Data and Research June 9, 2021

Employers Feeling More Responsibility in a Post-Pandemic Workforce

A BlackRock study found many plan sponsors are planning to add more automatic features, ESG options and active management strategies to their plans.

Reported by

Lasting impacts brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic have caused major barriers for employees to reach financial wellness and retirement readiness goals. As a result, BlackRock says, more plan sponsors are taking steps to tackle the changing environment for their workers.

The 2021 “BlackRock DC Pulse Survey” found that 61% of the 225 large defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors surveyed said at least half of their employees faced negative impacts with their retirement readiness. Fifty-two percent of employers also noted that more participants withdrew or borrowed money from their retirement savings than normal due to COVID-19.

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

Consequently, almost all plan sponsors surveyed feel accountable for the financial and overall well-being of their employees. Ninety-six percent surveyed say they have a sense of responsibility for their employee’ retirement readiness and general financial well-being, and 68% say helping participants with retirement income has become even more important to them due to the pandemic. Thirty-seven percent cite the impact of COVID-19 as the most important factor in considering changes to their plan.

Still, most plan sponsors are sure there will be a recovery in retirement income and readiness. Fifty-three percent of employers stated they are highly confident in the current state of their participants’ retirement readiness, and 61% are highly confident in their ability to educate participants about their plan.

More are also planning to implement additional automatic features, thanks to the growth of automatic enrollment, which has heavily contributed to the surge of employee contributions in the past decade. A recent Vanguard report underscored the weight of the feature, finding that 90% of participants who are automatically enrolled in their retirement plans increase their deferral rates, either through automatic escalation or on their own.

The BlackRock survey reports that 63% of the 1,000-plus participant respondents automatically increase what they save for retirement annually. Sixty-eight percent automatically reallocate their assets to more appropriate age-based investments, and 68% have used auto-enrollment to enroll themselves into the plan.

Of the age groups surveyed, Millennial workers were found to be the most responsive to auto-features. Seventy-six percent automatically up their retirement savings on an annual basis, 81% will automatically reallocate their assets to more appropriate age-based investments, and 79% have used auto-enrollment to enroll themselves into a plan.

Interest in environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing continues to grow among participants as well, and especially with Millennial investors. Seventy-three percent of general respondents believe it is either somewhat or very important to incorporate ESG options, compared with 64% in 2020 and 62% in 2019. Forty-nine percent of Millennial respondents believe it is very important to have ESG options, while only 20% of Gen Xers and 11% of Baby Boomers agreed. As more employees demand ESG funds in their investment options, employers are considering adding such options to their plans, with nine in 10 planning to add sustainable funds within the next 12 to 24 months.

Along with increasing usage of auto-features and implementing ESG options, employers are also recognizing the benefits of active management and alternatives. Many plan sponsors in the survey believe such strategies can grow returns and lessen the effects of market volatility, especially as part of a target-date fund (TDF). Eight in 10 plan sponsors in the survey agreed that active management approaches gain higher returns than index strategies and that active managers can consistently outperform the market. Among plan sponsors looking to include alternatives, their top reason for considering the asset strategy was to help provide higher levels of income for participants, according to the survey.

Compliance June 9, 2021

Client Claims Self-Dealing by Russell Investments

The complaint seeks to tie alleged business challenges that were being experienced by Russell Investments with the choices made by its investment advisers in the operation of Royal Caribbean Cruises’ retirement plan.   

Reported by

Participants in the Royal Caribbean Cruises retirement savings program have filed a lawsuit against Russell Investments, suggesting the firm engaged in self-dealing in its provision of discretionary investment advisory services.

The lawsuit closely resembles other self-dealing lawsuits that have been filed against retirement plan service providers in the past few years, but it is distinguished by the fact that it does not also name the employer and plan sponsor as defendants. Furthermore, the same attorney who is representing Caesars Entertainment in a self-dealing lawsuit filed against Russell Investments in May has signed onto this case as well. Regarding the Caesars lawsuit, Russell Investments told PLANSPONSOR it believes the challenge is without merit, and that the firm intends to vigorously defend itself.

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

The firm offered a similar statement regarding the Royal Caribbean complaint: “We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend the firm against these allegations.”

The text of the new lawsuit suggests Russell Investments “obtained fiduciary control” of the plan’s investment menu in late 2015, presumably meaning it took on a contracted role as a discretionary fiduciary investment manager.

“Upon doing so, Russell immediately selected a lineup consisting exclusively of its own poorly performing proprietary funds and replaced the plan’s industry-leading target-date funds [TDFs] managed by Vanguard with its own proprietary target-date funds,” the complaint states. “This self-serving swap was disastrous for the plan and cost participants millions of dollars in lost investment earnings through the middle of 2019, when Russell was removed as the plan’s investment manager after less than four years in the role.”

After crafting a menu prioritizing its own funds, the plaintiffs suggest, Russell Investments also transferred more than 99% of the plan’s assets into its own funds.

“There was no participant-focused justification for Russell’s swap,” the complaint argues. “Russell was not a highly regarded fund manager, having ranked dead last out of 48 companies in Barron’s annual fund manager rankings as of year-end 2014. Yet, Russell chose itself over other fund managers for each of the plan’s funds in 2015 and replaced Vanguard’s industry-leading target-date funds with its own struggling target-date funds. Moreover, Russell did so despite the fact that the Vanguard funds performed better than the Russell funds over both short-term and long-term periods prior to the transfer while exhibiting similar or lower levels of risk.”

Par for the course in self-dealing fiduciary breach cases citing the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), it will not be enough for plaintiffs to simply allege that Russell used many of its own funds, even if they did underperform other potentially available investment options. Rather, they must establish that Russell Investments failed to meet the twin duties of prudence and loyalty during and after its decision to transfer participants’ assets into a menu predominated by its own proprietary investments. As it stands, plaintiffs filing similar suits have been met with mixed results based on the individual facts and circumstances at hand—though more than a few of them have been able to get past the motion-to-dismiss stage, and some have won sizable settlements.

Much of the text of this particular lawsuit is devoted to detailing way ERISA defines and judges have interpreted the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty. It also includes in-depth comparisons of various Russell Investments funds and funds that were previously used in the plan or which were available on the open market. Beyond this, the complaint seeks to tie alleged business challenges being experienced by Russell Investments with the choices made by its investment advisers in the operation of this and other retirement plans over which they are said to have had full investment menu discretion.

“Faced with these results, a prudent and objective fiduciary would not have replaced the Vanguard target-date funds with Russell’s target-date funds in 2015,” the complaint states. “Nor would a prudent and objective fiduciary have chosen Russell’s target-date funds over parallel Vanguard funds if considering new investments for the plan. … While the change could not be justified based on prospective returns for participants, swapping the plan’s target-date funds for its own target-date funds and retaining those funds during its tenure gave Russell’s funds a significant boost during a critical time of large investor outflows.”

The full text of the complaint is available here.

«