Where has the all the content gone?

I'd like to apologize for the lack of consistent content on this blog to those who read it often.  It's been an extremely busy time for me professionally, but the blog post ideas haven't gone away, they've just been getting posted elsewhere!  About 18 months ago or so, my firm, Unified Trust launched a blog and I've been one of the authors populating the content.  Below you can find a link to the blog and a link specifically to the content authored by myself.  Thanks for being patient.  I will try to post here more frequently.

http://blog.unifiedtrust.com/index.php/author/jason-grantzunifiedtrust-com/

http://blog.unifiedtrust.com/

Best - Jason Grantz

Fiduciaries, Know thy Duty!

Good article posted this AM on NAPA.net authored by John Lekel.  Within the article it cites a webinar that was conducted for NAPA in January presented by Dr. Greg Kasten of Unified Trust Company regarding fiduciary duty for retirement plan fiduciaries.  Within the webinar, Dr. Kasten offers a variety of good pointers on best practices and some warnings about what is being sold in the market vs. what clients think they are buying.  Here's a short list of best practices;
___
"Prudence is key, Kasten argued, in exercising fiduciary duty. He offered these pointers:
• consider what information is relevant to the decision;
• obtain the information;
• analyze the information;
• make a reasoned decision that other experts in similar situations would make; and
• document the decision"

Thanks John and thanks Dr. Kasten.

Demand is Rising for 401(k) Advisors

Every once and a while someone asks me my thoughts about the retirement plan industry.  Occasionally, they choose to print some of those thoughts.  Below is an article from Benefits Pro featuring myself and a few others discussing the demand for specialization from the investment advisory community.  Happy reading.

http://www.benefitspro.com/2013/11/06/demand-rising-for-401k-advisors?eNL=527bea40150ba0744c000091&utm_source=RetirementAdvisorPro&utm_medium=eNL&utm_campaign=BenefitsPro_eNLs&_LID=143409125

The "Real" Role of a 401(k) Plan Advisor - Good Thoughts Ary

Once in a while someone writes something and gets it right. .  Attached is a good read for Retirement Plan Advisors of all levels, beginner through expert.   Main theme is that overall comprehensive service and maximizing protection is where the value to the employer is, it's not all about picking funds, or really even a little.

See the article linked here.

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-real-role-of-a-401k-plan-financi-67827/

Nice work Ary!

Podcast - 401(k) Alphabet Soup, me and Chuck Hammond

New media for me, enjoy!

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the401kstudygroup/2013/03/15/the-alphabet-soup-of-the-401k-industry

Third Party Fiduciaries - Myth and Reality

Well, I put together a little opinion paper discussing a recent trend we've been seeing in 401(k) products over the last year or so, the so-called "Third Party Fiduciaries".  The idea behind the paper was to share our views to our Advisor Partners and their clients to help them gain a better understanding of the limitations of arrangements that are being oversold to a degree.  Unbeknownst to me, the paper was picked up by 401khelpcenter and put online today.  So, since it is available publicly anyway, I figured I'd link it here for any to see.  Happy reading.

http://www.unifiedtrust.com/Documents/Third_Party_Fiduciaries.pdf

MEP's - EBSA Speaks and More Opinions Coming

Well folks, for those of you who know me, you've probably come to understand that I'm a cautious (re: Prudent) person by nature. I'm suspicious of new spins on old concepts and of slick sales pitches which are used to imply one thing, but deliver something less. In that context, I've written, at times sarcastically, about Multiple Employer Plans (MEPs). My underlying message has always been, Proceed with Caution. The idea is that if sounds too good to be true, it usually is and it doesn't hurt to question the idea at its source.

Recently, I personally attended the annual 401(k) Sales Summit put on by the American Society of Pension Profesionals & Actuaries (ASPPA). At the opening of Day 2 of the conference, I attended a session which was a one on one interview of Michael Davis of the Department of Labor by Brian Graff of ASPPA. There were several topics discussed, upcoming fee disclosure rules, the proposed expanded definition of a fiduciary, and yes, MEPs. Mr. Davis, was one of the better DOL speakers I've heard present and I felt he was very clear in that he felt that the current rules governing Qualified Retirement Plans (the ERISA) do not support the concept of an "Open MEP", meaning MEPs for employers that are unrelated and subjected to a collective bargaining agreement. He mentioned this three separate times, so it was very clear. This took place on March 19, 2012.

