1

May 5, 2010

Dear Mesdames Borzi, Marks and Mr. Iwry,

In response to your request for information dated January 27, 2010 (RIN 1210‐AB33), noting

appreciation for comments supported by empirical data, we humbly submit the following research

findings and opinions. We are private‐sector researchers and consultants in the retirement and

investment management industry who applaud your mission to “promote retirement security for all

American workers,” and share your passion for this fascinating and important topic. As described on our

company website, we have a goal to “provide insight and actionable strategies to continuously improve

how firms and advisors help Americans of all ages to save and invest for retirement and other goals.”

We assist our clients, who include asset managers, insurance companies, providers of employer‐

sponsored retirement benefits, broker‐dealers and banks, some who serve the retail investor through

intermediaries and others who serve directly, with developing strategies and tactics for offering design,

distribution and marketing for retirement and investment products and services, drawing findings from

our proprietary research, which includes qualitative and quantitative consumer research, periodic

anonymous industry surveys, and assessments of publically available retirement and investment

offerings.

Our research is rooted in the conviction that better understanding of end‐customer needs drives all

innovation and differentiation, and as such, even as tracking and benchmarking various operational

metrics occupies a good deal of our time and is much appreciated by our clients, we often find ourselves

in a role of advocate for the consumer. The breadth of our client base and our position as independent

observer give us, as these characteristics do other consultants, a unique viewpoint to anticipate and

track trends from the perspective of a third‐party who does not have a vested interest in any particular

business model whose main purpose is to help firms clearly see evolving consumer needs.

Mr. Iwry will hopefully remember us, as we were delighted that he accepted our invitation to speak at

Financial Research Corporation’s Retirement Forum, a conference that we founded in 2005 and

designed annually through 2008. A joint biographical timeline is attached for your reference, as well as a

list of publications, including work that was published by other firms (and cited with permission) as well

as our work since we founded our own firms. Also attached is our 2010 research calendar and a list of

the quantitative retirement funding data points that we track.

Background

Before we answer a few of the specific questions, we would like to submit four points as more general

background that might be helpful as the Agencies consider “whether it would be appropriate for them

to take future steps to facilitate access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed

to provide a stream of income after retirement.”

1. The evolving nature of employment has so fundamentally changed the employer‐employee

relationship that the employer role in providing for retirement security is much less clear than it
2

may have been in the past, creating the current situation where most Americans do not consider

their employer responsible for their retirement.

A variety of factors, such as short tenure across many jobs versus one lifetime employer, dual‐income

families with both spouses accessing retirement plans, and intent to work part‐time in retirement, may

account for this research finding.  

In a September 2008 nationally representative survey of investors age 28 to 52, 72% of respondents   

disagreed with the following statement: “My employer is responsible for providing my retirement.”

More than half of these respondents strongly disagreed, while only 5% of these investors strongly

agreed with the aforementioned statement.  

Similarly, in an October 2008 survey of pre‐ and post‐retirees with at least $100k in investable assets,

69% disagreed with the same statement; in other words, only 31% of the older affluent‐skewed

population agreed that “my employer is responsible for providing for my retirement.” Only 10% of the

older respondents agreed strongly with the statement. These tended to be respondents for whom

defined benefit pensions represent more than 20% of their income.

We do not have an opinion as to whether this is a good or bad phenomenon, such as whether policy

should be designed to reinforce employer responsibility for providing for retirement, which might hurt

recovery from the current levels of unemployment; it just seems to be the reality given employment

trends. Consequently, investors want to have control of their resources during retirement, separate

from their many former employers, because the key question is: which employer would be the one who

is responsible? Typically investors have many retirement accounts and will need to develop a strategy

across them.

The implication is that is very hard to put onus on any one employer, and so using the IRA as a means to

deliver retirement benefits is key, meaning that optional portability of defined contribution benefits is

essential, even as defined contribution retains a unique tie to payroll deductions, which play an

obviously important role in saving.

2. The recent downturn has accelerated the trend that fewer workers find “retirement” desirable or

achievable; for many Americans, the definition of retirement means “when I’m unemployable”

not “when I can afford to indulge in years of healthy leisure.”

