What the Heck Is a Third-Party Administrator (TPA)? And Why Should I Use One? Part II

June 12, 2025

When most people think about retirement plans and pensions, what comes to mind are the big-name players: government systems, large corporations, and the financial institutions that support them such as banks, brokers, and investment firms. These organizations tend to be the visible “faces” of retirement savings, managing assets, issuing account statements, and promoting their expertise through marketing and media. But behind the scenes, there’s another essential player who often goes unnoticed: the Third-Party Administrator, or TPA. 


In a previous post, we explored how TPAs have emerged to meet vital client needs that large investment firms often overlook, such as tailored plan design, compliance, and personalized service. If you missed that article, click here to read it before diving into today’s topics: The risks of relying solely on asset-driven providers, and why personalized plan administration still matters. 

Asset-Driven Plan Administration: Frequent Downsides 

Many large retirement plan providers offer “bundled” solutions, where investment management and plan administration are combined under one roof. Often, these solutions rely on an asset-based pricing model, meaning their profitability is tied primarily to the amount of money in the plan. Though this model may only advertise a low-cost participant fee, there are usually additional fees hidden in complex disclosures that quietly reduce participant savings as plan assets grow.  

 

The Importance of Personalized Service  

In addition to the hard dollar costs, there are also numerous “soft” costs associated with the asset-driven model. For starters, customer support is frequently outsourced to external call centers, staffed by agents with limited training or authority to solve problems, even simple ones. The result? Frustrating cycles of long wait times, repetitive explanations, and unresolved issues. 

 

Firms specializing in third-party administration, on the other hand, often take a different approach. Industry best practice dictates that when a plan participant or sponsor calls their TPA with a question, they speak directly with someone familiar with their specific plan — not with a “generalist” or a script reader in a distant call center. This kind of direct access reduces time spent tracking down information and enables concerns to be addressed much more quickly and accurately. That type of service shouldn’t be a bonus, it should be the baseline.  

 

The Rise of Robo-Advisors 

In addition, at larger institutions, customer service is often relegated to automated systems, where your issue may not even be addressed by a human. This might seem efficient on the surface, but when things go wrong - such as a misplaced trade or mishandled transaction - there’s often no one who can provide a solution. In contrast, TPAs have trained professionals, ideally credentialed with one or more industry-related designations, who understand the intricacies of retirement plans and the steps necessary to fix errors as soon as they arise.  

 

The Future of Retirement Plan Administration 

As we look ahead, the role of third-party administrators will continue to evolve. The shift towards automated systems and robo-advisors may be tempting for some companies, but the truth is that these systems can’t replace the human expertise that TPAs provide. When retirement plans are complex or errors arise, it takes knowledgeable professionals to provide the right answers. 

 

In the end, whether you’re an employer, a participant, or part of a plan’s advisory team, choosing the right retirement plan administrator can make all the difference. A TPA is there not just to process paperwork, but to provide the support and expertise necessary to ensure that your retirement plan remains compliant and works for everyone involved. When administration is handled thoughtfully and accurately, everyone — from plan sponsors to investment professionals — can stay focused on long-term outcomes instead of short-term fixes. 

 

In a future post, we’ll discuss the importance of designing a plan tailored to your business. 

October 23, 2025
Welcome back to our series, How to “Break” a Retirement Plan” In Part I , we examined structural mistakes—the foundational missteps in plan design, contribution handling, and payroll processes that can quietly set a plan on the wrong path. Part II focused on operational blind spots, showing how day-to-day execution errors, from auto-enrollment missteps to mishandling former employees’ accounts, can derail even a well-designed plan. Now, in Part III, we turn our attention to what happens when the IRS takes a closer look. When a retirement plan is audited, the IRS isn’t searching for obscure loopholes; it’s looking for a familiar set of recurring problems. These are the same types of errors that often start small but can grow into significant compliance issues. Understanding where auditors tend to focus can help plan sponsors stay ahead of “issues” before they become “findings”.
October 7, 2025
At Primark Benefits, we’re committed to helping employers and advisors navigate the complexities of retirement plans with clarity and confidence. This quarter, we’ve published a range of new articles designed to inform, debunk misconceptions, and highlight opportunities—especially those that can still make a difference for this year. Next quarter, we'll be continuing our new How to "Break" a Retirement Plan Series and discussing other timely and important topics.
October 7, 2025
Operational blind spots that often (or can) trip up plan sponsors Welcome back to our series, How to "Break" a Retirement Plan." In Part I , we explored the structural missteps that often set a plan on the wrong path from day one, such as choosing the wrong type of plan, mishandling contributions, and payroll errors. While getting the foundation right is critical, even the strongest plan can unravel if daily operations aren’t tightly managed. The rules are strict, and mistakes (no matter how seemingly small, or well-intentioned!) can trigger costly corrections or even regulatory scrutiny.
More Posts