Pension Risk News & Analysis : Pension Governance, LLC : Pension Risk & Investment

As companies and government employers shed their traditional defined benefit ("DB") plan offerings, defined contribution schemes become absolutely and proportionally more important to individuals. In two new papers published by the National Bureau of Economic Research ("NEBR"), authors James Poterba, Steven Venti and David Wise conclude the following:

• Self-directed retirement assets will outflank DB plans by 2010, "even though defined benefit plans remain the most important source of retirement assets for federal, state, and local employees."
• The growth in self-directed retirement assets are influenced by a number of factors. These include (a) expected stock returns and bond yields (b) number of employees permitted to participate (not currently enrolled) and (c) asset allocation mix.

Citing data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation ("SIPP"), the research trio reveals that "only 5.8 percent of 44-yers old had 401(k)-type accounts" some 20 years ago. In 2003, that number had escalated to 44.3 percent. In 2000, per capita retirement assets for individuals about to exit the labor pool, and in their mid-60s, averaged nearly $30,000. A decade from now, available assets are projected to rise to $90,000 (in terms of year 2000 dollars). In 2040, the prediction is that nest eggs will topple $269,000.

Click here to order "Rise of 401(K) Plans, Lifetime Earnings, and Wealth at Retirement" (NBER Working Paper 13091) and "New Estimates of the Future Path of 401(K) Assets" (NBER Working Paper 13083).

Wall Street Journal reporter Jennifer Levitz offers a competing, albeit grim, reality. In "Americans Delay Retirement As Housing, Stocks Swoon," she writes that graying Americans favor longer work lives for a variety of reasons. Preservation of health benefits is one factor. Sagging equity returns in 2000-2002 didn't help, especially for those employees who had allocated a big chunk of their savings to stocks. Of course, no trend exists in isolation. A delay in retirement means younger workers will face more competition for promotions or even jobs though the impact is uneven across industries. Skilled workers are nearly always welcome, being indispensable for many knowledge-oriented businesses. Though written on April 1, her description of a brave new world is no April Fool's joke. Companies are fast being forced to reckon with changing demographics and altered employment patterns.

As a colleague aptly bemoans, the retirement trifecta (Social Security, juicy defined benefit plan payouts and hefty salaries, let alone a job) is a fantasy for most everyone still in the work force. For those who expect to live as well as your grandparents or parents, good luck. Start pinching those pennies hard and often.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Inside the hallowed halls of the U.S. Supreme Court, pension history may be in the making. On November 26, 2007, justices heard the case of LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates Inc. The long awaited outcome could put employers in the ERISA litigation spotlight as never before by allowing individuals to sue, one person at a time.

By way of background, Mr. James LaRue sought to have his employer switch his 401(k) monies from one mutual fund to another, in his attempt to migrate to "safer" investments. The plan administrator failed to make the change, allegedly costing LaRue an estimated $150,000 in lost profits. In August 1996, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Virginia denied LaRue an opportunity to seek redress, claiming that ERISA emphasizes harm to a plan in aggregate. The opinion reads:

<< In ERISA, Congress sought to provide fair and generous remedies for plan participants without imposing ruinous personal liability on plan fiduciaries. That balance pervades the statute, and it is not for us to readjust it. With respect, we think the Secretary’s view does recalibrate the balance, and we do not possess authority to modify plain statutory text, several Supreme Court decisions, and the corpus of circuit law on the subject. If the Department believes fiduciaries should face personal liability for every wrong alleged by individual beneficiaries, even in the absence of personal profit or misuse of plan assets, it will have to seek a forum other than this court. >>

This begs the question then as to how an individual plan participant can hold administrators and relevant parties accountable for mistakes. The import of this issue is huge. At a time when countless companies are terminating defined benefit plans and opting to offer 401(k) plans in their stead, anything that makes that strategy more expensive and/or troublesome could create pushback. If this occurs, employees are going to be under even more pressure to save for their retirement on their own. Add Social Security and Medicare woes, along with what some predict is an imminent recession, and Joe Everyman is likely to truly feel the pinch in a major way. On the other hand, employers fear an honest mistake that arguably opens the floodgates to costly litigation.

