July 13, 2015

VIA FEDERAL ERULEMAKING PORTAL: http://www.regulations.gov

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Attn: Conflict of Interest Rule

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room N-5655

Washington D.C. 20210

Re: RIN 1210-AB32

Comment on Proposed Conflict of Interest Rule

Office of Exemptions Determinations

Employee Benefits Security Administration

Attn: D-11712, D-11713, D-11687, D-11850, D-11327, D-11820

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 400

Washington D.C. 20210

Re: ZRIN-1210-ZA25 (ESBA Docket ID No. EBSA-2014-0016)

Comment on:

Proposed Best Interest Contract Exemption, Attn: D-11712

Proposed Class Exemption for Principal Transactions, Attn: D-11713

Proposed Amendment to PTE 75-1, Attn: D-11687

Proposed Amendment to and Proposed Partial Revocation of PTE 84-24, Attn: D-11850

Proposed Amendment to and Proposed Partial Revocation of PTE 86-128 and PTE 75-1, Attn: 

D-11327

Proposed Amendments to Class Exemptions 75-1, 77-4, 80-83 and 83-1, Attn: D-11820

Dear Sir or Madam:

In the spirit of informing and advancing the public discussion about the value of financial advice and the 

importance of financial advisors, we the undersigned engaged Oliver Wyman to investigate the role of 

financial advisors in the U.S. retirement market and prepare a report, a copy of which is attached. The study 

draws upon proprietary surveys of more than 4,300 retail investors and 1,200 small businesses, datasets 

from IXI Services (a division of Equifax), representing approximately 20% of U.S. consumer invested assets 

on a household level and approximately 30% of U.S. consumer invested assets on an account level. 

In the report, The Role of Financial Advisors in the U.S. Retirement Market, Oliver Wyman finds that 

individuals and small businesses who work with financial advisers are better off in many of the ways that 

matter most for superior investing outcomes than individuals and small businesses who choose or are forced 

to save without working with a financial advisor. As the study demonstrates, financial advisors play a key 

role in initiating retirement savings, advancing responsible savings practices and improving retirement 

outcomes for millions of Americans.

We offer this study and these findings as we continue to engage in the public policy discussion on the 

Department’s fiduciary proposal in order to find a solution that best serves all investors. We believe that the 

Department of Labor is to be commended for its commitment and hard work furthering the interests of 

American workers and supporting greater retirement security for all Americans. We support a fiduciary 

standard of care that puts the interests of our clients first. We work every day to serve our clients, who 

deserve financial advice that is in their best interest, and we stand ready to support a workable rule that 

applies a best interest standard in a manner that truly benefits all retirement savers.
However, after careful technical review of the Department’s proposed Conflict of Interest rule and thousands 

of hours of analysis, the undersigned firms have independently concluded that the proposed rule contains 

problematic prohibitions that would limit the ability of investors to work with a financial advisor, even if that 

advisor is committed to working in his or her clients’ best interest. Despite the changes from the 2010 

proposal, we are concerned that if the proposed rule is approved substantially as written, it will result in 

significant unintended consequences including: 

 Eliminating the ability for small business owners to work with a financial advisor in establishing and 

maintaining retirement savings for their employees;

 Limiting the ability of investors to receive guidance on their retirement savings when they change 

jobs;

 Limiting any meaningful ability of investors to work with their current financial advisor on a

transactional basis and requiring that most clients move to fee-based accounts; and

 Placing low and moderate income individuals at risk of being unable to work with a financial advisor if 

their savings are below the account minimums for fee based accounts.

In limiting or eliminating the ability of investors to work with financial advisors in ways they find meaningful 

and valuable, the Department of Labor proposal will almost certainly result in less retirement savings for 

Americans at a time when savings rates are already low. If the proposal is finalized without significant 

changes we are concerned that the impact on investors would be contrary to its stated purpose.

Retirement is too important to get wrong. It is imperative we put in place the right rules to incentivize and 

support retirement savings. Accordingly, we offer this study in the hope that we can work with the 

Department on a rule that applies a best interest standard without the prohibitions that would reduce the 

availability of advice for those who need it most. We believe that working together we can best serve all 

Americans striving for a secure retirement.

Ameriprise Financial Charles Schwab

Joe Sweeney Jeff Brown

President – Advice & Wealth Management Sr. Vice President and General Counsel

Edward Jones LPL Financial

James Weddle Mark Casady

Managing Partner Chairman & Chief Executive Officer

Primerica Raymond James

Glenn Williams Paul Reilly

Chief Executive Officer Chief Executive Officer

Stephens Inc. Stifel

Curt Bradbury Ronald J. Kruszewski

Chief Operating Officer Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
 

The role of financial advisors in the US 

retirement market 

JULY 10, 2015 
ii

Contents 

Contents ii

About this report iii

Executive summary 1

Key findings 5

I. Role of financial advisors in the defined contribution 

plan market 8

II. Role of financial advisors in helping individuals save 

for retirement 16

Appendix I. 41

Appendix II. 43

Report qualifications/assumptions and limiting conditions 45
iii

About this report 

There has been substantial public debate recently about the value of financial advice 

and the importance of financial advisors. Many people continue to believe financial 

advisors perform a critical service helping individuals and small businesses successfully 

navigate complex financial challenges. Others have sought to portray financial advisors 

as self-interested salesmen and saleswomen, who provide conflicted advice to sell high 

cost products. Against this background, Oliver Wyman was engaged to perform a 

rigorous investigation of the role of financial advisors in the US retirement market, and 

quantify differences in investing behavior and outcomes between advised and nonadvised individuals. 

In this report, Oliver Wyman focuses on understanding the impact of financial advisors 

on individuals saving for retirement and small businesses setting up and maintaining a 

workplace sponsored retirement plan. Through a combination of proprietary research 

with individuals and small businesses and analysis of unparalleled datasets from IXI (a 

division of Equifax), we found that advised individuals and small businesses are better 

off in many of the ways that matter most for superior investing outcomes. 

The benefits financial advisors provide are now at risk. On April 14, 2015, the 

Department of Labor issued its Conflict of Interest rule proposal, a replacement for the 

Definition of the Term “Fiduciary” rule proposal withdrawn in September 2011. The new 

Conflict of Interest Rule proposal, like its predecessor, would greatly expand the range 

of conditions under which an individual who provides investment services would be 

subject to ERISA fiduciary rules. The new proposal goes further in some respects. It 

explicitly defines promotional services provided to IRA account holders and small 

businesses as advice subject to ERISA fiduciary rules. While many stakeholders are 

analyzing the technical details and implications, this study considers the impact on 

individuals and small businesses that use financial advisors. We conclude that the 

newly proposed rule, while well intended, would have significant negative 

consequences for many retail investors if implemented with regard to the availability and 

cost of retirement savings help and support. 

Further details on our research sources and methodology 

1. Proprietary research, including two surveys of 4,393 retail investors and 1,216 

small businesses; 

2. Two datasets provided by IXI Services representing approximately 20% ($5.6 

Trillion in 2013) of U.S. consumer invested assets on a household level and 

approximately 30% ($9.7 Trillion in 2013) of U.S. consumer invested assets on 
iv

3. an account level, respectively. This data is broken into different types of 

investment holdings for specific age, income and wealth segments as well as 

between individuals with, and without, a financial advisor; 

4. Widely available secondary data sources. 

Analyses based on data from the Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey and 

IXI invested assets datasets have been controlled for factors such as income, age, and 

assets to ensure they are representative of particular segments of the US retail investor 

population. In addition, responses from the retail investor survey were further scaled 

based on the 2013 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances to produce a 

representative sample of US retail investors. Unless indicated otherwise, small 

businesses are defined as businesses with established payroll and up to 100 

employees. For additional information regarding our approach and market research, 

please refer to the methodology section of this document contained in the appendices.
v

Table of Figures 

Figure 1: US personal investable assets and retirement assets 8

Figure 2: Active retirement plan participants 9

Figure 3: Defined contribution assets by plan type (2013 YE) 10

Figure 4: Workplace retirement plan access and participation among private sector workers, W-2 

adjusted rates, by firm size (2013) 11

Figure 5: Prevalence of different advisor types among small businesses 12

Figure 6: Value of advice attributed to advisors in choosing to set up a retirement plan 13

Figure 7: Plan formation rates by size of firm and advisor status 14

Figure 8: Frequency of referral to service provider(s), by advisor 15

Figure 9: Total asset levels across relationship status, age, and income 16

Figure 10: Ratio of average asset holdings for advised and non-advised investors 17

Figure 11: Households’ primary reasons for saving 18

Figure 12: Financial advisor services valued by investors 19

Figure 13: Availability and usage of in-plan support options (for respondents with a defined 

contribution plan) 21

Figure 14: Primary reason for most recent rollover among those choosing to roll over assets 22

Figure 15: Retirement plan ownership among investors 23

Figure 16: IRA ownership and assets (2013) – Income: $0-100K, Wealth: $0-100K 24

Figure 17: Comparison of return by portfolio composition 25

Figure 18: Assets and IRA asset class mix for households with and without a financial advisor 27

Figure 19: Assets and IRA asset class mix – Age: 45-54, Income: $0-100K, Wealth: $0-100K 28

Figure 20: Assets and IRA product mix for households with and without a financial advisor 29

Figure 21: Assets and IRA product mix – Age: 45-54, Income: $0-100K, Wealth: $0-100K 30

Figure 22: Percent of assets held in cash or cash equivalents outside of workplace retirement 

plans 31

Figure 23: Cash holdings as a percent of account assets for advised and non-advised investors 32

Figure 24: Cash holdings as a percent of total account assets for investors with and without a 

financial advisor – Segment with <$100K in wealth and income 33

Figure 25: Percentage of individuals taking cash distributions by age and plan type 35

Figure 26: Worked example comparing a cash distribution with an IRA rollover- Illustrative 35

Figure 27: Rebalancing frequency outside of DC plans 37

Figure 28: Example retirement assets by year at median income, 3% contribution rate, and 6% 

growth 44
1

Executive summary 

Oliver Wyman’s study of the role of financial advisors in the US retirement system 

draws upon proprietary surveys of more than 4,300 retail investors and 1,200 small 

businesses, datasets from IXI Services (a division of Equifax), representing 

approximately 20% of U.S. consumer invested assets on a household level and 

approximately 30% of U.S. consumer invested assets on an account level, to provide a 

unique window into the value financial advisors provide to small businesses and retail 

investors for their retirement savings and investments needs. 