This attitudinal change has been prominent in our various quantitative surveys as well as our Q1 2010

nationwide focus groups.

Specifically, an October 2009 quantitative survey of investors of all ages that sought to quantify the

likelihood and drivers of interest in Roth conversion, conducted for a specific client and cited with

permission here, confirmed that many investors do not plan to “retire” in the traditional leisure sense.

Specifically, in response to the question, “which statement best describes your expectations for how

you, and if married/partnered, your spouse/partner, will live as senior citizens?” 20% chose “work full‐

time as long as health permits,” 21% chose “work part‐time in current or new occupation,” while 58%

chose “stop working/retire at a certain age.”
3

Notably, there was a prominent age trend in the data: 40% of those 52 or younger chose “work full‐time

as long as health permits” while 23% chose “work part‐time in current or new occupation.” In other

words, a majority of mid‐career investors do not plan to “retire” voluntarily. Notably, of over 90

variables that were tested for association with interest in Roth conversion, this attitude to “retirement”

was one of a handful that were highly significant; the finding was that, the less likely people were to

envision a leisure retirement, the more likely they were to be interested in Roth conversion, presumably

because they project that their incomes will be higher, due to the work earnings.

Investors, however, are realistic that this might not be possible. During the last week of January, we

conducted nine groups with about 55 investors ages 30 to early 60s, with at least $100k in investable

assets, in Saint Louis, San Francisco and Philadelphia. Investors themselves spoke, on many separate

occasions, of “when I am unemployable.” There would be primarily two triggers that could make them

“unemployable” – loss of ambition or energy, or getting laid off and being unable to find work. They also

discussed their ambivalence of tapping into their “nest eggs” once they have accumulated them, and

their struggle to understand how to prioritize saving for a possible, but uncertain, distant retirement

amid many competing and salient current consumption needs, especially providing for children.  

The implication is that different saving strategies are appropriate for “when I’m unemployable” versus a

“leisure retirement.” The urgency to save for “when I’m unemployable” is obviously much higher,

certainly requiring, but also inspiring, more commitment to save, even as this savings might be at a more

modest, achievable level than current targets for a leisure retirement. Saving for “when I’m

unemployable” likely calls for more insurance‐based products where risk can be pooled.  

Nevertheless, the distinction between being physically unable to work or having trouble gaining

employment, and the relief of working less or in different ways when health and energy may start to

wane, is a grey area, and very personal, and so it is important that those Americans who are able and or

want to make consumption sacrifices today necessary to fund a more generous vision of retirement be

able to do so. Our recommendation is that messaging and products make more distinction between the

reality of being unable to work and the possibility of not having to.

3. Income after full‐time work has ceased for the primary bread‐winner (our definition of

“retirement”) comes from many sources, so any steps should make it easier for “lifetime income”

decisions to be set in context.  

A major focus of our quantitative research since 2006 has been the sources and composition of income

during retirement for different customer segments. For example, in our 2008 quantitative survey of

pre/post‐retirees with at least $100k in investable assets, we found that “non‐pensioners”, that is,

retirees for who defined benefit income is $0, rely, on average, on Social Security for 25% of income and

personal assets for 46% of income. “Non‐pensioners” use personal assets to generate income in a

variety of ways: taking minimum required distributions, other withdrawals, interest, dividends, and, to a

lesser degree, annuitizing. Importantly, they generate 29% of income, again on average, from other

sources – such as work, real estate income, or gifts from family.
4

In contrast, the average “pensioner”, that is, a household for who defined benefit pension income

represents 20% or more, has a relatively simple income plan. They receive, on average, 54% of income

from this pension, and 20% from Social Security, and rely on personal assets for only 16%, while “other”

generates 9%.

In analyzing these figures by the various customer segments we research, such as investable assets,

income, other measures of affluence, health, presence of dependents, net equity in primary and

secondary real estate, and a variety of behavioral and attitudinal factors, we have become quite

concerned that pre‐retirees, especially less affluent ones who have perhaps not sought advice or been

able to access advice, have extremely unrealistic expectations of the income that their savings can

generate.

