shifts have influenced both employees’ expectations concerning workplace benefits and the evolving role of the 401(k) plan in talent management.

“We always have to talk about participants’ needs, but I also want to talk about the people that I feel sometimes get overlooked by the retirement plan industry,” Bender said. “I’m talking, of course, about you—the plan sponsors, consultants, committee members. These folks are the backbone of plan design and implementation.”

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

Bender emphasized that retirement plans are, on the one hand, about meeting participants’ investment needs, but they are also an important business tool. This is especially true during times of higher turnover and greater competition for talent, which U.S. employers are facing today. According to Bender, designing a retirement plan that meets the needs of the business—and today’s employees—requires a fresh outlook.

“It requires considering the perspectives of both sponsors and participants,” Bender said.

Higher Turnover Isn’t Surprising  

Bender said the sharp increase in job and career changes seen in the last year shook up an already shaky economy, and the current market seems to have ushered in a new era of employee negotiations and expectations.

“Read any article or watch any news report on the subject, and you’d think this happened all of a sudden,” he observed. “But if you look closer, you’ll see that it didn’t happen overnight—and in hindsight, it isn’t too surprising either.”

Bender pointed to data from a 2022 Forrester report, in which analysts theorize that the Great Resignation is actually a continuation of several events that have been occurring over the past decade.

“The report shows average quit rates from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics show a steady increase from 2011 to 2019,” Bender observed. “There is a sudden drop in 2020 and a sharp spike in 2021—which is what the Great Resignation refers to. But it’s clear that this was a long time coming.”

The data show that specific sectors, such as the tech industry, were suffering talent shortages prior to the pandemic. The reasons varied, but historically, these shortages seemed to stem from a perception of too much work, minimal career progression and a lack of worker compensation.

“Sound familiar?” Bender asked. “Naturally, people are also retiring. Since 2011, approximately two million workers from the Baby Boomer generation have retired each year—another slow but steady drain on the labor pool.”

Bender suggested that, in an important sense, resignations themselves aren’t the most important aspect of the Great Resignation. He cited, instead, a cultural shift: workers increasingly value self-fulfillment and work-life balance.

“Grappling with the constantly changing outlook of the pandemic, generations young and old are prioritizing personal well-being, peace of mind and financial security, making conscious efforts to take charge of these aspects of their lives,” Bender said.

The Implications for Employers  

Bender said these changes and shifts in priorities aren’t limited to one industry or specific to a generation.

“They represent the philosophical transformation of a collective workforce whose experiences over the past few years have reshaped their personal values and financial goals,” he said. “The result of this reshaping? A rise in demand for specific and comprehensive job benefits—and the willingness to hold out for something that meets their expectations.”

Bender pointed to research from the Society for Human Resource Management which estimates that, on average, it can cost a company 33% of an employee’s annual earnings to replace that person.

“Stack multiple resignations on top of one another, and costs compound quickly,” Bender said. “Naturally, nobody here wants to pay that bill, and fortunately, everybody has the power to reduce the risk of this happening by keeping their employees satisfied.”

Bender said a “major pillar” of an employee’s workplace satisfaction and potential career outlook stems from their relationship with their employer. This includes how their workplace benefits evolve over time.

“Your plan is not just for attracting talent but for keeping the talent you already have,” Bender added. “In 2022, 85% of participants considered a 401(k) a must-have when looking for a new job. In 2021, it was 86%. In 2020, 85%, and in 2019, it was 87%. The consistency of this data is telling on two fronts. First, 401(k) is something people require, and it isn’t going anywhere. Second, when something becomes a constant, its perceived relevance begins to fade.”

Today, a 401(k) is table stakes, Bender said.

“It isn’t the closer—the benefit that seals the deal,” he said. “Job seekers are more interested in compensation and benefits that appear to deliver more value or have a more direct and immediate impact on their daily lives. Factors like base salary, profit sharing, bonuses and equity compensation all have an impact on whether someone accepts a job.”

According to Bender, the question on job seekers’ minds has gone from “Do you offer a 401(k)?” to “What do you offer beyond a 401(k)?”

“If you want to ensure your retirement benefits are competitive, you need to be prepared to answer that question,” he warned. “And that means taking a hard look at your plan. Do the services and features included in it address the challenges participants are up against? What additional support and resources can your consultant and plan provider bring to the table?”

The Benefits Frontier

“While a 401(k) and health insurance remain top must-haves year over year, we have seen a subtle yet significant rise in demand for other benefits,” Bender pointed out.

In 2022, Schwab survey data show 41% of workers want a health savings account, 23% want a financial wellness program, 20% want company discounts or discounted rates for financial services and 20% want access to financial advisers.

