New DOL Rule A $40 Billion Bonus To Retirement Savers

Who says government is always the enemy? The Department of Labor is launching a new rule for financial advisers that will put money in your pocket: Some $40 billion over the next decade could be saved by individual investors. It’s one of the best financial life hacks in recent memory — a positive, disruptive game changer for investors.

While the rule is not perfect, it hopefully will prevent agents and brokers from selling you money-devouring products for your retirement plans. It’s a quantum leap ahead in ensuring that you can save more for a dignified retirement.

The DOL rule is simple: Retirement advisers of any stripe must work in your best financial interest and disclose any conflicts. The biggest benefit to retirement savers is that may create a speed bump for broker-advisers, who were selling overpriced junk products that do little more than earn commissions for the sellers.

In a practical way, this means that advisers are forbidden from putting you into commissioned products like variable annuities, mutual funds and other insurance products that may not be right for you.

You have the right to know 1) how much money they are making from the sale and 2) whether it’s a good fit for your financial plan or a conflict of interest.

Of course, you will still have access to any financial product, despite what the financial services industry says. You, will, however, have a right to sue an adviser who doesn’t act in your best interest. Think “best fit” advice over mere “suitability,” which was a catch-all that brokers used to sell anything they wanted.

This is a big step ahead for investors, who had to submit to industry-controlled arbitration forums if they wanted to take action against brokers and agents who wronged them. The consumer protection of investors under the new rule has just been dialed up 100 times.

Although loopholes in the rule may still permit sales of annuities and other retirement products that have been the subject of numerous investor disputes, the basic premise of the rule is pro-investor.

Advisers providing any advice to retirement plans or investors must be “fiduciaries.” This is a strict legal definition that puts your interests first. They must look out for you by recommending the best-possible — and most cost-effective — retirement vehicles and advice.

Here are the main points of the DOL rule:

— Force Most of the Retirement Advice Industry to Become Fiduciaries.

The rule closes “large loopholes in the definition of retirement investment advice,” the DOL states. “Under DOL’s definition, any individual receiving compensation for providing advice that is individualized or specifically directed to a particular plan sponsor (e.g., an employer with a retirement plan), plan participant, or IRA owner for consideration in making a retirement investment decision is a fiduciary.”

— Preserve access to retirement education.

“The Department’s proposal carefully carves out education from the definition of retirement investment advice so that advisers and plan sponsors can continue to provide general education on retirement saving across employment-based plans and IRAs without triggering fiduciary duties.”

Your employer can still provide retirement advice. But you also can go outside of the workplace to find qualified fiduciary advisers such as certified financial planners and registered investment advisers.

— Distinguish “order-taking” as a non-fiduciary activity.

This is an incredibly important move. An adviser who works on commission isn’t primarily selling you quality advice, they are selling you products that may not be right for you. If you just want them to take an order to buy, sell or trade a product, that’s different.

“When a customer calls a broker and tells the broker exactly what to buy or sell without asking for advice, that transaction does not constitute investment advice. In such circumstances, the broker has no fiduciary responsibility to the client.”

If you want customized financial advice, you can still approach a financial planner or money manager, but brokers will not be fiduciaries. The DOL makes it clear who is best to provide non-conflicted advice and who’s just selling a financial product.

— You Get More Protection in IRA Transactions.

There are some 10,000 Americans turning 65 every day and some $7 trillion in Individual Retirement Accounts. Millions are rolling over 401(k) balances into IRAs.

The financial services industry smelled the money in these transactions a long time ago and launched concerted campaigns to garner this cash. But individuals have often gotten the short end by being sold overpriced mutual funds and insurance products.

— More “Fee-Based” Accounts. Like any government rule, there are always ways around the best intentions of a law. Brokers who sell retirement advice will likely switch from a commission-based to “fee-based” model.

That means, instead of charging commissions on every product, they will try to get you to put your money in a managed fund or portfolio and charge you a flat 1% annually — plus underlying mutual fund fees — to manage your money. That still could be more than you should pay.

Keep in mind you can build your own portfolios with exchange-traded products that charge less than 0.25% annually. In fact, this rule could be a boon for ETF sellers.

But don’t confuse “fee-based” with “fee-only.” You may not get the service and planning you need with a fee-based account manager. Do they provide comprehensive financial planning that includes guidance on taxes, retirement, cash flow and estate plans? If not, you may be better off with a “fee-only financial planner” who has more in-depth training. You can find a local referral here.

— More Low-Cost “Robo” Portfolios. Don’t want to deal with the added expense of a hands-on money manager or planner? There are plenty of alternatives in the “robo-adviser” arena starting with low-cost fund providers like the Vanguard Group to higher-end robos like Personal Capital and Wealthfront.

