Remember those investment consultants from the 1990s? They'd arrive all prim and proper into the 401(k) plan sponsors' conference room and slam a thick volume of solid paper on the table. They would then open their benchmark bible to the first chapter: numerology. In fact, every chapter was titled "Numerology" and, save for a few colorful pie charts, everything else was dry, black-and-white data. And the C-suite of sponsors smiled as if they understood.
They didn't. And that was maybe the ultimate objective of the consultant – make it so complicated they just couldn't fire you. Only you knew how to interpret the tea leaves of the 401(k) plan which the DOL held them – and, back then, for the most part, only them – accountable. They might not have known how to precisely measure their fiduciary liability, but these executives knew the word "liable" – and they didn't like it.
And while the consultants, and the financial products they were beholden to, bedazzled the plan sponsor with Modern Portfolio Theory mumbo-jumbo, the real liability lay hidden in an ocean of marketing literature and prospectuses that probably did actually disclose the existence of 12b-1 fees and revenue sharing kickbacks, but who reads all that stuff anyway.
Recommended For You
In a similar fashion, to reinforce the faux rocket science of it all, investment statistics consumed the bulk of the list of plan benchmarks. Investing is sexy, after all, and beyond the simple annual compliance testing regarding Highly Compensated Employees, why keep tabs on what the employees were doing? Wasn't the 401(k) designed to be the ultimate "do-it-yourselfer," placing all the onus on employees and removing that silly patrician thing going on with pension plans?
Well, a funny thing happened on the way to blissful ignorance – behavioral economics. Turns out, we could design plans so employees made better decisions. We had the technology to help employees increase the odds they would retire in comfort. And – guess what? – it had little to do with investments. Sure, the TDF snuck in right before the curtain came down on tables and tables of MPT statistics and ushered in an era of auto-this and auto-that.
These days, very few thought leaders still talk about investments when it comes to 401(k) plan benchmarks (see "'How-to' Guidelines to Follow When Creating 401(k) Plan Benchmarks," FiduciaryNews.com, January 27, 2015). The playbook is no longer coming from the finance department of your favorite quant school, but from the behavioral studies branch – and quite a few courtrooms.
The measure, and I use the term loosely here, of a good 401(k) plan benchmark relates to its ability to specify retirement readiness for each employee. Several leading service providers have quietly led this evolution away from the reams of figures published by your favorite neighborhood investment consultant and toward a one-page chart of leading indicators.
It used to be all about investment, asset allocation, and a cornucopia of Modern Portfolio Theory. Today, it's only about retirement readiness.
How many plan sponsors (let alone their service providers) are ready?
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.