Over the last year or so, we’ve been keeping tabs on the rules surrounding fee disclosure in all of its forms current and newly proposed. Specifically, the new proposals are the final 408(b)(2) disclosures and the Participant fee disclosure rules under ERISA §404(a)(5). The 408(b)(2) rules have been delayed twice and are currently due to come into effect on January 1st, 2012. In a filing just published at the Federal Register, the U.S. Department of Labor has officially proposed the previously discussed extension for those 408(b)(2) regulations. The Federal Register filing formally effectuates that intent.
The new announcement in this filing is that the DOL stated it would propose an amendment to the participant level fee disclosure regulation which would provide a 120-day transition period (instead of 60 days) to provide the initial participant disclosures. However, it does not appear there will be any extension provided for quarterly expense disclosures. According to the DOL release , a calendar year plan would have to furnish the initial participant disclosures no later than April 30, 2012. The quarterly expense disclosures required by paragraphs (c)(2)(ii) and (c)(3)(ii) of the regulation (e.g., quarterly statement of fees/expenses actually deducted) would have to be furnished no later than May 15, 2012.
In essence, this gives the service providers an extra quarter to get into compliance. Not a big deal, but worth noting as in previous posts we referenced Q4, 2011 and now it will be Q1, 2012.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Strong Words from EBSA Regarding 408(b)(2) Compliance
Fil Williams of the DOL's EBSA recently stated at the Mid-Atlantic Benefit Conference on May 5, 2011: “…for those employers to whom the new Section 408(b)(2) rules do apply, responsible plan fiduciaries ultimately will be obligated to terminate contracts or arrangements with service providers that do not comply.”
Even though the DOL has aready postponed the final 408(b)(2) regulations once, they are scheduled to become effective January 1, 2012. This along with the new participant disclosure regulation (effective in November 2011) will make for a busy Thanksgiving, end of year, for retirement plan services providers.
An associate of ours at Unified Trust, Pete Swisher, recently published a column in the ASPPA Summit Newsletter addressing the regulations and six ways to prepare your practice by November. It is available by clicking here.
Even though the DOL has aready postponed the final 408(b)(2) regulations once, they are scheduled to become effective January 1, 2012. This along with the new participant disclosure regulation (effective in November 2011) will make for a busy Thanksgiving, end of year, for retirement plan services providers.
An associate of ours at Unified Trust, Pete Swisher, recently published a column in the ASPPA Summit Newsletter addressing the regulations and six ways to prepare your practice by November. It is available by clicking here.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
ERISA Trumps everything…..
In the latest edition of Investment News Weekly, they published an article called ‘401(k) rights trumped by ERISA', linked here http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20110515/REG/305159996.
This was an unusual article to see published in a general information publication like Investment News, unusual in that it deals with a highly specific legal ruling dealing with Participant, Spousal and Named Beneficiary rights in a death situation.
The gist of the article is that the participant named his three children as beneficiaries to his 401(k) Plan in the event of his death. He did so properly using a beneficiary form and did so after the passing of his first wife, so spousal consent was unnecessary at the time the form was completed. Flash forward some time later and he remarries, doesn’t update the form, and six weeks later passes away. The new wife (now a widow) is now in a legal battle as to who has rights to the 401(k) assets. The children say they do as they were named on the form, the spouse says she does because she never waived her rights to the assets. The court sided with the spouse and based on the facts/circumstances listed in the article seems to be the appropriate decision.
The important takeaway here is that ERISA (which is our rule book) trumps everything! It may have been the deceased participant’s wishes to award the assets to his children, but it doesn’t matter. The rules state that a spousal waiver must occur otherwise the wishes of the participant are irrelevant. It doesn’t stipulate in this rule as to whether or not the participant was, in fact, married when he/she filled out the form!
Often I’m asked by financial advisors where/how they can add value and earn their fee. This question is often posed in the context that my firm acts as a Discretionary Trustee and we make 100% of the Investment Decisions for plans which is often an area that financial advisors provide service.