With these services, you often have the option of talking to a human adviser, although most of them will set up portfolios tailored to your risk tolerance, age and other preferences. They are usually less expensive than hand-holding advisers. Service varies with the kind of arrangement you choose.

No matter which kind of adviser you choose, you still need to be vigilant to understand what you’re being sold and how much it will cost you. It’s unclear on how the DOL will enforce this rule or whether Congress will try to shoot it down next year. It will probably be subject to a series of lawsuits. Brokers and insurance agents despise this rule. And much depends upon the November election.

Yet one thing is clear: Advisers should always be working in your best interest. Now you have some legal backing to demand that they all be responsible and prudent professionals. This doesn’t mean that they will all be honest and upright. You’ll still need to do your homework.

 

Fiduciary Checklist for Retirement Plans

Are you a fiduciary?

Under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), a “Fiduciary” is any person or group of people who:

• Has the power to execute discretionary authority or control respecting management of a plan subject to ERISA or management or disposition of its assets
• Renders or has authority or responsibility to render investment advice for a fee (direct or indirect)
• Has discretionary authority or responsibility in the administration of a plan

Some positions, such as plan administrator or trustee, may require any person who holds them to perform defined fiduciary functions and thereby undertake fiduciary status.

It is important to note that delegating fiduciary duties to a third party is, in itself, a fiduciary function. A fiduciary is required to undertake due diligence by fully vetting any service providers, and once a provider (or providers) is selected, monitoring the provider.

What are the duties of an ERISA fiduciary?

The four standards of conduct are:

1. A duty of loyalty
• To discharge their duties for the “exclusive purpose” of providing participants and beneficiaries with benefits
• To inform participants and beneficiaries of their rights
• To give complete and accurate information in response to participants’ questions, a duty that does not require the fiduciary to disclose its internal deliberations nor interfere with the substantive aspects of the bargaining process
• However, a fiduciary is not under any obligation to offer precise predictions about future changes to its plan
• A truthful statement made in good faith creates no breach of duty if participants misunderstand it

2. A duty of prudence
• To act “with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims”
• To “discharge duties with respect to a plan solely in the interests of the participants and beneficiaries”

3. A duty to diversify investments
• Fiduciary should consider the purpose of the plan; the size of the investment; the economic and market conditions; the type of investment; the geographic dispersion of investments; the investment distribution among industries; and the dates of maturity

4. A duty to follow plan documents to the extent that they comply with ERISA

Plan Checklist
To help in auditing your plan and avoiding liability, ask these questions in regards to the plan:

Plan Administration
Do you have an IRS-approved plan document?
Do you have a Summary Plan Description (SPD) updated for all plan design changes and distributed to all employees?
Do you have a documented file on IRS changes to regulations affecting retirement plans and how they may affect your employees’ plan?
Have you made a definite list of all the fiduciaries associated with the plan?
Have all named fiduciaries received training?
Does the plan cover the right employees and does not exclude any employees who may be entitled to participate in the plan?
Do you review the process for collecting employee contributions and loan repayments, forwarding them to the service provider and investing them in a timely manner?
Do you have a detailed analysis on file showing how you selected your current plan provider(s) and a comparison of other products you looked at during the selection process?
Do you conduct an annual review of all provider(s) and document the review?
Do you review fees of all provider(s), both direct and indirect, to ensure complete understanding of all costs and services associated with those fees?
Have you checked that the fidelity bond provides an appropriate coverage amount and that it covers fiduciaries and other employees, third parties and provider(s) involved with the plan? ERISA requires a minimum of $1,000 – a best practices amount is 10% of plan assets up to $500.000.
Do you have a comprehensive annual report of vital plan statistics, such as: participation rates, investment dispersion among asset classes, loans, distributions and customer service inquiries,as well as investment performance?

Plan Investments
Do you have a documented investment selection process, showing how investment options were originally chosen to be included in your employees’ plan?
Do you have an Investment Policy Statement, documenting due diligence criteria for evaluating the funds in your employees’ plan on an on-going basis?
oes the plan maintain a diversified investment line-up consistent with your investment Policy Statement?
Do you have a quarterly/annual investment due diligence report on file, showing you are fulfilling your fiduciary responsibility to monitor investment performance?
If the plan includes an automatic enrollment feature, have you confirmed that the default investment option is selected in a prudent process consistent with ERISA standards?

