Plan Progress Webinar: Benchmarking Your Recordkeeper

Experts discussed what to evaluate when benchmarking recordkeepers, the differences between an RFI and an RFP and what to ask about cybersecurity processes.

Selecting the best recordkeeper for retirement plan participants and monitoring that recordkeeper are part of a plan sponsor’s fiduciary duties. What should sponsors benchmark and how?

A recent PLANSPONSOR webinar, “Plan Progress: Benchmarking Your Recordkeeper,” called upon industry experts to tackle this question, along with the latest trends for employers to consider.

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

Tim Rouse, executive director at the SPARK [Society of Professional Asset Managers and Recordkeepers] Institute, began the discussion by distinguishing the differences between a request for information (RFI) and a request for proposals (RFP), noting that an RFI is typically less formal than an RFP and might not necessarily indicate a sponsor is interested in changing vendors, whereas an RFP does. “RFIs are used by plan sponsors when they are checking market conditions and an RFP is used when they made a commitment to seriously look at changing vendors,” he said.

Kerrie Casey, a retirement plan consultant for SageView Advisory Group, said RFIs are appropriate for benchmarking plans, noting that every plan sponsor should be going through a benchmarking process on a yearly basis. “The RFI gives plan sponsors a good idea of how the market looks,” she said.

RFPs can also be costly, said Casey, so larger plans that can afford them are more likely to go through the RFP process. However, she warned large employers to tread carefully. For example, she said, while large employers are not required to work with the cheapest recordkeeper, they must justify the value compared to the cost, especially if participants are paying the fees.

When comparing services, always question document provisions, Casey added. She said sponsors should ask: “Is it an individually designed plan? Do you have any quirky plan provisions?”

“You want to make sure your recordkeeper can operationally support that to make the process easier,” she continued. “These are all very unique to plan sponsors and should be called out in the RFP.”

Ben Taylor, vice chair of SPARK’s Data Security Oversight Board, noted that there’s been an increase in the amount of cybersecurity questions plan sponsors are asking, given recent cyberattacks on organizations of all sizes and the latest Department of Labor (DOL) guidance on the topic. “Plan sponsors really need to figure out how to connect their due diligence with cybersecurity,” he emphasized.

Casey added that as part of annual due diligence, plan sponsors should be inquiring about any new services their recordkeeper is offering or any updates on the recordkeeper’s performance. “[Plan sponsors] should be bringing their recordkeepers in and asking what’s new, whether that’s financial wellness, cybersecurity, how they performed on their financial audits or what new services they are offering to prospective clients,” she said.

“The key thing is to know how to ask and exchange that information,” Taylor added.

He said plan sponsors can also inquire about the recordkeeper’s penetration testing results, which assess whether a firm’s cybersecurity processes are accurate. Taylor recommends employers ask about their providers’ scores and their processes—how often were hackers found versus how often were they missed? How will the recordkeeper deal with a breach? Will it have a procedure in place if a cyberattack occurs? What cybersecurity framework is it employing, and has it been audited against that standard? “Develop a language where you ask about all those key elements in the DOL’s guidance,” Taylor recommended.

Lastly, Casey suggested that plan sponsors ask about plan participants and see what employees are doing to mitigate their own cyber risk. Recordkeepers can create a report on what participants are doing and the state of their cybersecurity efforts. These results can then drive new communication strategies.

“This can help plan sponsors put in communications to help people create their accounts,” Casey said. “Raising awareness around this can hopefully get more people involved in the protection of their assets.”

People Like ‘Guaranteed Income’ Over an ‘Annuity’

Not only does a name change increase the appeal of annuities, but framing them as insurance against running out of money in retirement does even more so.

What’s in a name? A lot when it comes to annuities, according to a recent Morningstar study.

Stan Treger, a senior behavioral scientist at Morningstar, set out to discover whether the title of a product, as well as the thought of running out of money during retirement, influences people’s evaluation of annuities. In his study report, he notes that annuities have been touted by lawmakers, regulators and others in the retirement plan industry as the answer to the question of how defined contribution (DC) plan participants turn their savings into income in retirement. Treger also notes that annuities have not been popular, and some studies suggest this could be because of their complexity or because of people’s unwillingness to let go of control of a lump sum of amassed savings.

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

The study included 1,067 U.S. residents who are older than 30 and employed. Per random assignment, study participants were asked questions about a product framed as either a “guaranteed stream of income for life” or as “an annuity.” Treger found that study participants were more willing to exchange a portion of their retirement savings when the product was called a guaranteed income stream than when it was called an annuity.

Overall, participants reported being concerned about the prospect of running out of money during retirement. Some study participants were asked about this concern before being asked about the willingness to exchange a portion of retirement savings for either a guaranteed income stream or an annuity. Treger found that those concerned about running out of money in retirement were more willing to exchange a portion of retirement savings for either one, regardless of what it was called.

The study also found that, in general, participants were willing to exchange approximately 30% of their savings in an employer-sponsored retirement account for a guaranteed income stream or annuity. But they were not very comfortable with allowing their employers to do this for them.

However, the more that study participants were willing to purchase the product, the more comfortable they were with their employer exchanging a portion of their retirement savings for it, and the larger chunk of their retirement savings they would be willing to exchange, the study report says. In addition, those comfortable with exchanging some of their retirement savings for the product were also more willing to delay their Social Security benefits to maximize their income.

Treger went even further and asked whether study participants preferred to pay a larger lump sum for immediate payments during retirement rather than a smaller lump sum for later payments during retirement. In general, study respondents preferred to pay a larger lump sum for the immediate annuity or guaranteed income stream. However, people who were asked questions about the fear of running out of money in retirement before being asked about the willingness to purchase the product were more likely to prefer the deferred annuity.

Treger concludes that his study shows that simply calling an annuity a name that describes its intended purpose—providing a guaranteed income stream that insures against running out of money in retirement—can make people more open to choosing one.

The full study report may be downloaded from here.

«