Qualitative and Quantitative
Judging the awards for the PLANADVISER and PLANSPONSOR Awards for Excellence, just like running or advising retirement plans, is an art not a science
Reported by Alison Cooke Mintzer
Every year, as I prepare for the annual PLANADVISER and PLANSPONSOR Awards for Excellence dinner, I am asked questions about the awards and why an
individual or a company was named as a finalist or a winner while another was
overlooked. In many cases, it is true that on the surface they might look
similar; however, showing through are nuances that make certain entries stand
out.At the same time, the winners and finalists reflect the various panels of judges, as each brings his or her own perspective to the entries. It is safe to say that, if the judging panels were different, the finalists and winners might be different. After all, judging the awards, just like running or advising retirement plans, is an art not a science.
Regardless of which names end up on the lists, throughout the awarding process, I am struck by how many amazing people I meet who are working in the world of employer-sponsored retirement plans. Like you, they are not simply telling their clients about their latest product offering or fund design. Their chief goal is to improve the retirement outcomes of the average American worker.
Unfortunately, the work done by these individuals is often overlooked or, dare I say, vilified in the consumer media and by plaintiffs’ attorneys. But that doesn’t stop everyone from a relentless pursuit of improving participant outcomes and addressing increased longevity, low savings rates, and insufficient financial education and literacy.
I reflect on this the most as I prepare for our awards dinner, because, each year, our awards change and standards continue to rise to reflect the evolution of the industry and to match the latest best-in-class plan design and initiatives. We use quantitative measures where we can and emphasize those across various award types and categories, but there are some awards that require a bit more insight into how plans and practices are run, and there are times in which the industry benchmarks might not be the be-all and end-all.
Numbers don’t tell you about the plan sponsor that has a largely hourly, blue-collar work force and decided to combat loans and hardship withdrawals. Noticing that many of these were made to accommodate a new appliance or other big-ticket item, the plan sponsor coordinated with a local large store to allow for payroll deductions against that type of purchase, so the participants could leave their retirement savings alone. The plan doesn’t have the highest participation or deferral rates, but the sponsor continues to tackle challenges in innovative ways as they arise.
The quantitative metrics also don’t showcase the adviser working with recordkeepers to accommodate automatic escalation adjustments, made quarterly at a fraction of a percent so participants can adjust to the small increments while still overall increasing their salary deferral a percentage point per year.
Those examples are one reason we continue to emphasize both the qualitative and quantitative awards types. We look for retirement plan professionals, programs and companies that have spurred innovation, developed more efficient plan designs and administration, helped to grow assets and, most importantly, deliver improved participant outcomes. After all, rarely are plans with the same overall plan metrics identical across participant or company demographics. The advisers who work to improve those plans remember that although we, as an industry, reach toward the same readiness benchmarks and outcomes, a one-size-fits-all approach rarely will be for the ultimate benefit of plan participants—the ultimate retirement plan beneficiaries.