Participant Communications
Do you have a documented employee education and information strategy on file?
Do you have a resource available to employees to help guide them through investment decisions and other pertinent issues surrounding their plan?
Do you have regularly scheduled employee meetings to update participants of changes to the plan and investment options, as well as educate them on fundamental investment strategies, such as asset allocation?

To learn more, visit the Department of Labor website at www.dol.gov/ebsa.

Laws of specific state or laws relevant to a particular situation or pensions in general may affect the applicability, accuracy, or completeness of this information. Federal and state laws and regulations are complex and are subject to change. Consult with an attorney or a tax or financial advisor regarding your specific legal, tax, estate planning, or financial situation.

All investments involve risk. This information is educational in nature, provided as general guidance on the subject covered, and is not intended to be authoritative or to provide legal, tax, estate planning or investment advice.

An investor should consider the fund’s investment objectives, risks, and charges and expenses carefully before investing or sending money. This and other important information about the RidgeWorth Funds can be found in the fund’s prospectus. To obtain a prospectus, please call 1-888-784-3863 or visit www.ridgeworth.com. Please read the prospectus carefully before investing.

©2011 RidgeWorth Investments. RidgeWorth Investments is the trade name for RidgeWorth Capital Management, Inc., an investment advisor registered with the SEC and the advisor to the RidgeWorth Funds. RidgeWorth Funds are distributed by RidgeWorth Distributors LLC, which is not affiliated with the advisor.

Inside a DOL Audit

Fred Barstein • 8/28/13

Among those advisors lucky enough to have been through a DOL audit, most wish that their clients had been better prepared, with all requested documents and materials gathered ahead of time. In the wake of the 408(b)(2) rules, the DOL’s Philadelphia region recently updated the list of documents that they typically request during an audit. (We posted about this last month, here.) The list is lengthy and although the DOL will typically work with the plan sponsor if additional time is needed to produce the documentation, it’s certainly better to have it ready, which is good practice anyway.

The DOL’s request list includes:
Plan documents and trust agreements with amendments
Summary Plan Description
Insurance, including fiduciary liability
Internal income statements and balance sheets
IRS determination letters
Applicable committee meeting minutes regarding:
• Plan activities
• Service provider selection
• Investment selection
RFPs and responses
Financial records
Service provider contracts
5500 Forms with audited financials
Extensive requests for documents regarding fees and costs (direct and indirect)
List of fiduciaries with dates of service
ERISA compliance documents
Board of Directors
Benefits received by the plan sponsor as a result of service provider selection

The IRS also released a chart detailing the examination process.

10 STEPS TOWARD STRONG PARTICIPANT EXPERIENCES

NAPA Net Staff • 3/7/16

A new report asserts that today’s consumers do not want “communication,” they want personal guidance. They want to do things when, where and how they prefer. They want things easy and convenient. And they want the whole experience to be enjoyable.

So, how are today’s retirement service providers dealing with these expectations? A new report by Broadridge, in association with Oculus Partners, notes that leading competitors are bringing strong capabilities onstream, building an infrastructure that supports sustainable, consistent and predictable participant experiences across their entire business base. Some of these are being built internally, and, according to the report, some are being built through strong external partnerships and outsourcing arrangements.

Here are 10 capabilities the report says are being used by leading providers across the industry to create strong participant experiences.

Encouragement and support for automatic programs. The report says that leading providers are completely overhauling the participant experience related to automatic enrollment, contribution escalation, QDIA investing, reenrollment, reinstatement and other types of automatic features. Eliminate steps and potential confusion, rethinking when and what information is provided, and what other decisions should accompany the “automatic” transaction.

Interactive calculators and tools to allow the participant to personalize the projections with more information. They are going beyond the calculators of old to ask participants true profiling questions and store that information for future use.

A multi-channel participant experience design with a balance of person-to-person and digital interactions. They are creating linked channels where a person is easily accessed via phone, social media, chat or scheduled appointment, and enabling digital interactions simultaneously with person-to-person.

Personalized retirement income projections for each participant. They are creating personal retirement income projections, taking into account all known information from the employer’s plans, the participant and other purchased information. Conducted by Greenwald and Associates. The data is exclusive to the experience of John Hancock’s mid/large market retirement plan clients.

A personalized “next best step” messaging approach to communications. They are using all known information, as well as predictive persona information, to offer personalized “next best step” guidance at every interaction.

Personalized and targeted campaigns (digital and print) supplemented with life stage and life event content and messaging. The report says that leading providers are using predictive analytics and trigger points to offer personalized in-the-moment messages that are appropriate for the participant’s situation at the time, as well as including next best step guidance.

Access to financial wellness and investment advice programs that go beyond third-party partnerships and offer truly integrated experiences across select partners by sharing data, offering integrated access, and presenting unified guidance and perspectives.