With fewer individuals covered by corporate pension plans and the future of social 

security uncertain1, individuals are increasingly responsible for providing for their own 

retirement. Workplace-sponsored defined contribution (DC) plans offer significant tax 

and other advantages to foster increased retirement savings. Indeed, 84% of 

individuals began saving for retirement via a workplace retirement plan.2 When 

available, they are often the primary vehicle for personal retirement savings. However, 

over 19 million people who work for businesses with fewer than 50 employees do not 

currently have access to a workplace retirement plan. 

We found that financial advisors are often a key advisor to small businesses, helping 

business owners through the process of setting up a defined contribution plan for their 

employees. When a financial advisor is involved, small businesses with 10-49 

employees are 50% more likely to set up a workplace retirement plan. In addition, micro 

businesses (1–9 employees) that work with a financial advisor are nearly twice as likely 

to set up a plan. 

Recognizing the growing importance of workplace DC plans, there have recently been a 

number of innovations that have doubtlessly improved the retirement outcomes for 

millions of people, including automatic enrollment and rebalancing features, better 

default investment options and in-plan advice. Yet, in spite of these improvements, 

many individuals continue to under-save (the average default contribution rate for plans 

with automatic enrollment is 3.4%3

 vs. the 6-10% recommended by many experts). 

Many people are uncomfortable tackling retirement savings on their own. By one 

measure, 58% of households with under $100,000 in investable assets, and 75% of 

households with over $100,000 in investable assets solicit professional financial advice4

. 

 

1

 Social Security Administration, (http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html): “Benefits are now 

expected to be payable in full on a timely basis until 2037, when the trust fund reserves are projected to become 

exhausted...[at that point] continuing taxes are expected to be enough to pay 76 percent of scheduled benefits.” 

2

 Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey 2014 

3

 Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, ‘How Does 401(K) Auto-Enrollment Relate To The Employer 

Match And Total Compensation?’, (http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/IB_13-14.pdf), October 2013 

4

 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances 
2

Advised individuals place the largest value on financial advisors’ support for financial 

planning, monitoring and providing trusted advice for their holistic financial needs. 

In this regard, we found that many investors prefer to seek help from financial advisors 

outside their workplace in part to receive holistic advice on their assets. When changing 

jobs, individuals often choose to roll over assets into an IRA, primarily to consolidate 

assets and avoid leaving assets with a former employer. Just 29% of individuals own 

401(k) plans exclusively, while nearly two-thirds hold assets outside their workplace in 

combination with an IRA or alone in one or more IRAs. 

How well are financial advisors doing their job? On average, we found that individuals 

with a financial advisor have more wealth than non-advised individuals across all age 

and income levels studied. For example, we found that advised individuals aged 35-54 

years making less than $100K per year had 51% more assets than similar non-advised 

investors. These are typical middle-class households in the middle of their accumulation 

years. Moreover, advised individuals are better investors across many key dimensions 

commonly associated with long term investing success. Specifically, we found that 

compared with individuals without a financial advisor, advised individuals 

 Own more diversified investment portfolios 

 Stay invested in the market by holding less cash and cash equivalents 

 Take fewer premature cash distributions; and 

 Re-balance their portfolios with greater frequency to stay in line with their 

investment objectives and risk tolerance. 

The benefits financial advisors provide to their clients are now at risk. On April 14, 2015, 

the Department of Labor issued its Conflict of Interest rule proposal, a replacement for 

the Definition of the Term “Fiduciary” rule proposal withdrawn in September 2011. In 

our 20115

 study reviewing the impact of the previously proposed rule, we concluded that 

the Department of Labor’s proposed rule change was motivated by a laudable objective: 

to ensure a high standard of care for retirement plan participants and account holders 

with regard to the receipt of services and investment guidance, amid an increasingly 

complex financial marketplace. However, we found the proposed rule proposal was 

likely to have serious negative and unintended effects on the very individuals the 

change was supposed to help. 

Many stakeholders are now analyzing the technical details of the newly proposed rule, 

and there is growing concern that the proposal would again result in unintended 

 

5

 Oliver Wyman, ‘Assessment of the Impact of the Department of Labor’s Proposed “Fiduciary” Definition Rule on IRA 

Consumers’, 2011 
3

consequences, including limiting the ability of financial services firms and individual 

financial advisors to offer services to individual IRA holders and small businesses, as 

well as increasing investor costs due to new expenses associated with implementing 

the rule and transitioning many clients to a higher cost advisory model. 

With regard to the impact on individuals, regrettably we reach the same overall 

conclusion as in the prior study. The proposed rule change is likely to have significant 

consequences that will adversely impact individual investors saving for retirement. For 

example, because the rule as proposed will take away the assistance small businesses 

most value, fewer new plans will be established and more plans will likely close6. This 

would directly impact the 19 MM individuals who work for small businesses with fewer 

than 50 employees, who do not currently have access to a workplace retirement plan 

and reduce the likelihood of their gaining access to a retirement plan in the future. 

In the case of IRAs, if the rule is implemented as proposed7

 Millions of existing small balance IRA owners are likely to lose access to the 

financial advisor of their choice or any financial advisor at all 

 The majority of others will face higher costs when providers shift brokerage 

accounts to advisory accounts 

 Individuals without the help and support of financial advisors are less likely to 

open an IRA, leading to increased cash-outs when changing jobs and lower 

savings rates compared with advised individuals8

 Unadvised individuals are likely to carry excess portfolio risk due to less 

diversification and less frequent re-balancing. 

* * * 

 

6

 The new rule proposal explicitly excludes small businesses with fewer than 100 employees with employee-directed 

plans from the prohibited transaction exemption, otherwise made available to larger plans. This will force financial 

advisors to limit the services they currently provide to such small businesses in connection with establishing and 

maintaining retirement plans.

7

 See Oliver Wyman, ‘Assessment of the Impact of the Department of Labor’s Proposed “Fiduciary” Definition Rule on 

IRA Consumers’, 2011 

8

 Prior guidance from the DOL “held that recommendations to a plan participant to take an otherwise permissible 

distribution, even combined with a recommendation as to how to invest distributed funds, is not fiduciary investment 

advice.” K&L Gates, DOL Re-Proposes Rule to make Brokers, Others, ERISA Fiduciaries (Apr. 27, 2015), 

http://www.klgates.com/dol-re-proposes-rule-to-make-brokers-others-erisa-fiduciaries-04-27-2015. 
4

Retirement is too important to get wrong. We encourage key stakeholders from the 

financial services industry and regulators to join together to find workable solutions that 

preserve individuals’ access to help and support from a financial advisor of their choice 

as well as the business model and fee structure that best meet their needs. 

 
5

Key findings 

Workplace sponsored defined contribution plans are critical retirement savings 

vehicles 

 84% of individuals began saving for retirement via a workplace retirement plan9

 Workplace sponsored defined contribution plans represent the primary or only 

retirement vehicle for 67% of individuals who save for retirement with a taxadvantaged retirement plan10

Financial advisors help individuals that work for small businesses gain access to 

workplace retirement plans 

 19 million individuals who work for small businesses with fewer than 

50 employees do not currently have access to a workplace sponsored retirement 

plan 

 Small businesses that work with a financial advisor are 50% more likely to set up 

a retirement plan (and micro business with 1-9 employees are almost twice as 

likely) 

The majority of retail investors seek financial advice – many want personalized 

services from a professional financial advisor outside their workplace for 

financial planning and holistic advice and support on all their investment 

holdings 

 58% of households with under $100,000 in investable assets, and 75% of those 

with over $100,000 in investable assets solicit professional financial advice 

 Individuals most value financial advisors for support with financial planning, 

monitoring and trusted advice for their holistic financial needs 

 Many individuals currently have access to help and advice on their plan assets 

through workplace retirement plans; those that use it save 43% more on average. 

