Nonprofit Plan Sponsors Require Deeper Fiduciary Education

A number of key terms commonly present difficulty for nonprofit plan sponsors of all sizes—in particular the terminology surrounding “revenue sharing,” “fee levelization,” “fee policy statements,” and “3(21) vs. 3(38) advisers.”

The Plan Sponsor Council of America (PSCA) has published the PSCA 2017 403(b) Snapshot Survey, sponsored by Principal Financial Group, reflecting responses from 250 not-for-profit organizations that currently sponsor a 403(b) plan.

At a high level the survey shows fairly strong knowledge among plan sponsors of the most important industry terms and trends. However, a number of key terms commonly present difficulty—in particular the terminology surrounding “revenue sharing,” “fee levelization,” “fee policy statements,” and “3(21) vs. 3(38) advisers.”

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

Fully one in three nonprofit plan sponsor respondents are unsure if their plan uses revenue sharing to pay expenses, including 50% of small plans. At the same time, just one in four plan sponsors can confirm if they reallocate revenue sharing among participants, while one-fourth of respondents are admittedly unsure.

PSCA suggests the majority of plan sponsors use an adviser in a 3(21) fiduciary capacity, so-called for the section of the overarching benefits law in which this particular type of adviser-client relationship is enumerated. Most survey respondents could identify whether they used a 3(21) versus a 3(38) adviser, yet a still-troubling 5.6% of respondents could not say for sure. This number is highest among smaller plans.

Also troubling, PSCA says, the data shows about one-fourth of respondents are not aware of what comprises a formal fee policy statement, and half of respondents are unfamiliar with the tenets of fee levelization. There is especially low awareness of what goes into fee levelization among the smallest plan sponsors. The same goes for the construction of investment menus: 7.3% of all respondents were not sure what types of investments their plan offers, jumping to 15.6% for the smallest plan segment.

Additional findings show the percentage of plans aiming to move to zero revenue sharing designs is much higher among the largest plan sponsors. For those with more than 1,000 participants, nearly 21% are moving down this path, compared with just 7% of plan sponsors with 50 or fewer employees.

PSCA’s analysis demonstrates there is a sizable number of plan sponsors—again more in the smaller end of the market versus the larger—who are unsure whether the organization or the individual participants, or a combination, pay the plan fees. Just 1.8% of plans with more than 1,000 participants admit this, while 13.9% of plans with fewer than 50 participants do so.

Continuing the trend, the smallest sponsors are much less likely to have a formal fee policy statement in place: Whereas 50% of plans with more than 1,000 cite having a formal fee policy statement in hand, only 13.9% of sponsors with fewer than 50 employees say the same.

The full survey results are available here.

Retirement Plan Technology and Security Landscape Evolves Quickly

A new Corporate Insight report offers a brief history of the development of financial services technology security measures introduced since 1996—delivering for retirement plan fiduciaries important contextual information about today’s evolving best practices.

Being fiduciaries under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), retirement plan officials are tasked with monitoring and managing cybersecurity risk as they invest participant dollars.

As outlined in a new report from Corporate Insight, “Trends in Online Security: 1996 to Today,” this is no simple task, and it has grown markedly more complex in the last two decades as the role of big data technology has ramped up in the retirement industry.

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

Prior to the year 2000, researchers explain, main employee and employer account login identifiers were assigned as simple firm-related IDs or account numbers. Few firms allowed for “cookied” account numbers within web browsers. Then, from 2001 to 2006, the rate of security systems development significantly accelerated, as service providers introduced automatic logout after inactivity, the ability to set/change passwords online, and multi-factor authentication. Increasingly, Corporate Insight explains, firms launched linked account services, allowing one username to access multiple accounts.

Most recently, custom security questions and text/email codes have replaced older fashioned security images. In addition, text or email alerts now inform clients when an unrecognized device attempts login, successfully or unsuccessfully. Additional precautions have broadly been put in place for changing passwords, and mobile app touch ID and face ID authentication have become available on supporting devices.

In the years ahead, Corporate Insight expects a very strong focus on the issue of cybersecurity among retirement plan providers and investment managers, putting the impetus on plan officials to ensure they understand the evolving product/provider landscape. Researchers cite the painful example set by the massive Equifax data breach as one of the prime motivators for service providers to beef up their security skills.

“Corporate Insight visited the annual Finnovate Conference this year, one week after the Equifax breach, and viewed new technologies aimed at protecting data,” researchers note. “More than one focused on authentication through a second device, enhancing the unreliable text and email verification methods by using proximity-based technology or device hardware to identify a client by their phone or wearable device.”

As mobile devices and voice technology gain popularity, firms must continue to make the login process as secure and efficient as possible, Corporate Insight urges.

“More and more brokerages provide Amazon Alexa Skills for clients to access basic market information and account data. For logging in to such devices, text authentication proves to be the most common measure,” researchers explain. “It will be interesting to see if voice authentication increases in popularity as virtual assistant devices become more responsive to individual voices.”

Turning specifically to retirement plan providers, there is a growing movement to improve understanding and responses to data security issues. For example, recently the SPARK Institute formed a Data Security Oversight Board (DSOB), comprised of both recordkeepers and members of the plan adviser community. The original focus was described as “trying to create a data security standard that all industry players needed to meet.”

However, the organization quickly realized that one overarching standard was not only unattainable, given the different security frameworks each recordkeeper or advisers uses, but also was bad security policy: If that one standard was breached then everyone’s systems would be at risk. In the end, the board of experts chose to recommend standardization of how security capabilities are reported, so the plan sponsor would have a uniform way to better compare each vendor.

The full Corporate Insight report can be downloaded here.

«