This is a great example of how an advisor can add value to a plan. It isn't sexy, but it is very effective. If the advisor stays front and center with the participants of the plans that they are serving and understands the rules of the game, than they can ensure current and complete forms, that intentions are being followed and situations like the one above, however uncommon, don’t occur. This article can be a great sample of a scenario that can be presented to Plan Sponsors as to where/how advisors value is earned and there are a million other small ways like this that are part of the service.
By the way, aiding in this manner is not a fiduciary act, so for those Registered Reps out there who aren’t permitted to act as fiduciaries, there is still a way to build a value proposition and not provide fiduciary services directly yourselves.
This was an unusual article to see published in a general information publication like Investment News, unusual in that it deals with a highly specific legal ruling dealing with Participant, Spousal and Named Beneficiary rights in a death situation.
The gist of the article is that the participant named his three children as beneficiaries to his 401(k) Plan in the event of his death. He did so properly using a beneficiary form and did so after the passing of his first wife, so spousal consent was unnecessary at the time the form was completed. Flash forward some time later and he remarries, doesn’t update the form, and six weeks later passes away. The new wife (now a widow) is now in a legal battle as to who has rights to the 401(k) assets. The children say they do as they were named on the form, the spouse says she does because she never waived her rights to the assets. The court sided with the spouse and based on the facts/circumstances listed in the article seems to be the appropriate decision.
The important takeaway here is that ERISA (which is our rule book) trumps everything! It may have been the deceased participant’s wishes to award the assets to his children, but it doesn’t matter. The rules state that a spousal waiver must occur otherwise the wishes of the participant are irrelevant. It doesn’t stipulate in this rule as to whether or not the participant was, in fact, married when he/she filled out the form!
Often I’m asked by financial advisors where/how they can add value and earn their fee. This question is often posed in the context that my firm acts as a Discretionary Trustee and we make 100% of the Investment Decisions for plans which is often an area that financial advisors provide service.
This is a great example of how an advisor can add value to a plan. It isn't sexy, but it is very effective. If the advisor stays front and center with the participants of the plans that they are serving and understands the rules of the game, than they can ensure current and complete forms, that intentions are being followed and situations like the one above, however uncommon, don’t occur. This article can be a great sample of a scenario that can be presented to Plan Sponsors as to where/how advisors value is earned and there are a million other small ways like this that are part of the service.
By the way, aiding in this manner is not a fiduciary act, so for those Registered Reps out there who aren’t permitted to act as fiduciaries, there is still a way to build a value proposition and not provide fiduciary services directly yourselves.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Coming Soon.....Participant Fee Disclosure!!!! Get your helmets on....
What exactly is it that get’s Retirement Plan Professionals, advisors and service providers alike, so worried about when it comes to Fee Disclosure? That’s a bit rhetorical, as I suspect the answer is mostly obvious for those who read this blog. In the last year or two, the anxiety level regarding fee disclosure has been quite apparent. As a clarifying point for those who are unaware, there are TWO sets of fee disclosure rules. The implementation date of one of these, commonly referred to as the 408(b)(2) fee disclosure rules, has been postponed to 01/01/12 (at the time of this writing), and perhaps will be again. The other set of rules are the new rules under ERISA §404(a)(5), commonly referred to as ‘Participant Disclosure’. These rules are going to be effective for the 4th Qtr. of 2011, right around the corner. Surprisingly and confusing to me, even though these are the more difficult set of rules, these seem to be the one’s that fewer practitioners are worried about.
The 408(b)(2) rules are getting a lot more industry attention, perhaps this is due to how much the industry has historically done to disguise fees, that it is going to be incredibly difficult to accurately show clients how to follow the money trail. Perhaps it is because this is the rule that makes Broker/Dealers and Insurance Company’s a little squirmy due to that little requirement where the service providers have to declare if their acting as a fiduciary or not. Whatever the reason is, the practical reality is that some difficult discussions (and maybe decisions) will happen between service providers and clients. But this is a difficult business, and I believe that ultimately most of the good practitioners will get through it with most of their client relationships intact.
However, participant disclosure……that’s a whole other scenario, and it’s happening first!!!! This article, by David McCann from CFO Magazine does a good job of thousand footing the situation.