One obvious implication is that the need for lifetime income is higher for people with less money. It is

important that people approaching retirement age who have not saved anywhere near sufficient funds,

even by a modest standard of living, receive some kind of alert that they should seriously consider

saving more. There appears to be a distinct group of people who have some misconceptions about the

level of income that can be realistically generated from a sum of money that might seem quite big to

them. For example, we found that pre‐retirees with $100‐250k in investable assets expect, on average,

to generate $22,000 per year from their personal assets, in contrast to the $9,000 per years that retirees

of the same wealth level are currently generating. It is possible that the pre‐retirees are planning to add

to their savings before they retire, but it also seems plausible that they do not understand that 4‐5%, at

most, is a more likely scenario.

At the same time, any communication about income must recognize that people in retirement seem to

be pretty resourceful and use a variety of sources of generate income, and that, especially among the

more affluent, they have many different accounts that can deployed to sustain them. For example,

interest and dividends from taxable accounts are a major source of income for retirees with $1 million

or more in assets.

4. Income‐taking is a choice in retirement. People are having a lot of trouble making these choices,

as reflected in their assessments of the difficulty of various income tasks, as well as their imputed

drawdown rates

Our research shows that, for “non‐pensioners”, income is a choice in retirement, not unlike being self‐

employed and deciding how much to work or how much to charge and pay yourself, or being

independently wealthy. Since few workers have experienced either of these situations, it is not

surprising that making these choices upon retirement is bewildering. We observe high levels of difficulty

with a variety of income choices, such as determining a safe level of income to withdraw, or developing

a strategy to withdraw income from multiple accounts. It is unlikely that any broad‐based solutions can

help with the second task, which is highly personal, but we hope that some national consensus can

emerge on the first point.  

Our 2008 survey revealed imputed draw down rates (self‐reported income taken from personal assets

as numerator with assets as denominator) are very much dispersed. Specifically, the median draw down
5

rate was about 1.7% for “pensioners”, even with 2006, and about 4.1% for “non‐pensioners,” slightly up

from 2006. However, 30% of “non‐pensioners” were drawing more than 6.1% in 2008, while 30%, on the

other extreme, were drawing less than 1.9%. Wealth and spending are, obviously, the major factors. It is

our hope that this wide dispersion can be narrowed, with the majority of retirees spending down at a

sustainable rate for their life expectancy outlook, even as spending may be higher on discretionary items

earlier in retirement.

5. We remain concerned about the “financial decision‐making skills of plan participants”, which was

addressed in the 2007 ERISA Advisory Council's Working Group on Financial Literacy of Plan

Participants and the Role of the Employer, especially about financial decisions even more basic

than saving for retirement, such as simply spending less than income.

Our nationally representative survey on investors age 28 to 52 developed a behavioral segmentation for

this career‐stage group that we call Mid‐career Accumulators based on six basic behaviors, such as

spending less than income, having an emergency fund in case of job loss, keeping credit card debt to a

minimum, owning a home, having a retirement plan and contributing to it regularly, and making sure

property and life insurance needs are covered.  

The overall results were sobering. Specifically, only 39% of investors with less than $75,000 in income

said it was “true” that they “spend less than [they] make.” The figures were 51% of investors with

$75,000 to $150,000 in income, and 60% of investors with more than $150,000. When respondents who

said it was “somewhat true” are included, these figures do rise, but the overall picture from this

research points to some really basic financial behaviors that need to be established prior to, or at least

concurrent with, increasing retirement saving.

The implication is that employers and plan providers who want to provide broader, more basic, financial

advice, before questions on retirement saving and investment selection are addressed, should be

encouraged, and certainly given whatever clearance they need, to do so.

RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

We will now turn to providing brief answers on selected specific questions.  

Question No. 1: From the standpoint of plan participants, what are the advantages and disadvantages

for participants of receiving some or all of their benefits in the form of lifetime payments?

We see two main advantages...