However, fewer than half of workplace retirement plan participants currently use 

in-plan advice features 

 

9

 Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey 2014 

10 Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey 2014 
6

 Two-thirds of investors have retirement savings outside of employer-sponsored 

retirement plans, and many seek advice and support from a professional advisor 

outside their workplace for all of their investment holdings 

Advised investors have more assets than those without a financial advisor 

 We found that advised individuals have a minimum of 25% more assets than 

non-advised individuals 

 In the case of individuals aged 35-54 years with $100,000 or less in annual 

income, advised individuals have an average of 51% more assets than nonadvised individuals 

Individuals with a financial advisor are better long term investors 

 Advised investors have more diversified portfolios -- own twice as many asset 

classes, have more balanced portfolio asset allocations and use more packaged 

products for equity exposure compared with non-advised investors 

 Advised investors stay more invested in the market – Advised individuals hold 

less cash in their investment accounts (36%-57% less than non-advised 

individuals for similar age and wealth cohorts) 

 Advised investors re-balance more frequently, and are 42% more likely to rebalance their portfolios at least every two years 

The Department of Labor’s proposed Conflict of Interest rule would likely reduce 

retirement savings 

 As proposed, financial advisors would be forced to stop providing workplace 

retirement plan set-up and support services to small businesses, due to the lack 

of an exception that would allow providers to market to self-directed plans with 

fewer than 100 participants, which will likely result in many small businesses 

closing existing plans or not establishing new plans due to the additional 

administrative burden 

 Individuals with small balance accounts that are below standard advisory account 

minimums are likely to lose access to retirement help and support with selecting 

appropriate products as a result of providers shifting accounts from brokerage to 

fee-based advisory accounts. In our prior study, we estimated that 7 MM current 

IRAs would not qualify for an advisory account due to low balances11

 

11 Oliver Wyman, ‘Assessment of the Impact of the Department of Labor’s Proposed “Fiduciary” Definition Rule on 

IRA Consumers’, 2011 
7

 Almost all retail investors face increased costs (73% to 196% on average) from 

providers shifting clients to a fee-based advisory model. In our 2011 study, we 

found nearly 90% of the 23 MM IRAs analyzed were held in brokerage accounts 

12

 When changing jobs, individuals will be less likely to open an IRA to manage 

their plan savings, leading to lower savings rates and increased cash-outs13. In 

our 2011 study, we found that as many as 360,000 fewer IRAs would be opened 

every year 

 Unadvised individuals will likely carry excess portfolio risk due to less 

diversification and less frequent re-balancing compared with advised individuals 

 

 

12 Oliver Wyman, ‘Assessment of the Impact of the Department of Labor’s Proposed “Fiduciary” Definition Rule on 

IRA Consumers’, 2011 

13 Prior guidance from the DOL “held that recommendations to a plan participant to take an otherwise permissible 

distribution, even combined with a recommendation as to how to invest distributed funds, is not fiduciary investment 

advice.” K&L Gates, DOL Re-Proposes Rule to make Brokers, Others, ERISA Fiduciaries (Apr. 27, 2015), 

http://www.klgates.com/dol-re-proposes-rule-to-make-brokers-others-erisa-fiduciaries-04-27-2015. 
8

I. Role of financial advisors in the defined contribution 

plan market 

Two-thirds of retirement assets are held in workplace retirement plans 

At an estimated $26.9 TN, US retirement savings represent over half of total personal 

investable assets. Of this amount, workplace sponsored retirement plans such as 

defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) plans constitute approximately twothirds of retirement assets, while the remaining one-third is held in IRAs and annuities 

(Figure 1). 

Figure 1: US personal investable assets and retirement assets14

 

Individuals are increasingly responsible for saving for their own retirement 

Nearly five times as many individuals are active participants in DC plans as compared 

to DB plans as of 2012 (75.4 million vs. 15.7 million). 15,16 Moreover, as Figure 2 shows, 

 

14 Federal Flow of Funds L.116, B.100: Includes financial assets and defined benefit assets; excludes agency and 

GSE backed securities, other loans and advances, mortgages, consumer credit (student loans), pension 

entitlements and equity in non-corporate business 

Federal Flow of Funds L.116: Retirement assets include household retirement assets 

15 Private Pension Plan Bulletin Historical Tables and Graphs, U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, December 2014 

16 Note: Aggregation methodologies were changed in 2004 and 2009, generating anomalies for those years 

U.S. retirement assets by plan type

2014 Q2, US$ TN

U.S. personal investable assets

2014 Q2, US$ TN

13.4

3.5

7.7

3.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

$ (TN)

Defined benefit plans

Corporate equities

Deposits

Credit market instruments

Mutual fund shares

Other

2014 Q2

48.7

11.1

9.9

7.2

DB plans

DC plans

IRAs

Annuities

2014 Q2

26.9

11.1

6.2

2.4

Approximately 55% 

of $48.7 TN
9

the long-term trend continues to favor DC plans. As a result, the level of retirement 

assets available to individuals is now dependent upon a number of factors both within 

and outside their control, including employment status, personal contribution rate, the 

availability of employer matching contributions, investments selected and market 

performance. 

Figure 2: Active retirement plan participants (see footnotes 8,9) 

Within the broad category of defined contribution plans, there are a number of different 

vehicles such as 401(k), 403(b), 401(a), 457 and profit sharing plans with different 

features to suit the needs of a wide range of business plan sponsors and individuals. As 

illustrated in Figure 3, the most popular vehicle by share of assets is the 401(k). 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Defined contribution

Defined benefit

2010

Year

Participants (MM)

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
10

Figure 3: Defined contribution assets by plan type (2013 YE)17

 

Based on our retail investor survey, we found that workplace retirement plans are vital 

for individuals to start saving for retirement – 84% of respondents began saving for 

retirement via a workplace retirement plan. 

More than 80% of retail investors surveyed began saving for retirement through 

workplace retirement plans 

 

17 Pensions & Investments Research Center: (http://researchcenter.pionline.com/rankings/dc-moneymanager/plantype/2014?limit=213)

11%

2%

15%

401(k)

1%

Profit sharing plan

403(b)

65%

457

6%

Other

401(a)
11

As of 2013, approximately 75 million, or 70% of the 107.0 million full-time and part-time 

US private sector workers, had access to a workplace retirement plan, and 60 million, or 

56% of 107.0 million, chose to participate. Of the 32 million private sector workers 

without access, nearly two-thirds, or 19 million, are employed by small businesses with 

fewer than 50 employees (Figure 4).18

Figure 4: Workplace retirement plan access and participation among private sector 

workers, W-2 adjusted rates, by firm size (2013)

 

 

18The number of employees by firm size is based on Investment Company Institute tabulations of the US Census’ 

Current Population survey (www.ici.org/info/per20-06_data.xls). We use W-2 adjusted self-reported access and 

participation rates, as compiled by Dushi, Iams, and Lichtenstein (‘Assessment of Retirement Plan Coverage by 

Firm Size Using W-2 Tax Records’, Social Security Administration, 2011, 

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v71n2/v71n2p53.pdf). This study accounts for under- and over-reporting of plan 

participation by using individual tax filings to identify tax-deferred contributions, and avoids the issues of doublecounting of individuals active in more than one plan and non-active participants in plans with short-form filings 

associated with available DOL data. 

10%

16%

16%

0% 40% 60% 100% 20% 80%

55%

100 or more

employees 16%

35%

Percentage of employees

30%

Fewer than 50

employees

54% 50 to 99

employees

68%

No plan available Plan available but don’t participate Plan available and participate

Number of 

employees 

(MM)

Number of 

employees with 

out access to a 

plan (MM)

34.1 19.1

9.1 2.8

63.8 10.2

TOTAL 107.0 32.0
12

Our research provides interesting insights into reasons for the lower availability rates of 

workplace retirement plans among small businesses. When asked to select their 

reasons for not offering a plan, we found that cost (47% of small business survey 

respondents), prioritization of other employee benefits (24%) and significant use of 

temporary labor (20%) were the most commonly cited barriers to DC plan formation. 

Barriers to small business plan formation include cost, prioritization of other 

benefits and temporary labor 

In contrast to large businesses that often employ investment consultants to assist 

internal governance committees with managing a DC plan, small businesses typically 

rely on a circle of trusted advisors. We found small businesses most commonly seek 

advice from a range of providers including accountants, attorneys, retail banks, 

insurance firms, financial advisors, and outsourced service providers. Figure 5 shows 

the prevalence of these advisors among small businesses. 

Figure 5: Prevalence of different advisor types among small businesses19

 

 

19 Oliver Wyman Small Business Retirement Survey 2014, Respondents were asked to select all of the advisors that 

they consult in the management of their business, hence the sum is greater than 100%. Participants were asked to 

select from the following options: outside accountant (CPA), outsourced service, financial advisor (e.g. Merrill Lynch, 

Morgan Stanley, Independent financial professional), asset management firms (e.g. Vanguard, T. Rowe Price), 

attorney, retail bank (other than private banks and brokerages within banks, e.g. JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, 

HSBC, Citibank), investment consultants (e.g. Aon Hewitt, Mercer), insurance firms (e.g. Aetna, Nationwide), and 

none (I am solely responsible for all business decisions). 

