19.11.2018 08.31 CST
A number of long-term market trends are creating significant pressure on bundled recordkeepers’ revenues. The recordkeepers are responding to these revenue pressures through a variety of ways that impose additional costs on plans and participants.
Fee Compression: Fiduciaries Take Note
Retirement plan recordkeepers are seeing ongoing pressure on fees. Their approach to developing alternative revenue sources could have implications for plan fiduciaries.
Revenue for “bundled” recordkeepers have been facing downward pressure for years--both on recordkeeping fees and asset management fees. Over the past decade recordkeeping fees have dropped 50 percent and investment fees paid by 401(k) plans have dropped by 38 percent over a similar period. These bundled recordkeepers are looking to fund managers, plans, and individual participants to compensate for this decline. The recordkeepers’ search for new revenue sources can create challenges for plan fiduciaries and sponsors and should be monitored closely.
05.06.2018 12.08 CDT
There is significant evidence that consumers are placing their trust - and their money - with financial professionals who have financial incentives that conflict with consumers’ best interests. It does not appear that the current debates over professionals’ standards of conduct will make real progress in addressing this issue.
Dancing on the Head of a Pin
Regulators and courts may focus on the different rules for “investment advisers” and “brokers.” But, in the real world, this distinction confuses investors and undermines consumer protections.
There are key legal differences between investment advisers and brokers. However, consumers do not understand the implications of these differences. Consumers’ confusion is exacerbated by industry advertising, with references to “financial advisers,” “wealth managers” and “financial consultants” further blurring the difference between investment advisers and brokers.
18.05.2018 09.49 CDT
Financial firms have both the opportunity and the financial motivation to move customers from employer-sponsored plans to individual products, such as retail managed accounts and annuities. An investigation of Wells Fargo bank may disclose whether the bank succumbed to the temptation.
Wells Fargo bank is reportedly under investigation for practices in the bank’s retirement plan division. The investigation apparently focuses on practices that may have been intended to move clients from employer-sponsored plans into more expensive individual retirement accounts when they leave their jobs. If these reports are accurate it may help shine a light on industry practices that contribute to plan “leakage.”
08.05.2018 07.03 CDT
The latest court decision invalidating the DOL’s proposed rewrite of the fiduciary rules adds more uncertainty for plan fiduciaries. How do fiduciaries get past the “noise” of conflicting courts and regulators and go about the business of protect plan interests?
Nature Abhors a Vacuum – and So Should Fiduciaries
Conflicting court opinions, dueling regulators and uncertain direction from the executive branch are making it harder for plan fiduciaries to do their jobs.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision to invalidate the DOL’s new fiduciary rule is the latest in a string of confusing (and often conflicting) messages to plan fiduciaries. However, fiduciary duties under ERISA are grounded in some core principles that have not changed. The legal confusion surrounding certain fiduciary issues cannot obstruct fiduciaries’ execution of those duties.
19.03.2018 04.01 CDT
A new court decision could give the Administration an opportunity to completely withdraw the regulations expanding ERISA’s definition of fiduciary and limit the ability to expand the scope of ERISA’s fiduciary protections in the future.
Court of Appeals Strikes Down Fiduciary Rule
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued an opinion striking down the DOL’s new fiduciary rule. The decision will add more (unwelcome) uncertainty.
On March 15 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down the DOL’s new fiduciary rule. The decision, in very sweeping terms, concluded that the DOL did not have the regulatory authority to expand the previous definition of “fiduciary” contained in 1975 regulations. The breadth of the Court’s ruling, if upheld, makes it virtually impossible for the DOL to somehow modify the fiduciary proposal or to issue new fiduciary rules.