“Those last few may not top the list, but they have seen sizeable growth in recent years and represent an opportunity to appeal to employees in different ways,” Bender said. “It is also important that we don’t just think about what people are asking for but what they’ll need, and those two can be very different at times. Life can be unpredictable, and we have to prepare participants for real obstacles they may face, like having to care for an elderly parent or being unable to work any longer.”

Bender said competitive retirement benefits offer a broad array of solutions to help employees address their financial challenges. These solutions can be in-plan, like advice and investment options, or beyond-the-plan, like emergency savings accounts.

“Why so broad?” he asked. “Because employees are complex. Their lives are not as simple as a 401(k), and they are looking for our help.”

District Court Rejects ERISA Lawsuit Against Olin Corp.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri has ruled in favor of the defendants in an Employee Retirement Income Security Act lawsuit filed against the Olin Corp.

The plaintiffs in the case put forward substantially similar allegations to numerous other lawsuits filed against employers for alleged fiduciary breaches in the operation of their defined contribution retirement plans. As in many of the prior suits, the plaintiffs in this matter are represented by the law firm Capozzi Adler, among other counsel.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The plaintiffs alleged that, during the proposed class period, the fiduciary defendants failed to adequately monitor and control the plan’s recordkeeping costs and failed to objectively and adequately review the plan’s investment portfolio with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of cost and performance. The complaint also suggested the plan fiduciaries maintained funds in the plan despite the availability of similar investment options with lower costs and superior performance. As recounted in the text of the ruling, the plaintiffs estimated that the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct cost the plan millions of dollars.

In response to the complaint, the defendants moved for outright dismissal, arguing that the lead plaintiffs did not allege “meaningful benchmarks” against which to evaluate the defendant’s fiduciary process and did not allege facts supporting an inference that they, as defendants, had breached their fiduciary duties.

As the ruling states, when considering a motion to dismiss, a court must “liberally construe a complaint in favor of the plaintiff.” However, if a claim fails to allege one of the elements necessary to recover on a legal theory, the court in question must dismiss that claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

“Threadbare recitals of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice,” the ruling states. “Although courts must accept all factual allegations as true, they are not bound to take as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.”

In their dismissal motion, the fiduciary defendants argued that the allegations fail to state a breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim. First, the committee argued that revenue sharing does not imply imprudence, and second, that the survey data provided as a suggested cost/performance benchmark is not a meaningful benchmark. Third, the defense argued that the authorities on which the lead plaintiffs rely to establish a $35 recordkeeping-fee average likewise fail as an apt comparison. And finally, the committee urged the District Court to reject as the basis for a claim the plaintiffs’ “speculation” that the committee fails to conduct periodic requests for proposal.

“Ultimately, the investment committee says that the lead plaintiffs fail to identify any flaw in Olin’s decisionmaking process that would allow the District Court to infer misconduct,” the decision states. “The District Court agrees with the investment committee.”

As stated in the ruling, the plaintiffs in fact acknowledge that “a revenue sharing approach is not imprudent per se.” To the contrary, the ruling states, revenue sharing is a “common and acceptable investment industry practice that frequently inures to the benefit of ERISA plans.”

The ruling further points out that courts throughout the country have routinely rejected the 2019 NEPC survey cited by plaintiffs as a sound basis for comparison, because it lacks in detail.

“To plead a meaningful benchmark, the plaintiff must plead that the administrative fees are excessive in relation to the specific services the recordkeeper provided to the specific plan at issue,” the ruling states. “The 2019 NEPC survey does not contain any information about the services provided to the surveyed plans. Thus, the amended complaint contains an incongruent comparison. The survey considered the recordkeeping, trust and custody fees charged by a limited sample of investment plans of various types and sizes without spelling out, in any degree of detail, the services the plans received in return.”

For this reason, the ruling concludes, the District Court need not accept as true the plaintiff’s legal conclusion that the survey serves as a meaningful benchmark against which to weigh the investment committee’s actions.

The plaintiffs’ arguments about investment fees meet a similar fate.

“Plaintiffs [suggest] that determining whether the ICI [investment fee] data suffices as a benchmark impermissibly drags the District Court into the factual weeds,” the ruling states. “Once more, we reject this argument. Just like the consideration of the NEPC survey above, at this stage, the District Court accepts as true the ICI’s findings as alleged, yet it need not accept as true the plaintiffs’ legal conclusion that the survey serves as a meaningful benchmark against which to weigh the investment committee’s actions.

“Plaintiffs come closer, but ultimately fail to successfully allege that the defendants could not have engaged in a prudent process with their bare allegation that the plan maintained several T. Rowe Price mutual funds despite the availability of cheaper, collective trust versions of the funds (which the plan eventually switched to),” the ruling continues. “Without more, courts routinely find that collective trusts are not meaningful comparators to mutual funds because collective trusts are subject to unique regulatory and transparency features that make a meaningful comparison impossible.”

The full text of the ruling is available here.

«