• They like lifetime income; in a quantitative concept test of the “employer‐sponsored personal

pension” (essentially an annuity in defined contribution) which was part of the 2008 survey of

pre‐ and post‐retirees, 58% of respondents liked the product attribute of “receiving guaranteed

income for life.” This was the favorite of twelve attributes tested across three product concepts,

with 36% of respondents indicating that they “strongly liked” this attribute.  

• As noted, they have difficulty making income choices and annuitization, while a difficult choice

at the moment of decision, would make these income choicest easier going forward.
6

And two main disadvantages

• The majority dislike involvement of former employer. In the same concept test, fully 58% of

respondents did not like “the fact that my employer provides this benefit.” In an astounding

rejection of the involvement of the former employer, 38% “strongly disliked” this attribute.

• Such options currently offer limited portability, meaning that participants would essentially be  

with one provider whom their employer chose.

Question No. 8.What are the advantages and disadvantages for participants of selecting lifetime

income payments through a plan (in‐plan option) as opposed to outside a plan (e.g., after a

distribution or rollover)?

As noted above, participants are squeamish about the involvement of the former employer. We believe

that participants want the ability to chose the provider themselves, perhaps in conjunction with their

spouse, from among the many options available.  

To elaborate on this point, in a multi‐variable regression analysis of the drivers of a loyalty score we call

the “Hearts & Wallets score”, a 50‐50 composite of “intent to invest more” and “intent to recommend”,

based on the same 2008 nationally representative survey of investors age 28 to 52 referenced above,

we noted that the relationship having been opened through the employer –as opposed to having been

selected based on a personal referral – was negatively associated with loyalty.

Therefore, we believe that both in‐plan and rollover options should be available.  

Question No. 2. Currently the vast majority of individuals who have the option of receiving a lump

sum distribution or ad hoc periodic payments from their retirement plan or IRA choose to do so and

do not select a lifetime income option. What explains the low usage rate of lifetime income

arrangements? Is it the result of a market failure or other factors (e.g., cost, complexity of products,

adverse selection, poor decision‐making by consumers, desire for flexibility to respond to unexpected

financial needs, counterparty risk of seller insolvency, etc.)? Are there steps that the Agencies could or

should take to overcome at least some of the concerns that keep plan participants from requesting or

electing lifetime income?

Question No. 13. Should some form of lifetime income distribution option be required for defined

contribution plans (in addition to money purchase pension plans)? If so, should that option be the

default distribution option, and should it apply to the entire account balance? To what extent would

such a requirement encourage or discourage plan sponsorship?

Because of variety of means for generating income in retirement, as discussed above, some form of

lifetime income distribution should not be required.  

We have not studied whether such a requirement would discourage plan sponsorship, but it probably

would discourage participation. As noted above, participants already have trouble prioritizing

retirement saving versus current consumption, and are showing a preference for more accessible

account types, especially when providing for children is part of their financial responsibilities.
7

Our research shows all the factors mentioned in your question are playing a role. We believe decision

making should remain in the hands of the consumer, but that consumer guidelines endorsed by the

Agencies could go a long way in encouraging annuitization. Even though we don’t think annuitization

should required, we’d like to see it happen more often.

Question No. 12. How should participants determine what portion (if any) of their account balance to

annuitize? Should that portion be based on basic or necessary expenses in retirement?

We believe annuitization should be based on expenses in retirement, on top of expected income from

Social Security, and should not be based on account balance.

Question No. 24. Should an individual benefit statement include an income replacement ratio (e.g.,

the percentage of working income an individual would need to maintain his or her pre‐retirement

standard of living)? If so, what methodology should be used to establish such a ratio, such as pre‐

retirement and post‐retirement inflation assumptions, and what are the impediments for plans to

present the ratio in a meaningful way to participants on an individualized basis?

We believe including income replacement ratio on individual benefit statements should not be required,

but should not be prevented either. First, pre‐retirement income is not that relevant to post‐retirement

spending. Our research shows an average ratio of post‐retirement income to pre‐retirement income of

about 90%. We note that post‐retirement income is almost always equal to post‐retirement spending,

for all wealth segments except retirees with more than $2 million in investable assets, who appear to be

generating more income than they need to spend. But there is a lot of variation beneath this number, as

pre‐retirement income may be at a peak over a lifetime, workers may be earning a lot to try to save

more, or mortgage or children may still need to be provided for before retirement can occur. Many of

these expenses change upon retirement.

