Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Data Modeling topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board presses consultants on data limits, employer exemptions and long-term fee modeling
Summary
Trustees requested better Nevada-specific modeling after staff and PEW acknowledged gaps in available data on employer exemptions, opt-outs and the implications of dollar- vs asset-based fees over time.
Board members probed staff and PEW about the data supporting assumptions on the number of participating employers and employees and the interplay of fixed dollar fees and asset-based fees over time.
Member Joseph Caldera asked how the assumed employer exemption number (about 4,200) was calculated; Deputy of Financial Literacy and Security Lesley Mohlenkamp said the figure is a basic starting point derived from other states’ exemption percentages and will be refined with Nevada-specific data. "We did a very basic analysis and basically said in the other states that are running independent programs, what has been their percentage?" Mohlenkamp said.
Andrew Blevins of PEW confirmed that 5500 filings can help inform estimates but are hard to disaggregate by employer size and plan status. "The 5500 data is useful in that it can provide a lens to inform some of these estimates... but it does exist and it is something that we can continue to look at," he said. The board asked PEW to model 10-year scenarios showing projected assets, participant counts and fee outcomes under different partner breakpoints and account-balance examples (for example, fees on $250, $1,000 and $5,000 balances). The modeling will inform comparisons among Colorado, Illinois and Connecticut partnership options and a potential Nevada-specific RFP.
