This is the best time to be out prospecting in your market, encouraging companies that lack a retirement plan to adopt one.

Any type of plan they choose, down to payroll deduction personal IRAs, will soon be better than the alternative – a retirement plan version of Obamacare.

Don’t trust me on this. Rather, believe the Editorial Board of The New York Times, which on August 16 published an astounding editorial on the subject. Having become a federal government mouthpiece, The Times has an inside position to understand the real long-term strategy behind Secure Choice Retirement Plans, which may soon be coming to your state.

The long-term strategy behind California's Secure Choice Plan

The first Secure Choice plans are expected to launch in California in 2017, and the Times editorial was a full-throated endorsement of California’s proposed Secure Choice Plan. It was titled: From California, a Better Way to Retire.

The Times did not identify the alternative way, to which Secure Choice is superior. Is it Traditional IRA, a choice currently available to every working person (and their spouses) not covered by a workplace plan? A 401(k)? Or is it any workplace retirement plan offering variety of investment choices and your professional advice attached?

As The Times made clear, the answer eventually will be…all of the above. The California Secure Choice Retirement Program is just a foot in the door, and the concept gradually will expand into the ultimate goal. As The Times put it: “Ideally, retirement coverage, like health care coverage, would be a federal effort to ensure the broadest possible participation at the lowest possible cost.”

Even if most Americans don’t yet understand the agenda behind Secure Choice, The Times clearly does. It is to: 1) create a national alternative to the Social Security system, especially for younger people; 2) require participation (“the broadest possible”) by both employers and employees; 3) heavily promote automated investing and default investment choices, including U.S. Government securities; and 4) distribute retirement income through required lifetime annuitized payments.

The Times also signals who are the bad guys in this story by stating that the benefits of Secure Choice are “the lower fees and higher returns that come with pooled contributions and professional management.” In short, the bad guys are mutual funds and financial advisors who charge fees.

Given the variety of choices mutual funds offer and the depth of advice you provide, few plan participants choose to invest in U.S. Government securities or take lifetime annuitized payments. Therefore, in Times-think, these influences must be diminished.

"You must adopt a retirement plan soon"

After showing business owners in your market The Times editorial, what should you say?

Maybe something like this: “Every working person in the U.S. not covered by a workplace plan can contribute to a personal Traditional IRA with tax advantages. This can be done through payroll deduction, with many investment choices, financial education, and professional advice. For participants who want cost-efficiency, it can be done through very low-cost index funds with management fees of $10-20 per year per $10,000 invested. There is no way a retirement plan version of Obamacare can beat all this. But to make sure your participants get it, and you avoid the red tape of a government-mandated plan, you must adopt a retirement plan soon. I can show you the choices available.”

In short: Help business owners in your market “opt out” of a retirement plan version of Obamacare, while they still can.

Instant Insights /

A retirement plan prospecting tool from The New York Times

More From HR Executive

Related Stories

Recommended For You