The Case for E-Delivery of Retirement Plan Notifications

Why some participants prefer paper copies, and how employers can encourage them to make the switch.

As technology progresses, the retirement industry is seeing digital trends take way in the workforce. One notable feature is the step towards electronic delivery methods for plan disclosures.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed a rule aimed at increasing use of electronic disclosures to retirement plan participants. The rule would push towards reducing costs on employers and plan fiduciaries who are responsible for the production and distribution of retirement planning documents under Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), according to the DOL.

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

While eight organizations—including the Investment Company Institute (ICI) and the SPARK Institute—have urged the DOL to prioritize electronic delivery since June, The Coalition for Paper Options argued against the proposal. The group cites a failure to meet key principals of Executive Order 12866, which would allow for those who prefer hard disclosure copies to receive them instead of automatically enrolling into e-delivery notifications.  

“Under the status quo, consumers who prefer their retirement plan disclosures in paper have their preference honored, and consumers who prefer electronic disclosures can opt-in electronic delivery,” the group said in a letter to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA).

Even as the industry and society move towards more use of technology, paper copies of disclosures continue to be popular among participants. According to Consumer Action, a nonprofit organization that focuses on financial education for low- and mid-income and limited-English-speaking consumers, 49% of respondents to their 2018 ‘Paper of Digital?’ study prefer mailed copies of investment/brokerage account statements, and 42% favor paper when it comes to mutual fund annual reports.

Consumer Action says respondents in the study believe paper copies are simpler to read and easily accessible when utilized for future purposes. In the case of a power outage or another emergency where a computer is not available, having a paper copy on file can be handy. For individuals who don’t own computers or cannot access one, mailed copies allows them to still take control of their own finances.

However, a 2018 study update by the Investment Company Institute (ICI) and American Retirement Association says a lack of internet access isn’t a sound argument anymore. The organizations argue that in 2016, 93% of households owning defined contribution (DC) accounts had access to the internet, and 82% of households with DC accounts and an overall income under $20,000 used the internet in their homes. Additionally, 79% of households with DC accounts and an income of $20,000 to $39,999 utilized the internet.

Aside from their homes, most working participants continue to have internet accessibility in their offices, adds Sarah Holden, senior director of retirement and investment research at ICI. “Many participants do interact electronically with their 401(k) plan at work, and when they do that, we see some very positive results,” she says. “Participants who act with the plan website tend to have higher contribution rates than those who do not.”

A lack of internet accessibility isn’t the only reason some participants opt out of e-delivery notifications. Others prefer physical hard copies of their notices, where they could clearly see and indicate text, rather than squinting at a computer monitor or zooming onto a mobile device’s screen. Or, for those participants who would rather read notifications in another language, their hard copies have been mailed to them in their preferred language for years. However, Holden says, participants can access these same preferences with e-delivery, either by modifying the text on their screen to enhance their reading or switching a setting to their preferred language. It’s just up to the plan sponsor to implement these additional features.

“If you have an electronic version of a copy and want to make the font bigger, you can do that. We have more than 20 million employees who have some kind of vision loss, and that would be a great feature for them,” Holden explains. “We have about 25 million workers for whom English isn’t the language they want to read or understand these things, so you can easily translate an electronic document to another language.”

Outside from the issue of accessibility, plan sponsors can educate participants on the benefits of implementing e-delivery. Dependent upon the plan size, employers could host annual meetings with the recordkeeping firm to refresh plan details, such as employer contribution, and how adding e-delivery could simplify their own notification process, whether it’s including asset allocation or savings decisions.

“There are opportunities during routine plan education where a plan sponsor can highlight all of the features and benefits of the things that are online and indicate to people that they can opt for e-delivery,” says Holden.

And while the industry continues to push for e-delivery notifications, if a participant would rather opt for a paper copy, under the new rule, they could continue to receive one. Considering this, while employers can make the case for e-delivery notifications, at the end the day, participants have their choice to select, says Holden. “Just in the routine description of the plan, employers will highlight what is available online,” she says. “But in either scenario the plan sponsor will say this is a choice for participants.”

