Staying Flexible: American Football and the Future of Employee Benefits

August 29, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - For four decades, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has provided a durable federal framework for employers that sponsor health and retirement benefit plans for workers.

After considering what has and has not worked well over ERISA’s 40 years, the American Benefits Council—a public policy organization representing plan sponsors and providers of benefit services—has looked forward. Soon the council will unveil “A 2020 Vision: Flexibility and the Future of Employee Benefits,” a long-term strategic plan that describes how greater flexibility will be necessary for the future health and financial well-being of employees and their families.

Even in an increasingly global and competitive economy, the council remains confident that with the right public policies in place, employer-sponsored plans will continue to be ideally positioned to provide an efficient path to health and financial well-being. Through group purchasing power, fiduciary protections and the ease of payroll deduction, employer plans commonly offer numerous advantages for individuals.  

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

But, the continued success of the employer-sponsored system depends on greater flexibility for companies to pursue a range of benefit approaches along the continuum of plan sponsorship, from “traditional sponsor” to “facilitator” of retirement and health benefits. To meet this vision, the council has identified five goals and 46 specific policy recommendations to help reach those goals.

ERISA’s 40th anniversary coincides with the start of the professional football season, and the sport provides an apt metaphor for examining how the health and retirement benefits game is changing.

Fourteen years before ERISA’s enactment, Tom Landry began coaching the National Football League’s Dallas Cowboys. He quickly gained a reputation as an innovator with development of the “4-3 Defense,” now considered the default defensive alignment. Landry also devised the “Flex Defense,” a variation on the 4-3 in which defensive linemen were able to vary their attack depending on the action of the offense. This notion—that defensive players need not be fixed statues, reacting belatedly to unpredictable offenses—challenged orthodoxy and breathed new life into the sport.

The global economy is similarly unforgiving of entities that simply stay in one place, and—like defensive linemen—U.S. companies do not have the luxury of waiting until the time is right to adapt. While most of the central elements of ERISA remain unchanged, the fundamental nature of the employer-employee relationship has evolved significantly over the past forty years. Because no plan can fulfill all the needs of every family, employees must assume certain responsibilities: retirement planning, health care spending and physical fitness, for example. And because one size cannot possibly fit all, plan sponsors need the freedom to tailor programs to their own workforce—and often to provide variation within their workforce. The need to recruit, retain and motivate talent will continue to serve the companies’ core business imperatives.

Therefore, some employers may choose to assume a more traditional, even paternalistic, plan sponsor role, while others may choose to facilitate workers’ ability to take more direct ownership of their benefits. Therefore, ERISA and other governing laws must allow for a variety of approaches to employee benefits all along this spectrum.

ERISA’s federal standard is what makes broad-based sponsorship possible. In this way, ERISA is much like a football field: identical for all teams, constrained by clear borders, but designed with interior guidelines for organization and efficiency. Only on a level playing field can a wide variety of strategic and innovative approaches be fully explored.

Landry’s Cowboys, along with the similarly built Pittsburgh Steelers and Miami Dolphins, came to dominate the NFL in the 1970s with a brutish efficiency predicated on stout defense and a conservative power running game. It wasn’t until the early 1980’s that offenses began evolving in response to new realities of the game.

Legendary San Francisco 49ers head coach Bill Walsh perfected the “West Coast Offense,” which de-emphasized traditional running plays in favor of precise passing routes that stretched the field horizontally rather than vertically. Lumbering defenders, unaccustomed to moving laterally rather than forward, were more easily neutralized. Walsh brought three championships to San Francisco with this system as the Cowboys and Steelers temporarily faded into mediocrity. Once derided as “finesse” football, sophisticated offenses eventually became the new status quo—continuing to this day—and made the sport a lot easier to watch. In this way, the league evolved not only to meet its own needs, but the desires of its consumers as well.

The NFL’s offensive revolution was contemporaneous with a similar revolution in employee benefits policy. The adoption of traditional defined benefit pension plans peaked in the early 1980s—though it was never universal—and then relinquished ground to defined contribution plans as the predominant employer-sponsored retirement savings vehicle.

What will be the next big shift? The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) established a completely new playing field for employer-sponsored health coverage. Coupled with a growing bi-partisan interest in comprehensive tax reform—and attendant scrutiny of the tax incentives that constitute the foundation of employee benefit plans—the health care reform law could fundamentally alter the value proposition of plan sponsorship.

Football is now the nation’s most popular sport, but is nevertheless beset by existential threats on multiple fronts: depressed actual game attendance, off-field embarrassments, and the epidemic of concussive head trauma. Despite extraordinary on-field innovations and financial success, the business of football itself will need to evolve to meet changing American values.

The future of employee benefits faces parallel challenges and opportunities. Given the tenuous financial status of federal entitlement programs, the employer-sponsored system is as vitally important as ever for American’s health and financial well-being.  .

Foresight is not 20-20, but just like flexibility and innovations revolutionized football, a clear vision of where the employee benefits system must go—and flexible and innovative public policies to clear the path to getting there—is essential to developing the game plan that will remain viable for future generations of American workers.

By Jason Hammersla, senior director of communications at the American Benefits Council in Washington, D.C.  

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions of the author(s) do not necessarily reflect the stance of Asset International or its affiliates.

Retirement Plan Industry Trends Then Versus Now

August 28, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – The retirement plan industry today is vastly different from that of 1974, when the Employee Retirement Income Security Act was passed.

