SPECIAL RETIREMENT PLANNING SECTION

(1)

(2)

ILLUS TRA TIONS B Y KEVIN MCF ADIN | KEVINMCF ADIN.COM

R

unning a 401(k) or other type of defined contribu-tion (DC) plan is hard, fraught with significant liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and regulations by the IRS and the Department of Labor (DOL), as well as from a new breed of plaintiffs’ attorneys increasingly filing lawsuits on behalf of employ-ees. Most HR managers are not professionally trained to handle these duties, especially those in smaller and mid-size companies. No wonder more and more plan spon-sors (that’s you!) are using third-party experts like financial advisors to help. But there’s very little guidance on how to select a plan advisor or how to best leverage one, which is the subject of this article and the accompanying one in this Retirement Supplement.

While most plans, even smaller ones, are regularly reviewing and benchmarking the fees and services of their DC record keeper and money managers, very few employ that same process for their plan advisor. Yet by law, specifically under section 408(b)(2) effective in 2012, plan sponsors must know what fees are being paid by their providers for the services rendered and must deter-mine whether those fees are reasonable. So why the disconnect?

Plan advisors advocate and assist with the benchmark-ing of record keeper and money manager fees and ser-vices, but many are reluctant and perhaps conflicted when it comes to their own fees and services. Understandably, only a very few plan advisors will push their clients to peri-odically benchmark or conduct a request for proposal (RFP) process for plan advisory services.

So here are some questions addressed in this article

to help plan sponsors in the benchmarking of and search for a plan advisor:

• What type of process should plan sponsors employ?

• How often should they check plan advisor fees and service?

• Should they use third parties to help select and benchmark their advisor and if so, who?

• What criteria should plan sponsors use in selecting a new advisor?

• How do they find suitable candidates?

• What are the signs that a plan sponsor should replace their plan advisor?

PROCESS AND TIMING

The fiduciary responsibility under ERISA for DC plan sponsors includes, among other things, the obligation to ensure that fees are reasonable. Recent court cases and industry experts agree that the process must be prudent, periodic and documented. So the first question is whether advisory fees can be benchmarked against industry aver-ages in a database or whether plan sponsors have to con-duct a full RFP.

While an RFP can be time-consuming and difficult, it is the surest way to determine that fees are reasonable for the services offered. Using a database to benchmark fees raises numerous questions, including: Are the same services and types of advisors being compared? Are the comparisons for the same size or type of company? Are the fees current, or has the market changed either up or down?

According to Tim Rice and Tim Verschure, advisors at Lakeside Wealth Management in northern Indiana, “Using a database that compares fees for the same ser-vices offered for companies similar to yours is defensible assuming you can find one that is kept current and is credi-ble.” They also note that the process should be conducted every three to five years and that “RFPs are not always required.” ➔

Retirement Plan Advisor

HR Manager’s Guide to Selecting a

Fred Barstein is founder and CEO of The Retirement Advisor Uni-versity (TRAU), and The Plan Sponsor UniUni-versity (TPSU). TPSU conducts half-day training programs around the country at local colleges and universities designed to help plan sponsors effec-tively run their retirement plan and receive a nationally recog-nized designation – C(k)PF; TRAU trains financial advisors to work with their plan sponsor clients to run and improve their plans con-ducted at UCLA in collaboration with the Anderson School of Management Executive Education with successful candidates receiving their C(k)P designation.

(3)

54 SPECIAL RETIREMENT PLANNING ADVERTISING SECTIONSEPTEMBER 2015

So if you go the RFP route, what’s the right process and how long should it take? Like the Cheshire cat in Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” told Alice, “If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take you there.” Paul Powell, an advisor in the southeast with NFP Retire-ment, echoes that sentiRetire-ment, not-ing, “Plan sponsors need to know what they need and want from the DC plan.” That question may dif-fer depending on whether you are considering the needs of the com-pany or your employees. Within

management, the answer might be different if you ask the HR professional, the CFO or the person charged with risk management. For employees, the answer might differ for younger or older employees, highly paid or salaried workers, or even operations rather than sales profession-als. Realistically, the plan should meet the needs of all groups, but, given the diversity of those needs, there will be trade-offs and compromises.