Interestingly, this news was met with shock/surprise (perhaps anger?) by many of the members of the audience, whom are other pension practitioners like myself. It SHOULDN'T have come to a surprise to anyone as these remarks are consistent with what has been coming out of EBSA for the last year or so, and even again just two weeks prior on March 7, 2012 at Phyllis Borzi's (Assistant Secretary of Labor) testimony to the Special Committee on Aging of the U.S. Senate. Press Release Here --> http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/ty030712.html.

In this testimony, Ms. Borzi specifically stated that the idea of "Open MEPs" is not an established concept under ERISA and went on to express concerns about aggressive marketing and promotion of Open MEPs stating that:

1. Adopting Employers are fully releived of fiduciary obligations for administering and monitoring investments and of administrative reporting duties.


2. That by pooling plans together can reduce administrative burdens and costs.

They have stated that two separate Opinions will be forthcoming dealing with the concept of the Open MEP. We are on record (see blog posts from July 2011 and again in August 2011) stating that we believe that any person/entity that may excercise discretion or control over plan assets (whether specifically named in the plan document or not) is a fiduciary as defined under ERISA Section 3(21) and that includes employers who adopt into an MEP. If the rules change, we may also change our opinion. Until then, the message remains, BE CAUTIOUS. Investigate these structures thoroughly including gaining a strong understanding of the relationship between those providing services to the plan (and charging fees) and those in a fiduciary position. We believe that many of the ones we've looked at appear to be in violation of the ERISA Prohibited Transaction rules.

Practical Differences of Various Fiduciary Services

Over the last several years, there has been a growing level of awareness surrounding the various roles that retirement plan advisors and consultants play when serving their clients. The increased awareness can be attributed to the establishment of organizations dedicated to promoting fiduciary best practices, as well as the increased exposure to content available at a growing number of industry conferences. Not surprisingly, this has led to the creation of new business models, new credentials and new expertise.

The sections of the ERISA dealing with fiduciary responsibility, in name, have evolved into marketing terminology. For example, ERISA §3(38) Investment Manager is now a bell or whistle made available by the advisor or the service provider. An unfortunate side effect of this trend is the wide disparity in the quality of the delivery system. Some claim to be ERISA fiduciary “experts” using ERISA fiduciary as a sales feature, when really their expertise is in sales or asset gathering. Even among genuine experts, there are many who lack the depth in understanding the many nuances that distinguish the roles. In a recent competitive situation we observed an advisor team, acting as an ERISA §3(38) Investment Manager, state to a client that they are equivalent to a fully Discretionary Trustee, but that they could do it for less. This claim, in the form of salesmanship, was plainly inaccurate and disappointing, yet it happens all too frequently.

While we find that the uptick in the use and discussion of the various fiduciary roles exciting on some levels, the misuse that occurs with client consulting can be problematic. In the example above, by that advisor claiming that selecting funds for their client is the same as a being a fully discretionary trustee, it substantially diminishes the robust list of services provided by a discretionary trustee that goes well beyond fund selection. Many of those services are equally, if not more, important to the Plan Sponsor and the participants. For that reason, we have created a comprehensive chart that explains the PRACTICAL differences for the various fiduciary services available in the market. Click here

DOL to Reconsider Fiduciary Rules

The Department of Labor announced that it would be re-proposing its rule on the definition of fiduciary due to requests from the public via Congress that the agency provide more input on the rule.

Anticipated changes include but are not limited to:

-Clarifying that fiduciary advice is limited to individualized advice directed to specific parties
-Addressing concerns about application of the rules to routine appraisals
-Clarifying limits of the rule's application to arm's length commercial transactions, such as swap transactions.
-Addressing the impact of the new regulation on current fee practices of advisors and brokers, and looking at exemptions permitting brokers to receive mutual fund, stock, and insurance commissions.

The full article, available through PLANSPONSOR.com, can be seen here.