A read of the June 19, 2006 and August 8, 2006 LaRue opinions is instructive, as are the salient documents presented to the U.S. Supreme Court. Click here to download relevant files. Click here to read an informative overview provided by law professor Paul Secunda (who predicts a 6-3 victory for LaRue). One item in Secunda's text that struck me as notable is the line of inquiry by Chief Justice Roberts wherein he "points out that the SPD does not say administrators have to follow the investment directions of participants."  Reading these words catches one's breath. Is the honorable jurist suggesting that the Summary Plan Description ( a guiding document as regards the administration of the plan) preclude an asset allocation change? If so, how are employees to deal with market volatility or altered circumstances that mandate a different investment risk-return tradeoff? I await feedback from ERISA attorneys on this and other points.

Pay close attention when this opinion is rendered. It will make a difference! 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a special edition of employee plans news (October 2007), the Internal Revenue Service provides a link to its new web-based tool to help with 401(k) plan compliance. This 43-page document includes a chart that describes eleven "problem areas in retirement plans" as well as suggested ways to identify, correct and avoid such mistakes.

Click here to access the tool.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Disclosure is fast becoming the proverbial four letter word in pension fiduciary land. Critical questions abound.

• How much information do pension fiduciaries need in order to make an "informed" decision?
• Who should provide that information, how often and in what form?
• Is there a danger of having "too much" information?
• What does the law currently require?
• What information is currently available and to whom?
• Is there an industry consensus about what constitutes "good quality" information?
• What are the consequences of "incomplete" disclosure and are they equally unpleasant for plan participants, shareholders, taxpayers and plan sponsors?
• What current roadblocks stand in the way of "better" disclosure (once that term is defined)?

 The topic of disclosure and transparency is as broad as it is critical to good plan governance. We've written extensively about this topic as applied to investment risk and will continue to do so. Click here if you would like to receive copies of some of our many articles. After hours of work, our research librarians are completing an Ebook on the topic of pension information resources. Click here if you want to be notified of its publication.

With a copyright date of July 4, 2007 (symbolic perhaps?), independent fiduciary Matthew D. Hutcheson addresses the topic of 401(k) plan information in "Retirement Plan Disclosure: A Declaration of Ethical Principles and Legal Obligations." Not known for being shy about his point of view, Hutcheson makes a compelling case for additional, complete and user-friendly disclosure about fees and related compensation arrangements.

“The Department (Department of Labor) emphasizes that it expects a fiduciary, prior to entering into a performance based compensation arrangement, to fully understand the compensation formula and the risks associated with this manner of compensation, following disclosure by the investment manager of all relevant information pertaining to the proposed arrangement. [Advisory Opinion Letter 1989 WL 435076 (ERISA)]

Thus, for a fiduciary to know all relevant information ahead of time, service providers must disclose all relevant information prior to entering into an engagement. The failure to disclose all relevant information effectively forces fiduciaries to violate the law unknowingly. The SEC has taken action against various service providers of 401(k) plans because of hidden compensation arrangements which obscured relevant information to fiduciaries. "

Hutcheson provides solid legal and regulatory evidence in support of full disclosure of all types of fees and related non-fee agreements. In addition, he reminds readers that fees impact economic performance and are therefore integral to any kind of investment decision-making. Would we buy a car or get surgery without enough information to gauge potential risk and rewards? 

His message comes at an opportune moment to begin a national "no holds barred" conversation about fees, fiduciary duty and protection of plan participants.  Countless companies are switching from defined benefit plans to defined contribution structures. In loco parentis NOT.  While employers transfer more responsibility to employees, research suggests that individuals are saving much less than is minimally needed to secure a reasonable lifestyle in retirement. Add to that an uncertain outlook for the long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare (and international equivalents to the U.S. post-employment safety net) and policy-makers are starting to take notice. Not a day too soon for many folks. If you think a train is about to crash, why wait to seek preventative measures?