Second, since income comes from many sources in retirement, stating an “income replacement ratio”

based on one account could be confusing. However, we do not believe it should be prevented, as

estimating the income that is possible to generate from a certain amount of money states the resource

in a more useful way than account balance, and can help address our earlier hope that pre‐retirees who

do not have enough money saved can be motivated to save more. This is an especially important point

for younger investors, who, our research indicates, are very confused about the amount of income they

will need in retirement, and want a metric other than account balance.

In conclusion, we thank you for the opportunity to comment on these issues. As our business model is

selling research to the private sector, we must naturally be selective in what we submit for public

posting, however we would be honored to receive follow‐up questions, and to perhaps provide a

highlights video from our Q1 2010 focus groups exploring retirement, advice, fees and trust, or a few

quantitative data points on retirement funding or reactions to lifetime income concepts, for specific

customer segments if appropriate, if such information can be helpful in advancing this important

national priority.
8

Sincerely,

Laura Varas

President, Mast Hill Consulting, Inc., a Hearts & Wallets partner

Laura.varas@masthillconsulting.com

781‐741‐5200

Chris J. Brown

Principal, Sway Research LLC; a Hearts & Wallets partner

chris@swayresearch.com

603‐382‐5300
About

The goal of Hearts & WalletsTM is to help clients with inspiration to create more distinctive illuminating new and best ways to approach underserved customer segments We believe 

Goal illuminating new and best ways to approach underserved customer segments. We believe 

understanding of customer needs is the root of all innovation and competitive differenti

and positioning offerings, across any distribution channel. We are passionately curious atracking best practices in the effort to better meet customer needs.

About Hearts & WalletsTM is a partnership from Laura Varas of Mast Hill Consulting and Chris J. Br

Research Research, whose past collaborations through collaborations, through their work at Financial Financial Research Research Corporation Corporation 

ventures, led to improvements in investment products, support tools and communications 

groups as diverse as small business owners, Baby Boomers and retirees.

We study investor attitudes and needs, competitive landscape, best practices and benchmthree most basic arenas in which investment manufacturers and distributors can operate:

• Hli e p ng mature i t nves ors use th i l t t t i t l eir personal assets to generate income to replace or su

from work, SSI or pensions – Retirement Income Products & Services

• Helping young and middle‐age working people accumulate the assets they need for th

Career Accumulator Offerings

• Helping affluent people preserve their wealth and earn income from their assets – We

The focus for the first half of 2010 is to build on 2009 research to reveal the post‐crash inv

and behaviors of Mid‐Career Accumulators, including Late Career investors, especially: thGeneral Contracting (as written up in WSJ), behavioral analysis using Peak Accumulator beattitudes to retirement, building trust, timing and triggers for pre‐retirement consolidation

score and drivers

p g p p p 

2010 Focus

score and drivers.

The focus for the second half of 2010 is to build on six years of provocative research on Pre

especially industry competitive landscape (3rd edition) and investor needs, attitudes and b

Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use or reproduction is prohibited. 1
H t ear & W ll t a e s – Bi hi l Biographical Ti li me ne

1990s 2000 2004 2007 2008 20

Smith Barney

FoundedExpanded DCIO

Cogent ResearchDevelopedBrandscape Founded and directed FRC’s

Retirement practice

Financial Research Corporation, 1996‐2006

Financialconsultant

Chris lik

advisor for prod

market

Researchanalyst

Head ofanalyst group

ChrisB S i B i i i Fi Ui i f S h

Rejoin to form 

Publish “Captthe Hearts &

Wallets of Pe

Accumulators

practice

Chris & Laura collaborate

Author all FRC retirement

studies; launch Retirement

Conference

B.S. in Business, minor in Finance, University of Southern

New HampshireCoursework in Science of Finance, Northeastern

L

Colgate Citibank Fidelity Investments

FoundedFrom 2004‐2008, authored most FRC

retirement studies; additional work

distributed by FUSE Research Network,

sponsored by Dover/MMI, or custom

Engage divers

experienced 

analysts, bran

processing ex

Access to MH

income resea

LauraB.A. cum laude Economics, Yale University

MBA, Kellogg School at Northwestern, majors in

Mgmt, Mktg and Decision Sciences (statistics)