Dashboards and digitally delivered analytics for the plan sponsor. They are ensuring that sponsors understand how the plan is performing against these new participant experience metrics, providing data and analytics in easy to use formats with drill-down capabilities about the participant activities, engagement, enjoyment and outcomes.

“People like me” benchmarks and comparisons that create the capability to present peer group comparisons and benchmarks within plans or across plans to help participants know where they stand relative to peers in similar situations.

Tracking of participant engagement across channels by harnessing the power of data from their platforms to more accurately and completely measure channel usage at a participant level across channels and by type of interaction.

Top 15 Retirement Plan Questions That Every Plan Sponsor Should Ask

1. Do you have an investment policy statement; are you following it?

2. Have you designated an “Investment Committee” that meets on a regular basis? Does your committee receive the guidance of an un-biased qualified professional or “expert”?

3. Is the current investment advisor receiving compensation for managing your plan personally related to or associated with a plan fiduciary or investment committee decision maker that could be construed as a conflict of interest?

4. Are all plan fiduciaries aware they are fiduciaries and are they aware of the meaning. responsibilities and extent of their potential personal liability? Have all fiduciaries signed a fiduciary agreement?

5. Do you know all of your plan costs and how they are allocated between the company and participants, including 12b-1, revenue sharing and asset management fees?

6. Are participants in your plan supplied with updated and accurate plan information necessary to hepl them make informed investment decisions? Is your current provider and/or investment advisor proactive in this role?

7. Do the investment options in your plan continue to represent the asset classes for which they were originally chosen?

8. Do your investment options include “model portfolios” or “lifestyle” type fund choices?

9. Does your advisor work only at the plan level, or at both the plan and employee levels?

10. Is there a system in place for participants who retire or leave the company, to assist with rolling over plan assets to a new investment vehicle?

11. Are you aware of the opportunities that the Pension Protection Act offers to substantially improve your plan; I.E. auto enrollment, better default plan options that offer Safe Harbor protection etc…

12. Is your plan 404(c) compliant?

13. If you are 404(c) compliant, is your plan currently covered by the Fidelity Bond?

14. Are you aware of the schedule to deposit participants’ contributions in the plan and have you made sure it complies with the law?

15. If your plan allows for individually directed accounts, are you aware that your fiduciary burden and responsibility for individual participant’s investment choices can greatly increased? Have you taken appropriate measures, with the help of an investment professional, to insure you are providing a source of investment guidance to assist participants in making sound investment decisions?

Death of the Generalist Broker in Retirement Plans

By Thomas B. Bastin, JD, LLM, AIF, CEBS

Specialization is the future of the financial services industry. The day of the generalist broker is quickly coming to an end. Complex financial products and legislation have made it difficult if not impossible for one-stop shopping in which a single broker can meet all of a client’s personal and professional needs. No where will you find this more evident than in the ERISA plans such as 401k and 403(b).

In the past a stockbroker or insurance agent would develop an individual relationship with a company executive assisting them with a personal financial portfolio. The broker would then inquire as to what that executive’s company was doing with their qualified retirement plan. The executive would agree to allow the broker to make a pitch for the business. The broker would call Joe Recordkeeper, who took him to lunch the week before, and together they would show up with Joe selling the plan sponsor on why their product was best suited to meet participant needs. There would be no independent analysis of product, services or costs. The product decision by the broker would come down to whether the product was approved by his broker-dealer and which wholesaler with an approved product was there when he needed to sell the client. This was (and in most cases still is) your typical retirement plan sales process: A conflicted recordkeeper pushing their proprietary investments and a glorified appointment setting secretary masquerading as a knowledgeable advisor.

If a plan sponsor asked their broker how many qualified ERISA retirement plans they personally manage the answer would probably be shocking to them. In my non-scientific quiz of third party administrators the overwhelming majority of their plans come from brokers with three or less retirement plan sponsor customers. If you needed brain surgery what would your first question be? I can tell you what mine would be: “How many of these have you done before?” Given a choice I would never trust my future to a 30 year old surgeon anxious to gain experience practicing with my brain. Yet thousands upon thousands of companies across America trust complete amateurs with their employee’s life savings by hiring brokers who couldn’t tell you the difference between Section 404(c) and Section 3(38). If you really want to be shocked just ask your broker what the acronym ERISA stands for (as well as the year passed). By the way you may want to ask that question before plaintiff’s counsel does when cross examining your expert broker on the witness stand!

