‘Set It and Forget It’ Plan Design Could Harm 401(k) Investors

Share on facebook
Share on google
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
money-puzzle

Plan sponsors have a clear legal obligation to monitor the quality of investments offered to retirement investors in 401(k) plans.

While that part of fiduciaries’ obligations is indisputable, a small body of academic research on what happens when an investment option is removed in favor of another has shown that the new funds fail to outperform, and sometimes underperform, the removed funds.

One paper, published in the Journal of Finance in 2016, found no evidence that consultants’recommendations to replace investments resulted in added value to plan sponsors and investors in retirement plans.

Or in other words, action taken from the legal obligation to monitor fund lineups did not result in better savings outcomes.

But new research from Morningstar is pushing back on the idea that investment menus are best served with a set-it-and-forget-it design.

Like previous research, Morningstar found that the decision to replace a fund is largely based on comparisons of five-year historical performance.

But unlike previous research, Morningstar found that replacement funds go on to outperform the replaced funds over the ensuing one and three-year time periods after the switch.

Plan monitoring not a futile exercise

“We think the breadth of our analysis is unmatched compared to the other research,” said Jim Licato, vice president, product management for Morningstar Investment Management, which houses the firm’s advisory services unit.

Licato, David Blanchett, head of retirement research at Morningstar, and Michael Finke, a CFA with the American College of Financial Services, tapped Morningstar’s managed account platform to analyze nearly 3,500 fund replacements in 678 defined contribution plans over an eight-year period beginning in 2010.

Prior research was based on significantly smaller data sets; one 2007 study that found no performance improvement in replacement funds was based on a sample of 45 deleted investment options.

Morningstar’s analysis compared funds within the same investment style of three investment categories: equity, bond, and allocation funds that blend both.

Not surprisingly, the replacement funds tended to have lower expense ratios than the replaced funds, better historical returns, and overall higher ratings from Morningstar.

That much was expected, Licato told BenefitsPRO. But the subsequent outperformance of the replacement funds over one to three-year periods came as a notable surprise that supports the value in monitoring plan investments, he said.

“Plan sponsors, whether they use an outside fiduciary advisor or rely on internal investment committees, are being diligent in their monitoring,” said Licato of the new research. “You need to stay on top of your menu design, and make changes when necessary.”

Replacement equity funds had the highest rate of outperformance, but each of the three broad asset classes Morningstar reviewed outperformed the replaced funds. For all three fund groups, the median outperformance was 22 basis points after one year, 26 basis points after two years, and 52 basis points after three years.

Read more on ThinkAdvisors.com

About Us

After 25+ years in financial, investment and other tax related services, I realized most business owners and successful employees weren’t getting specific actionable advice that was improving the bottom line results for themselves, their business or profession and their family. We think differently because we know that’s where value is created that benefits our clients.

Recent Posts

Follow Us