If You're the Smartest Person in the Room, You're in the Wrong Room!

This title is one of my favorite quotes that is so very wise.  It was originally said by a noted academic, Dr. David Weinberger.  By applying this adage to my professional life, I've almost universally been the better for it.  If it weren't for this philosophy, I never would have tried to write papers, blogs and the like, and thus would never have decided to create this blog.  I've recently realized, that this blog is really the only independent place where I can document all of the work I've done in my career.  So, here are a few of my notable papers in one place, the better ones co-written by someone who is most definitely the smartest person in my two person rooms, HA!  Hope you enjoy these.

Retirement Success: A Surprising look into the Factors that Drive Positive Outcomes - This is the very first paper I published in my professional career, originally published in the Summer edition of the ASPPA Journal in 2011.  Interestingly, this piece has been a weight baring beam in my career, a foundational notion for everything I've done since.  The smart co-author on this gem is David Blanchett (now head of Retirement Research at Morningstar) who took my original question and did 100% of the math! - September 1, 2011

Deconstructing the Fiduciary Models: 3(38) vs. Discretionary Trustee - In this piece, my very smart associate, Mike Samford and I try to tackle a highly nuanced area of ERISA fiduciary service, taking discretion over plan investments.  While I would change some of what I've written here nearly ten years later, most of this still holds.   - July 11, 2012

Third Party Fiduciaries; Myth and Reality- Occasionally, I managed enough nerve to write solo, and invariably the result never as good as when I've written with a partner.  This is my first ever solo piece, originally self published but picked up by Retirementsolutionsnow.com. - June - 2013 (Orig. Jan. 17, 2013)

Retirement Income—In-Plan vs. Out-of-Plan Solutions, Which Is Better?

Retirement Income - In Plan vs Out-of-Plan Solutions, Which Is Better?  - This is still today (in 2021) a hot topic, annuities in retirement plans.  We had this published in the Journal of Pension Benefits and it explores Retirement Income solutions, as they exist within 401(k) plans, whether individuals would be served better with those solutions or out-of-plan solutions and provides ideas for how to adequately deliver retirement income for retired Americans.  The 'smart' on this one was my co-author, Dr. Greg Kasten. - Feb. 1, 2013.

How 401k Advisors can Effectively Offer 316 Services - Here's a piece I authored in 401(k) Specialist which discusses the 'at the time' new spate of administrative fiduciary services and a model for retirement plan advisors to gain a competitive advantage.  No co-author on this one, AND you can tell! - June 14, 2016

- Jason Grantz, QPA, QKC, QKA, AIFA

.

Is the Time at Hand for 'Open Meps' - repost from Unified Trust Blog

Time and timing are funny things.  A good idea may be a good idea, but the timing of that idea can be everything.  Back in 2010 and 2011, it seemed like I couldn’t have a conversation with an advisor or go to an industry conference without hearing about so-called ‘Open Multiple Employer Plans’ or ‘Open MEPs’.  At first, they almost sounded fake to me, as we in the industry have a tendency to create marketing or sales terms.  Of course, I was aware of MEPs, but only in the context of what we’re now calling ‘closed’ or ‘traditional’ MEPs.  The concept behind a MEP was always that the related business’ sharing some kind of a nexus or commonality could essentially join into the same retirement plan.  By banding together, economies of scale had the potential to provide better investments, lower fees and less fiduciary risk-all good benefits.  The nexus was important as it kept this exclusive to related or very similar entities.

There had been  a lot of noise in the market that Open MEPs, where this commonality didn’t exist, were also okay.  This struck me as odd.  Did the rules change when I wasn’t paying attention? I don’t think so.  I’ve come to the conclusion that what did change was that the market decided that the existing rules weren’t clear enough. There was a disconnect between what was written into ERISA on MEPs and what was absent in the Internal Revenue Code about MEPs.  Because of this lack of continuity, some aggressive players in the market went ahead with the Open MEP idea, taking the position that if it isn’t explicitly prohibited, it was therefore permitted.  I remained skeptical and even wrote about it on my personal blog (MEP’s EBSA Speaks and More Opinions).  Then in May of 2012, the Department of Labor issued the TOTH Letter, DOL Advisory Opinion 2012-04A.  With this stroke of the pen (or keyboard), all of the noise in the market quieted down.