Hutcheson concludes that "industry and regulators must either: (a) Return to the model originally contemplated under ERISA, in which recognized fiduciaries would make all decisions regarding trust assets; or (b) Empower participants to make their own individual decisions with respect to the assets in their personal tax-deferred 401(k) accounts. If the chosen course is to return to the original intent of ERISA, then fiduciaries of 401(k) plans must be armed with all relevant information necessary to construct a low-cost prudent portfolio for the benefit of the participants. Alternatively, if the chosen course is to enable those holding tax-deferred investments to, in essence, serve as their own mini-fiduciaries, then they must be afforded the information necessary to construct the same sort of prudent, low cost personal portfolio."

Those who advocate individual responsibility, and therefore favor the idea of choice at the employee level, get push-back from some that Sally or Joe "Every Worker" is unlikely to delve deep with respect to investment issues. Yet people make decisions for themselves every day - choosing a doctor, buying a car, voting, changing jobs and so on. But, for argument's sake, let's agree that a "mini fiduciarization" of the workforce is impractical, infeasible or otherwise unappealing. What then?

If only plan sponsors are to decide on all things 401(k), should we not be seriously engaged in identifying what makes for a "top quality" fiduciary? Besides access to good and complete information about fees and other pecuniary arrangements, we've long advocated a requirement for "suitable" qualifications (education and experience) before someone makes multi-million decisions with other people's money. To be clear, the use of the term "require" here refers to that which is self-imposed by plan sponsors, perhaps with the help of various industry and fiduciary organizations. Mandatory requirements would be problemmatic and could exacerbate the situation. (Our firm, Pension Governance, LLC provides fiduciary training, process checks and research in the areas of investment risk and valuation. Part of a growing industry to help fiduciaries do a better job, we complement work done by our partners but always with the same message. Good process is everything!)

On the topic of information, the more voices the better as long as it gets us to an enlightened place. This means that "good" disclosure would be seen as a value-enhancing tool for all concerned parties, not another costly, "go nowhere" exercise.

To read the full text of Hutcheson's article, click here. You will be taken to the Social Science Research Network site. Pension Governance, LLC is a proud sponsor of four SSRN sections. Click here to learn more about our sponsorship of a pension risk management section (created just for us) and a research section about mutual funds and hedge funds. Click here to learn more about our sponsorship of a research section about employment law and litigation and a research section about corporate governance.

For further reading, click on the title of each item listed below:

"Who Wants to be a Fiduciary Anyhow?"

"Do You Know the True Cost of Your Retirement Plan?"

"Searching for Hidden Treasure"

"Do We Need an Easy Button for Fiduciaries?"

"401(k) Fee Analysis - Who Benefits?"

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In "A Conversation with a Fiduciary" (published by Morningstar), independent pension fiduciary Matthew D. Hutcheson provides a thought-provoking assessment of ERISA Section 404 and passive versus active investment choices for 401(k) plan participants. Click here to read the article and here to read Hutcheson's March 6,2007 testimony about 401(k) fees before the U.S. House of Representatives.

On the other side of the fence, Financial Times writer John Authers extolls the virtues of Dave Swenson's "uninstitutional portfolio" approach in his June 9, 2007 article about the Capital Asset Pricing Model and market efficiency. With more than two-thirds of the endowment fund for Yale University in alternative assets "which are not readily marketable," the contrast is telling. While the evidence seems to strongly support Swenson's approach for Yale, issues abound with respect to alternatives investments and command attention. "See "Yale puts academic theory of investment into practice.")

I co-led a workshop on the valuation of "hard to value" assets on June 12, 2007 and came away with a renewed appreciation of the fact that more than a few institutions may truly be in the dark with respect to risk factors. Worth mentioning again is that risk itself is not bad. However, risk that is ignored cannot be measured and, by extension, can certainly not be managed. For most investors, limited resources make it difficult to replicate the Connecticut Ivy's success. Addressing a recent gathering of alumni, Swenson said that "Yale is set up to make high-quality active management decisions" with a staff of twenty and a long time horizon.

The debate continues with respect to style because it is a crucial (nay impossible to ignore) element of investment management. Strategic asset allocation and tactical implementation are likewise integral determinants of fiduciary liability for a given organization. To the extent that Hutcheson reminds us to focus on the "F" word and move the conversation to process that supports duty, plan beneficiaries applaud.

