Time to Evolve
About 10 years ago, I was part of a group of people at Asset International/PLANSPONSOR who wanted to find a way to recognize the leading retirement plan advisers in the country. After much deliberation, we created the PLANSPONSOR Retirement Plan Adviser of the Year award, as well as a list of quantitative standouts we called “The Most Successful Advisers.” That list grew, from 25 in its first iteration to the current 100, and was then renamed; the PLANADVISER Top 100 Retirement Plan Advisers now includes teams in its ranks—meaning the Top 100 actually covers more than 300 advisers.
As those recognitions have grown considerably over the past decade, the team that manages and judges contenders has dealt with many questions—and complaints—about the process. The connections and distinctions between the PLANADVISER Top 100 Advisers and PLANSPONSOR Retirement Plan Advisers of the Year have been increasingly hard to explain. For example, you could qualify for the Top 100 but not the Retirement Plan Adviser of the Year, and vice versa. So, in 2016, that link is coming to an end.
While I was trying to think of a way to more clearly delineate the two recognitions, the success we saw last year in the introduction of our PLANSPONSOR Best in Class 401(k) Plans gave me an idea. Every year, we give out two awards: the Best in Class 401(k) Plans, taken from our annual Defined Contribution (DC) Survey, and the qualitative PLANSPONSOR Plan Sponsors of the Year.
To better mirror that system, the adviser awards will follow a similar path: The 2016 PLANADVISER Top 100 Retirement Plan Advisers list will be taken from participants in our annual Retirement Plan Adviser Survey. This quantitative list will be entirely separate from the qualitative PLANSPONSOR Retirement Plan Adviser of the Year awards.
Therefore, to be eligible to be recognized in the 2016 PLANADVISER Top 100 Retirement Plan Advisers, advisers must submit a complete entry to the PLANADVISER Retirement Plan Adviser Survey, fielded in late summer/early fall (check your inboxes!). A subsection of the questions will be used to determine eligibility for the Top 100.
Over the past few years, I will admit that I’ve seen a few instances of what I might call “gaming the system.” Some people have put team assets behind their individual submission, to ensure they made the list; other groups decided that although they were spread across multiple offices, they preferred to be seen as a single rather than a multioffice team. And, based on the many emails and calls I have received, I’m not the only one who has noticed.
I am hopeful that this new system will create a more level playing field for many of you. This process will enable the editorial team driving the list to evolve the Top 100 to better fit entrants, based on empirical survey data. I’m not able to say exactly what that means yet, but I do know we will look at broader metrics based on the overall survey responses. We will not be flagging questions to tell you which criteria will be considered.
For example, depending on the number of entrants, we might segment teams differently—e.g., large and small by total staff or number of advisers. We might have the list grow to include more segments based on average plan size or region. Or we might leave it relatively close to how it has been organized in the last few years. I’m not ready to commit to anything until I see the information gathered. What I do know is that it’s a good time for this recognition to evolve.