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/14570384/c_14570395
I, and most practitioners I know believe that the majority of participants have no idea what the retirement plan costs are and many think that they are getting a free benefit, that they pay nothing for their 401(k). This is a systemic issue. Most 401(k) mouse traps in the market, historically, have been designed to disguise fees from the participants. The group annuities (and Collective Funds) unitize the investments and thus are embedding fees into the unit prices. Many mutual fund platforms are often registered rep distributed, and their compensation is in the expense ratio, but also built into share prices, not to mention implicit revenue sharing arrangements. Even environments where the fees are deducted as line item expenses from participant accounts will often not be explicitly disclosed. For the participant to discover these charges, they will have to search for these deductions online in the form of a customized transaction report.
As a result, the new participant disclosure rules will 100% create a HUGE amount of phone calls, complaints to everyone and anyone associated with creating and managing their plan. Frankly, I think, it will cause a large quantity of plans, big and small, to search out new providers. For proactive practitioners, this is absolutely an opportunity. Advisors who aren’t in front of this are going to have to back pedal as the business owners and CFOs start getting questioned by staff. As Mr. McCann says in his article……..consider yourself warned!
The 408(b)(2) rules are getting a lot more industry attention, perhaps this is due to how much the industry has historically done to disguise fees, that it is going to be incredibly difficult to accurately show clients how to follow the money trail. Perhaps it is because this is the rule that makes Broker/Dealers and Insurance Company’s a little squirmy due to that little requirement where the service providers have to declare if their acting as a fiduciary or not. Whatever the reason is, the practical reality is that some difficult discussions (and maybe decisions) will happen between service providers and clients. But this is a difficult business, and I believe that ultimately most of the good practitioners will get through it with most of their client relationships intact.
However, participant disclosure……that’s a whole other scenario, and it’s happening first!!!! This article, by David McCann from CFO Magazine does a good job of thousand footing the situation.
http://www.cfo.com/article.cfm/14570384/c_14570395
I, and most practitioners I know believe that the majority of participants have no idea what the retirement plan costs are and many think that they are getting a free benefit, that they pay nothing for their 401(k). This is a systemic issue. Most 401(k) mouse traps in the market, historically, have been designed to disguise fees from the participants. The group annuities (and Collective Funds) unitize the investments and thus are embedding fees into the unit prices. Many mutual fund platforms are often registered rep distributed, and their compensation is in the expense ratio, but also built into share prices, not to mention implicit revenue sharing arrangements. Even environments where the fees are deducted as line item expenses from participant accounts will often not be explicitly disclosed. For the participant to discover these charges, they will have to search for these deductions online in the form of a customized transaction report.
As a result, the new participant disclosure rules will 100% create a HUGE amount of phone calls, complaints to everyone and anyone associated with creating and managing their plan. Frankly, I think, it will cause a large quantity of plans, big and small, to search out new providers. For proactive practitioners, this is absolutely an opportunity. Advisors who aren’t in front of this are going to have to back pedal as the business owners and CFOs start getting questioned by staff. As Mr. McCann says in his article……..consider yourself warned!
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Stirring the Pot - Washington D.C........ugh
In case you weren't paying attention to what's happening in Washington these days as pertains to the Pension industry, I thought I'd post some information from my sources and some thoughts on it.
1.)Chairman Ryan’s proposed Budget Resolution On April 5, 2011 Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced his 2012 budget resolution. The House Budget Committee’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution as drafted is controversial to say the least. The resolution would privatize Medicare, turn Medicaid into block grants to states, repeal the health reform bill passed by the last Congress and cut $6.2 trillion in government spending over 10 years.
The budget resolution was passed out of the House Budget Committee on a party line vote last Wednesday after a marathon markup, and is scheduled to hit the floor of the House on Thursday of this week. A budget resolution is not a bill and will never be law. It is designed to be an outline or roadmap of what priorities and policies the author(s) want to further. This resolution is void of details on tax reform, although Ryan’s more detailed ‘Path to Prosperity” plan that underlies his budget proposal fills in some details. Most importantly for Retirement Plan practitioners, Ryan’s plan would eliminate capital gains taxes, perhaps unintentionally encouraging employers to invest outside of a 401(k) plan rather than incur the limits, cost and heavy regulations attached to qualified plans.