Flash forward four years and this concept is again at the forefront of the conversation.  In fact, a version of Open MEPs, now being called Pooled Employer Plans (PEPs) is close to becoming a legal structure.  Prior to the election, I was interviewed on this subject (Multiple Employer Plans Have a Bright Future) and discussed whether or not this idea would have its day.  The creation of these new PEP plans is part of a bill that was marked up by the Senate Finance Committee in September called The Retirement Enhancement Savings Act of 2016.  This bill supports the notion of an Open MEP, now being called a PEP, effectively removing the nexus requirement if certain conditions are met.  Timing is everything and now the question really is, when will this bill get passed?  It has made it through Senate Finance unanimously (a very rare occurrence) and has bipartisan support.  At this point, it seems that the only decisions left to be made are regarding  what broader piece of legislation will this Act be attached to and which president will get the credit for it, Obama or Trump.

Professionally, I find this exciting.  As readers know, Unified Trust Company is a professional ‘named fiduciary’ in our role as Discretionary Corporate Trustee over retirement plans.  Within these new PEP requirements are the appointments of a “pooled plan provider”, a ‘named fiduciary’ to act as the plan administrator and one or more named trustees who “must be  a bank or other financial institution” that would be responsible for contributions and assets.  Unified Trust would be a great fit potentially for some of these roles.  Whether these come to fruition sometime soon or not, the future is looking very bright.

- Jason Grantz

Why would ANYONE want to self-trustee a 401(k) Plan?

Very interestingly, a recent lawsuit has made a lot of noise in the retirement plan industry, but not for the reason people think.  This suit doesn’t involve a famous company or a huge service provider or even a large sum of money, rather what makes this case so interesting is that it is, in fact, a very ordinary every day plan.  The case I’m referring to is Damberg v. LaMettry’s Collision a $9-$10 million 401(k) plan who’s trustees (two owners) are being sued by two long term employees for excessive fees.  This is the first case of this nature that is “down market” of notoriety.   

Joe Reese walks through the paces of the implications here in a recent blog post on Unified Trust’s blog, linked here à http://blog.unifiedtrust.com/index.php/2016/05/25/show-me-the-money/.  

Makes me wonder, why would ANYONE want to self-trustee a 401(k) Plan?

- Jason Grantz

 

Managed Accounts are More Effective

Recently, Plan Sponsor Magazine published their 2015 PLANSPONSOR Defined Contribution Survey and in it was some very interesting data regarding Managed Accounts and outcomes.  See the full survey here: PLANSPONSOR 2015 Defined Contribution Survey

After reviewing the data, one thing becomes very apparent, plans that use a Managed Account combined with an advisor acting in a fiduciary capacity have better results than plans not using these services.  The article below from planadviser magazine dives into the data a little deeper and focuses on average balances.

Managed Accounts - Plans with Managed Accounts have better outcomes

**WARNING: A little commercial below, apologies, but that stats are what they are.**

These results correlate to my personal experience.  At my firm, Unified Trust, approximately 9 out of every 10 plans we bring on board are choosing to adopt our full suite of recommendations, most of which are maternalistic.   We suggest clients utilize automatic enrollment (starting at 6%), automatic deferral escalators and the UnifiedPLan Managed Account Solution.  When looking at these plans, the results are astounding.

As of the date of this writing, we see roughly 80% of participants stay in the defaulted managed account solution.  This solution provides the participants with the answers AT enrollment to most of their questions.  When can I afford to retire? Am I on track?  What will my monthly income be?  How much of that is from the plan, social security, outside assets and other sources of income?  What should my deferral rate be in order for me to get or stay on track?

Of the participants offered this managed account, we are seeing 71% of those participants on track for a fully funded benefit.  Most industry studies we've reviewed has the industry average at about 25% (lowest I've seen is 15%, highest is 40%).  The system of defaulting participants into a solution that delivers AND implements all of the answers is proven here to be nearly 3 times more effective than traditional methods in delivering the outcome that matters most, retirement readiness.

Whether it is outside studies like PLANSPONSOR's survey, or our first hand experience, I think the results speak for themselves.  The more that we as professionals take on ourselves and do for our clients, the better the results.

-Jason Grantz

The DOL Conflict of Interest Rule is finally here! Some implications....

