Tag Archives: Genny Sedgwick

Top Milliman blog posts in 2014

Milliman consultants had another prolific publishing year in 2014, with blog topics ranging from healthcare reform to HATFA. As 2014 comes to a close, we’ve highlighted Milliman’s top 20 blogs for 2014 based on total page views.

20. Mike Williams and Stephanie Noonan’s blog, “Four things employers should know when evaluating private health exchanges,” can help employers determine whether a PHE makes sense for them.

19. Kevin Skow discusses savings tools that can help employees prepare for retirement in his blog “Retirement readiness: How long will you live in retirement? Want to bet on it?

18. The Benefits Alert entitled “Revised mortality assumptions issued for pension plans,” published by Milliman’s Employee Benefit Research Group, provides pension plan sponsors actuarial perspective on the Society of Actuaries’ revised mortality tables.

17. In her blog, “PBGC variable rate premium: Should plans make the switch?,” Milliman’s Maria Moliterno provides examples of how consultants can estimate variable rate premiums using either the standard premium funding target or the alternative premium funding target for 2014 and 2015 plan years.

16. Milliman’s infographic “The boomerang generation’s retirement planning” features 12 tips Millennials should consider when developing their retirement strategy.

15. “Young uninsureds ask, ‘Do I feel lucky?’” examines the dilemma young consumers face when deciding to purchase insurance on the health exchange or go uninsured.

14. Last year’s #1 blog, “Retiring early under ACA: An unexpected outcome for employers?,” is still going strong. The blog authored by Jeff Bradley discusses the impact that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act could have on early retirees.

13. Genny Sedgwick’s “Fee leveling in DC plans: Disclosure is just the beginning” blog also made our list for the second consecutive year. Genny explains how different fee assessment methodologies, when used with a strategy to normalize revenue sharing among participant accounts, can significantly modify the impact of plan fees in participant accounts.

12. Doug Conkel discusses how the Supreme Court’s decision to rule on Tibble vs. Edison may impact defined contribution plans in his blog “Tibble vs. Edison: What will it mean for plan sponsors and fiduciaries?

11. In her blog “Retirement plan leakage and retirement readiness,” Kara Tedesco discusses some problems created by the outflow of retirement savings. She also provides perspective on how employers can help employees keep money in their plans.

Continue reading

Top 10 Milliman blogs items for 2013

Milliman publishes blog content addressing complex issues with broad social importance. Our actuaries and consultants offer their perspective on healthcare, retirement plans, regulatory compliance, and more. The list below highlights Milliman’s top 10 blogs in 2013 based on total pageviews:

10. In their blog “Five keys to writing a successful qualified health plan application,” Maureen Tressel Lewis and Bonnie Benson highlight several best practices insurers should consider when submitting a qualified health plan application to the Health Insurance Marketplace.

9. “Understanding ACA’s subsidies and their effect on premiums” offers perspective into the relationship between healthcare premiums and federal subsidies for low-income individuals.

8. Funding for future Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans(CO-OPs) was eliminated as a result of the fiscal deal that was signed in December 2012. Tom Snook takes a look at how the deal affects CO-OPs in his blog “CO-OPs: An endangered species?

7. Robert Schmidt discusses why the methodology used to determine COBRA premium rates is essential in his blog “The growing importance of COBRA rate methodologies.”

6. A second blog by Maureen Tressel Lewis and Mary Schlaphoff entitled “Five critical success factors for participation in exchange markets” highlights tactics that insurers offering qualified health plans may benefit from implementing.

5. “Pension plans: Key dates and deadlines for 2013” offers Milliman’s three retirement plan calendars (defined benefit, defined contribution, and multiemployer) with key administrative dates and deadlines throughout the year.

4. In her blog “Fee leveling in DC plans: Disclosure is just the beginning,” Genny Sedgwick explains how investment expenses and revenue sharing affect the fees paid by defined contribution plan participants.

