Consultant tells Nevada trustees: independence gives control, partnership buys time and lower fees

Andrea Feirstein of AKF Consulting laid out the tradeoffs the Board must weigh when deciding between launching a Nevada-specific plan and joining an existing interstate partnership. Feirstein framed the decision around five factors — control, design, timing, fees and costs — and summarized that an independent plan gives the state greater control over investment design, while partnerships generally win on timing and fee scale.

Feirstein described recent partnership activity and said the Colorado-based partnership currently operating has drawn Maine and Delaware, with Vermont committed. She explained that partner states in that model use the same recordkeeping platform and that breakpoints tied to total assets/accounts typically lower per-participant fees as partnerships grow. On termination and account treatment after exit, Feirstein said those provisions are still being worked out by operational partnerships.

Board members pressed for detail about how quickly breakpoints were reached and whether Nevada-based asset managers could be used in an independent plan. Treasurer Zach Conine and Feirstein said fees and breakpoints are proposal-specific items the Board should include in an RFI/RFP and that market outreach would better define the realistic pricing the Board can expect. “Control and investment design is much more favorable if you launch your own plan,” Feirstein said, while the group agreed timing and fee advantages generally favor joining an existing program when the statutory timeline is short.

Trustees asked staff to include breakpoint, termination and recordkeeper questions in the RFI so the Board can compare concrete pricing and contract terms across options.