The most amazing aspect of this industry is how long these generalist brokers have been able to hang onto business. I am continuously shocked when speaking with prospects that they can neither describe the services provided nor the fee received by their current broker. This has been true of all size plans including those with tens of millions in assets.

How Are They Hanging Onto Business?

There is a group of very talented and knowledgeable professionals that have aided and abetted these generalist brokers. They are called third party administrators or TPA’s for short. These firms do have the requisite expertise to assist with all non-investment related matters. Many of them perform an excellent service for clients and bring value to the process. A lot will serve as the main contact for plan sponsors covering for the broker’s lack of knowledge. Unfortunately most of them can attribute their growth to working with the very generalist brokers that now jeopardize their business.

The question will become how long can TPA’s afford to stand behind the broker that brought them to the dance? How many good clients will they let walk out the door because the broker could not compete to retain the business? Expediting the TPA crisis is the fact they are being squeezed as well by recordkeepers that have bundled administrative services via technology. This has effectively commoditized TPA activities at much lower pricing. Eventually TPA’s will have to recognize their old business model is dead and their best bet is to adapt to the new market realities by partnering with true retirement plan professionals. Instead of being brought business by the amateurs they will have to consider bringing business to the professionals.

Congress Brings Nails for the Coffin

Luckily Congress is acting to make it virtually impossible for a broker or vendor to get paid for performing little to no service. Congress has proposed Section 408(b)(2) regulations that will require plan sponsors to have written contracts with all vendors detailing the services provided. New Form 5500 disclosures will work to notify plan sponsors on an annual basis exactly what they are paying to vendors. In addition, the 2006 Pension Protection Act created the Qualified Fiduciary Advisor (QFA) provisions that brokers and advisors must comply with in order to offer participant advice without increasing the plan sponsors fiduciary liability. This legislation should assist in removing the majority of generalist brokers from the industry. Your typical stock broker and insurance agent can basically do nothing of value for ERISA plans. Most are prohibited by their E&O carriers from serving as named ERISA fiduciaries and thus can perform no fiduciary act. This means they can neither advise the plan nor the participants on what to do. No advice equals zero value. Reducing services to writing forces a plan sponsor to evaluate whether the fee is reasonable. There is nothing worse than having a written document that can be used against you in a court of law. Honestly, I’m not quite sure what a reasonable fee would be.

In my discussions with plan sponsors I am finding at best the generalist brokers will print out a conflicted investment analysis (from the recordkeeper that pimped proprietary funds), makes copies for the investment committee, read it to members of the committee like they were fifth graders and then cheer the committee on while they make all of the decisions. No written advice, no recommendations in writing and basically no independent due diligence to protect the plan sponsor. Just hand holding and cheerleading! I have heard the Miami Dolphin Cheerleaders get $50 per game and a free lunch but that is probably a poor analogy as the cheerleaders actually have to do three hours of work to get paid. Although I must admit that $50 per meeting does seem far more reasonable than 50 basis points of participant assets! The real question is not whether we are looking at the death of the generalist broker but rather how long before plan sponsors wake up to reality?

Thomas B. Bastin, J.D., LL.M., AIF®, CEBS® is the President & General Counsel of ERISA Fiduciary Advisors, Inc., an independent Registered Investment Advisory Firm. As both a former practicing ERISA attorney and owner of a third party administration firm, he brings a unique background, knowledge & set of experiences to his clients. Mr. Bastin can be reached via email (tom@efadvisor.com) or telephone (866.606.4015). This article is protected by copyright laws © 2009.

How Much Difference Does an Advisor Make?

Financial Advisor MN
A new survey finds an impressive retirement preparations gap among those who use the services of a financial advisor.

In fact, according to a new survey by John Hancock Retirement Plan Services, those who work with a financial advisor double their retirement preparedness, and were more than twice as likely to be saving the maximum within a 401(k) plan (28% of those surveyed who have an advisor were saving the maximum allowed by law, versus 13% who do not).

The new data, part of John Hancock’s 2015 Financial Stress Survey, show that of the people surveyed, 70% of those who work with a financial advisor are on track or ahead in saving for retirement, versus 33% of those not working with an advisor.

Better ‘Behaved’?

Among those who have an advisor, more than a third had determined how much to save for retirement and half had contributed to an IRA; for those without an advisor, only 14% knew how much they’d need for retirement and a mere 16% had contributed to an IRA, according to the survey.

The survey also found that 58% of people with an advisor had saved for emergencies, compared with 26% of people who don’t have an advisor.