3. Maureen Tressel Lewis and Mary Schlaphoff’s blog “Five common gaps for exchange readiness” describes items issuers of qualified health plans have to resolve before their plans can be sold on the Health Insurance Marketplace.

2. In the lead up to implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), debate often centered on how the law would affect healthcare premiums. Our “ACA premium rate reading list” offers perspective on how rates may be affected.

1. In his blog “Retiring early under ACA: An unexpected outcome for employers?,” Jeff Bradley discusses the impact that the ACA could have on both early retirees and plan sponsors.

This article was first publish at Milliman Insight.

Fee disclosure regulations prompt changes in plan sponsor approach

This PlanSponsor article quotes Genny Sedgwick discussing how fee disclosure regulations have affected changes in the way businesses approach fee transparency.

Here is an excerpt:

Even for companies that had full transparency before fee disclosure regulations, 408(b)(2) and 404(a)(5) still prompted change in their businesses.

Genny Sedgwick, principal at Milliman, said during a panel at the 2013 PLANSPONSOR National Conference that although her company’s entire book of business already had fee transparency, fee disclosure regulations spurred more education initiatives. In educating plan sponsor committees about fee disclosure, the outcome included investment changes. “There were a lot of changes in the fund menu,” Sedgwick said.

More index funds were also added to plan menus, she added, anticipating that participants would ask for lower-cost investments following fee disclosure.

Overall, Sedgwick said Milliman welcomed fee disclosure because it leveled the playing field by requiring more transparency across the industry.

In this blog, Genny explains the relationship between defined contribution plan fees and investment expenses. She also gives perspective on the concept of revenue sharing.

For more perspective from Genny, click here.

Fee leveling in DC plans: Disclosure is just the beginning

This blog summarizes a presentation given by Genny Sedgwick at the Mid-Sized Retirement & Healthcare Plan Management Conference in San Francisco.

We’ve talked a lot about fees in defined contribution (DC) retirement plans lately: the disclosure regulations effective in 2012 have caused quite a stir, and for good reason. For plan fiduciaries, ensuring that retirement plan fees are reasonable and fair is a fiduciary duty, and understanding plan fees can have a significant impact on retirement savings for participants.

For example, if a participant’s retirement investments or account is overpriced by one-quarter of 1% (25 basis points), and the participant has $5,250 in total contributions annually for 40 years, then that participant will have overpaid $40,056 in fees!

But simply knowing the base amount or formula stated by the recordkeeper is often not sufficient to truly understand the impact of fees in a retirement plan. It’s also essential for plan sponsors to consider the different types of fees that occur in retirement plans: plan-level service fees, participant-level service fees, and investment fees. These fees interplay in ways that can have dramatically differing effects from participant to participant.

In order to understand retirement plan fees, it’s important to understand investment expenses and the concept of revenue sharing. Each investment option has an expense ratio, which may contain two major fee components: an investment management fee that varies based on the attributes of the fund or its manager, and a shareholder service fee, which is often paid indirectly to the plan’s service provider(s) in a process called revenue sharing. Expense ratios can vary substantially from fund to fund within a plan, so participants pay different amounts of investment expenses based on their allocations among those funds. Revenue sharing further complicates the matter because not all investment options have a shareholder service component, and those that do have different rates and policies.

Revenue sharing can be normalized among participant accounts in the plan through a process called fee leveling, wherein revenue sharing is allocated back to participant accounts on a per capita or pro rata basis, or back to the participants who held the funds that generated the revenue sharing. However, not all recordkeepers can administer all of these options.

Another issue to consider is who should pay the plan fees that exceed the amount of revenue sharing generated by the plan. Some employers choose to pay these fees, while some assess them to participant accounts, in which case they must decide whether to allocate those “hard” costs pro rata or per capita. Pro rata cost allocations protect smaller account balances, while per capita allocations protect larger account balances.

What’s right for your plan? As the plan sponsor, it’s your choice, but given the implications for fiduciaries and the impact on the retirement readiness of participants, it’s important to understand the options, consider what’s best for your plan, and document your decision.