0

10%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

80%

75%

63%

47%

Insurance 

firms

Outside Attorney Retail bank

accountant

Advisor

41%

Percent of businesses

Investment 

consultants

45%

Asset 

management 

firms

Outsourced 

service 

providers

Financial 

advisor

6%

9%

38%
13

Financial advisors help small businesses set up workplace retirement plans 

Small businesses use advisors for a range of services for their DC plans, which vary 

from plan to plan and from advisor to advisor. Examples of typical services include: 

 Development of an investment policy statement covering aspects such as plan 

objectives, investment philosophy and risk appetite 

 Plan design consulting (e.g. choice of funds, use of auto-enrollment, QDIA, autoescalation, and employer matching program), and selection of a record-keeper 

 Participant education and support (e.g. general help and support around plan 

participation, contribution rates and investment options, investment planning and 

IRA rollovers). 

Small businesses perceive financial advisors to be most helpful with respect to 

guidance on retirement plan setup and administration. We asked survey respondents to 

allocate 100 points among their different advisors based upon the value they assigned 

to their help and support in choosing to set up a workplace retirement plan. As shown in 

Figure 6, this statement holds true across all types of advisors and business sizes with 

small businesses allocating between 30% and 36% of value to financial advisors. 

Figure 6: Value of advice attributed to advisors in choosing to set up a retirement plan20

 

20 Oliver Wyman Small Business Retirement Survey 2014, Respondents were asked to allocate 100 points across all 

their advisors in terms of their contribution to the business setting up a workplace retirement plan; presented values 

are calculated as the average score per advisor type. 

5%

6%

7%

8%

21%

12%

36%

6% 12%

5%

7%

8%

15%

4%

16%

33%

13%

5%

10%

8% 14%

5%

15%

30%

Asset management firms

Outside accountant Investment consultants

Financial advisor Insurance firms

Retail bank

Outsourced service providers

Attorney

1–9 employees 10–49 employees 50–100 employees
14

Small businesses with financial advisors are 50% more likely to set up a 

retirement plan overall and micro businesses with financial advisors are nearly 

twice as likely to set up a plan 

We found that 41% of small businesses with 100 or fewer employees work with a 

financial advisor, and that these firms are significantly more likely to set up a retirement 

plan. Specifically, businesses with 1–9 employees with a financial advisor are almost 

twice as likely to set up a retirement plan as are businesses without financial advisors 

(51% vs. 26%). Businesses with 10–49 employees with a financial advisor are 48% 

more likely (77% vs. 52%) and businesses between 50 and 100 employees are 19% 

more likely (89% vs. 75%) to set up a plan. These differences are illustrated in Figure 7 

below. Additionally, micro businesses (1-9 employees) with financial advisors are 18% 

more likely to offer employer matching with a financial advisor (85%) than without (72%). 

Figure 7: Plan formation rates by size of firm and advisor status21

 

21 Oliver Wyman Small Business Retirement Survey 2014 

51%

77%

89%

69%

26%

52%

75%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1-9 10-49 50-100 Overall

Percent of businesses offering retirement plan

Number of employees

FA Non-FA

36% 63% 80% 56% Overall 

plan rate
15

Financial advisors play a key role in referring small businesses to service 

providers, such as plan administrators/ recordkeepers and fiduciary service 

providers 

As Figure 8 shows, a majority of small businesses, ranging from 55%–62% depending 

on size, found their workplace retirement plan provider via a referral from a trusted 

advisor. Financial advisors and accountants were the most common referral sources on 

a relative basis, with financial advisors cited between 33–45% of the time22, depending 

on company size. 

Figure 8: Frequency of referral to service provider(s), by advisor23

 

22 Raw results are normalized to account for relative frequencies of different advisors. For example, in the 1-9 

business segment, financial advisors provide 41% of all referrals on an unadjusted basis. We weighted this figure 

by the prevalence of financial advisor relationships among these businesses (i.e. 38%) and re-scaled all advisor 

scores to total 100%. This approach yields relative referral rates by removing skews associated with advisor 

prevalence. 

23 Oliver Wyman Small Business Retirement Survey 2014 

10%

22%

6%

62%

9% 16%

21%

55%

12% 10%

19%

59%

Other

Independent research

Referral from similar business

Referral from trusted advisor

32%

19%

20%

23%

11% 6%

18%

5%

0% 10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

50-100

42%

10%

4%

10-49

38%

Percentage of referrals

Firm size

5%

1-9

52%

5% 0%

Investment Consultant

Asset Manager

Other

Financial advisor

Outside Accountant

Attorney
16

II. Role of financial advisors in helping individuals save 

for retirement 

In our Retail Investor Retirement Survey, advised investors had a minimum of 

25% more assets than non-advised individuals, depending on age and income 

levels

A key finding of our research is that individuals with a financial advisor have more 

assets than non-advised individuals across age, income, and wealth segments, as 

shown in Figure 9. 

Figure 9: Total asset levels across relationship status, age, and income24

This finding holds true even when excluding survey respondents who anticipate 

receiving retirement income from either an inheritance or trust fund. 

 

24 Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey 2014 

517

297

204

81

243

196

148

43

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

550

Age Group

18-34 65+ 35-54 55-64

Average household assets ($K)

With FA Without FA

<=$100K in annual income 

1,345

820

486

203

892

577

388

115

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

1,100

1,200

1,300

1,400

Age Group

18-34 65+ 35-54 55-64

Average household assets ($K)

With FA Without FA

>$100K and <=$250K in annual income 

+86% +38% +51% +113% +76% +25% +42% +51%

% Increased assets of advised households

AB C D A B C D

% Increased assets of advised households

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D
17

Our analysis of the IXI data, representing ~20% of U.S consumer invested assets, 

further substantiates and expands on this finding. We found that individuals with a 

financial advisor have larger account balances (including IRA assets) across age, 

income and wealth levels. Specifically, in 2013, 98% of accounts examined for advised 

individuals reflected ≥10% more investment assets compared to those of non-advised 

individuals controlling for age, wealth, and income. Moreover, 90% of accounts 

reflected ≥25% more investment assets among advised accounts. 

This finding holds true across multiple time periods for specific wealth and income 

cohorts. Figure 10 illustrates this point for all segments as well as the segment with 

annual income and wealth below $100,000. 

Figure 10: Ratio of average asset holdings for advised and non-advised investors25

As described in detail below, our research finds that individuals with a financial advisor 

are better investors across many dimensions commonly associated with long term 

investing success. 

Advised individuals are better long term investors 

Key elements of a robust long-term investing program typically include: 

A. Developing and maintaining a personalized financial plan 

 

25 IXI account-level time series dataset of U.S. Consumer Invested Assets; Oliver Wyman Analysis 

Recession 

and 

immediate 

aftermath

Recession 

and 

immediate 

aftermath

Total AUM 

measured in 2013:

$9.7 TR

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Advised / non-advised account assets

Year

Segment: <$100K wealth, income Overall

Total IRA holdings 

measured in 2013:

$3.1 TR

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Advised / non-advised IRA assets

Year

Segment: <$100K wealth, income Overall

Total assets IRA assets
18

B. Commitment to regular saving and investment 

C. Constructing and maintaining a well-diversified portfolio of appropriate 

investment products 

D. Staying invested in the market 

E. Periodically re-balancing investment holdings to restore desired asset allocation 

and risk levels 

We found that financial advisors play an important role in helping individuals adopt each 

of these investing practices commonly associated with better investing outcomes. 

A. Developing and maintaining a personalized financial plan 

Individual investors’ savings goals include liquidity, education and retirement, 

but their primary focus varies with life stage 

Individuals have a range of different investment goals. As indicated in Figure 11, 

investors’ most common investing objectives are ensuring sufficient liquidity; saving for 

retirement; and funding education or a large purchase, such as a home. 

Figure 11: Households’ primary reasons for saving26 

The primary reasons for saving often vary significantly with life stage, however. In a 

recent survey, the Investment Company Institute (ICI) found that Households with a 

head of household younger than 35 primarily save for liquidity purposes (39%), whereas 

 

26 Investment Company Institute, The Success of the U.S. Retirement System, Figure 1 

(http://www.ici.org/pdf/ppr_12_success_retirement.pdf) 

4%

8%

23%

35%

Other

Cannot or do not save

Education, home, or large purchase

Liquidity (cash on hand, emergencies, unexpected needs)

Retirement

30%
19

those in which the head of household is between 50 and 64 years old, are focused on 

retirement savings (48%). 

58-75% of non-retired households seek professional financial advice, depending 

on wealth, and most value personalized financial planning, investment monitoring 

and holistic advice 

Many Americans are uncomfortable with investing on their own, and consult with a 

financial advisor to assist with achieving their goals. By one measure, 58% of 

households with under $100,000 in investable assets, and 75% of non-retired 

households with over $100,000 in investable assets, solicit professional financial 

advice27. 

In our research, individuals most value the following services from their financial 

advisor: personalized financial planning, ongoing monitoring of investments and trusted 

advice for all their personal financial affairs (Figure 12). 

Figure 12: Financial advisor services valued by investors28 

 

 

27 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances 

28 Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey 2014 

27

22

21

14

12

3

0 10 20 30

Average score out of 100

Individuals mostly 

value personalized 

and holistic financial 

advice

Financial planning to 

achieve your personal 

financial goals

Ongoing monitoring of your 

personal investments

Trusted advice for all of your 

personal financial affairs

Investment expertise for 

making individual purchases 

or sales of securities

Access to high-quality 

financial products

Trusted advice for helping 

manage your small business

Service 
20

Against investor demand for holistic advice, we observe different help and support 

models available within workplace retirement plans and outside plans. In-plan help and 

advice is often well suited for individuals whose workplace plan represents their primary 

investment savings, while outside plan advice is a better fit for individuals with multiple 

investment accounts seeking advice and guidance on all investment holdings. 