Room for More Innovation in the QDIA Sphere

While TDFs have dominated for over a decade, the industry is recognizing a need for personalization of QDIAs using more participant inputs.

Target-date funds (TDFs) have governed the qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) space since the Pension Protection Act (PPA) was passed over ten years ago.

Most employees participating in a 401(k) account are investing in a TDF. A recent Cerulli Associates study found target-date assets represent 58% of 401(k) net flows, while the 2018 PLANSPONSOR Defined Contribution (DC) Survey found 73% of plan sponsors utilize a TDF as their default investment.

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

The mass use of TDFs comes at no shock: they are relatively easy to navigate. Otherwise perceived as a ‘set-it-and-forget-it’ strategy, TDFs allow participants to automatically preserve age-appropriate asset allocations. As participants age and consider more conservative funds, TDFs will too. This permits employees to commit to the fund for the long term.

“TDFs have been the most well-developed solutions for the longest period of time,” says Lorianne Pannozzo, senior vice president and head of Workplace Planning and Advice at Fidelity. “The more companies utilize it, the more it’s seen as the safe, protective option to default a participant to.”

This domination of TDFs poses the question of whether participants and plan sponsors can feel confident in other types of funds approved as QDIAs, and whether the retirement industry can innovate TDF properties to deliver customized retirement solutions that participants need. According to Daniel Uquillas, senior analyst at Cerulli Associates, QDIAs are seeing growth in the market, with several trends sprouting in product innovation.

“Firms are really trying to differentiate products and serve participants, while trying to justify additional complexity and cost,” Uquillas says.

Uquillas notes the recent movement towards dynamic target-date solutions, or hybrid QDIAs. Participants are defaulted into a TDF until they meet a specific criterion, for example, turning 50-years-old or exceeding $100,000 in assets, says Uquillas. Then, participants are transitioned to a more personalized managed account. This practice creates a glide path for investors and allows them to follow a tailored approach with their investments.

“TDF managers have noted that these types of products that incorporate a transition are really the most advanced in the field of product development in TDFs,” Uquillas adds.

The financial services industry is seeing a greater shift in personalizing QDIAs, with managed accounts helping to do so, Pannozzo adds. Plan sponsors are searching for measures to provide tailored solutions, and one way to incorporate that is through this dual integration of TDFs and managed accounts. 

“This has become very applicable in the financial space, where we know you can get people on a better path if you know more about risk profiles and other information,” she explains. No longer do employers or their participants want a one-size-fits-all solution, she adds, they’re looking to manage their own personalized goals.

This integration of both funds doesn’t follow an all-or-nothing approach either. It takes on flexible risk profiles, whether that includes or excludes information on age or assets, for example. Depending on profile information, participants can determine whether they would prefer a strict TDF account, a managed account or a hybrid of the two. While TDFs only take into account a participant’s age, managed accounts look at other factors including risk tolerance or outside assets. At Fidelity, employers can default employees to the Smart QDIA, where age, account balance, contribution amount and other indicators determine investments.

“It’s more about the concept that you can have both a target-date solution and a managed account offered as a QDIA, and it would be the profile information of the individual that would determine,” Pannozzo says.

Looking ahead, Pannozzo and Uquillas foresee growth around the integrated solution. Even as TDFs provide a secure, stable path, especially as an auto-solution, the retirement industry is gearing towards hybrid and customized funds, whether that leans towards conservative or aggressive solutions.

“We’re expecting more customized TDFs,” says Uquillas. “Several TDF managers have developed more conservative and aggressive versions of their flagship products, which allows plan sponsors or participants the flavors they prefer.”

“What we’re starting to hear more is around the criteria that would establish what is the right level of personalization,” adds Pannozzo. “How much information can you get out of the recordkeeping system, and how flexible is that criteria?”

«