Implications of the Fiduciary Rule  After months of anticipation and years of debate, the Department of Labor (DOL) “Conflict of Interest Rule” has finally been released.  During the proposal process, the DOL fielded over 400,000 comments, some of which were in opposition to the rule while others were seeking clarification to specific areas within the rule.  The one thing there is little debate about is the intent of the rule.  There may be arguments around the government’s role in this process, or the nuances of what constitutes investment advice, but how do you argue that a rule requiring the industry to act in the best interest of their clients is a bad thing? It will likely take weeks, if not months, to fully dissect and understand the scope of the new fiduciary rule and how the landscape will change as it is phased into implementation.  Here are a few of my initial interpretations and what I think the potential implications are.    Potential Impact on Financial Advisors The registered investment advisors (RIAs) that have already been acting in a fiduciary capacity just saw their marketplace get considerably more crowded.  With the vast majority of advisors now being considered fiduciaries, RIAs will be forced to adjust their value proposition to distinguish themselves amongst their competitors.  My opinion is that the most impactful point of differentiation will be to not only improve outcomes for participants but to quantify those outcomes for the plan sponsors and retirement plan committees. Some broker-dealer registered reps may need to utilize the ‘education carve-out’ to limit or avoid fiduciary status.  However, the carve-out is going to be narrower than it previously was (per DOL Interpretive Bulletin 96-1) and the education provided under this approach will be limited and may be considered unsatisfactory to many plans.  Registered reps who wish to stay in the retirement plan industry using the education carve-out may ultimately need to rely on a very strong fiduciary partner to do so (a view shared by notable fiduciary expert Fred Reish in a recent blog post as an evolving “common solution” for 401k-focused registered reps in the wake of the new fiduciary rule). Potential Impact on Advisory Fees In recent years, fees have been compressing as a result of the DOL’s fee disclosure initiatives and the increasingly competitive nature of the marketplace—something that is expected to accelerate under the new fiduciary definition rule.  It’s also highly likely we’ll see increased litigation over the matter.   However, we don’t believe that there will be a bright-line test on fee reasonableness.  It’s not necessarily about the fee but rather what is being done to earn the fee.  For that reason we believe that an advisor’s business model will need to include greater fee transparency, a prudent documentation and monitoring process, and the ability to quantify participant level outcomes.  Advisors that can accomplish this will be in a better position to justify their fees and differentiate their services in a fiduciary environment where everyone is essentially viewed as an equal. Potential Impact on Compliance Compliance complexity and oversight will greatly increase.  For example, testimony to the DOL indicated in the first year the rule goes into effect financial institutions will have to produce more than 86 million written disclosures and notices.  This does not come without a cost.  Who will pay for this? Potential Impact on Vendors Many major vendors will be exempt from the fiduciary rule or attempt to structure relationships to avoid fiduciary status under the rule.  This means litigation that develops may be between the plan sponsor and the advisor since the vendors may not be a fiduciary—that is unless you are working with a vendor that is willing to accept fiduciary status such as my firm, Unified Trust who not only is willing to accept fiduciary status, we sign on as discretionary trustee, and thus a named plan fiduciary, in the plan document for every plan on our platform. The DOL Conflict of Interest Rule will no doubt have a sizable impact on the industry.  The extent of that impact will unfold over the coming months and years.  We do firmly believe that it will increase the need to have a fiduciary process that is not only accurate but also automated and algorithm-based.  In other words, it won’t be enough to say you’re a fiduciary, rather you will need to show prudent fiduciary processes are in place and in the best interest of the investor.  - Jason Grantz, QPA, AIFA

DOL Fiduciary Rule Set To Shake Up Retirement Marketplace

Myself along with a few others were interviewed last week by LifeHealthPro.com author, Lynn Brackpool Giles.  The topic of discussion on the table was the forthcoming Department of Labor's (DOL) Conflict of Interest Rule aka 'The Uniform Fiduciary Standard'.  Some of the main concerns expressed in the article by the author and those interviewed surrounded the onerous nature of complying with the new rules, the potential aggregate costs associated with advisor compliance and the potential impact, re: shake-up of the retirement plan landscape.  The article is linked here.
 
DOL Fiduciary Rule Set To Shake Up Retirement Marketplace



In addition to the thoughts that I expressed within the article, I thought I’d share some of what didn’t make it in.  Specifically, my opinion is that over time the industry and the advisors will absorb this highly onerous set of rules and a new “business as usual” will result.  We will see new retirement plan business models created. 