The process should take nine to 12 weeks, with two to three weeks allocated toward developing the RFP which incorporates the needs of the plan; another two to three weeks finding and sending the RFP out to suitable candi-dates; a similar period of time for advisors to respond; and then another two to three weeks to digest the responses and select two or three finalists who should present in per-son, preferably on the same day. Though a search com-mittee including the various groups should be formed, like with most committees, one person needs to be driving the process to make sure it gets done.

Echoing the old adage “Know thyself,” RFP consul-tant Ariana Amplo, who helped TPSU (The Plan Sponsor University) launch ePADD (electronic plan advisor due diligence—www.e-padd.com), a service for plan spon-sors looking for a new plan advisor or conducting due diligence, suggests, “Plan sponsors should be honest with what they want and make sure that people on the committee are serious about the process. They need to understand the culture of the company and make-up of the committee before they create the RFP. Is the commit-tee analytic or graphic? Are they investment-savvy? Is the style of the company formal or casual?” She also sug-gests that plan sponsors be forthcoming with information about the plan and provide as much documentation as

possible to invited advisors. Jamie Greenleaf, an experi-enced plan advisor in the North-east with Cafaro Greenleaf, rec-ommends that plan sponsors “Give advisors a case study and see how they respond.” She is not partial to using databases to benchmark an advisor as that may include plans and advisors focused on fees rather than add-ing real value like plan outcomes, participant success and a focus on financial wellness.

“There is very little help avail-able,” notes Anne Shipman, an HR director with a not-for-profit in the Washington, D.C., area. She conducted the RFP herself using the Internet to search for templates, and then reached out to health and welfare brokers who also did retirement. She started her process in March and completed the process by the end of May, which is the time frame recommended by many experts.

CRITERIA

Knowing what you want from a plan advisor might be the most difficult part of the entire process. If you married the first person you dated, it’s impossible to have meaningful perspective. Neither are most plan sponsors savvy about what to expect from their plan advisor, which is constantly changing not only because of new laws and regulations but also because of the shift from defined benefit plans to DC plans that put most of the liability and responsibility on the plan participants.

There are 300,000 active financial advisors, and 250,000 are getting paid on a DC plan—only 25,000 have more than $25 million of DC assets and just 1%, or 2,500, have $250 million under management, accord-ing to 2014 research by TRAU (The Retirement Advisor University). Though size does matter, just as important is years in the business as well as specific experience with plans that are of similar size and type as your compa-ny’s. Richard Schwamb, an advisor with Morgan Stanley in Long Island, recommends that “Plan sponsors should be looking for a specialist who gets a significant percent-age of their business from DC plans, who has third-party recognition, and meaningful internal as well as external professional designations.”

Sifting through the many advisors that contact a plan

“If you don’t know

where you’re going,

any road will take

you there.”

(4)

sponsor to find five to seven suit-able candidates can be a chal-lenge. Kathy Wall, head of HR at a large healthcare system with 3,800 employees, admits, “This is not my area of expertise. After many advisors and consultants contacted me, I reached out to col-leagues but finally ended up using a third party to help us through the process.”

Like some other plan sponsors, Deb Becker at University Patholo-gists in Rhode Island wanted her advisor “to share fiduciary

respon-sibility with me. I wanted them to get a majority of their rev-enue from advisory rather than commissions and have a primary focus on advising 401(k) plans.” Not all advisors can act as a co-fiduciary—proposed DOL regulations will make it harder for advisors to avoid that role. But just because an advisor has the ability to act as one does not make them an expert or right for all plans. In fact, there are many advisors not able to formally serve as a fiduciary that are helping clients and making an impact.

Industry consultant and entrepreneur Hugh O’Toole, who had headed up sales for a major DC and DB record keeper, quips, “Most advisors focus on just one of three critical components of being a successful plan advisor. While the foundation of fees, funds and fiduciary, or keep-ing plans in compliance, is important, today advisors need to be savvy about plan design that uses behavioral finance theories, as well as participant interaction.” While the DC industry is ahead of plan sponsors when it comes to plan outcomes, if participant engagement and plan success are critical to the plan sponsor, they should pick advisors that have proven success and dedicated resources in that area. And, if that advisor does focus on employee educa-tion, ask if the advisor practices what they preach—do they spend time formally educating themselves and their staff? Anne Shipman was looking for “an advisor who is responsive, experienced, reliable, flexible, cost-effective and who has the staff or capabilities to service the plan and our employees. The advisor we selected explained things in plain English, brought us new ideas and was engaging.” If you don’t understand what the advisor is say-ing or if you get bored dursay-ing a 30- to 45-minute presenta-tion, imagine how your employees will feel.