The majority of DC plans now offer a variety of educational materials, tools and advice 

options to enable individuals to make informed investment decisions. Educational 

materials and automated financial tools are the most widely available as well as the 

most used features as shown in Figure 13. In our research, in-plan advice had a 

positive impact on participant behavior for those who used it. We found participants who 

made use of at least one type of support contributed an average of 2.0 percentage 

points29 more of their salary to a DC plan (6.7% vs. 4.7%) – an increase of 43%. When 

done in younger working years, this difference could mean a substantial difference in 

asset accumulation at retirement. 

Participants who use in-plan advice features save 43% more, on average 

We also found that fewer than half of plan participants currently use in-plan advice 

features. While 82% of individuals have access to an investment advisor on the phone 

and 64% have the ability to meet with a financial advisor in-person, utilization of these 

services is low. Of the individuals that participated in our survey, just 25% consulted 

with an advisor on the phone and 25% met with a financial advisor in-person. 

 

29 Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey 2014 
21

Figure 13: Availability and usage of in-plan support options (for respondents with a 

defined contribution plan) 

In-plan advice models are often more limited in scope compared with external 

advisory offerings

A number of financial firms operating in a brokerage model have forged partnerships 

with in-plan advice providers such as Financial Engines, Morningstar and Wilshire 

Associates, instead of establishing a relationship with their financial advisory 

businesses, to provide basic help and advice to plan participants on current plan 

holdings and investment options.30,31,32 Due to legal constraints, this form of advice is 

generally limited to plan assets, which does not meet the full needs of individuals that 

hold assets in multiple DC plans and other brokerage and/or advisory accounts. 

 

30 Financial Engines, 2012 Annual Report (http://phx.corporateir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTc3OTk4fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1) 

31 Morningstar, 2012 Annual Report, (http://corporate.morningstar.com/us/documents/PR/2012-Morningstar-AnnualReport.pdf) 

32 Wilshire Associates, Retirement Managed Accounts, (http://www.wilshire.com/funds-management/oursolutions/retirement-managed-accounts) 

91%

82%

64%

93%

59%

25% 25%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Automated financial tools,

available online

Investment advisor,

available on the phone

Investment advisor,

available in-person

Educational materials

Availability of option

Support Option

Available Used
22

Individuals elect IRA rollovers for many reasons including asset consolidation, 

increased investment options and access to a different financial services 

provider 

Many individuals prefer to access financial help and support outside of their DC plans 

and choose to rollover their DC plan assets to an IRA when changing employers. 

According to a 2014 ICI report, “The Role of IRAs in US Household Saving for 

Retirement”, more than 41 million US households hold an IRA of some type. In addition, 

as shown in Figure 14, ICI further found that nearly half of all rollover decisions were 

motivated by a desire to consolidate assets and avoid leaving assets with the former 

employer. 

Figure 14: Primary reason for most recent rollover among those choosing to roll over 

assets33

Only 29% of workplace plan participants use DC plans exclusively for retirement 

savings; nearly two-thirds use a combination of DC plans and IRAs or IRAs only34

As demonstrated by the distribution of retirement plans within our sample of investors 

(Figure 15), 44% of individuals utilize both DC plans and IRAs in order to take 

advantage of the benefits of each type of account. As noted previously, IRAs offer 

 

33 Investment Company Institute, The Role of IRAs in U.S. Households’ Saving for Retirement, 2014 

(http://www.ici.org/pdf/per21-01.pdf) 

Other includes ‘Were told by a financial advisor to roll over assets’, ‘Wanted to keep assets with the same provider’, 

‘Thought it was easier to roll over assets to an IRA’, and ‘Wanted the same investments as former employer’s plan’. 

34 Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey 2014 

19%

7%

9%

24%

Other

Wanted to use a different financial services provider

17%

Wanted to preserve tax treatment of the savings

Wanted more investment options

24%

Did not want to leave assets with the former employer

Wanted to consolidate assets
23

access to holistic help and support, a wider selection or financial products, and greater 

control. In comparison, DC plans have a higher limit for tax-deferred annual savings 

(e.g. $18,000 for 401(k)s vs. $5,500 for IRAs, excluding catch up contributions) and 

employer matching contributions (where available), making them attractive vehicles for 

new retirement contributions. 

Figure 15: Retirement plan ownership among investors35

B. Commitment to regular saving and investment 

Individuals with a financial advisor are more likely to own an IRA, have greater 

IRA assets and save more of their income in 401(k) plans 

Individuals with a financial advisor are more likely to have an IRA. In 2013, 99.8% of 

households examined belonged to an age / income / wealth segment in which advised 

households were ≥10% more likely to have an IRA compared to non-advised 

households (and 87% of households belonged to segments in which advised 

households were ≥25% more likely to have an IRA). 

Additionally, 94% of households examined belonged to an age / income / wealth 

segment in which advised households held ≥25% more IRA assets compared to nonadvised households. Our findings for IRA ownership and asset levels hold true across 

income, age, and wealth segments. For example, Figure 16 shows IRA ownership and 

 

35 Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey 2014, includes only those with retirement or investment accounts 

5% 3%

29%

44%

None

IRA only

18%

DC only

Both

Other
24

assets for advised and non-advised households within different age groups for the 

cohort with $0-100K in annual income and wealth, respectively. In this cohort, 

increased IRA ownership ranges from 41% higher for households with accounts 

registered to individuals 65 and older to 68% higher for those in the 35-44 age group. 

IRA asset levels for the $0-100K annual income and wealth cohort ranges from 39% 

higher for households with accounts registered to individuals aged 18-34 to 87% more 

for those aged 55-64. 

Figure 16: IRA ownership and assets (2013) – Income: $0-100K, Wealth: $0-100K 36

 

 

These results are consistent with a recent Natixis survey, where individuals with a 

financial advisor were found to hold more assets in their 401(k) across age and income 

segments, compared with non-advised investors. The Natixis survey also found that 

individuals with a financial advisor contributed an average of 1-2% more of their pre-tax 

salary to their 401(k) across age and income segments.37

 

36 IXI household-level dataset of U.S. Consumer Invested Assets; Oliver Wyman Analysis 

37 Saving is Not Enough: Liabilities, shortfalls and the need for active participation in 401(k) plans; Natixis Global 

Asset Management, August 2014 – online survey of 899 participants (427 with FA, 472 without FA) across age and 

groups 

$50

$40

$30

$20

$10

$0

Average Household IRA Holdings ($K)

Age Group

65+

27

49

55-64

24

44

45-54

20

33

35-44

15

24

18-34

9

13

With FA Without FA

47%

59%

56%

51%

41%

33%

38%

34%

31%

25%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

% of households with IRA

Age Group

18-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+

+39% +55% +66% +87% +83% +64% +68% +65% +56% +41%

% Increased assets of advised households % Increased IRA ownership of advised households

A

B

C

D

E

AB CD E

A

B

C

D

E

AB CD E
25

C. Constructing and maintaining a well-diversified portfolio of appropriate 

investment products 

The benefits of portfolio diversification are well documented. Figure 17 shows how a 

diversified balanced index outperformed the S&P 500 by an average of 1.7 percentage 

points annually (11.2% vs. 9.5%) over a long time period (1965-2012) spanning multiple 

business cycles. 

Figure 17: Comparison of return by portfolio composition38

Individuals with a financial advisor exhibit more diversified investment portfolios 

compared to non-advised individuals across a number of dimensions 

Portfolio diversification refers to the practice of mitigating investment risk by investing in 

a variety of un-correlated products. There are a number of ways to assess portfolio 

diversification. We have attempted to assess relative portfolio diversification between 

advised and non-advised individuals with respect to several basic measures. 

1. The number of asset classes within the portfolio – The correlation between 

investments in different asset classes is typically lower than that between 

investments in the same asset class. Thus, the more distinct asset classes in an 

investor’s portfolio the more diversified the portfolio, on average. 

2. The ratio of equities to fixed income – This is a basic measure of portfolio risk 

with a higher concentration in equities typically signaling a riskier portfolio. A 

“60/40” portfolio consisting of 60% equity and 40% fixed income is widely 

recognized as a balanced portfolio that provides capital appreciation and income 

while limiting volatility and potential loss of capital. A substantial overweighting of 

 

38 DFA Returns 2.0 

Portfolio Mix 1965-1981 1982-1999 2000-9/2012 Total Period

S&P 500 Index +6.3% +18.5% +1.7% +9.5%

Cash +6.7% +6.2% +2.2% +5.3%

Diversified 

Balanced Index +9.9% +15.1% +7.4% +11.2%
26

equities or fixed income could indicate a misalignment between intended and 

actual risk-taking. 

3. The use of packaged products vs. individual securities – Packaged products 

like mutual funds are typically composed of many securities, and have lower nonsystematic risk (i.e. individual company risk exposure) than an equivalent 

investment in a smaller number of individual securities. As a result, investment 

strategies employing packaged products tend to be more diversified than 

strategies that rely only on individual securities. 

Based on each of these three measures of diversification, we found individuals with a 

financial advisor have more diversified portfolios than individuals without a financial 

advisor. 