Can a targeted retirement communications strategy hit the bullseye?

A targeted approach is the most effective communications strategy an employer can implement to help employees understand their retirement plans. Milliman’s Denise Foster and Genny Sedgwick offer perspective on the benefits such a tailored communications approach can have on plan participants in this Business Insurance article (subscription required).

Here is an excerpt:

Most American workers aren’t saving enough toward retirement because they are struggling financially — often living paycheck to paycheck — and do not have the discretionary cash needed to build a retirement nest egg, experts say.

A good retirement communications and education program recognizes this and offers plan members help with such financial fundamentals as budgeting and saving.

The most effective way to communicate these lessons is with a targeted approach that takes into consideration plan members’ ages and other demographic characteristics. The messaging also should be continuous, occurring throughout the year, experts advise.

…“One of the best approaches is a real targeted one,” said Denise Foster, a principal and communications consultant at Milliman Inc. in Seattle. “It’s a lot about tailoring the message to the particular employee group…”

“In financial services, we use a lot of terms that don’t resonate with participants, and they shut down and stop learning,” said Genny Sedgwick, a principal and practice leader for defined contribution plan record-keeping at Milliman Inc. in Seattle. “People feel like they need to be the expert, and they realize they’re not. At the end of the day, participants just want you to guide them.”

To learn more about effective employer-to-employee communication strategies, read this article by Denise Foster, Sharon Stocker, and Heidi tenBroek.

The value of benchmarking your retirement plan

As plan sponsors look to 2013, they might consider setting aside some of their retirement plan budgets to benchmark various aspects of their plan designs, vendors, and processes in order to ensure that their plans are competitive, compliant, and providing value to each company and its employees.

Many industry experts recommend benchmarking defined contribution (DC) plans every three years to ensure they are receiving the same pricing and product offerings that any new client would receive. Do you have a dated legacy product? If so, this could be a good time to benchmark your plan.

Remember, ERISA imposes high standards—“the highest known to law”—upon fiduciaries. Section 404(a) of ERISA provides that fiduciaries must elicit information necessary to assess not only the reasonableness of the fees to be paid for services, but also the qualifications of the service providers and the quality of the services that will be provided. Benchmarking your plan can help ensure that the fees you and your participants are paying are reasonable and commensurate with the services received, and will help to protect against public embarrassment and legal hassles.

But benchmarking is not just about fiduciary protection. Fees and plan design features have a huge impact on retirement savings for participants, contributing not only to the success or failure of their retirement readiness, but also to the value of a company’s retirement plan as an employee recruitment and retention tool.

Benchmarking a plan can be performed in many different ways, including issuing a request for proposal (RFP). Conducting an RFP can result in a thorough review of plan(s) and service providers, with the search consultant providing added value by educating plan sponsors on how to be smart consumers in the retirement plan marketplace. However, this can be an expensive and time-consuming process requiring internal resources, typically senior staff.

As a first step, you might consider having a recordkeeper or investment advisor run a benchmarking report from an independent benchmarking company such as Fiduciary Benchmarks, Inc., BrightScope, Plan Tools, or Advisor Labs Retirement Plan Diagnostic. Each of these companies can produce a nice executive summary diagnostic report, which can be very useful in evaluating plans and negotiating with vendors.

Whichever tactic you choose, it’s important to consider the following in order to maximize the benefits of benchmarking your plan:

• Use up-to-date, accurate, and consistent plan data. Apply this rule to collect and examine the plan fees in the benchmark group as well.
• Compare the plan in a relevant context: Plans of similar size, type, design, location, and industry.
• Don’t forget to consider the value provided! It can be reasonable to pay higher fees if a plan is receiving more or higher-quality services or is attaining higher participant success measures than similar plans.

Regular benchmarking of retirement plan costs and performance can go a long way to protect a plan’s fiduciaries and participants.