“There are five P’s that plan sponsors should use in judging advisor candidates,” notes Ariana Amplo,

“including People, Philosophy, Process, Performance and Price equally weighted during the first phase of the RFP process. In the next round during in-person inter-views, focus on personality or cultural fit as well as services and fees.” Amplo warns about inviting too many candidates and recom-mends five to seven. She suggests that plan sponsors look at candi-dates’ websites and do some pre-liminary research to avoid wasting everyone’s time.

THIRD-PARTY ASSISTANCE

The DC market is rife with outsourcing because, on the one hand, plan sponsors have a fiduciary responsibil-ity to discharge their duties as a prudent expert, but, on the other hand, they have limited time and resources to become an expert. So plan sponsors might conclude that becoming an expert in benchmarking and selecting their plan advisors, which happens every three to five years, is not time well spent. As with record keepers and invest-ment, most plans use a third party, usually their plan advi-sor, to help. That third party in turn might use third-party software to create reports. But a big mistake is to use an advisor to help benchmark or find a new advisor because most will eventually recommend themselves after building trust during the RFP process. Having your current advisor benchmark themselves or conduct an RFP for competitors is fraught with obvious conflicts of interest.

There are third parties that specialize in plan advi-sor searches, including a new service offered by TPSU (www.e-padd.com—author is a principal at the firm), but plan sponsors can also reach out to third-party administra-tors (TPAs) and CPAs, especially those that conduct plan audits, as well as ERISA attorneys, to act as the advisor RFP consultant. When reviewing third parties, make sure they specialize in DC plans and have significant knowl-edge of local advisors. Also key is the consultant’s access to software that documents and streamlines the process leveraging intellectual capital developed through other searches. You don’t want to pay someone to create a new process just for you. Costs may vary depending on the complexity and size of the plan as well as the time required to conduct the process. Working with an existing relation-ship like a TPA or CPA makes the most sense because they know your company, plan and probably most of the

If you don’t

under-stand what the

advisor is saying…

imagine how your

employees will feel.

(5)

committee members and might be willing to charge less than someone who is not already a vendor.

FINDING SUITABLE CANDIDATES

Assuming you go it alone, finding suitable candidates to invite to your advisor RFP process can be a big challenge. Most plans are barraged with calls from plan advisors hoping to work with them, and it can be hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. The fact that they cold-called you does not necessarily mean that the advisors are not qualified, but most experienced advisors find new clients through referrals. If you are impressed and have connected on some level with an advisor that has called, it’s worth doing some quick online research, including on FINRA’s Broker Check (www.finra.org/investors/bro-kercheck-search-help), the SEC’s RIA website (www.sec. gov/investor/brokers.htm) and the advisor’s website.

The best plan advisors likely will come from referrals from sources such as:

1. Peers—people you trust at companies like yours 2. Vendors—especially TPAs, auditing CPAs and

ERISA attorneys

3. Property & Casualty Brokers 4. Benefits and Healthcare Brokers

With P&C and healthcare brokers, make sure you care-fully vet the qualifications of advisors if they are housed within the brokers’ firms.

There are organizations that train and credential plan advisors that maintain lists, including:

• The Retirement Advisor University (www.core- database.com/RPT_CKP_HOLDERS/CKP_HOLD-ERS.aspx, or go to www.trauniversity.com for “C(k) P Designation/Registry”)

• Fi360 (www.fi360.com/app/#/designee/search)

• NAPA (www.napa-net.org/education/ napa-academy/)

Local SHRM chapters maintain relationships with plan advisors that speak at meetings or contribute content that can also serve as a good referral source. Remember not to invite more than five to seven advisors and be sure to first review each one’s website or have some initial conversa-tion to avoid wasting their time and yours.

REPLACING AN ADVISOR

Deb Becker decided to look for a new advisor because “the attributes of an advisor most important to us were not being met. We felt there was a lack of transparency, limited education to us and our employees, and that as our portfo-lio grew, the fees were not being reviewed and adjusted.”