Tell us what you think. Should fiduciaries do a better job of justifying when active strategies make sense? We will talk more about these issues because there is a lot to say.

Click here to email your comments. Please indicate if you would like the comments kept private.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today's post and the next few that follow focus on pension governance (the name of our new website and a term that is often used to describe fiduciary duties and best practices). For a discussion of what pension governance means, click here to read interviews with market leaders. It's such an important topic yet often overlooked. In fact, the U.S. Department of Labor created an educational program ("Getting It Right") in order to help individuals understand their duties. (The results of countless audits apparently left examiners nervous about the folks who did not properly self-identify as fiduciaries.)

"Hot off the press" is a set of standards devoted to the topic of pension governance. Newly published by the Stanford Law School, the so-called Clapman report urges pension funds, endowments and charitable funds to adopt principles that reflect prudence, ethics and transparency. Citing some big dollar "no-no's" on the part of institutional decision-makers, chief architect of the report, Peter Clapman,and others rightly point out that giant institutions must walk the walk if they admonish corporations to do the same. CEO of Governance for Owners USA and former chief investment counsel of TIAA-CREF, Clapman adds that “Bad governance also weakens funds by eroding public support for them." One element of the report calls for funds to provide clear (and make public) information about governance rules.

Yippee Yahoo!

A few of us sometimes feel as if we've been screaming in the wind about the urgent need to know who is in charge and how they are running the show. (I'm sure Clapman and others would agree.) To read how bad things are in terms of NOT being able to easily identify where the buck stops, check out "In Search of Hidden Treasure." More than a year ago, I wrote "that a systematic identification of who does what and why with respect to employee benefits is simply not a reality as things stand today. This makes it difficult (perhaps impossible) to effect change."

The Clapman Report suggests that funds hire "trustees who are competent in financial and accounting matters." Read "Practice What You Preach" for our list of basic questions about pension fiduciary selection, training and performance evaluation. Anecdotally, I've often queried trustees and  other types of fiduciaries - "How do you become and stay a fiduciary? Do you take a quiz? Do you possess a certain amount of relevant experience? Do you get paid what you're worth in terms of liability exposure and hours spent on plan-related tasks?"

Scary to say, selection is frequently a function of who is seen as having a few hours of free time. Unfortunately, being a plan fiduciary is arguably a full-time job. Moreover, with so many complex decisions to make, someone with a limited background in topics such as investing may truly struggle to understand basics, let alone nuances of evaluating risk-adjusted return expectations. Even when an external consultant is used, a fiduciary still retains oversight responsibilities (a topic deserving of its own separate post).

Another proffered recommendation from the Clapman Report is to "establish clear reporting authority between trustees and staff" and to "define appropriate responsibilities and delegation of duties among fund trustees, staff, and outside consultants." We couldn't agree more. Check out our earlier discussion about the importance of incentives in "Paper Clip Theory of Pension Governance."

One thing is clear. Pension governance is starting to attract attention. That's great news for the many fiduciaries already doing things the right way. (You deserve recognition.) For those who need to improve, perhaps the spotlight on practices, good and bad, will encourage change. That would be a huge plus for plan beneficiaries, taxpayers and shareholders.

Here are a few resources for interested readers.

1. Committee on Fund Governance: Best Practice Principles -"Clapman Report" (Stanford University)

2. Prudent Practices for Investment Stewards (Fiduciary 360, AICPA, Reish Luftman Reicher & Cohen)

3. Asset Manager Code of Professional Conduct (CFA institute)

4. Standards of Membership and Affiliation (The National Association of Personal Financial Advisors)

5. CFP Certification Standards (Financial Planning Standards Board)

6. Regular Member Code of Ethics (National Investor Relations Institute)

7. Code of Professional Responsibility (Society of Financial Service Professionals)

8. Also check the site for the Financial Planning Association. I understand that they are soon to release a new set of standards for financial advisors.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On June 4, 2007, Dr. Susan M. Mangiero, president of Pension Governance, LLC moderated a panel of experts who waxed poetic about current challenges for 401(k) plan stewards, their advisors and money managers. Click here to order the recording if you missed the event. (Past events are listed by original date with older events shown first.)