2.)Tax Reform Bill Introduced On April 7th, Senators Wyden (D-OR), Coats (R-IN) & Begich (R-AK) introduced the first official senate tax reform bill of the 112th Congress. The bill is a re-make of last year’s bill by Wyden and Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who has since retired, and includes RSA’s (with the current $5,000 IRA limit on contributions) and a $2,000 per year LSA-type account, plus a modest reduction in tax rates. The bill, S.727, also proposes to eliminate a number of tax expenditures including exclusion of benefits under cafeteria plans, fringe benefits, meals and lodging but none directly related to the employer provided retirement plans. Senator Wyden is on the Senate Finance Committee, but the Republican cosponsors are not, and so it is not expected that the Finance Committee will take up this specific proposal.
3.)Tax Reform, Aging and Retirement Plans Both Senate Finance and the Senate Special Committee on Aging held hearings in the last month on issues related to tax reform and retirement plans. On March 30th the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing titled “How Do Complexity, Uncertainty, and other Factors Impact Responses to Tax Incentives.” The hearing took a long distance look at the complexity of the entire tax code, saving more detailed examination of specific issues, such as retirement savings for a later date. The Aging Committee looked at the potential danger of securities lending of retirement investments, their lack of any reporting or oversight requirements and the fact that participants are not informed of this practice in a hearing titled “Securities Lending in Retirement Plans.”
Upcoming hearings include an April 12th hearing in the Senate to discuss what foreign tax codes might offer as examples as America changes its own code. Two hearings are scheduled for April 13th: A Senate Finance hearing titled “Perspectives on Deficit Reduction” and a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the tax codes’ impact on individuals and families titled “How the Tax Code’s Burdens on Individuals and Families Demonstrate the Need for Comprehensive Tax Reform.”
O.K......
Some thoughts on the above govt. initiatives. Firstly, it is clear that this congress (like many before it) is highly focused on tax issues, balancing the budget and long term improvements in the tax system. Obviously, practicing retirement plan consultants, like myself, are intimately aware that Retirement Plans have a huge cost in current tax revenue for the U.S. Govt. In recent years, with a spotlight on the shortcomings of the system, Retirement Plans have become fertile ground for proposals to improve the system, some reasonable, some not-so-much (even a serious proposal to eliminate 401(k)s altogether). In this new batch of information, there are some potentially extreme and industry-damaging proposals including eliminating retirement plan deductions completely and/or limiting contributions to a $20k max from both employer and employee sources as well as the revitalized argument against Cross-testing (New Comparability) in Qualified Plans.
This author is against anything that would reduce benefits to participants or damage an industry that is continuously working hard to improve the services delivered and has written to his local congressman expressing opinions as to the usefulness of plan design features such as New Comparability. Further, as an American, I believe that the marketplace dictates what services/costs are necessary and reasonable, and am generally against anything that repeals benefits that are clearly good for working Americans even if they are being used as efficiently as they could be.
1.)Chairman Ryan’s proposed Budget Resolution On April 5, 2011 Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced his 2012 budget resolution. The House Budget Committee’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Resolution as drafted is controversial to say the least. The resolution would privatize Medicare, turn Medicaid into block grants to states, repeal the health reform bill passed by the last Congress and cut $6.2 trillion in government spending over 10 years.
The budget resolution was passed out of the House Budget Committee on a party line vote last Wednesday after a marathon markup, and is scheduled to hit the floor of the House on Thursday of this week. A budget resolution is not a bill and will never be law. It is designed to be an outline or roadmap of what priorities and policies the author(s) want to further. This resolution is void of details on tax reform, although Ryan’s more detailed ‘Path to Prosperity” plan that underlies his budget proposal fills in some details. Most importantly for Retirement Plan practitioners, Ryan’s plan would eliminate capital gains taxes, perhaps unintentionally encouraging employers to invest outside of a 401(k) plan rather than incur the limits, cost and heavy regulations attached to qualified plans.