1. Number of asset classes within the portfolio – Individuals with a financial advisor 

own twice as many asset classes as non-advised individuals

In a 2010 study, Charles Schwab found that financial advisors help clients achieve 

greater investment diversification, and that the average investor receiving professional 

advice invests in over four more asset classes than an investor who does not (e.g. more 

than 8 versus 3.7)39. 

2. Ratio of equities to fixed income -- Advised individuals have more balanced 

portfolios than non-advised investors, and hold, on average, more than 20% less 

equities and nearly twice as much fixed income 

Individuals with a financial advisor have more balanced portfolios with less equity 

exposure and higher fixed income allocations than non-advised individuals. As shown 

in Figure 18, advised individuals held 17 percentage points (more than 20%) less equity 

than non-advised individuals, as well as nearly twice as much fixed income exposure 

(25% vs. 13% as a percent of the total portfolio). IRA holdings show a similar, finding 

where the difference in equity exposure is 8 percentage points (or 10%) less of an 

allocation for advised individuals vs. those without a financial advisor. By contrast, fixed 

income exposure is 38% higher for advised vs. non-advised individuals. 

 

39 Charles Schwab, ‘Advice Matters: New Charles Schwab Study Demonstrates Positive Impact of Professional 

Advice on 401(k) Investor Behavior’, (http://pressroom.aboutschwab.com/press-release/schwab-corporateretirement-services-news/advice-matters-new-charles-schwab-study-demo) 
27

Figure 18: Assets and IRA asset class mix for households with and without a financial 

advisor40

The finding of more balanced portfolios among advised individuals persists when 

controlling for age, income, and wealth, as 72% of households belong to a segment in 

which advised households hold more than 20% less of their assets in equities41. By 

way of further example, Figure 19 shows the same analysis of the segment aged 45-54 

with less than $100,000 in annual income and total wealth, respectively. In this case, 

the difference in equity exposure is 76% vs. 85% of total assets for advised vs. nonadvised individuals. Additionally, advised individuals hold more than twice as much fixed 

income as a percent of total assets, and 1.5 times as much in IRAs. 

 

40 IXI household-level dataset of U.S. Consumer Invested Assets; Oliver Wyman Analysis; percentages may not add 

up to 100% due to rounding 

41 Measured as a percentage of the total portfolio assets 

13%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Without FA

12%

63%

Asset Class as % of AUM

With FA

8%

80%

Equities Fixed income Other

13%

18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asset Class as % of IRA

71%

Without FA

8%

79%

With FA

11%

6 : 1 3 : 1 6 : 1 4 : 1

Equity : Fixed income ratio Equity : Fixed income ratio
28

Figure 19: Assets and IRA asset class mix – Age: 45-54, Income: $0-100K, Wealth: $0-

100K42

3. Use of packaged products vs. individual securities – Non-advised individuals 

hold 70% more of their equities exposure in individual securities compared to advised 

individuals

Finally, individuals with a financial advisor hold more of their equity exposure in 

packaged products compared to individuals without a financial advisor. Figure 20 shows 

individuals with a financial advisor hold approximately equal proportions of their equity 

exposure in packaged products and individual securities. By contrast, investors without 

a financial advisor hold 1.7 times as much of their equity exposure in individual 

securities, on average. The mix of IRA holdings again reflects this trend. 

 

42 IXI household-level dataset of U.S. Consumer Invested Assets; Oliver Wyman Analysis 

6%

14%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

With FA

85%

9%

76%

Without FA

Asset Class as % of AUM

10%

8% 12%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asset Class as % of IRA

Without FA With FA

83%

9%

81%

7%

13 : 1 6 : 1 10 : 1 7 : 1

Equity : Fixed income ratio Equity : Fixed income ratio

Equities Fixed income Other
29

Figure 20: Assets and IRA product mix for households with and without a financial 

advisor43

These trends hold true when controlling for age, income, and wealth. Figure 21 shows 

the findings for one particular segment (i.e. the cohort aged 45-54 with less than 

$100,000 in annual income and total wealth, respectively), where the comparison is 

even more stark. In this case, non-advised individuals hold more than four times as 

much of their portfolios in individual equity securities vs. equity packaged products. 

In the cohort aged 45-54 with less than $100,000 in annual income and wealth, 

non-advised individuals hold four times more equity exposure through individual 

securities compared with advised investors 

 

43 IXI household-level dataset of U.S. Consumer Invested Assets; Oliver Wyman Analysis; percentages may not add 

up to 100% due to rounding of values 

7%

13%

5%

12%

8% 9%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

With FA

Asset Class as % of AUM

31%

32%

Without FA

53%

26%

0.5 : 1 1 : 1 1 : 1 2 : 1

Packaged product : Individual security Packaged product : Individual Security

Other

Individual securities - Fixed income

Individual securities - Equities

Packaged product - Variable annuities

Packaged product - Fixed income

Packaged product - Equities

10%

14%

4%

8% 8%

4%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

39%

40%

Asset Class as % of IRA

With FA

21%

50%

Without FA
30

Figure 21: Assets and IRA product mix – Age: 45-54, Income: $0-100K, Wealth: $0-100K44

D. Staying invested in the market 

Individuals with a financial advisor hold smaller cash balances – ranging from 

36%-57% less than non-advised individuals for similar age and wealth cohorts 

In our Retail Investor Retirement Survey, we found that individuals with financial 

advisors hold a smaller percentage of their non-retirement assets in cash equivalents. 

As shown below in Figure 22, this finding holds true across all asset and age stratums45. 

As cash equivalent holdings have lower real returns, individuals may potentially achieve 

higher long-term returns by limiting their allocation to cash. 

 

44 IXI household-level dataset of U.S. Consumer Invested Assets; Oliver Wyman Analysis; percentages may not add 

up to 100% due to rounding of values 

45 The differences observed in cash holdings between advised and non-advised households was significant at a 95% 

confidence level for all segments except the group aged 65 or older with $250K-$ 1MM in assets 

12%

9% 7%

6%

3%

1% 1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asset Class as % of AUM

With FA

12%

64%

Without FA

52%

33%

8%

11%

9% 5%

2%

1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

With FA

8%

73%

Without FA

34%

49%

Asset Class as % of IRA

1 : 1 4 : 1 1 : 1 6 : 1

Packaged product : Individual security Packaged product : Individual Security

Other

Individual securities - Fixed income

Individual securities - Equities

Packaged product - Variable annuities

Packaged product - Fixed income

Packaged product - Equities
31

Figure 22: Percent of assets held in cash or cash equivalents outside of workplace 

retirement plans46

 

Again, the IXI data supports and expands upon this finding, which holds true over time 

for both total assets as well as retirement assets in IRA accounts across income, wealth, 

and age segments analyzed. For example in 2013, nearly 99% of advised households 

held 25% or more less cash and/or cash equivalents as a percentage of their portfolio 

compared to non-advised.47 

Figure 23 depicts this trend for the overall population analyzed. 

 

46 Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey 

47 IXI account-level time series dataset of U.S. Consumer Invested Assets; Oliver Wyman Analysis 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

% of assets in cash or cash equivalents

Age Group

65+

29%

13%

55-64

31%

15%

35-54

30%

13%

18-34

33%

18%

With FA Without FA

<=$100K in assets

12 11

14

16

18

20

22

28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Age Group

18-34 35-54 55-64 65+

With FA Without FA

>$100K and <=$250K in assets

(45%) (57%) (52%) (55%)

% Less cash held by advised households

AB CD AB CD

% Less cash held by advised households

A

B

C D A

B

C D

(43%) (36%) (45%) (33%)
Figure 2

investor

Analysis

advised 

(48% les

(Figure 2

 

48 IXI acco

3: Cash ho

rs48

s of the seg

investors h

ss), during 

24). 

 

unt-level time s

ldings as a 

gment with l

held substa

(44% less) 

 

series dataset o

percent of 

less than $

antially less 

and after t

of U.S. Consum

account as

100K in we

cash as a 

he financia

mer Invested A

ssets for ad

ealth and in

portion of to

al crisis (60%

Assets; Oliver W

vised and n

come simil

otal accoun

% by the en

Wyman Analys

non-advised

arly shows 

nt assets be

nd of 2013)

is 

32

d

that 

efore 

). 
33

Figure 24: Cash holdings as a percent of total account assets for investors with 

and without a financial advisor – Segment with <$100K in wealth and income49 

 

The finding of persistently lower cash allocations for advised investors provides strong 

evidence that financial advisors help individuals enter and stay invested in the market 

across market cycles leading, on average and over time, to better investing outcomes. 

Excess cash holdings represent a drag on investment performance. However, premature withdrawal of retirement account assets is an even costlier investing behavior 

that reduces principal and the potential benefit of compounded returns.