All three speakers agreed that more pressure on fiduciaries is inevitable. Mr. Blaine F. Aikin, AIF®, CFA, CFP® and Managing Partner (Fiduciary360) said that many people either do not understand their responsibilities or fail to recognize how to discharge duties properly. As the investment world becomes more complex, this gap between statutory requirements and reality is likely to grow.

Mr. David J. Bauer, Partner (Casey, Quirk & Associates LLC) explained how the asset management industry is changing to accommodate an undeniable trend away from traditional plans in favor of 401(k) offerings. He added that the asset management industry struggles with what products they can offer that will help plan sponsors manage their fiduciary risk. Everyone opined that both buyers and sellers are still too heavily focused on performance and should be more aware of risk-adjusted returns at a minimum.  It was also agreed that adopting new products and strategies could increase fiduciary liability exposure if approved without demonstrating a solid understanding of risk.

Mr. David Vriesenga, Chief Rating Officer, with the Centre for Fiduciary Excellence, LLC spoke about the wave of new pension litigation cases. He explained that asset managers will continue to be targeted as defendants. Susan M. Mangiero commented that a forthcoming website, www.pensionlitigationdata.com, has more than ninety (90) percent of its investment fiduciary cases cross-coded as alleged breach of duty. Scary stuff!

All speakers agreed that change is a constant. Challenges for plan sponsors and money managers abound. Part of that has to do with the heavy (literally and figuratively) nature of the Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006.

Note to Readers: Do you understand everything about the PPA? If not, you are far from alone.

From this blogger's perspective, the introduction of complex products could hurt more than help (given the current state of investment fiduciary literacy).

The audience was reminded that good process is everthing.

How true!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

On March 29, Reuters reported that  Judge David Herndon of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois had given the green light for a 401(k) fee case to proceed. One of about a dozen lawsuits brought by St. Louis firm Schlicter, Bogard & Denton, plaintiffs allege that plan consultants were paid an "unreasonable" amount for record-keeping services rendered in 2004.

Coincidentally, on that same date, I listened to a lively discussion about fees, revenue-sharing and the state of 401(k) fee litigation. Moderated by Nell Hennessy, Fiduciary Counselors Inc. and sponsored by the American Bar Association, other speakers - Lynn Sarko (Keller Rohrbach LLP), Chris J. Rillo (Groom Law Group) and Kristen L. Zarenko (Office of Regulations and Interpretations, EBSA, US Department of Labor) - parried back and forth about procedural prudence, proper fee-related disclosure and new enforcement initiatives in the form of the Consultant/Advisor Program (CAP). Click here to read the program description. 

Always important, the topic of fee economics is arguably more so now since countless organizations are switching from traditional plans to defined contribution plans.

2007 looks to be an active year in terms of court-watching!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

According to its May 12, 2006 press release, Fidelity Investments expands its offering to deliver "defined benefit plan sponsors increased investment flexibility and greater access to and control of plan data to help them identify and mitigate financial and fiduciary risks."

In today's Investment News, reporter Kathie O'Donnell writes that Fidelity Investments will replace its traditional pension plan for over 30,000 participants and instead offer them a "retiree health reimbursement plan and a beefed up profit-sharing plan." O'Donnell adds that Fidelity's in-house studies suggest the need to address the health care gap, the company match will increase to 7% from 5% and profit-sharing contributions will continue.

For some reason, today's headline stood out, causing me to wonder. Might it make sense to ask pension advisors, consultants and money managers what plan(s) they offer to their employees and why?

• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Jerry Kalish tells us to buckle up for a bumpy ride now that Congress is ready to explore the issue of 401(k) fees. Click here to read his informative post.

Reiterating the emphasis on process, as written in an earlier post about 401(k) fees, "lower" fees are not necessarily "better" if plan participants "pay" for them in terms of additional restrictions on their money. Analogous to the idea of buying a luxury sedan versus something less fancy, price should reflect a variety of features for which people are willing to pay a premium. Whether fees are "high" or "low" for a specific plan and particular investment choice depends on a host of factors and requires a rigorous assessment of relevant information.

