One telecommunications company seeking an upgrade of its 401(k) plan’s design and administration determined that Milliman was able to provide them with the type and quality of services needed. Milliman consultants offered the company a three-pronged solution to address several operational concerns related to their 401(k) plan. The case study entitled “Service is in the eye of the beholder” by Dominick Pizzano highlights the approach.
Here is an excerpt:
(1) Plan design revisions. Milliman’s analysis of their situation revealed that several of the ongoing administrative burdens could be addressed through amending the plan. Suggested revisions included (a) removing the joint and survivor annuity requirements which had been included and continued in the plan even though by law the plan was not a type of plan that required such annuities and neither the firm nor participants had expressed any interest in using these payment options; (b) increasing the 401(k) deferral limit which had never been modified to reflect the higher limit that went into effect with a past law change; and (c) adding a $5,000 mandatory cash-out threshold. Milliman proposed amending the plan to incorporate these revisions.
(2) Implementing a more service-oriented administrative approach. There were several operational areas (e.g., loan applications, withdrawal requests, and qualified domestic relations order determinations) where the previous provider did not assume responsibility. Milliman assured the organization that if they made the switch to Milliman, they would be relieved of such tasks in the future as these services would fall within the scope of Milliman’s responsibility.
(3) The existing 401(k) plan currently offered participants a choice of 34 investment alternatives, many of which were similar in asset composition, expense ratio, and average return so as to be redundant. Analysis of the breakdown by fund indicated that many of these funds were not being used by participants. Accordingly, the current array of funds was creating more confusion than appreciation with participants. Milliman proposed to have its investment consultants analyze the existing funds and replace them with a more concise set of funds that would provide sufficient diversification opportunities for participants by covering each of the investment categories previously provided but doing so with a smaller number of funds carrying lower expense ratios. In conjunction with this smart-sizing of the plan’s investment alternatives, Milliman also proposed to have the plan offer Milliman’s InvestMap as an alternative for those participants who did not want to assume the initial task of designing a unique investment portfolio as well as the ongoing responsibility of monitoring fund allocations. By choosing InvestMap, such participants would have an age-appropriate allocation mix created for them upon their selection with such mix proportionately rebalanced as they approached retirement.