Betterment for Business Eager to Challenge Major Recordkeepers

Shifting regulations, evolving consumer demands and a strong response from established providers are real challenges, but low-cost automated 401(k) platform providers remain committed to DC industry disruption. 

PLANADVISER 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.

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

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.”

DC Plan Sponsors Making Decisions to Lower Plan Fees

Defined contribution plan sponsors are looking to negotiate recordkeeping fees, reduce revenue sharing and switch to lower-cost investments, a survey found.

Callan’s 10th-annual “Defined Contribution Trends Survey” reveals that fees are playing a heightened role in driving plan sponsor decision-making.

Reviewing plan fees was cited as a key area of fiduciary focus, both now and for the foreseeable future. Also related to this focus on fees are trends including an increase in recordkeeper search activity, movement to institutional fund structures, de-emphasizing revenue sharing, and adoption of fee policy statements.

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

“Plan sponsors described their review of plan fees as ‘continuous’,” says survey co-author and DC consultant Jamie McAllister. “This includes both investment fees and recordkeeping fees. Recordkeeping searches often result in fee reductions. As a quarter of our survey respondents said that they were very or somewhat likely to conduct a recordkeeper search in 2017, this implies that fee pressure will continue.”

When Callan first asked the question, in the 2012 survey, defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors reported that the majority of participants paid administrative fees solely through revenue sharing (36%) or partially through revenue sharing (30%). In 2016, just over one-third (38%) said revenue sharing was used in any way to pay such fees.

“In 2012, plan sponsors had fewer fee payment options,” says Lori Lucas, CFA, survey co-author and Callan’s DC practice leader. “Today, there are far more mutual funds and daily valued collective investment trusts (CITs) without revenue sharing, and even when there is revenue sharing, plan sponsors can rebate it back to plan participants in ways that weren’t previously available.”

Plan sponsors’ movement away from mutual funds to CITs is also primarily driven by fees. Nearly two-thirds of DC plans offered CITs in 2016, up from 48% in 2012. Meanwhile, mutual funds have decreased in prevalence from 92% to 84% over that same period.

Fees are also driving the increased use of indexed funds. In 2016, far more plan sponsors reported increasing the proportion of passive funds in their plan (12%) than increasing the proportion of active funds (2%). In addition, more than 47% of plan sponsors have a written fee payment policy in place, either as part of their investment policy statement (21%) or as a separate document (26%). This is the highest rate ever recorded in Callan’s survey.

NEXT: Plan design and investment findings

Callan’s 10th-annual “Defined Contribution Trends Survey” also found the use of automatic contribution escalation increased markedly over the past year (63% in 2016 versus 46% in 2015). Caps on automatic contribution escalation have also markedly increased, from 19% in 2015 to 27% in 2016.

Nearly half (47%) of plan sponsors reported making a fund change due to performance-related reasons. This is the highest in the survey’s history. Large cap equity was the most commonly replaced fund. Plan sponsors also took action with their target-date funds in 2016, most commonly cited was evaluating target-date suitability (67%) as the most prevalent course of action.

In addition, the survey found that largely in response to money market reforms going into effect, 64% of respondents have changed to a different money market fund or eliminated their money market fund altogether.

As for the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule will, DC plan sponsors believe it will primarily impact the plan’s printed materials, website, and other educational materials (43%) and communication regarding plan rollovers (43%).

Callan has published the “Defined Contribution Trends Survey” each year since 2007. This year 165 U.S. DC plan sponsors responded, with more than 80% having more than $100 million in assets.

A summary of key findings may be accessed here.

«