In 2013, the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) quantified the impact advisors (and online calculators) had on retirement readiness. Specifically, EBRI found that for those in the lowest relative income quartile, the increase in the modified Retirement Readiness Rating (RRR) value — that is, the betterment in their likelihood of having established an adequate retirement target — ranged from 9.1 to 12.6 percentage points. Among those in the highest relative income quartile, the increase in modified RRR values ranged from 6.3 to 11.0 percentage points.

John Hancock Retirement Plan Services’ annual Financial Stress Survey polled more than 2,000 retirement plan participants in the summer of 2015. The survey was commissioned by John Hancock and conducted by Greenwald and Associates. The data is exclusive to the experience of John Hancock’s mid/large market retirement plan clients.

Suitability or Fiduciary Standard? – It’s a Big Deal!

401k Investment

By Michael Chamberlain CFP® AIF®. Mr. Chamberlain is a Principal with the firm Chamberlain Fiduciary Consultants, an independent advisory firm committed to enhancing employees’ retirement income. For more information, visit their website at www.ChamberlainFC.com.

The majority of the public does not understand the two different rules under which financial advisors operate. Failing to be aware of this difference can have negative financial impacts.

More specifically, broker dealers, insurance salespersons or any other financial company representative operate under the “Suitability Standard,” which is:

  • Know your client and their financial situation.
  • Recommend products that are suitable for their situation.

Registered Investment Advisors (RIA) or an ERISA appointed Fiduciary must operate under the “Fiduciary Standard,” which is:

  • Put the client’s best interest first.
  • Act with prudence; that is, with the skill, diligence and good judgment of a professional.
  • Do not mislead clients; provide full and fair disclosure of all important facts.
  • Avoid conflicts of interest.
  • Fully disclose and fairly manage, in the client’s favor, unavoidable conflicts.

Fred Reish, a very well known ERISA attorney, summed up the differences this way: “With regard to the standard of care under current securities laws, a broker-dealer needs only to determine that an investment is suitable for the client. However, the fiduciary standard of care requires that the adviser take into account a number of considerations, such as whether the fees are reasonable, whether the investments are adequately diversified, whether there are conflicts of interest, whether the investments are consistent with the provisions of the trust or other governing document, and so on. Furthermore, the process that the adviser uses in developing the recommendation is measured by a prudent and reasonable hypothetical person who is knowledgeable about investments, about portfolio concepts and about the purpose of the investments.”

General example of this difference: An “advisor” determines that an S&P Index 500 fund is suitable for the client. The advisor’s firm has a proprietary fund that pays a 5% commission out of the sale amount with high ongoing annual fees. An identical fund from another company pays 2.5% commission. Or, the advisor could recommend that the client obtain the identical fund from Vanguard or Fidelity with no commissions at all and lower ongoing expenses. Under the suitability rule, the advisor can legitimately “sell” the high priced fund and the Suitability Standard has been satisfied. Under the Fiduciary Standard, the advisor would recommend the Vanguard or Fidelity because that is what is best for the client.

Specific 401k example of the difference: A firm wants the benefits of a 401k. They have seen an advertisement that John Hancock is a big player in this market and the name is well known. The Hancock plan salesperson comes out and recommends their plan. Here are some issues that are permitted under the Suitability Standard that can negatively impact the participants of the plan:

1. The advisor recommends a line up of funds out of the 622 that Hancock offers. The plan sponsor just wants a “good mix” and relies on the “advisor” for what he/she thinks would be good. Hancock, like others, offers up to 9 options of the same fund all with different level of fees. The advisor recommends a number of the Hancock funds that have fees on the higher end. Under the suitability rule, the advisor is under no duty to disclose this or to recommend the lowest cost options.

2. The Hancock Target Date Funds (TDF) are included in the lineup of options and the salesperson highly recommends this concept to the employees. Most of the participants pick the TDF’s. The advisor does not disclose that these funds have been around less than 3 years so there is little ability for participants to adequately judge the managers’ effectiveness. Nor did the advisor later disclose that Morningstar evaluated TDF’s and found that the Hancock funds are among the worst of all the mixed funds offered. Nor was it disclosed to the plan sponsor that Target Date Analytics, a firm dedicated to benchmarking TDF’s, rates the Hancock offerings an “F” in the area of fees, due to their high costs compared to others.

3. The advisor is not required to mention that the record keeping and TPA services could be obtained from a competitor for less cost. Nor would the advisor discuss the options of bundled, unbundled or alliance options for service providers. The advisor works for Hancock and that is where the loyalty lies.

