Data & Research October 10, 2023

Managed Account Sponsors Believe Advisers Can Better Use Offerings, Cerulli Reports

The consulting firm's latest survey revealed that managed account sponsors have significant concerns about plan advisers’ ability to optimize portfolio management.

Reported by

Managed account sponsor firms have expressed concern about how adviser discretionary programs operate, according to the latest Cerulli Edge—U.S. Managed Accounts Edition.

Among over 30 sponsors representing more than 90% of managed account assets, 82% indicated that the consistent underperformance of adviser-discretionary portfolio was a major or moderate concern, according to Cerulli. Meanwhile, 79% of sponsors worried these portfolios strayed from investment policy. In addition, 71% of sponsors had concerns about the lack of investment review by adviser portfolio management.

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

“It is critical for advisers to maintain the investment plan set forth at the start of the client relationships and to have proper oversight of the portfolios, to ensure they are continuously optimized to meet clients’ objectives,” the report noted.

The research was part of a study by Cerulli using quantitative and qualitative responses from managed account program sponsors and asset managers. The consultancy also tracked the growth of various managed account types, including rep-as-portfolio manager, unified managed accounts, and rep-as-adviser programs.

When considering advisers managing portfolios as direct representatives, they tend to lag behind home offices, which deliver more consistent returns for their clients, according to Cerulli.

“Advisers could outsource portfolio management to the home office and likely see better returns and more consistent performance, all while freeing up the adviser to spend more time with clients or source new business,” the report stated.

Cerulli found that 20% of advisers fully outsource to home office or third-party models. The majority of advisers (57%) use model portfolios created at the practice level. Alternatively, they start with home-office or third-party models and modify them as deemed necessary. Meanwhile, 23% of advisers reported creating custom portfolios from scratch for each client.

Managed accounts are an increasing area of focus for retirement plan investment management, particularly as a default option to increase personalization. In recent research from Sway Research, 17% of retirement plan advisers said they were offering a managed account option as a qualified default investment alternative for at least one client, though respondents also showed reservation in offering them, due in part to litigation concerns.

Cerulli noted that in managing clients’ portfolios, while advisers may want to take advantage of a market opportunity, they could negatively impact their client’s ability to meet their goals if they alter the asset allocation and get negative returns.

Only 30% of affluent investors felt their own individual advisers were best positioned for portfolio management responsibilities, while 40% said a dedicated team at the advisers’ firm would be a better option.

As many advisers still see their discretionary portfolios as a competitive offering, home offices understand not all advisers will outsource portfolio management. To support advisers, sponsors provide resources for better security research, access to professional portfolio managers and risk-budgeting tools.

Managed account sponsors also work with asset manager partners, who revealed that the most valuable resource they can provide is thought leadership (73%), followed by asset allocation information (50%) and portfolio construction resources (46%).

Managed account assets grew 5.2% in 2Q 2023 to reach $10.6 billion in assets, just below the peak of $10.7 billion in 2021, according to Cerulli.

Compliance October 10, 2023

SEC’s AI Proposal Would Negatively Affect Retirement Education Features, Commenters Say

The feedback period for the SEC proposal on artificial intelligence and conflicts of interest closed today, and the feedback has been overwhelmingly negative.

Reported by

The comment period for the Securities and Exchange Commission’s proposal on artificial intelligence and conflicts of interest closed Tuesday. The proposal, which would require advisers to eliminate or neutralize all conflicts related to the use of predictive or optimization technology, received near-unanimous disapproval and many calls for a total withdrawal.

The proposal, first unveiled in July, would apply to any “analytical, technological, or computational functions, algorithms, models, correlation matrices, or similar methods or processes that optimize for, predict, guide, forecast, or direct investment-related behaviors or outcomes of an investor.”

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

The breadth of this definition was the most common criticism in the comment file and has also been targeted in other public settings since the rule was first proposed.

Retirement sector professionals noted that this definition of predictive or optimization technology would apply to too wide a range of retirement educational and readiness tools. The ERISA Industry Commission noted in its letter to the SEC that the proposal would apply to ordinary retirement readiness calculators and chat bots. ERIC called on the SEC to fully withdraw the proposal.

According to the letter, educational tools “are highly dependent on technology to efficiently and effectively deliver services and information, including data that can be personalized to employees. This technology is ever-evolving and presents exciting opportunities to generate positive outcomes for workers. Regulations that create uncertainty, increase costs, and stifle innovation do not benefit workers and should be resisted.”

The American Benefits Council elaborated on this concern in its letter and likewise asked the SEC to withdraw the proposal. The ABC noted that the proposal would cover technologies that calculate for retirement savers “how much in total they need to have saved by retirement age or … how much money they can afford to spend annually during retirement,” since these technologies are predictive in character. The ABC added that the proposal would be “very counterproductive to our goal of achieving retirement security.”

Empower, unlike other commenters, suggested that the SEC either withdraw the rule or make specific changes. Instead of a full withdrawal, but in line with other commenters, Empower recommended making a categorical exemption for educational materials such as readiness calculators and allocation brochures.

Empower’s letter stated that many advisers offer educational tools for retirement plans, but if the required technology is swept up by a final rule and advisers are required to eliminate all related conflicts instead of mitigating and disclosing them, advisers may stop providing the tools at all. The letter explained that many advisers would be unlikely to take the risk that educational materials intended to encourage greater contributions to retirement accounts could be construed as a conflict.

Both the American Securities Association and the Investment Adviser Association requested that the SEC withdraw the proposal and instead stick to the principles of adviser fiduciary duties, which outlines the duties of care and loyalty advisers have to their clients. Already existing fiduciary duties would apply to the covered technologies anyway, but it only requires mitigation and disclosure of conflicts, rather than total elimination, their letters argued.

The IAA explained that “even where the covered technology would provide financial education, coaching, guidance, or advice that are in the best interest of clients, notwithstanding the presence of a conflict, the adviser would be per se prohibited from proceeding to use the technology without first eliminating or neutralizing the conflict altogether.”

The ASA letter was more critical and described the proposal as a “concept release in which a regulator surveys the industry to learn more about a topic and to better inform itself as to any unintended consequences.”

The SEC has not set a timetable for finalizing the rule.

«