Process is everything!

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Thanks to attorney Stephen Rosenberg for giving our 401(k) fee webinar a round of applause. In "401(k) Plan Fees and Breaches of Fiduciary Duty", Rosenberg writes "On the key issue of how to avoid incurring liability for breach of fiduciary duty as a result of the fees incurred by 401(k) plans and their impact on plan performance, the speakers emphasized a commitment to due diligence. In particular, the speakers favor a systemic and periodic review of the entire issue of the fees affecting the plan, and proper investigation and selection of funds and advisors with the issue of fees firmly in mind. In other words, don't put the plan together without thinking about the issues of fees and ensuring that the applicable fees are consistent with industry benchmarks, and even after you do that, don't just forget about the issue, but instead return to the topic regularly and make sure fees and performance remain appropriate."

Some other points are noteworthy, especially given questions that arose after the event.

1. A comprehensive fee analysis, done before manager selection and regularly thereafter, benefits multiple constituencies - plan sponsors, participants, shareholders, money managers and consultants.

2. While plan participants arguably have limited information, relative to what is available to plan sponsors, both groups should understand fee structures and the expected economic effect of different types of fees. Remember that all fees are not "created equal." For example, some fees may be front-ended or tied to performance and therefore differ as regards portfolio performance impact.

3. What looks like "higher" fees on the surface may not be necessarily "bad" (and this is a gross simplification). In part, it depends on what they represent. A plan participant could have more flexibility in one situation (i.e. fewer restrictions perhaps), thereby boosting base fees. It likewise depends on, apples-to-apples, how a particular fund's fee structure compares to an appropriate fee benchmark. Other issues might come into play. Bottom line - A thorough analysis is paramount.

4. Fees are influenced by many factors, including asset class, investment strategy, market structure, fund structure, performance, terms, regulation and competitiveness.

Regarding the process itself, the U.S. Department of Labor provides guidance in its online publication, "A Look At 401(k) Plan Fees."

Here are a few excerpts:

"Establish a prudent process for selecting investment alternatives and service providers

Ensure that fees paid to service providers and other expenses of the plan are reasonable in light of the level and quality of services provided

Select investment alternatives that are prudent and adequately diversified

Monitor investment alternatives and service providers once selected to see that they continue to be appropriate choices"

Other resources exist in the form of checklists such as those provided by the Foundation for Fiduciary Studies. Click here to access the "Self-Assessment of Fiduciary Excellence" for investment stewards, investment advisors and money managers, respectively.

More to come...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the aftermath of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, 401(k) plan sponsors are required to carefully select "fiduciary advisors", identify appropriate default investment choices for participants and comply with more rigorous federal reporting procedures. All of this could spell trouble for retirement plan fiduciaries who fail to realize that regulation, public awareness and employee angst put them in the spotlight as never before. This is especially apropos with respect to plan fees.

In a flurry of lawsuits involving nearly a dozen U.S. corporations, allegations of fiduciary breach regarding "excessive" compensation are making headlines. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Labor urges decision-makers to take care in assessing the reasonableness of fees and to uncover hidden costs.

Join us on November 28, 2006 from 11:00 a.m. to noon (EST) for an informative and timely webinar about 401(k) plan fees - what they are, how they can affect reported performance and the fiduciary practices that address investment management fees. Click here to register. There is a small charge to cover production expenses.

Featured Panel:

Edward M. Lynch, Jr.
Accredited Investment Fiduciary Analyst
SVP - Dietz & Lynch Financial Strategies Group of Wachovia Securities LLC

J. Richard Lynch
Accredited Investment Fiduciary Analyst
Executive Director - Foundation for Fiduciary Studies

Dr. Susan M. Mangiero
CFA, FRM, AVA and Accredited Investment Fiduciary Analyst
Managing Member - BVA, LLC and Founder - Pension Governance, LLC

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In "Workers' suit highlights secrecy over 401(k) fees" (Baltimore Sun, November 5, 2006), journalist Eileen Ambrose looks at the effect of nearly a dozen plan-related lawsuits filed against large U.S. companies. Her conclusion? "Regardless of the merits of the lawsuits, consumer advocates and benefits experts say that increased attention to fees is a good thing."