On the other hand, a fiduciary works for the plan and its participants’ best interest. The fiduciary’s loyalty is to the plan and its participants not to any investment or insurance company. As a result, plan sponsors are more likely to meet their ERISA responsibilities. Two primary responsibilities are investments and fees. The fiduciary’s investment choices will be from a variety of companies and will seek to avoid unnecessary costs such as finder’s fees, commissions, 12(b)1 fees, agent transfer fees or revenue sharing. The fiduciary can also provide investment advice to the plan as far as model portfolios and or individual participant advice.

Reducing plan costs and increasing account performance can greatly increase the future retirement income from the 401k, which is the objective in the first place. A professional fiduciary can also assume some of the plan sponsor’s ERISA responsibilities, which decreases the plan sponsor liability.

With increased awareness of the fiduciary standard and the obvious benefits, this approach is becoming more popular. To try to maintain their profit margins and stem the movement to the use of fiduciaries, some financial services companies are trying to convince plan sponsors that they operate as a co-fiduciary or under the fiduciary rules.

Again, take Hancock for example. In 2005 they claimed to offer a “Fiduciary Warranty” but when sued in court, they changed their tone. “Hancock argue(d) that it is not an ERISA fiduciary because it does not exercise discretionary authority or control over the disposition of Plan assets.” They settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. It remains very apparent that these big companies operate under the suitability standard which continues to allow plan participants to be taken advantage of with high fees and questionable investment options.

It boils down to one question. “Do I want the highest standard of care regarding my investment advice or retirement plan?” If so, you want the Fiduciary Standard.

Since the Supreme Court ruling, LaRue vs. DeWolff, the answer to this question may be even more important. The court ruled that plan participants could sue the plan sponsors and others for fiduciary breaches. If breaches occurred and caused financial losses, those persons are PERSONALLY financially liable. When plan sponsors opt for the lower standard of protections of the suitability standard it could be argued it is a breach in itself since the plan sponsor had the option of a higher standard of safeguard, but failed to act in the best interest of the plan participants. Why would a plan sponsor gamble when the fiduciary standard is clearly the best option?

###

401khelpcenter.com is not affiliated with the author of this article nor responsible for its content. The opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of 401khelpcenter.com. The information in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is NOT intended as legal, tax or investment advice.

Why your 401(k) is probably a “clunker”

William Bernstein is one of the most respected financial minds of our time. His book, The Intelligent Asset Allocator, should be read by every investor. In an insightful commentary entitled What the Investment Industry Doesn’t Want You to Know, Bernstein observes that investors “can only positively impact one aspect of investment performance — your allocation of assets among broad asset classes.” Stock picking, mutual-fund picking and market timing are “irrelevant.”

Keep this advice in mind, since it is the primary reason why your 401(k) is probably a “clunker.” Here’s a checklist of others:

1. High costs: Low costs correlate directly to higher returns. The total cost of your plan should not exceed 1.50%. By “total cost,” I mean the expense ratio of mutual funds in the plan, record keeping, custody, administration fees and advisory fees.

2. No investment advice: Advisers to 401(k) plans are well compensated, yet most limit communications with plan participants to “education.” Your adviser should give investment advice. Most advisers won’t because of the potential liability. If the investment options in the plan were in the best interests of plan participants, they wouldn’t have this concern.

3. Revenue-sharing and hidden mark-ups: Brokers and insurance companies typically extract payments from mutual funds that want to be included as investment options. How objective can their advice be if they are receiving these payments? They also mark-up management fees charged by mutual funds. I reviewed a plan that included a Vanguard Target Retirement Fund, which Morningstar reported had an expense ratio of 0.18%. The plan was charged 0.93% for this fund. This difference comes out of your returns.

4. The plan adviser is not a “real” fiduciary: Brokers and insurance companies misuse the term “fiduciary” in describing their obligation to the plan and plan participants. The only real fiduciary is a 3(38) ERISA fiduciary. This kind of fiduciary accepts 100% of the liability for the selection and monitoring of investment options in the plan. I have never seen a 401(k) plan where a broker or insurance company agreed in writing to be a 3(38) ERISA fiduciary. Any other designation of “fiduciary” is meaningless.

5. Retail share classes are in the plan when institutional classes are available: I recently reviewed a plan that had thirteen mutual funds as investment options. All of them were retail shares. Every one of these funds had institutional shares available. What’s the difference between the two share classes? The retail shares have higher management fees. Otherwise, they are exactly the same. The only reason to include retail shares when less expensive institutional shares are available is to increase fees and lower returns. This practice is indefensible.

6. The money market fund has high fees: In many plans, the money market fund is the default where assets are placed if the plan participant does not make another choice. The management fees charged by money market funds can really impact your returns. If the money market fund in your plan has an expense ratio higher than 0.25%, it should not be in the plan.