There have been big changes since 1974 that perhaps some industry players back in the day would have found unimaginable. In 1974, most workers with employer-sponsored retirement plan coverage were in defined benefit plans, and those with defined contribution plans were in profit sharing plans; the 401(k) hadn’t even been introduced yet. That year saw the introduction of the first mass-produced personal computer; the Altair was sold in kit form for $395 or assembled, for $650, which translates to $3,142 in today’s dollars. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed the year at 616.

No adviser to the plan. (Really!) Then: Retail brokers. Now: Specialist retirement plan advisers

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

When ERISA was enacted and companies began to sponsor retirement plans for their workers, these plans were often supported by just a handful of people. “Retirement plans were usually handled by someone who did something else as a primary function—employee benefits, life insurance or financial planning for high-net-worth individuals—and were almost universally done on a commission basis,” says Jim Sampson, managing principal of Cornerstone Retirement Advisors LLC in Warwick, Rhode Island.

Consulting firms that charged an hourly fee or brokers who sold retail funds might aid a retirement plan sponsor. Without a specialist adviser to act as a support to the plan, participant education was a minor area of concern, according to Trisha Brambley, president of Retirement Playbook Inc. in New Hope, Pennsylvania. “Most of the education focused on why participants should join the plan,” she says. “The middle market—plans with $500,000 to $1 million in assets—had very little service and might have used a consulting firm or an attorney on a project basis.”

In 2003, says Brambley, brokers began to pay more attention to the retirement plan market. It was clear that plan sponsors needed help evaluating their fund lineups because of the increase in investment vehicles.

Today, about two-thirds of plans (60%) use a financial adviser, according to PLANSPONSOR’s 2014 Plan Benchmarking Report.

How much are those plan investments worth? Then: Quarterly Valuations. Now: Daily Valuations.

Once upon a time, pre-Internet and pre-401(k), defined contribution (DC) plans were valued annually, semi-annually, quarterly, or, for a few, monthly. Imagine: you could see the market fluctuating but you could not get an accurate assessment of account status until the valuation. This was perhaps not such a problem before participants were putting their own money into plans, but as 401(k)s gained popularity, it became more of a concern. Without access to the Web, which was in its infancy, participants had to wait weeks after the close of the quarter to make investment changes to their plans.

Things began to change in the ‘90s. “Daily valuation is now wildly popular,” PLANSPONSOR reported in 1994, noting that people were raising concerns over increased costs, additional recordkeeping stresses and possibly even the potential for harm to investment performance.

How to get participants to enroll in the plan? Then: Voluntary Enrollment. Now: Auto Enrollment

When 401(k)s were new, employees had to voluntarily agree to put some of their salary into them. A faintly off-putting term, negative enrollment was a plan design feature that emerged in the 1990s that placed employees into a plan with the understanding that they could opt out, or required them to elect not to participate. In 1997, PLANSPONSOR magazine took a look at why most employers were saying no to a practice that effectively boosts participation, and held up McDonald’s as one of a handful of companies using it—and reporting 95% enrollment. Fewer than 50 companies were using “negative election,” according to PLANSPONSOR’s story.

Could there be legal implications? One source warned that deferring the pay of minimum wage workers could be asking for trouble, even for a retirement plan contribution, and cautioned plan sponsors to contact the Federal Wage Board before pursuing auto enrollment.

Negative election got a rebranding and a reboot in 2006’s Pension Protection Act, when auto-enrollment got a government seal of approval, and a much better name. Today it is widely used in DC plans, and most credit it with boosting plan participation.

What Are We Saving For? Then: Accumulation. Now: Income.

In the early days of 401(k) plans, Brambley says, participants were given charts showing them the accumulation they would have by age 55, for example, if they continued saving in the plan. “But there was not much talk about what that million dollars would buy,” she says, “what it would really mean.” Brambley predicts the retirement industry is going to come up with new and better ways to translate accumulated assets into an income stream.

Firms are dreaming up more ways—income products and guaranteed income—to be able to help people convert that nest egg into steady streams of retirement income, Brambley says.

“First,” she says, “people have to know that a million dollars means $40,000 a year for life.” Also, there must be greater understanding of how to reach that goal. So many people are far from ready, and plan sponsors and advisers must prepare to show people how they can do it, so they do not simply throw up their hands and give up. “All is not lost on Social Security yet,” Brambley says, and the prospective amount should be calculated in along with other sources in addition to 401(k) assets. Several sources may be considered—some people may work part-time, others might have a defined benefit (DB) account or spousal accounts—to help participants understand what could produce income annually in retirement.

Educating Participants Then: Investment Knowledge. Now: Targeted Communication

Over the years, participant education has focused on investment knowledge--helping participants select the proper place to put their funds. Now, the use of target-date funds has lessened the focus on that. Plus, DC plan sponsors are starting to see the value of providing general financial education to participants with the goal of helping them get their finances in order so they are able to save for the long term.

The next phase in communicating with participants, Brambley says, is realizing that one size does not fit all. Communication needs to more precisely target the needs of participants. “I see targeting in a couple of different ways,” she says, “first, in terms of actual participants, there is more analysis on who is participating, and at what age, and in which funds. What does a plan’s population look like?”

Brambley says a new frontier will be retirement industry providers continuing to slice and dice information about participants more finely to be able to identify problems and see where more education is needed.

“Stepping back and taking a bigger look at what is happening is a way to customize,” she says. “What is the reason some people are not saving or not taking advantage of a generous match? Even on the high end of the pay scale, people can have financial stresses, and using diagnostics to track is a way to see what a plan sponsor can do to target the vulnerabilities of their own population.”

«