Unfortunately, getting good information about fees is not a walk in the park since no one document tells a complete story. "Workers with sharp eyes and a calculator can generally figure out what they pay by going through the prospectus and quarterly statement, but they will have little luck uncovering the soft-dollar arrangements that could affect their nest eggs." Then there is the fact that there are many kinds of fees, with disparate effects on economic performance.

Edward M. Lynch Jr., a benefits expert with Dietz & Lynch Financial Strategies Group, a retirement plan consulting firm in Massachusetts, offers that no standard exists. Some mutual funds may charge a small or no administrative fee, planning instead to earn management fees. Other arrangements such as revenue-sharing do not show up on Form 5500 and are not always disclosed to plan participants. According to Lynch, "Revenue sharing could be a good thing if it is fully disclosed and reduces costs for workers." Otherwise, "it can be a problem if it influences the decisions on which mutual funds end up in the 401(k)."

Ambrose points out that, absent lawsuits, reform is on its way with the U.S. Department of Labor recommending improved disclosure about fees and the relationship between plan decision-makers and service providers. (In case you missed my blog about Form 5500 revisions and information resources, click here.)

Regarding employees, I am quoted as saying the following. "Ask about fees that you pay, even indirectly, for administration and record keeping" as well as the employer's selection process. "How often does that process get vetted" and on what basis?

With so much attention being paid to the topic of 401(k) fees, this may be the beginning of the end for performance reporting as it exists today.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Chances are you've read about the flurry of cases recently filed against nearly a dozen 401(k) plan sponsors, alleging fiduciary breach by allowing plans to levy unreasonably high fees. Regardless of the legal outcome, the complaints are creating a buzz while encouraging plan sponsors everywhere to reassess their own situation.

In a recent client alert, law firm Dechert LLP wrote that "Under ERISA, an employer that provides a 401(k) plan to its employees is a "Plan Sponsor" and may also serve as "Plan Administrator." Both the Sponsor and Administrator are fiduciaries of the 401(k) plan. ERISA requires that that the Sponsor and Administrator ensure that fees borne by the plans be reasonable, and be incurred solely for the benefit of plan participants. In addition, 401(k) plans generally provide for participant-directed investment and are designed to comply with the rules under ERISA Section 404(c) which permit Plan Sponsors and Administrators to avail themselves, under certain circumstances, of a statutory safe harbor from fiduciary liability for the results of such investment elections. The safe harbor under ERISA Section 404(c) is available only where the fiduciaries allow the participants "the opportunity to obtain sufficient information to make informed decisions with regard to investment alternatives available under the plan."

More recently, Mr. Robert J. Grassi (Director, Pensions & Investments - Corning Inc.) and Attorney Michael J. Prame (Principal, The Groom Law Group) addressed this important issue as part of the Association for Financial Professionals Annual Conference - "401(k) Plan Fees: What You Need to Know and What You Need to Do." Citing concerns such as lack of fee transparency, hidden costs and potential conflicts of interest, Grassi and Prame provided audience members with a laundry list of types of direct and indirect compensation, respectively.

Both gentlemen talked about "the other shoe still to drop", adding that the U.S. Department of Labor is "formulating guidance that would essentially require plan fiduciaries, before contracting with a service provider, to consider the indirect compensation to be received by the service provider." They described a basis for imposing this obligation on fiduciaries in the form of the Frost/Aetna letters whereby "fiduciaries have a duty to obtain 'sufficient information' about the compensation that service providers receive from third-parties so that plan fiduciaries can make 'informed decisions' about whether the amounts that the plan pays are reasonable." Expected U.S. Department of Labor initiatives to amend 408(b)(2) regulations are likely to accelerate additional disclosure about plan fees.

Regulatory and policy-making scrutiny is on the rise. As we wrote in an earlier post, the U.S. Department of Labor wants to amend Form 5500, Schedule C, to include more stringent information about fee arrangements with service providers beyond what is currently required. U.S. Congressman George Miller has requested a report from the General Accounting Office about pension fees and the SEC reported on the relationship between pension consultants and fees in 2005.

