Tech-Backed Firms See Recordkeeping Industry Ripe for Disruption

Cynthia Loh, general manager for Betterment for Business, suggests the firm is committed to competing against the largest and best-established recordkeepers in the defined contribution retirement plan industry. 

PLANSPONSOR was recently invited to talk industry trends with executives at Betterment for Business, just about a year after the firm first caught the attention of defined contribution (DC) retirement industry professionals.

Readers may recall the firm’s (somewhat controversial) claim that Betterment for Business, launched formally in January 2016, is the “only full-service platform providing recordkeeping and advice.” It should be noted that other firms argue they can offer just as much integration, automation and transparency as Betterment, whether solo or in partnership with one another, “but it’s just not true,” according to the advisory-turned-recordkeeping firm.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Cynthia Loh, general manager at Betterment for Business, says the firm has since won and onboarded more than 300 plan sponsor clients representing tens of thousands of participants. “We started by onboarding our own 401(k),” Loh adds. “We find it very beneficial to be able to tell our clients that our own plan was the very first one. Internally we have close to 30 individuals dedicated to this portion of our business now.”

Clients have come from across the economy, but the largest group comes from the technology sector, “which you would expect,” Loh notes. “We’ve also had some success in the professional services space … Our message seems to resonate with doctors’ offices, lawyers’ offices and smaller financial services firms like our own.”

Given the client profile as it has developed so far, clearly some time remains before a firm like Betterment will truly approach and challenge the reach of the major established recordkeepers that control vast swaths of DC business in the U.S. By practically any measure, it would take decades of sustained growth for a firm like Betterment to start to challenge the size of a given mega provider, and this is true at a time when profit margins have been squeezed mercilessly, and maintaining scale seems essential for sustained profitability; yet, executives at Betterment are clearly committed to the vision of one day being a major contender on the scale of a Fidelity, TIAA or Empower.

“At the very early stages we were going up against some of the small players in the marketplace, but as we’ve grown, we are now competing right there with the large traditional recordkeepers that have a lot of the volume in this space,” Loh suggests.

NEXT: Emerging environment may favor disruptors 

Admitting that rapidly gaining scale is obviously a goal for the years ahead, Loh suggests there are a variety of reasons why the current environment favors disruptors at the expense of traditional providers.

“There is an emerging understanding that being a large or small provider has no real bearing on whether you can offer quality, digitally based recordkeeping service,” she says. “We are able to make sure that we implement plan designs that make sure employees are saving across all of their accounts for retirement. This is something that other firms, large or small, can still struggle with.”

Loh says the firm “further benefits from the fact that we have a lot of people on our team who were previously with established recordkeepers and third-party administrators—but they weren’t too stuck in their mindset that they couldn’t embrace our belief that this is an industry ripe for change.”

Asked how Betterment for Business views its relationship with more traditional advisers, and whether the firm views its goal as replacing boots-on-the-ground advisers or working beside them, Loh suggested it is a common topic of discussion for the firm.

“We plan to continue partnering with advisers—the traditional model is obviously still the way to get boots on the ground and offer the one-on-one human connection that some find important,” Loh says. “There is a big misconception that we are a robo-adviser and therefore we won’t be able or willing to get you a person on the phone or in your office. That is just not true. There will always be some companies that really gravitate more toward having someone come onsite and sit one on one with employees … Frankly that is not really the business model we deliver, and so we welcome those partnerships with advisers.”

Loh agrees that Betterment, like pretty much any firm in the financial services space, is facing a regulatory environment that is just as uncertain as it’s ever been.

“There is so much uncertainty about what will happen with the fiduciary rulemaking and the advice standards, but I think either way you will see a focus on transparency continue,” Loh concludes. “Practically speaking, I expect there will be a major acceleration in the pace of plan sponsors doing formal provider searches and adviser searchers—in order to demonstrate they are doing their part. Plan sponsors understand that it is a serious and ongoing responsibility to ensure they understand what kind of fees they are paying and how this stacks up again industry benchmarks and what’s out there on the market.”

Investment Fees Should be a Focus for Not-for-Profit Health Care Organizations

Mercer suggests 10 areas for investment considerations for not-for-profit health care organizations.

Mercer suggests areas of focus for not-for-profit health care organizations as costs may grow faster than revenues and possible post-election changes to the Affordable Care Act may have significant impact.

First, Mercer suggests not-for-profit health care organizations take note of recent 403 (b) lawsuits. Higher education institutions have faced a spate of lawsuits regarding their 403(b) plans. Not-for-profit health care organizations should take heed of this and ensure that their benefits and investment committees have reviewed vendor relationships and fees and optimized investment options so that their retirement plans are following best practices, especially not-for-profit health care organizations who have recently completed a merger and/or may have multiple defined contribution (DC) plans.

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

Mercer also suggests any not-for-profit health care organizations that are either undergoing or considering actions such as mergers and acquisitions (M&As), operating agreements or joint ventures should be aware that some of these actions may materially alter an organization’s balance sheet. Finance and investment committees should consider how best to integrate investment strategy and whether these factors may necessitate a change in their investment risk profile.

Interest rates have risen since the U.S. presidential election and may rise further, so not-for-profit health care organizations should assess their overall interest rate sensitivity, incorporating their investment assets, retirement plans and debt portfolio. Specifically, some organizations’ debt portfolios may benefit from higher interest rates as much of their debt portfolio is fixed rate. Those with a defined benefit (DB) retirement plan may see a reduced liability with higher long-term rates.

Though rates have recently risen, interest rates have been low for several years; in turn affecting not-for-profit health care organizations’ DB plans’ funded status. Funded status fluctuates based on interest rate activity, investment returns and plan sponsor cash contributions. Achieving a fully funded DB plan typically takes years, so it is important to develop a roadmap to de-risk a plan as funded status improves. This means not-for-profit health care organizations should review their current DB investment strategy and make appropriate changes as required, Mercer says.

NEXT: Other suggestions

Other suggestions from Mercer include:

  • Assess impact of the election: The new administration may have significant implications for the Affordable Care Act. Organizations should reevaluate their risk tolerance and investment strategies, as operating results may be significantly affected by potential changes.
  • Plan holistically: Not-for-profit health care organizations should take an enterprise-wide view of their investment risk posture and integrate their investment strategy with their financial plans. Organizations’ risk level should account for illiquid investment strategies that may be excluded from the days-cash-on-hand calculation.
  • Acknowledge ‘country bias’: US markets have outpaced most others since the bottom of the great recession in 2009. After such an extended period of dominance, it is perhaps natural for U.S. investors to raise the debate of whether they should keep their globally diversified portfolio. Not-for-profit health care organizations should evaluate the pros and cons of their current asset allocation and determine if they should make their allocations based on global market weights or peer behavior.
  • Evaluate inflation sensitive investments: Changes in global pricing dynamics need to be evaluated by investment committees. Nonprofit committees must balance the negative impact to inflation-sensitive investments in today’s low-inflation or deflationary trend with the potential for inflation surprises.
  • Review governance structures: Not-for-profit health care organizations are being pressured to reduce costs while increasing the quality of care. In this environment, health care organizations may want to look at outsourcing some elements of their investment function to potentially reduce investment expenses and free up staff and committee time to focus on strategy.
  • Adopt socially responsible investment principles: Socially responsible investment offers not-for-profit health care organizations the opportunity to align their investment values with their core mission to promote health by screening out investments with significant revenue from tobacco, alcohol and firearms products, among others. Socially responsible investment, which can be tailored to fit well with an institution’s core values, should be considered by not-for-profit health care organizations in 2017.

The not-for-profit health care 2017 priorities paper can be found here.

«