 

49 IXI account-level time series dataset of U.S; Morningstar, Oliver Wyman Analysis 

0%

30%

60%

90%

120%

150%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

w/o FA w/ FA

Average cash holdings (% of account assets))

Pre

crisis

Peak 

crisis

Post 

crisis+2

Post 

crisis+5

w/o FA 23% 34% 23% 23%

w/ FA 12% 19% 12% 9%

Relative change in cash holdings

(indexed, 2006 = 100%)

Pre-financial crisis investors without 

a financial advisor held nearly 2X as 

much cash as advised investors

A

By 2010, cash allocations for both 

types of investors had returned to 

pre-crisis levels

However, investors with a financial 

advisor held nearly 50% less cash as a 

percent of total investable assets

C

Both types of investors increased 

cash holdings during the crisis

Even after accounting for a sharp drop 

in equity market values, investors 

increased cash holdings1

B

At the end of 2013, advised investors 

held 25% less cash vs. pre-crisis 

levels, while allocations investors 

without an FA remained constant

At year-end 2013, non-advised investors 

held more than 2.5 times as much of 

their portfolios in cash

D

A

B

C D

1 Cash allocations could have increased without any change in investor behavior due to the large decline in equity markets. We analyzed 

the magnitude of the this potential effect in the following manner. Average advised investor pre-crisis (2007) allocation to equities was 60% 

while cash holdings represented 12% of investable assets. Assuming (1) no change in portfolio holdings, (2) only equity values changed, 

and (3) the equities allocation performed similarly to the S&P (as measured by SPY) during the financial crisis, the 38% drop in SPY share 

price in 2008 could have represented at most 3.5% of the 7% point increase cash holdings, i.e. .12/(1-(0.38*0.6))-.12. The equivalent 

figure for non-advised is 8%, i.e. 0.24/(1-(0.38*0.66))-0.24 of the 10% point increase in cash holdings. Since actual equity allocations 

dropped by only 40-45% of that predicted in (3) above, the equity market decline is estimated to account for an even smaller portion of 

increased account cash allocations..
34

Financial advisors help individuals avoid premature IRA distributions - 76% of 

heads of households that made traditional IRA withdrawals in 2013 were retired 

Tax-advantaged workplace retirement plans provide the greatest benefit when 

individuals start saving early and continue to save and invest throughout their working 

years until retirement age. According to a GAO study, “Cashouts [have] the greatest 

ultimate impact on participants’ retirement preparedness [...] Cashouts of 401(k) 

accounts at job separation can result in the largest amounts of leakage and the greatest 

proportional loss in retirement savings.”50

Approximately 9 out of 10 (88%) IRA accounts are held in a brokerage model, where an 

individual has access to a range of different types of advice and support from a financial 

advisor.51 According to ICI, IRA holders tend to keep assets in their accounts until 

retirement. In 2013, 76% of households that made traditional IRA withdrawals were 

retired. This stands in contrast with DC plan behavior, where there is a natural triggering 

event when individuals terminate employment. According to a Vanguard study, 38% of 

individuals in their twenties took cash distributions upon leaving their employer52. 

Moreover, individuals aged 25-34 were more than three times as likely to take a cash 

distribution from a 401(k) compared to an IRA when leaving a job. Different distribution 

rates by age cohort and account type are illustrated in Figure 25. 

 

50 Government Accountability Office, ‘401(k) Plans: Policy Changes Could Reduce the Long-term Effects of Leakage 

on Workers' Retirement Savings’, August 2009 

51 Oliver Wyman, ‘Assessment of the Impact of the Department of Labor’s Proposed “Fiduciary” Definition Rule on 

IRA Consumers’, 2011 

52 Vanguard, ‘How America Saves 2013: A report on Vanguard 2012 defined contribution plan data’, June 2013 
35

Figure 25: Percentage of individuals taking cash distributions by age and plan type53

The value of remaining invested is illustrated in a worked example, shown in Figure 26, 

where we contrast the potential outcomes of two scenarios. In the first scenario, an 

individual with a $10,000 account balance takes a cash distribution 30 years prior to 

retirement. Assuming an early withdrawal penalty of 10%, a federal tax rate of 15% and 

a state tax rate of 3%, they would have $7,200 after penalties and taxes. In the second 

scenario, the individual rolls the same amount of money into an IRA, achieves an 

average annual return of 6% and is subject to the same combined state and federal 

18% tax rate at retirement. In this situation, they would have $44,280 after taxes, or 

approximately $24,500 in current period equivalent dollars, assuming 2% annual 

inflation – an amount 3.4 times greater. 

Figure 26: Worked example comparing a cash distribution with an IRA rolloverIllustrative 

 

 

53 Butrica, Zedlewski, Issa, ‘Understanding Early Withdrawals from Retirement Accounts’, 2010 

2%

10%

8%

6%

4%

0

4.0%

Percent of people taking a cash distribution

3.4%

3.1%

6.6%

55-58

4.5% 4.8%

45-54

4.3%

7.5%

35-44

7.4%

25-34

9.7%

3.2%

0.3%

Age

IRA

401(k)

Penalty or Tax Amount

Early Withdrawal 

Penalty (10% of 

withdrawal amount)

$1,000

Required Federal tax 

withholding $2,000

Federal tax 

withholding refund 

you should receive

$500

State tax you will owe $300

Paid

$2,800

Receieved

$7,200
36

E. Periodically rebalancing asset holdings to restore desired asset allocation and 

risk levels – Individuals with financial advisors are 44% more likely to re-balance 

their portfolios at least every two years

Portfolio re-balancing is an important risk mitigation tool. For example, if an investor’s 

portfolio is valued at $100,000, divided equally between equities and fixed income, and 

the equities portion increases in value by 25% while fixed income increases by a more 

modest 5%, the overall portfolio value increases to $115,000. In this case, the equities 

allocation increases from 50% to 54% of the portfolio value, while the fixed income 

portion decreases from 50% to 46%. Regular re-balancing restores asset allocations to 

target levels to reflect investors’ risk return objectives. In our research, individuals with 

financial advisors rebalanced their portfolios more often than non-advised individuals. 

65% of advised individuals re-balanced at least every two years, compared with 45% for 

non-advised individuals (a difference of 44%). This is illustrated in Figure 27. 

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29

Asset Value

Years invested

Total assets of 

~$54,000 at 

retirement
37

Figure 27: Rebalancing frequency outside of DC plans54

 

* * * 

Returning to the original question of the value of a financial advisor, the majority of 

individuals across wealth and age segments, as well as many small businesses, seek 

professional financial advice, and value their FA as a trusted advisor. We found 

substantial evidence that advised individuals are more sophisticated and diligent long 

term investors who achieve better investing outcomes. 

The benefits financial advisors provide are now at risk. On April 14, 2015, the 

Department of Labor issued its Conflict of Interest rule proposal, a replacement for the 

 

54 Oliver Wyman Retail Investor Retirement Survey 2014: A KS test is significant at a 95% confidence level 

9%

13%

14%

19%

31%

26%

34%

5%

3%

2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent of respondents

Relationship Status

With FA

14%

Without FA

31%

Less frequently than every 10 years

Annually or more frequently

Every 3-5 years

Every 1-2 years

Every 6-10 years

Never
38

Definition of the term “fiduciary” rule proposal withdrawn in September 2011. 55 In our 

2011 study reviewing the impact of the previously proposed rule, we concluded that the 

Department of Labor’s proposed rule change was motivated by a laudable objective: to 

ensure a high standard of care toward retirement plan participants and account holders 

with regard to the receipt of services and investment guidance, amid an increasingly 

complex financial marketplace. However, we found the proposed rule was likely to have 

serious negative and unintended effects on the very individuals the change was 

supposed to help. 

Many stakeholders are now analyzing the technical details of the newly proposed rule, 

and there is growing consensus on the implications for financial services providers with 

regard to the prohibited transaction exemptions newly proposed, modified or absent 

from the proposed rule. However, with regard to the impact on individuals, regrettably 

we reach the same overall conclusion as in the prior study. The proposed rule change 

will likely have significant consequences that will adversely impact individual investors’ 

ability to save for retirement. 

 As proposed, financial advisors would be forced to withdraw workplace 

retirement plan set-up and support services from small businesses, due to the 

lack of an exception allowing providers to market to plans with fewer than 100 

participants that are self-directed –many small businesses are likely to close or 

not open plans due to the additional administrative burden as a result. This 

would directly impact the 19 MM individuals who work for small businesses with 

fewer than 50 employees, who do not currently have access to a workplace 

retirement plan by reducing the likelihood these individuals will gain access to a 

plan in the future 

 Individuals with small balance accounts are likely to lose access to retirement 

help and support with selecting appropriate products. We previously estimated 

that 7 MM current IRAs would not qualify for an advisory account due to low 

balances56

 Almost all retail investors would face increased costs (73% to 196% on average) 

from providers shifting clients to a fee-based advisory model. In our 2011 study, 

we found nearly 90% of the 23 MM IRAs analyzed were held in brokerage 

accounts 57

 

55 Definition of the Term “Fiduciary”; Conflict of Interest Rule – Retirement Investment Advice, 80 Fed. Reg. 21928, 

pp. 21927-21960 (proposed Apr. 20, 2015) 

56 Oliver Wyman, ‘Assessment of the Impact of the Department of Labor’s Proposed “Fiduciary” Definition Rule on 

IRA Consumers’, 2011 

57 Oliver Wyman, ‘Assessment of the Impact of the Department of Labor’s Proposed “Fiduciary” Definition Rule on 

IRA Consumers’, 2011 
39

 Individuals are less likely to open an IRA, leading to lower savings rates and 

increased cash-outs when changing jobs58

 Unadvised individuals are likely to carry excess portfolio risk due to less 

diversification and less frequent re-balancing compared with advised individuals 

* * * 

Retirement is too important to get wrong 59. We encourage key stakeholders from the 

financial services industry and regulators to join together to find workable solutions that 

preserve individuals’ access to help and support from a financial advisor of their 

choosing as well as the business model and fees that best meet their needs. 