Basic signs indicating that it’s time to replace an advi-sor include the following:

• The advisor does not regularly meet with the com-mittee or employees

• Questions and issues are not answered in a timely manner

• The advisor deflects most if not all questions to others

• The advisor’s client base does not match your com-pany profile

• The advisor does not have a professional designa-tion that is maintained

• The advisor has limited plans under management

• You fail a DOL audit or have been fined

• Vendors are not performing their appointed duties

• Advisory fees are not disclosed—in plain English More-subtle signs include that your advisor is comfort-able with the status quo and not pushing you to look at new ideas, even if you decide not to incorporate them. Extolling the virtues of her advisor, Kathy Wall explained, “She translates for people not focused on retirement. Our committee calendar is planned out a year in advance, and she not only informs about new regulations, she tells us what they mean.” Stuart Simchowitz and Ryan DeGrau, advisors in New Jersey with Calton & Associates, sug-gest, “Plan advisors need to step outside just the retire-ment plan using technology to integrate payroll and all types of benefits.”

So if it’s required by law, if you stand to save money for the company and plan participants, and if you have a good chance of improving outcomes for employees while lessening the workload, why don’t more plan sponsors conduct a formal RFP for their advisor? It’s the same rea-son employees don’t join the plan, don’t contribute up to the match or don’t periodically rebalance their investment portfolio—inertia. The easiest thing to do is nothing, espe-cially when it involves an area in which we are not comfort-able. Notes plan advisor Stace Hilbrandt from Chicago, “It’s usually hard to do, so plans just stay with their current advisor or hire the last one they spoke to.”

So while the process may be daunting and there may seem to be so many more pressing matters, hiring the right advisor for your DC plan could not only save the com-pany money, protect it from fiduciary liability and eventu-ally save the HR department a lot of work and headaches, but a new, more experienced advisor might make the dif-ference between whether your co-workers can retire on time and with dignity. ➔

(6)

T

oday, most 401(k) and other defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors employ a financial advisor to help them and their employs manage their retire-ment plan. The percentage of plans using an advisor not affiliated with their record keeper keeps growing and now tops over 90% for companies that have between 25 and 10,000 employees, according to TRAU (The Retire-ment Advisor University). Of the 300,000 active finan-cial advisors, 250,000 are currently getting paid on a DC plan. But only 10% are qualified, and less than 1%, or 2,500, have sophisticated DC practices managing over $250 million of DC assets.

According to Joe DeNoyior, an advisor in the Wash-ington, D.C., area with Washington Financial Group, “Only half of my clients are using me effectively.” In the compan-ion article to this Retirement Supplement, the process of selecting a plan advisor is discussed. This article reviews best practices in leveraging an advisor, or the role they should play.

Regardless of the size or type of company, a good plan advisor used effectively can make all the difference. Using a healthcare analogy, the advisor is the doctor, the record keeper is the hospital and the investment manag-ers are the pharmaceuticals. Getting the right doctor is the first and most important decision because this per-son can help a plan sponsor find the right providers or ways to work better with current vendors. This article will

review the role of a plan advisor with recommendations on how to best leverage them as well as worst practices.

While a plan advisor should help plan sponsors handle the fundamentals (fees, funds and fiduciary duties), com-panies are missing out if they settle for just foundational services. Beyond the “Triple F’s,” plan sponsors should look to their advisor to be a leader or steward, which is the difference between what you need and what you want. Plan advisors that see themselves as leaders or stew-ards will go beyond what is required and integrate with their clients’ HR departments, helping them to make their retirement plan an essential part of the company’s busi-ness plan. This can only happen if the advisor is willing to listen and the plan sponsor is open and collaborative.

PLAN FUNDAMENTALS

Making sure that the DC plan is in compliance can some-times be overlooked by an industry that has become hyper-focused on outcomes or retirement readiness as providers and advisors look to distinguish themselves in what has been viewed as a commoditized market where fees have become paramount. Many advisors come from the world of investments and are not technically profi-cient, leaning on third-party administrators (TPAs) or the record keeper. Notes advisor Jania Stout with Fiduciary Plan Advisors in Maryland, “Compliance can sometimes be overlooked with larger advisors not comfortable in that area. Most of our clients are too small to have a full-time person to focus on their DC plan, so we encourage our clients to shift more of their work to us.” Like Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the first requirement is safety before you can think about higher goals like belonging and self-actualization or plan outcomes.

