There are a lot of new (and not-so-new) ideas being pitched these days — but which ones are working and which ones are not?
Well, according to NAPA-Net readers, among the new ideas being pitched to plan sponsor clients these days, the most-cited was — outcomes. Indeed, every single respondent to this week’s reader poll mentioned it.
That said, close behind was automatic enrollment and reenrollment (83% each), and a little more distantly by financial wellness and fee-leveling (66%, and 53%, respectively). Roughly a third noted custom target-date funds, and a quarter mentioned retirement income, while a smaller number (roughly 1-in-10) mentioned ERISA budget accounts and plan design.
Prospect Zings?
As for what is being touted to prospects, the list is a bit more balanced. Financial wellness, automatic enrollment, outcomes and fee-leveling led the way (each drawing between 85% and 79% of the votes), followed by reenrollment (67%), retirement income (50%) and custom target-date funds (33%).
So, if that’s what is being pitched, what’s connecting? Asked to pick one, this week’s respondents were split between outcomes and fee-leveling (roughly a third each). The rest split between financial wellness and automatic enrollment.
The flip side of that question — what is having the least resonance — is telling as well. ERISA budget accounts topped this list, but retirement income, custom target-date funds, and reenrollment were also cited, albeit by relatively small percentages.
‘Quiet’ Zones?
But if those are the things that are being talked about, what about the “big” things that nobody seems to be talking about?
Fee leveling was cited. As one reader noted, “If my investments create revenue sharing, those credits should be given back to me. The vendor should charge its fees across all plan participants and it should show as a deduction on the participant statement. Any revenue sharing my account creates should be given back to me,” going on to note that, “We cannot implement it on all platforms (we are an RIA) as this is a record keeping platform issue. But the ones that can do this much more likely be included in any searches or benchmarking efforts.”
Document compliance and the chance of a compliance audit was cited, an issue several thought was being overshadowed by the fiduciary focus, though another item cited was 3(16). One reader noted that, “When you have some participants that have been automatically enrolled and auto increased as newly eligible participants that (as a consequence) have statistically better replacement ratios than longer term employees that have never been auto enrolled or auto increased, will there be a perceived issue with that treatment.”
Thanks to everyone who participated in this week’s reader poll!
Got a question you’d like to run by our readers? Post it in the comments section below, or email me directly at [email protected].
