American Funds PlanPremier TPA

[Bird]

We've started using AF's PlanPremier TPA platform and I need a reality check - after using Nationwide, John Hancock, MFS, and AF Recordkeeper Direct with few problems, we've run into a lot of minor irritations and now, one preposterously stupid thing that has me shaking my head. I need to know if this is just a very powerful system (I guess it is FAScore behind the scenes) that gives us enough rope to hang ourselves, or if it really is not ready for prime time (or decrepit and over-the-hill).

The irritations are: after money is transferred in to a plan, it doesn't show up on the main screen showing total assets until some time later; maybe each month or so that gets updated, but in order to see transferred money you have to drill down to the participant level. That seems dumb. And, to look at a contribution roster that has been submitted, you can't just go to a list of rosters and view one; you have to go to extra trouble to run a report. And, to refresh your memory on how to do something, like run year-end report, there is no printed documentation, so you have to listen to a dumb audio training session for up to 20 minutes to get information that should take a minute to find.

The stupid thing is that if the plan uses a stable value fund instead of a money market, you are screwed in terms of handling forfeitures. There is no "cash" account; forfeitures must be held in one of the plan investments. So we had them go to the stable value fund because it was the most conservative of all the investments. Well, after carefully calculating and allocating the 2009 PS contribution plus forfeitures, we find that not only has there been a slight loss in the stable value fund in the two weeks since it went in, but we're only allowed to use 95% of the money in that fund since it is subject to fluctuation (ahem - "stable value"?!). So now we have to waste a lot of time either recalculating the contribution, or telling the employer to come up with more money (how much? who knows, it is now a moving target). We've certainly learned to insist that plans have a MM fund when using this system in the future, but it seems rather "unfortunate" (mild understatement) that a relatively innocent decision by a broker (it's worth noting that brokers can mess things up, even when they're not trying) can lead to this situation - it's only a few hundred bucks but I resent having to spend even an extra minute dealing with it, and it's going to turn into hours.

Sorry for the long-winded rant (yeah I feel a little better) - any thoughts on just how good this system is?

[Dougsbpc]

We have a client who has moved to this from the recordkeeper direct platform.

I agree. I laughed when I read your comment about wondering if this was not ready for prime time as I was thinking the exact same thing. For the first two months I gave them the benefit of the doubt and just chalked it up to maybe just not being accustom to the system.

When processing the first participant loan I ask their technical support person where their promissory note was. She responded by telling me that the promissory note is considered executed by the participant signing the check. No promissory note document? No. Then I thought, ok we are just way behind the curve somehow. They are driving the new Google driverless car and we are at the roadside next to our broken down 1970s model not even aware of what is possible. Then I received a copy of a promissory note from the plan sponsor that was produced by American Funds. At least receiving that was a relief. It was completely incorrect and did not follow how the American Funds data form was completed. We have run into a number of other problems. This is unfortunate because their Recordkeeper Direct is an excellent platform.

Has anyone had a different experience?

[Bird]

LOL, I did a double-take when I checked the date on my initial post. We have migrated a few more plans over there and are more-or-less learning how to manage the system, but it remains fraught with difficulties. The latest (actually it was a known problem for us a few years ago but I forgot) is that to upload a contribution file, you have to create a template (no big deal) but then they have to do...something...to review and approve it. And you have to finish the first one with them on the phone. Oh and the columns you see on the screen don't line up the same way as those in the template. It's like they have a slowness committee that everything passes through to make sure procedures are as slow and painful as possible.

[BG5150]

You get what you pay for. They aren't a low-cost provider for nothing.