2.)Tax Reform Bill Introduced On April 7th, Senators Wyden (D-OR), Coats (R-IN) & Begich (R-AK) introduced the first official senate tax reform bill of the 112th Congress. The bill is a re-make of last year’s bill by Wyden and Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), who has since retired, and includes RSA’s (with the current $5,000 IRA limit on contributions) and a $2,000 per year LSA-type account, plus a modest reduction in tax rates. The bill, S.727, also proposes to eliminate a number of tax expenditures including exclusion of benefits under cafeteria plans, fringe benefits, meals and lodging but none directly related to the employer provided retirement plans. Senator Wyden is on the Senate Finance Committee, but the Republican cosponsors are not, and so it is not expected that the Finance Committee will take up this specific proposal.
3.)Tax Reform, Aging and Retirement Plans Both Senate Finance and the Senate Special Committee on Aging held hearings in the last month on issues related to tax reform and retirement plans. On March 30th the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing titled “How Do Complexity, Uncertainty, and other Factors Impact Responses to Tax Incentives.” The hearing took a long distance look at the complexity of the entire tax code, saving more detailed examination of specific issues, such as retirement savings for a later date. The Aging Committee looked at the potential danger of securities lending of retirement investments, their lack of any reporting or oversight requirements and the fact that participants are not informed of this practice in a hearing titled “Securities Lending in Retirement Plans.”
Upcoming hearings include an April 12th hearing in the Senate to discuss what foreign tax codes might offer as examples as America changes its own code. Two hearings are scheduled for April 13th: A Senate Finance hearing titled “Perspectives on Deficit Reduction” and a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the tax codes’ impact on individuals and families titled “How the Tax Code’s Burdens on Individuals and Families Demonstrate the Need for Comprehensive Tax Reform.”
O.K......
Some thoughts on the above govt. initiatives. Firstly, it is clear that this congress (like many before it) is highly focused on tax issues, balancing the budget and long term improvements in the tax system. Obviously, practicing retirement plan consultants, like myself, are intimately aware that Retirement Plans have a huge cost in current tax revenue for the U.S. Govt. In recent years, with a spotlight on the shortcomings of the system, Retirement Plans have become fertile ground for proposals to improve the system, some reasonable, some not-so-much (even a serious proposal to eliminate 401(k)s altogether). In this new batch of information, there are some potentially extreme and industry-damaging proposals including eliminating retirement plan deductions completely and/or limiting contributions to a $20k max from both employer and employee sources as well as the revitalized argument against Cross-testing (New Comparability) in Qualified Plans.
This author is against anything that would reduce benefits to participants or damage an industry that is continuously working hard to improve the services delivered and has written to his local congressman expressing opinions as to the usefulness of plan design features such as New Comparability. Further, as an American, I believe that the marketplace dictates what services/costs are necessary and reasonable, and am generally against anything that repeals benefits that are clearly good for working Americans even if they are being used as efficiently as they could be.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The 3(38) IM & Discretionary Trustee Service Model
Over the last several years, there has been increasing awareness of the various fiduciary roles that retirement plan advisors and consultants play when serving their retirement plan clients. In previous posts, we have tackled the topics of Full-Scope §3(21) vs. Limited Scope §3(21) Advisors, as well as how fiduciary delegation and appointment functions. In this post, along with supporting documents, we are focusing on the two main discretionary fiduciary models: that of a Discretionary Trustee and that of an ERISA Section 3(38) Investment Manager.
Please peruse the following Journal of Pension Benefits article we co-authored which discusses the differences between the duties of a Discretionary Trustee and those of an ERISA §3(38) Investment Manager (IM), view article. We believe this is an important topic given Unified Trust’s position as a Discretionary Trustee and given that we have recently launched a new service model called Investment Manager, more information.
In the article we discuss a model for comprehensive Retirement Plan Fiduciary Governance we’ve called The Two Party System, illustrated here.