One such model that I’ve already started to see take hold is that of the ‘Retirement Plan Specialist’ partnering with unaffiliated non-specialist advisors, almost like an advisor “wholesaling” to another advisor.  These new independent specialists will be those that can run effective conflict-of-interest-free retirement plan practices at a profit without the need to work with individuals beyond the plan relationship.  If they partner with referring or non-affiliated wealth management advisors, a true symbiosis can occur and stay within the boundaries of the new rules.
 
Under this new model, the specialists will need to be scalable and efficient in their business practices, and their plans will need to be designed to be altruistic in nature favoring improving outcomes as the primary goal of the plans. There is nowhere better than Unified Trust in the industry at improving outcomes and we, as Discretionary Corporate Trustee and Named Plan Fiduciary are taking a large amount of the fiscal, investment and monetary burden off the shoulders of the plan sponsor and advisor.  In conclusion, our services enable the advisor to be highly scalable, allows the advisor and employer to demonstrate that their plan is actually driving better retirement readiness and as an added benefit, significantly reduces financial and fiduciary risk for all involved. 

 


-Jason Grantz

What’s in a name?

I received this great piece from a colleague of mine, Joe Reese, who kindly offered to post it on our blog.  Thanks Joe - Jason G.

Recently, we were competing for a law firm and were told by the Plan Sponsor that the insurance company service providers we were competing with “can assume being named the Plan Trustee.”  We are a discretionary plan trustee – it was clear the insurance company service providers were offering a directed trustee solution. While a discretionary trustee and a directed trustee are both trustees and both fiduciaries, they are not one in the same. 

After days of back and forth, reviewing documents, etc. the law firm requested 3rd party information highlighting the difference between a discretionary trustee and directed trustee. The following was our response.

First, some context…

ERISA Section 402(a) provides that a written plan document must include one or more ‘‘named fiduciaries’’ who control and manage the plan’s operation and ad-ministration. ERISA Section 403(a) states that plan assets generally are held in trust, managed by trustees either named in the trust instrument or appointed by the plan’s named fiduciary. Trustees typically have authority to manage and control plan assets unless the plan expressly provides that the trustees are subject to the direction of the named fiduciary or delegates such authority to an investment manager.

Then in the DOL’s own words…

DOL Field Assistance Bulletin 2004-3: Fiduciary Responsibilities of Directed Trustees

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2004-3.html

Here are a couple key parts of the above Field Assistance Bulletin:

• The duties of a directed trustee under section 403(a)(1) are therefore significantly narrower than the duties generally ascribed to a discretionary trustee under common law trust principles.
• The named fiduciary has primary responsibility for determining the prudence of a particular transaction, whether the transaction involves buying, selling or holding particular assets. Accordingly, as the courts and the Department have long recognized, the scope of a directed trustee’s responsibility is significantly limited. A directed trustee does not, in the view of the Department, have an independent obligation to determine the prudence of every transaction. The directed trustee does not have an obligation to duplicate or second-guess the work of the plan fiduciaries that have discretionary authority over the management of plan assets and does not have a direct obligation to determine the prudence of a transaction.  See In re WorldCom ERISA Litig., 263 F. Supp. 2d at 761;  Herman v. NationsBank Trust Co., 126 F.3d at 1361-62, 1371 (directed trustee does not have a direct obligation of prudence under ERISA section 404; its obligation is simply “to make sure” the “directions were proper, in accordance with the terms of the plan, and not contrary to ERISA”).

And finally, Case Law…

Federal courts have typically held that a retirement plan’s directed trustee can’t be held liable if it followed the investment directions of the plan’s named fiduciary. Below is a summary of cases dealing with directed trustee liability.

Renfro v. Unisys Corp., 671 F. 3d 314 - Court of Appeals, 3rd Circuit 2011

“Fidelity's limited role as a directed trustee, delineated in the trust agreement, does not encompass the activities alleged as a breach of fiduciary duty—the selection and maintenance of the mix and range of investment options included in the plan.”

“As we have explained, a directed trustee is essentially "immune from judicial inquiry" because it lacks discretion, taking instructions from the plan that it is required to follow.”  

Fidelity maintained that it was not a fiduciary with respect to the conduct constituting the alleged fiduciary breach. The trial court granted Fidelity's motion to dismiss, ruling that Fidelity and its related entities were not fiduciaries with respect to the challenged conduct because they did not exercise control over the selection and inclusion of investment options in the plan.