As part of a plan’s fiduciary responsibility, fees paid to third parties must be reasonable. This can only be

Fred Barstein is founder and CEO of The Retirement Advisor Uni-versity (TRAU), and The Plan Sponsor UniUni-versity (TPSU). TPSU conducts half-day training programs around the country at local colleges and universities designed to help plan sponsors effec-tively run their retirement plan and receive a nationally recog-nized designation – C(k)PF; TRAU trains financial advisors to work with their plan sponsor clients to run and improve their plans con-ducted at UCLA in collaboration with the Anderson School of Management Executive Education with successful candidates receiving their C(k)P designation.

Retirement Plan Advisor

(7)

determined through benchmarking and requests for proposals. A plan advisor should regularly review the fees of a plan’s record keeper every three to five years, depending on the size of the plan, unless there has been some significant change in the

company or the industry. As dis-cussed in the companion article to this Retirement Supplement, the same applies to advisory fees, but there are obvious conflicts involved in asking an advisor to review their own fees. Confident and competent plan advisors will encourage their clients to go to market or engage a third party to review their fees. But remember, fees in the absence of value will always be high. A prudent, doc-umented process will protect a plan fiduciary, but common sense will guide plan sponsors on real-izing that value comes at a cost. There is no requirement to have the lowest fees.

Which brings us to invest-ments or funds. A plan advisor should review and report per-formance and fees of the plan’s investments periodically, gener-ally every quarter. Best practices, but not regulations, dictate that a

plan should have an Investment Policy Statement (IPS), which is basically a description of the types of funds that a plan wants. Investments should be reviewed against the IPS, with performance and fees compared against their peer groups. Look to your plan advisor to take the lead on the IPS as well as quarterly monitoring and to sug-gest when a fund should be replaced. With the growth of professionally managed investments like target-date funds (TDFs), some experts suggest a separate review process for them, which was discussed in the May 2015 HR Magazine Retirement Supplement.

Too much time is spent by many advisors and invest-ment committees on funds—their impact is relatively small compared to plan design and the use of auto-plan fea-tures. Plan advisors should have a system to effectively and efficiently review funds. There are three roles an advisor can play. First, if they cannot act as a fiduciary, an advisor’s role will be to educate the plan sponsors about

investments, completely delegating the choice. Second, advisors can make recommendations or act as what is called a section 3(21) co-fiduciary. Finally, the plan spon-sor can completely delegate all investment decisions to

what is known as a 3(38) co-fidu-ciary. Most popular is the 3(21) advisor, but each plan, company and advisor are different. Some advisors that are not allowed to act as a fiduciary will partner with a third-party co-fiduciary.

ROLE OF AN ADVISOR

The plan advisor should act as the quarterback of the DC plan. Jim Sampson, an advisor with Cor-nerstone Retirement Advisors in Rhode Island, sees himself and his team as “the outsourced HR department that speaks the lan-guage and translates for our cli-ents. When something comes up, I always say to call me, no matter how small the issue might be.”

Advisors need to oversee all the other vendors; as Paul Powell, an advisor with NRP Retirement in the Southeast, explains, “We are the subject matter expert at the table with other subject matter experts to make sure that our cli-ents are well served.” Going even further, Steve Dim-itriou, a principal at Mayflower Advisors in the Boston area, notes, “We sometimes have to be aggressive with vendors acting as the bad guy.” Stuart Simchowitz and Ryan DeGrau, advisors at Calton & Associates in the Northeast, see themselves as “quarterbacks on the plan making sure that other vendors are doing what they are supposed to be doing, which we never take for granted.”

It’s important to understand that there are potentially three clients that an advisor can serve:

1. The company 2. Employees 3. The plan

The company hires the advisor, but the plan must be designed in the sole interest of the participants—legally, the advisor represents the plan. There are different roles and duties for the plan advisor depending on who they serve. Plan sponsors, especially CFOs, want nothing,

The plan advisor

should act as the

quarterback of the

(8)

or as close to it as possible—no costs, no liability and no work. Delivering nothing is hard and, in the case of liability, impossible, so let’s just say advisors should be helping clients to minimize all three. Employees are most focused on outcomes, obviously, but only when costs, lia-bility and work for their employer is reasonable. Though HR professionals are inherently sensitive to people or outcomes, CFOs, hyper-focused on cost, are beginning to realize the higher hard-dollar costs of older employees not financially able to retire (healthcare, disability, absen-teeism, PTO and salary), not to

mention soft costs caused by financial stress and lower pro-ductivity from older workers.