The idea is for the plan sponsor to hire two separately engaged, independent (of each other) fiduciaries. They may be a Discretionary Trustee and an IM or a Full/Limited Scope §3(21) Advisor. One of these parties does the work required to ensure proper fiduciary governance and the other oversees the first which allows proper adherence to the Duty to Monitor. In the absence of two, the party responsible for oversight is the Plan Sponsor and, in most cases, little if any fiduciary liability exposure is shed. The combination of a Discretionary Trustee and an IM or §3(21) Advisor together make for a potentially superior model to a Discretionary Trustee, §3(38) IM or §3(21) Advisor alone.
Please peruse the following Journal of Pension Benefits article we co-authored which discusses the differences between the duties of a Discretionary Trustee and those of an ERISA §3(38) Investment Manager (IM), view article. We believe this is an important topic given Unified Trust’s position as a Discretionary Trustee and given that we have recently launched a new service model called Investment Manager, more information.
In the article we discuss a model for comprehensive Retirement Plan Fiduciary Governance we’ve called The Two Party System, illustrated here.
The idea is for the plan sponsor to hire two separately engaged, independent (of each other) fiduciaries. They may be a Discretionary Trustee and an IM or a Full/Limited Scope §3(21) Advisor. One of these parties does the work required to ensure proper fiduciary governance and the other oversees the first which allows proper adherence to the Duty to Monitor. In the absence of two, the party responsible for oversight is the Plan Sponsor and, in most cases, little if any fiduciary liability exposure is shed. The combination of a Discretionary Trustee and an IM or §3(21) Advisor together make for a potentially superior model to a Discretionary Trustee, §3(38) IM or §3(21) Advisor alone.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Retirement Income - Insurance isn't the only Way
Over the last several years as the Retirement Plan marketplace has matured, service providers have built out an array of services engineered to help participants and plan sponsors in different ways. Plan design in a post Pension Protection Act environment has led to increasing use of techniques such as Automatic Enrollment or Progressive Savings Escalators. But only recently has the shift focused beyond the accumulation phase. As the Boomer generation gets closer and closer to retirement, IRA Specialty providers and Employee Education providers are popping up everywhere. With this comes a new focus on Income Replacement including defining Income Replacement adequacy, strategies that start in the accumulation phase and work throughout life and even Insurance Based Guaranteed Income Vehicles.
Our philosophy has always been to create a more pension-like experience for the participant where the accumulation phase is targeted toward a range of possible retirement ages and amounts and managing that experience to fruition taking the least amount of risk necessary to achieve the goal. We call this style Defined Goal Investment Management. Recently, we’ve observed that several firms out there are starting to come out with their own spin on the ‘Pension-Like’ retirement plan experience. This article from Investment News titled 'Firms are Omitting Annuities in New Retirement Income Products, http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20110320/REG/303209976, does a good job in weighing some of the pros and cons of insurance-based retirement income products and non-insurance based retirement income services.
In the end, we believe the appropriate philosophy is that if we default the participant into an environment that gives them an adequate income replacement than the uptake on that would be much higher than if they had to elect to do it themselves. This is in line with our overall core philosophy, default the participant into all of the decisions that lead to the best outcomes and leave them there unless they choose to opt out.
Our philosophy has always been to create a more pension-like experience for the participant where the accumulation phase is targeted toward a range of possible retirement ages and amounts and managing that experience to fruition taking the least amount of risk necessary to achieve the goal. We call this style Defined Goal Investment Management. Recently, we’ve observed that several firms out there are starting to come out with their own spin on the ‘Pension-Like’ retirement plan experience. This article from Investment News titled 'Firms are Omitting Annuities in New Retirement Income Products, http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20110320/REG/303209976, does a good job in weighing some of the pros and cons of insurance-based retirement income products and non-insurance based retirement income services.
In the end, we believe the appropriate philosophy is that if we default the participant into an environment that gives them an adequate income replacement than the uptake on that would be much higher than if they had to elect to do it themselves. This is in line with our overall core philosophy, default the participant into all of the decisions that lead to the best outcomes and leave them there unless they choose to opt out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)