Tussey v. ABB, Inc., Case 2:06-CV-04305, 2010 Document 103

“By the plain language of the Trust Agreement, Fidelity Trust has no responsibility for reviewing the merits of fund choices made by the Pension Review Committee. 

Thus, Fidelity Trust had no responsibility to prevent the addition of the Fidelity Freedom Funds to the Plan’s investment line-up.  For these reasons, the Court finds that Fidelity Trust cannot be held liable for ABB’s breaches under ERISA Section 405(a)(2).” 

Fidelity’s reaction to the Tussey v. ABB court’s decision regarding Fidelity not being responsible as a directed trustee:  “We are pleased with the decision today by the court of appeals,” Vincent Loporchio, a Fidelity spokesman wrote in an email. “Fidelity’s actions were in all respects consistent with our fiduciary duties to our clients and all legal requirements. With this decision on appeal, Fidelity has prevailed on all claims asserted against it in court.” 

In re Cardinal Health Inc. ERISA Litigation, S.D. Ohio, No. C2-04-643, 3/31/06

The US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed a claim against Putnam Fiduciary Trust Co. as directed trustee of Cardinal Health employees' retirement plan in a case involving company stock investments.  The court found that Putnam was a directed trustee with limited fiduciary duties. The judge also refused to dismiss the employees' claim that some of the Cardinal Health defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary duties by failing to monitor those they had appointed to act as plan fiduciaries, and said Cardinal Health may be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior for its board of directors' failure to monitor those they appointed to act as plan fiduciaries.

Donovan v. Cunningham14 (S.D. Texas 1982)

This early case briefly discussed the ‘‘limited role’’ of the directed trustee. The court noted that a directed trustee couldn’t be liable for breach of fiduciary duty where its activities ‘‘at all times remained within the limited role of a directed trustee.’’

Maniace v. Commerce Bank of Kansas City18 (8th Cir. 1994)

The Eighth Circuit ruled that a bank serving as directed trustee of an ESOP didn’t violate its fiduciary duties in allowing the plan to continue to hold large amounts of employer stock despite the stock’s declining value. The court found that, as a directed trustee, the bank wasn’t an ERISA fiduciary with respect to employer stock held by the ESOP because it lacked discretion over plan assets. According to the court, ‘‘the obligations of a directed trustee are something less than that owed by typical fiduciaries.’’

Grindstaff v. Green20 (6th Cir. 1998)

The Sixth Circuit ruled that a directed trustee isn’t a fiduciary to the extent it doesn’t control the management or disposition of plan assets. The court rejected ESOP participants’ claim that the ESOP’s directed trustee had a duty to investigate the merits of any directives given to it by the plan’s named fiduciary. The court noted that the trustee had no discretion pertaining to voting the ESOP stock and could only act at the direction of the named fiduciary.

In re McKesson HBOC Inc. ERISA Litigation21 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

A California federal district court dismissed ESOP participants’ claim that the plan’s directed trustee breached its ERISA fiduciary duties by allowing plan fiduciaries to continue to invest in employer stock when it allegedly knew that such an investment was imprudent. The court found that as a directed trustee, the trustee was obligated to follow the investment instructions given by the named fiduciaries and thus couldn’t be held liable for any losses that resulted from performance of its duty to follow those instructions. The court noted in a footnote, however, that if the participants could demonstrate that the trustee knew that the investment directives violated ERISA, then the trustee wouldn’t be relieved of ERISA liability by following such imprudent directives.

Lalonde v. Textron Inc.22 (D. R.I. 2003)

In this case, the district court dismissed ESOP participants’ claim that the plan’s directed trustee breached its fiduciary duties by not rejecting the named fiduciary’s directive to invest in the plan sponsor’s stock. The court found that the directed trustee had no discretionary authority, and hence no fiduciary status. The First Circuit subsequently upheld the district court’s decision after concluding that, even if it were to assume that the trustee wasn’t a true directed trustee, there was nothing in the participants’ complaint that would permit an inference that the trustee abused any discretion it might have had.

Yes, discretionary trustees and directed trustees are both fiduciaries, and trustees…but the role they play are not the same. A Plan Sponsor who confuses the two does so at his or her own peril.