Safeguarding DC Plan Data Is About More Than Cybersecurity

Andy Adams and Jay Schmitt, with Strategic Benefits Advisors, discuss what makes retirement plan data vulnerable and actionable steps to protect it from fraud.

Because defined contribution (DC) retirement plans combine personally identifiable information with asset data, they make attractive targets for identity thieves and other fraudsters.

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

Much of the fraud threat comes from outside sources. Large-scale data breaches have become alarmingly commonplace, fueled by a thriving black market for consumer information. DC plan recordkeepers tell us they experience dozens, if not hundreds, of cyberattacks every week. We also see more targeted crimes in which individuals attempt to secure loans or intercept funds by impersonating plan participants, not to mention “inside jobs” that originate with a plan sponsor’s recordkeeper or another third-party vendor.

The onus of safeguarding plan participants from fraud, no matter its source, does not fall solely on the recordkeeper. Both DC plan sponsors and recordkeepers need to agree on fraud-resistant processes that are clearly documented, rigorously implemented and consistently followed. Here are a few tips.

Be Risk Averse, Not Speed Oriented

Over the last 20 years, speed has become one of the determining factors in recordkeeper selection. The theory is that faster turn times—including quicker processing of distributions and loan disbursements—will improve participant satisfaction and ease the plan sponsor’s administrative burden.

In practice, too much emphasis on speed has compromised processes meant to safeguard participant assets and contributed to the rise in DC plan fraud. Both plan sponsors and recordkeepers should consider that the most fraud-resistant protocols aren’t always the fastest.

For example, many DC plan sponsors now allow participants to apply for loans paperlessly. Further, plan sponsors often combine the loan check and promissory note into a single document, eliminating the requirement for participants to return a signed promissory note prior to the loan check being issued. These measures may expedite loan disbursements, but they expose both participants and plan sponsors to unnecessary fraud risk. Recordkeepers are seeing an exponential increase in criminals attempting to utilize these expedited processes to infiltrate participant accounts.


Balance the Books

Another disturbing process that often leads to fraud is the use by some DC recordkeepers of “clearing accounts” and “distribution accounts” to manage the inflow and outflow of money to and from plan participants. In such a setup, participant contributions are deposited en masse into a clearing account each payroll period. The deposit is then broken up and disbursed to the various investment fund accounts based on participant elections. In addition, monies paid out from the plan—such as participant distributions, loan disbursements or payments for plan expenses—typically flow through the clearing account before moving on to the disbursement account and then the final destination.

In performing transactional and process audits for our clients, we’ve encountered more than our fair share of messy clearing and distribution accounts. Uncashed checks are often a large part of the problem. Sometimes these checks represent lump-sum or installment distributions made out to a recipient who has moved or died. There may be uncollected force-out distributions issued to terminated employees whose DC plan balances were below the force-out threshold. We have even seen instances in which participants who applied for DC plan hardship withdrawals never cashed their checks.

It’s incumbent on plan sponsors to make sure recordkeepers reconcile clearing and distribution accounts frequently (preferably daily) and accurately, with every transaction clearly identified. When checks go uncashed, there should be clear protocols for locating the intended recipients and a definitive timeline for returning uncollected funds to the plan.

In extreme cases, we have seen several years’ worth of stale checks add up to millions of dollars in uncollected funds. Such a situation opens up plan sponsors to allegations of administrative mismanagement. It also creates an attractive target for unscrupulous employees to exploit—which brings us to our next point.

Put Checks and Balances in Place

Another DC fraud risk factor has to do with separation of duties—or a lack thereof. All too often, we see recordkeepers allowing the same person to make multiple changes to participant accounts without any approval or reporting process. This should raise a major red flag for plan sponsors.

In our opinion, no single employee should have the power both to change a participant’s mailing address and to reissue a check. Separating duties like these is a simple way to protect participants and reduce plan sponsor liability. However, should a recordkeeper make a compelling case for combining these tasks into a single role, the plan sponsor would be wise to enforce an approval process and require an audit trail that documents every transaction in the recordkeeper’s system—even manual adjustments.

Screen Personnel Regularly

Finally, plan sponsors should require thorough background checks for anyone with access to DC plan accounts or participant data. Background checks should be conducted not just at hire but on an ongoing basis. Our experience in the vendor search and vendor management businesses indicates that plan sponsors are usually diligent about requiring employee background checks at the time they hire a new vendor; however, ongoing background checks tend to slip through the cracks.


No plan is impervious to fraud, but by practicing fraud-resistant processes, enforcing separation of duties, and conducting ongoing background checks, plan sponsors and recordkeepers can play a much more proactive role in safeguarding participant data and substantially reduce their risk exposure.

Andy Adams and Jay Schmitt, A.S.A., are principals of Strategic Benefits Advisors, an independent, full-service employee benefits consulting firm focused on creatively and effectively solving complex benefits issues for clients ranging from 500 to over 250,000 employees. Adams and Schmitt have over 55 years’ combined experience in benefit plan administration and consulting. They can be reached at info@sba-inc.com.

 

This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal or tax advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions of the author do not necessarily reflect the stance of Strategic Insight or its affiliates.

Saving for Retirement, Emergencies a Struggle for Sandwich Generation

The strain of supporting other family members financially is taking a toll, PNC learned in a survey.

Members of the sandwich generation, those between the ages of 36 and 60, are hard pressed to save for retirement or emergencies, primarily due to the strain of supporting other family members, according to a survey by PNC Financial Services Group.

Thirty-eight percent do not have an emergency savings fund, 31% have an emergency fund that would last less than six months, 32% have less than $25,000 saved for retirement and more than half have $100,000 or less saved for retirement. Their average retirement savings is $170,346. Eight percent say they are financially assisting their parents or elderly family members as well as children. Forty-five percent are financially supporting one or the other, and 47% have no financial obligations to others.

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

Twenty-five percent are supporting children under the age of 18. Seventeen percent are supporting children older than that, and 16% are caring for parents or elderly family members. Another 32% expect to be financially assisting their parents or elderly family members within the next five years, but only 20% have planned for those expenses.

Only 16% of the sandwich generation have a formal financial plan, but 51% have an informal plan.

“Our survey revealed that many members (29%) of the sandwich generation would prefer to bury their heads in the sand and avoid thinking about their finances,” says Rich Ramassini, director of strategy and sales performance for PNC Investments. “The reality is that the only way to improve your financial situation is to be honest with yourself and commit to making the necessary changes required to prepare for the future. We can see that the sandwich generation is struggling to save for their own needs. When you add in the demands associated with financially supporting children and/or elderly family members now or in the future, it paints a very grim picture for this demographic’s future unless they take immediate action.”

Chadwick Martin Bailey designed the online survey for PNC, which conducted it last August.

«