Noteworthy is the sentiment that company decision-makers in the hot seat today will likely be followed by external plan fiduciaries next. According to attorney Stephen D. Rosenberg, author of the Boston ERISA & Insurance Litigation Blog, "Given the number of different advisors and other players involved in the operations of these types of retirement vehicles, there are bound to be plenty of fiduciaries - as that term is understood in the context of ERISA - involved in almost any 401(k) plan, making for plenty of targets for such suits."

One thing is certain. The spotlight will not dim on the fee issue any time soon.


Editor's Note:
The paper about fees by banker Ed Lynch, attorney Fred Reish and Dr. Susan M. Mangiero, Accredited Investment Fiduciary Analyst will be completed soon. We have created a list of recipients who requested our paper.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

A flurry of lawsuits and investigations about 401(k) plan fees is moving center stage. Wall Street Journal reporter Tom Lauricella writes that New York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer is close to concluding a settlement with a large insurance company "over allegations that it took undisclosed fees to promote certain funds in a retirement plan for New York State teachers." (See "Spitzer Aims At Another Mark: Fee Disclosure," Wall Street Journal, October 10, 2006.)

In "Suits Claim Excessive 401(k) Fees at 7 Firms", LA Times reporter Kathy M. Kristof describes allegations of excessive fees being borne by 401(k) plan participants at some of this country's largest businesses. Seeking class action status, the cases focus on whether "employees were charged millions of dollars in excessive management fees, which often were hidden in obscure agreements and not disclosed to the workers."

According to the U.S. Department of Labor website page entitled "Meeting Your Fiduciary Responsibilities", decision-makers are urged to analyze whether fees are "reasonable" when deciding on a money manager. In addition, fiduciaries should "compare all services to be provided with the total cost for each provider", "ask prospective providers for a detailed explanation of all fees associated with their investment options" and "specify how fees are paid."

New regulation is a factor too. ERISA attorney Fred Reish offers that the selection of a fiduciary advisor, pursuant to the Pension Protection Act of 2006, requires employers to "satisfy a fairly complex set of requirements that they did not need to satisfy in the past". One possible effect is that participants are harmed because of higher fees, "due to increased compliance burdens."

In the interest of full disclosure, I am writing an article with senior banker Ed Lynch and attorney Fred Reish about the rigorous process of comparing fees on an "apples-to-apples" basis. Send an email if you would like a copy of the paper when it is published.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Did you know that September 8, 2006 is 401(k) Day? "An annual celebration spotlighting the importance of employer-sponsored profit sharing and 401(k) plans," this holiday follows Labor Day "as retirement follows work."

You can try out several planning tools such as the 401(k) Day Retirement Checkup, a glossary and a 401(k) calculator.

Provided by the Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America (PSCA), a nonprofit association, these tools and many other resources can be retrieved and used throughout the year.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

CNN senior writer Jeanne Sahadi describes increased limits, automatic enrollment (encouraged but not mandated) and greater flexibility with respect to selling company stock held in a 401(k) plan as only a few of the many elements of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 that bode well for the future of what the IRS describes as "the most popular type of retirement plan used today." (The Act still requires the President's sign-off.)

By way of background, a "401(k)" plan takes its name from a section of the Internal Revenue Code. According to the 401(k) Resource Guide, created and made available by the IRS:

A 401(k) plan is a qualified (i.e., meets the standards set forth in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) for tax-favored status) profit-sharing, stock bonus, pre-ERISA money purchase pension, or a rural cooperative plan under which an employee can elect to have the employer contribute a portion of the employee's cash wages to the plan on a pre-tax basis. These deferred wages (elective deferrals) are not subject to federal income tax withholding at the time of deferral, and they are not reflected as taxable income on the employee's Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

Since this blog deals with pension risk, it is worth mentioning that defined contribution programs such as 401(k) plans are not a risk-free alternative for employers. See Myth #4 of this author's article entitled "Pension Risk Management: Necessary and Desirable".

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link