PLAN DESIGN AND OUTCOMES

Assuming that the basics are covered and costs, liability and work are minimized, a plan advi-sor working closely with the HR and finance departments as well as the investment commit-tee should focus his or her atten-tion on outcomes. While some companies created a DC plan because it would seem odd if they did not, the real purpose of the plan is to provide retirement income for workers when they retire. This includes three steps:

1. Save enough 2. Manage the savings 3. Make sure the savings last in retirement

The focus has been and probably should be on the first step for most people, while the third step is a work in progress. Increasing account balances can be achieved relatively easily with automatic features incorporating the principles of the so-called auto plan, which TPSU has coined the “ideal plan.” An auto plan includes:

• Auto-enrollment and re-enrollment at 6%

• Auto-escalation of 1% annually up to 12%

• Stretch match in dollars vs. percentage—so instead of 50% of 6%, 25% of 12% with a projected dollar amount of match based on each employee’s salary

• Professionally managed investments like target-date funds as the default

While almost every record keeper can service this

plan, not every advisor is savvy enough to explain and implement the “ideal plan,” which requires an under-standing of behavioral finance principles. Eighty per-cent of the benefit will be gained through 20% of the work. The remaining 20% of the benefit comes through education, advice and one-on-one meetings focused on managing savings, including outside assets.

To that point, Jamie Greenleaf says, “Advisors should be held accountable and should move the needle con-stantly. Plans need to have a mission and goal, but just as important is measurement.” Advi-sors cannot improve outcomes with-out the support of the plan sponsor, so Steve Dimitriou asks his clients to mandate participant meetings. “A savvy plan advisor should be able to explain why it’s important for the company to not be employing peo-ple at the most expensive point in their careers,” suggests advisor Jim Maher in the St. Louis area. “I act as an advocate to the CFO on behalf of the HR departments to show how improved outcomes can affect the bottom line.”

BEST PRACTICES

So along with fundamentals (fees, funds and fiduciary duties, which includes compliance), advisors should act as an outsourced HR department for the retirement plan and possibly other benefits, moving the needle on retirement readiness by helping implement the “ideal plan” as well as working with participants on financial well-ness through group meetings, one-on-one meetings and providing advice. We asked top advisors what are the best practices they employ with clients as well as problem areas and came up with helpful suggestions and ideas.

“Never accept the status quo. Constantly challenge your plan advisor and make them earn their money,” notes Stace Hilbrandt, a plan advisor in Chicago.

“I never want my clients to be surprised. My job is to keep them engaged and accountable—half measures avail them nothing,” according to Jim Sampson.

Richard Schwamb says, “I need to go beyond the C-suite and conduct one-on-one meetings with partici-pants.” ➔

“Advisors should be

held accountable

and should move

the needle

constantly.”

(9)

“There’s always turnover in the HR department,” Jania Stout observed. “I need to know every-thing to inform the new people. I set the goals of the investment com-mittee and manage the schedule.” “I try to keep my clients fully engaged,” reflects Joe DeNoyior, “and make sure they have a com-mon goal. Most of my clients didn’t even know what they wanted or needed before I engaged them.”

Jordan Gelb, a Merrill Lynch advisor in Chicago, notes, “I try to be passionate and a teacher rather than a salesperson, always

evolv-ing through listenevolv-ing and reactevolv-ing.” Paul Powell agrees: “I have to be open-minded, coming in without precon-ceived notions, not always leading the conversation.”

If your advisor is running your corporate retirement plan efficiently with few problems and quickly handles problems when they do crop up; if he or she is continually

bringing you new ideas, making what is very complicated seem simple; if participants are engaged and there are data-driven results that show that they are getting closer to being able to retire on time; if your CFO is supportive and is willing to make changes and might even be willing to spend a little more on the match, then you have a good advisor and you are properly leveraging him or her.

Optimally, plan sponsors will see themselves as leaders and stewards, which goes beyond just fulfilling their fiduciary obligations to helping employees engage in the process of prepar-ing for retirement. The Tao defines a great leader as one that is hardly noticed, followed by one who is loved, one who is feared and, finally, one who is despised. “When the Master’s work is done, the people say, ‘Amazing: we did it, all by ourselves!’” ■