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. 

June 4, 2026
For years, many California employers viewed CalSavers as something they would “deal with later.” As the state gradually rolled out mandatory retirement program deadlines based on employer size, it was easy for smaller businesses to push the issue down the road. Now, those deadlines have passed, the employee headcount threshold is now ONE— and enforcement is becoming very real.
May 12, 2026
In Part I of this series , we explored how differences in retirement plan service models can influence risks related to compliance, oversight, and fiduciary areas. In Part II, the focus shifts to a more concrete question: How do these differences ultimately affect the total cost of maintaining a retirement plan over time? While administrative fees are often the most visible expense, they represent only a portion of a plan’s true cost. The broader financial impact—what is often referred to as total cost of ownership—includes the downstream effects of operational efficiency, compliance accuracy, and the ability to fully utilize the plan’s design. 
May 7, 2026
Medical and dental practices often assume their retirement plan options are relatively straightforward and should be simple to administer. In reality, these businesses frequently present some of the most complex retirement plan challenges among small-to-mid-sized employers.
More Posts