Fidelity InvestmentsProduct mgmt and devfor equity funds

Stock plan servicessponsor and participantmarketingRollover retention and

CitibankExpat in S. America

Branch expansionOnshore/offshoreinvestmentsM&A

Colgate‐

Palmolive

GreyAdvertising

MercerManagement

Consulting

p y / ,

Laura li

sizing, e

retiremstrateg

innovat

trends over t

Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use or reproduction is prohibited. 2

capture Consulting Strategy practice;

oil/gas in Asia; pharm

in Europe

innovat
2010 Research Calendar

Series Release Date MCA Track Pre/Post‐Retiree Track

PortraitTM of U.S.

Household Financial

Dec 2009 US HH IA and product statistics, ownership profiles

Segmented across 48 MECE groups based on age and wealth

Wealth U.S. retirement income market sizing update (Repeat buyer discount eligible, thanks to A. Fr

ExploreTM

Multi‐Sponsor Qual

March 2010

Q4 2010/

Q1 2011

Qualitative Insights into Mid‐ and Late‐Career

Accumulators: Investor attitudes, preferences, and

experiences—in‐depth and unplugged

New views on retirement; pricing/fee disclosure, advice

value proposition; trust‐building; transition from Late

Explore Series Q4 2010 (Q4 

Multi‐sponsor forum with ne

cross‐industry dialogue Creagroupings of Late Careers an

planning and product solutio

Career to Pre‐Retiree; behavioral and attitudinal segments.

Quantitative • MCA ‐ June

2010;• Pre/Post‐

Ret – H2’10

Capturing the Hearts & Wallets of Peak Accumulators –

New Opportunities with Under‐Served Generation X and

Younger Baby Boomer Investors: Update of a

groundbreaking 2009 study about the needs and financial

relationships of investors age 28‐mid 50s, including first

Pre/Post‐Retiree Needs, Attedition) – transition from La

updates to drawdown, incom

philosophies, reactions to re

relationships of investors age 28 mid 50s, including first planning and management o

quantification of Late Career

planning and management o

drivers of pre‐retirement co

CompetitiveLandscapeTM

• MCA ‐ April2010;• Pre/Post Ret– H2’10• DCIO –

Competing in the Next Great Financial Services

Battleground: Strategies and Tactics for Winning the Hearts& Wallets of Mid‐Career Accumulators

Competitive landscape for assets of mid‐career investors,

based on a survey of leading financial services firms

Retirement Income Competedition) – industry survey, a

best practices (H2 ’10)

• DCIO

H2’10

based on a survey of leading financial services firms,

profiles of share leaders and up‐and‐coming innovators

Advisorsunder development

TBD. Possible topics include:Practice segmentationPanel for calculating benchmarks; assessing best practices in acquiring MCAs and delivering 

Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use or reproduction is prohibited. 3
2006 

Market Sizing

Households aggregate assets by 48 age/wealth groups from SCF Flow of Funds proprietary data 9 

Retirement Income Data: 2006, 2008, 2010

Households, aggregate assets by 48 age/wealth groups – from SCF, Flow of Funds, proprietary data 9 DemographicAge, length of retirement, gender, education, race, region, other 9Work‐derived Behavioral Segments (i.e., Fully Employed Seniors, Role Reversals) Emotional & BehavioralFeelings about financial security in retirement 9Beliefs (i.e., Afraid of getting ripped off by financial professional) 9Income Philosophies (i.e., frugal, spend what like, calculate what I can afford) R ti t e rement S i av ng, S di pen ng & Income