 

58 Prior guidance from the DOL “held that recommendations to a plan participant to take an otherwise permissible 

distribution, even combined with a recommendation as to how to invest distributed funds, is not fiduciary investment 

advice.” K&L Gates, DOL Re-Proposes Rule to make Brokers, Others, ERISA Fiduciaries (Apr. 27, 2015), 

http://www.klgates.com/dol-re-proposes-rule-to-make-brokers-others-erisa-fiduciaries-04-27-2015. 

59 [C]onstraints on the availability of investment services that could result from the DOL’s reproposal, particularly for 

smaller plans or individual retirement investors, can undermine the retirement system in various ways.” Sutherland, 

Legal Alert: DOL Reproposes Expanded ERISA Fiduciary Definition and Revised Complex of Exemptions (Apr. 21, 

2015), http://www.sutherland.com/NewsCommentary/Legal-Alerts/172823/Legal-Alert-DOL-Reproposes-ExpandedERISA-Fiduciary-Definition-and-Revised-Complex-of-Exemptions. 
40

Survey methodology 

Our small business survey had 1,216 valid complete responses by owners and HR 

decision makers of payroll-based businesses with between 1 and 100 employees. We 

employed a stratified sampling approach designed to control for the size of the business 

and ensure that a sufficient number of businesses were recorded that did and did not 

consult with financial advisors. Furthermore, we selected three company size cohorts 

for analysis, namely 1–9, 10–49, and 50–100 employees, based the alignment of these 

segments with data available on employee retirement plan access for comparison 

purposes. This design allowed us to isolate the impact that financial advisors have upon 

small businesses. Where appropriate, we report conclusions that are statistically 

significant at a 95% confidence level using standard methods of statistical inference. 

Our retail investor survey had 4,393 valid complete responses by non-retired individuals 

with investments or retirement accounts. Responses were excluded from respondents 

who, at the time of the survey, were: under age 18; retired; not at least partially 

responsible for financial decision making; and non-investors, meaning they did not have 

at least one investment or retirement account. In addition, we excluded incomplete 

responses and those completed in less than 1/3 of the median time to ensure a robust 

data set. Any figures that we report describe this specific sub-population. 

Our stratified sampling approach in this case controlled for age and income as well as 

the presence of a financial advisor. In designing the sample this way, we strove to 

control for the effects that age and income have upon investment decisions and 

retirement planning. However, as our sample does not match the composition of the 

overall population, we utilize scale factors in our analysis to correct for respondent bias, 

by underweighting sample responses that are overrepresented relative to the population 

and vice-versa. Although we sampled based upon age, income and the presence of a 

financial advisor, we scale our sample to the population using age, assets, and the 

presence of a financial advisor, as the distribution of household assets is better 

documented in secondary sources than the distribution of personal income. We 

obtained the population distribution of household age and assets for FA advised and 

non-FA advised households from the survey of Consumer Finances, a triennial crosssectional survey of US families conducted by the Federal Reserve. We utilized the 2013 

survey data. We report conclusions that are statistically significant at a 95% confidence 

level. 
41

Appendix I. 

Methodology for analysis of U.S. retail investor assets 

Our analysis leveraged IXI Services data containing segment-level detail on U.S. 

consumer invested assets. Segments were defined by specific age tiers (five), income 

tiers (eleven), wealth tiers (seven), advisor relationship type (Full Service Brokerage vs. 

Discount Brokerage) and year. For the purposes of this report, we refer to the Full 

Service Brokerage relationship as “with financial advisor” and the Discount Brokerage 

relationship as “without financial advisor.” 

IXI data contained information on total segment: 

 Assets and IRA holdings 

 Asset class distribution 

 Number of households / accounts 

We used two datasets from IXI, which were distinct in the following ways: 

Dataset name 1. Household Point-In-Time 2. Account Time Series 

Time period 2012-2013 2006-2013 

Count type Households60 Accounts 

2013 Assets $5.6 TR $9.7 TR 

2013 Population 21 MM households 71 MM accounts 

Segment criteria Only households with recorded 

age, income and wealth segment 

Includes accounts with no 

recorded age 

While the age segment criterion was analyzed in the Account Time Series dataset, it 

was ultimately eliminated to capture a broader representation of US invested assets. 

This is due to a data limitation whereby only 60% of accounts were associated with a 

specific age. All findings in this study were confirmed across all age, wealth, income, 

and time segments in both the Household Point-In-Time and Account Time Series 

datasets unless indicated otherwise. 

Findings were generated by comparing the segment-level averages of the various 

metrics listed above between the Full Service and Discount Brokerage populations. In 

drawing conclusions from this granular segment-level comparison, we disregarded 

segments with fewer than 500 households (Household Point-In-Time) or 500 accounts 

 

60 IXI could only aggregate account holdings from a single household within a given institution and could not 

aggregate households’ holdings across institutions 
42

(Account Time Series) to eliminate segments with insufficient data points. This resulted 

in the exclusion of 0.01%-0.04% of the population. 
43

Appendix II. 

Automated solutions to address inertia in retirement plans do not 

guarantee optimal retirement outcomes 

It has been well-documented that retirement outcomes are significantly impacted by the 

status quo bias that leads DC plan participants to prefer their current state both in terms 

of non-participation and nature of participation61. This not only affects contribution rates 

but also asset allocations, both with respect to rebalancing and following a risk 

allocation glide path to match investor risk profiles at various ages. 

Standard default contribution rates do not appear to generate sufficient asset levels 

for retirement. 

Automatic features can impact participant behavior, a notable example being autoenrollment features which have been shown to increase plan participation by 45%.65

However, while encouraging participation is certainly a step in the right direction, 

according to EBRI, the most common default contribution rate within a workplace 

retirement plan was just 3% in 201262. This falls well short of an ideal default path to 

encourage sufficient retirement savings, which is suggested by Prudential as, “A 5–6% 

default deferral rate with a 2% annual acceleration up to a cap of at least 10–12%”65. 

Unfortunately, only 21% of plans had an automatic escalation feature in 201363, leading 

us to conclude that inertia leads many participants continue to save at sub-optimal 

default contribution rates. 

The illustrated example shown below in Figure 28 confirms that for the average 

individual, a 3% savings rate results in sub-optimal retirement savings. The example 

utilizes the median income by age according to the US Census, which assumes that an 

income of approximately $36,000 at age 25 grows to an income of $58,000 at age 65. In 

addition, we utilize a constant 3% contribution rate consistent with the most common 

default rate, and 6% annual returns. These assumptions lead to a total asset value of 

approximately ~$220,000 at age 65, which at approximately 3.8 times the illustrative 

ending salary falls short of industry recommendations that suggest that individuals save 

8 times their ending salary64, or approximately $460,000 in this case. In order to retire 

 

61 Overcoming Participant Inertia: Prudential Research: 

(http://research.prudential.com/documents/rp/Automated_Solutions_Paper-RSWP008.pdf) 

62 EBRI September 2012 notes: (http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_09_Sept-12.HCS-AE.pdf) 

63 JP Morgan Asset Management, 2013 defined contribution Plan Sponsor survey Findings: Evolving Toward Greater 

Retirement Security 

64 Fidelity Investments, ‘Fidelity Outlines Age-Based Savings Guidelines to Help Workers Stay on Track for 

Retirement’, September 2012, (http://www.fidelity.com/inside-fidelity/employer-services/age-based-savingsguidelines) 
44

comfortably while contributing only 3%, our individual would need to work until age 77. 

Conversely, contributing an annual average of 6.3% would allow for retirement by 

age 65. 

Figure 28: Example retirement assets by year at median income, 3% contribution rate, 

and 6% growth 

 

 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65

401(k) assets

Age

Total asset 

value of 

~$220,000 at 

age 65
 

 

45

Report qualifications/assumptions and limiting conditions 

Oliver Wyman shall not have any liability to any third party in respect of this report or 

any actions taken or decisions made as a consequence of the results, advice or 

recommendations set forth herein. 

This report does not represent investment advice or provide an opinion regarding the 

fairness of any transaction to any and all parties. This report does not represent legal 

advice, which can only be provided by legal counsel and for which you should seek 

advice of counsel. The opinions expressed herein are valid only for the purpose stated 

herein and as of the date hereof. Information furnished by others, upon which all or 

portions of this report are based, is believed to be reliable but has not been verified. No 

warranty is given as to the accuracy of such information. Public information and 

industry and statistical data are from sources Oliver Wyman deems to be reliable; 

however, Oliver Wyman makes no representation as to the accuracy or completeness 

of such information and has accepted the information without further verification. No 

responsibility is taken for changes in market conditions or laws or regulations and no 

obligation is assumed to revise this report to reflect changes, events or conditions, 

which occur subsequent to the date hereof. 
Oliver Wyman, Inc. 

 

Oliver Wyman 

1166 Avenue of the Americas, 29th floor 

New York, NY 10036 

Tel: 1 (212) 541-8100 Fax: 1 (212) 541-8957 

www.oliverwyman.com