7. The mutual funds in the plan have high fees: Brokers typically populate fund options with high-cost, actively managed funds (where the fund manager attempts to beat a given benchmark). The fees charged by these funds range from 1.5% to 2% (or more). A blend of comparable index funds has fees under 0.50%. The difference comes right out of your returns.

8. Mutual funds in the plan underperform their benchmark: Most actively managed mutual funds underperform their benchmark index. I looked at a plan where over 70% of the funds failed to equal their benchmark. Why are those funds in the plan when low-cost index funds will equal their benchmark 100% of the time (less low expenses)?

9. Funds drop in and out of the plan: A charade takes place at most companies with 401(k) plans. The investment committee meets periodically with brokers advising the plan to decide which funds will be dropped and which ones will take their place. This makes everyone feel they’re doing something useful, but it’s a useless activity. Past performance is not an indication of future performance. Poor-performing funds may or may not outperform in the future. Stellar-performing funds typically underperform in the following five years. It also ignores a key issue: If the broker really had the expertise to pick superior funds, why is this exercise necessary at all?

10. Many investment options: Many fund options confuse plan participants. Few participants know how to put together a risk-adjusted portfolio in an asset allocation suitable for them. Instead of offering a boatload of funds, your plan should have a limited number of pre-allocated, globally diversified portfolios of stock and bond index funds, ranging from conservative to high risk. Plan participants should fill out a simple asset-allocation questionnaire to determine their risk level. They should then select the portfolio suitable for them. If all 401(k) plans followed this practice, returns would increase significantly.

Contact me if you have any questions or would like a review of your 401(k).
Lake Minnetonka Financial
Scott Brown
952-466-6311
scott@lakeminnetonkafinancial.com

Ask A Question

Setting the record straight.

Ok, that’s it! I just read a totally biased negative report from some website regarding annuities and I want to set the record straight.

For the record, not all annuities are a good investment. Some insurance companies out there have inferior products. The design might be bad or the fees are high. It could be any number of things but that doesn’t mean all annuities are bad. They are not!! Used in the proper way annuities can be a wonderful addition to a persons portfolio.

As an investor and as an advisor I like what Fixed Indexed Annuities accomplish. There are other types of annuities. There’s Variable annuities, fixed annuities and immediate annuities. But for this article I want to stay with the Fixed Indexed Annuities.

As an advisor/producer I always have wanted an insurance product that would be designed for all to win. The client, the insurance company and the producer. I think the FIA does that. Not all of them mind you, again, there are some insurance companies that have inferior products but then a good producer has done his/her due diligence and research to find the ones that ARE good.

So, what are some of the big knocks against FIA’s?

1. There are interest rate cap’s (limits the maximum return)
2. Some insurance companies have a participation rate. Example; Insurance company has a 90% participation rate. Ok, the market returns 10% but the insurance company pays the client 90% of that or 9%.
3. FIA’s do not pay dividends.
4. Producer’s get a big commission paid to them.

How I look at these 4 points.

1. Yes there are caps. It’s how the insurance company stays solvent while giving clients decent returns. All win, remember.
2. Get one that uses 100%. I do.
3. Big deal. FIA’s don’t pay dividends. Mutual funds allow negative returns. What’s the bottom line here? It’s that the client doesn’t want to risk losing money but still wants an opportunity for some gain.
4. 4 to 8%. That commission does NOT come out of the clients investment. It’s part of the insurance companies distribution costs.

We have to remember what we as both clients and producers are trying to accomplish using FIA’s. Remove the possibility of negative returns with possibility of upside returns.

I’ll give you the example that the website I read used. They are talking about how FIA’s don’t pay dividends. “Most will also tie equity-index returns to those deriving from market price changes only, and exclude any return due to the payment of dividends. As an example, in 1998 the total return (i.e., capital gains and dividends) for the S&P 500 Index as reported by Ibbotson Associates was 28.6%, while that for just capital gains was 26.7% return which is the return the insurance company would have used.”

Now, let’s take that scenario and add the investor. Let’s say it’s a couple in their late 50’s or maybe early 60’s. They found out that there nest egg returned 26.7% in 1998. Think they’d be happy? Ok, let’s say they also knew that there friends earned 28.6% in a market based portfolio. Not as happy now? Maybe. Now move ahead to late 1999. What did the market do? It crashed. What did our couples FIA do? It didn’t crash! It stayed even! Think that made them happy.
So, our couple gave up some market potential for security. Is that a bad thing? I don’t think so.

Disclosure and suitability, they are key in providing FIA’s to potential clients.

Scott A. Brown is a financial advisor in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and has been practicing for over 26 years.