Investable Assets – total, by account type, product ownership 9

Income – current, change vs. pre‐retirement level, sources by category, pension status 9Spending – total, monthly variations, spending by category 9 Debt, real estate holdings holdings Engagement with Industry

Concerns; Difficulty with key financial tasks: traditional and Income Choices 9

Reasons for seeking help 9Actions taken; Actions taken; actions planned actions planned 9 Sources of advice (i.e., broker, RIA, employer, phone rep, accountant, etc.) 9Retirement Income Solutions

Retirement Income Planning – incidence of, source for, components of 9

Reactions Reactions to Product to Product Concept Concept Test/attributes: Test/attributes: Employer Employer‐sponsored sponsored personal personal pension pension, income “overlay overlay”, drawdown drawdown funds Reactions to Product Concept Test/attributes: Income management account 9Reactions to Product Concept Test/attributes: TBD 

Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use or reproduction is prohibited. 4
Library/ p * Past Work prior to formation of H&W

Title Type Date Publisher Author (prim

Many people in the industry who are familiar with our past work, which was published by variou

understand that Hearts & Wallets is a continuation of our existing practices.

Chris 

IRA Rollover Trends: Distribution and Product Strategies for SuccessfulAsset Growth

InvestorQuant

Nov.2003

FRC 9

IODC Trends: Gathering Assets in the Investment‐Only Defined Competitive May FRC 9 g yContribution Market

p

Landscape

y

2004

9

The New Landscape of IRA Rollover Marketing: Products and Services

Targeted to Investor Affluence and Life Events

CompetitiveLandscape

Nov.2004

FRC 9

Retirement Income Products & Services: The Definitive Guide to

Development & Delivery

CompetitiveLandscape

May2005

FRC 9 

p y p

Optimizing IODC Distribution: New Tactics for Growing DC Market Share Competitive

Landscape

June2005

FRC 9

Keys to Success in the Small Business Retirement Plan Market:Opportunities in Design, Distribution and Marketing

Comp Land/

Advisor

Feb2006

FRC 9 

C i onverting R i et rement I i ncome into P i ract ce: F lfilli Fulfilling the N d ee s of I /Ad i A FRC

Current and Future Retirees

Inv/Advisor

Quant

Aug

2006

FRC 9 

Engaging PowerBoomers: Winning Investment Products and Retirement

Solutions

InvestorQuant

Jan2007

FRC 

Investor BrandScape: 2007 – Measuring the Impact of Brand and Loyalty

h ffl k l

Investor Feb. Cogent 9

on Revenue in the Affluent Marketplace Quant 2007

* Denotes MHC full rights to quote
Library/ p * Past Work prior to formation of H&W

Title Type Date Publisher Author (prim

Many people in the industry who are familiar with our past work, which was published by variou

understand that Hearts & Wallets is a continuation of our existing practices.

Chris 

Building & Positioning Retirement Income Solutions: Innovation from

2005 to 2007 and Beyond

CompetitiveLandscape

Sept2007

FRC 

State of the Financial Advisory Business: 2008 – Examining Trends in Advisor Nov. Reuters 9 y g

Business Growth and Investment Product Usage Quant 2007

9

Aligning an Organization for Platform Sales Success: A Holistic

Examination of Investment‐Only Distribution

CompetitiveLandscape

Jan.2008

Sway 9

IRA Rollover Dynamics: Market Sizing, Benchmarks & Best Practices Competitive

Landscape

July2008

FRC 

p

Best Practices in DCIO Sales and Marketing: Strategies for Building Brand

with DC Platforms and Intermediaries

Comp Land/

DCGatekeeper,Ret Advisor

Oct.2008

Sway

9

Consumer Insights on Retirement Income: The Keys to a Competitive Inv Quant Feb FUSE/ 

g y p

Advantage in Retirement Solutions

Q

2009

/

MHC

The State of DCIO Distribution 2010: Strategies for Increasing

Productivity and Profitability

Comp Land/DC Gatekpr

Oct2009

Sway 9

Benchmark Series: Product Management 2010 – Size, Organize &Optimize

CompetitiveLandscape

Dec2009

FUSE 

p p

* Denotes MHC full rights to quote