MEP's - Mediocre Employer Protection.....Just Kidding

Actually, the purpose of this post is in response to those seeking some "opinions" on whether MEP's, Multiple Employer Plans, are a good idea or not. The pros/cons are out there, on the pro's side is potential economies of scale and, theoretically, increased fiduciary protection. It has been this author's contention that the MEP is not a silver bullet (as has been sold by various MEP sales people), but isn't a bad idea necessarily. There is a place for all creative designs in the marketplace.

We believe that with a contained, related group of employers and the proper service providers in place, that a MEP structure can work quite well. Think about that small group of franchise owners who are related, but don't have a good employee benefit while the main franchise has a very strong one. Assuming the vendors can work with the group to allow it to be feasible from a cost perspective, this group could benefit quite well from a MEP structure.

That said, although an Employer who adopts a MEP plan for their employees is giving up 'Named Fiduciary' status, meaning they will no longer be the named Plan Sponsor or the Named Administrator or Named Trustee, we believe they will still be a fiduciary under ERISA and will have some remaining obligations. Specificully, under the definition of a fiduciary, ERISA §3(21) has 3 parts. Two of those parts deal with the ability to or the actual excercising of discretion over plan assets. It is under this formal definition that an employer who adopts a MEP is still a fiduciary. Ultimately, at their discretion they are opting into and may opt out of the MEP and this is an excercise of control over plan assets. Therefore, they are still a fiduciary and still have quite a bit of residual responsibilities and risk.

Recently, a series of opinions and subsequent postings have appeared that provide the user with some cautionary advice on MEP programs. See these two links, one from ASPPA and one from The Law Offices of Ilene H. Ferenczy, LLC.

http://www.asppa.org/document-vault/pdfs/asaps/2011/11-22.aspx

https://app.e2ma.net/app/view:CampaignPublic/id:18861.7106427767/rid:fcf0ab2197415e4f2bd0df8fc3501b8c

Interestingly, these are more from the administrative point of view, but also site DOL opinions and a recent discussion held between members of the DOL and IRS with members of the Govt. Action Committee (GAC) of ASPPA. The result is a stated opinion that many of the so-called MEP programs out there wouldn't qualify as MEPs at all because many of the employers are unrelated and therefore fail to meet the qualification. Under those scenarios, if discovered, those plans would be required to file their own 5500's, test separately, have their own fiduciaries, etc. This is VERY different than the way that these increasingly popular "open-end" MEPs are being sold in the marketplace. I think this is a good case of 'Buyer Beware'. The employers are buying a Panacea or Cure-All for their responsibilities, but in reality they aren't gaining much, if anything.

As always, we welcome any differing view points or clarifications. Please, nothing commercial or it will not be posted.

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.

I'm a Fiduciary, What Are You?

It’s interesting to observe how trends affect one’s life from time to time. Ordinarily when one thinks of trends, they think of it in the context of the social side of life. For example, trends in music, fashion, television, etc. Every now and then trends start to appear in the professional world as well. One emerged trend of the last several years in the 401(k)/Pension business is the trend towards offering fiduciary services. Of course with this comes the inevitable misusage of the term fiduciary and a variety of marketing terms and sales gimmicks intended to take advantage of the trend without actually providing anything in return. Through the course of travel my coworkers and I often get many of the same questions surrounding ‘fiduciary’. Confusion in this area isn’t surprising as there is a lot of market noise, from the marketing terms like Co-Fiduciary or the sales tools like Fiduciary Warrantees to the newest trend, the selling of specific code sections as the different flavors of fiduciary.

We’ve all seen the various new categories of advisor; ERISA §3(38) Investment Manager, Full-Scope §3(21), Limited-Scope §3(21) and so on. On Linked-In there are lively discussions about it, articles are being published on it on Morningstar.com and an unfortunate result is some general confusion from a lot of Advisors of ERISA plans on what all of this is and what they should or should not be calling themselves or doing, not to mention what they’re allowed to do or not allowed to do under their Broker/Dealer contract if they are a registered rep. For that reason, we have created a new piece as an attempt to simplify and consolidate the most recent array of terminology.

Select the following link to view the complete document – Fiduciary…A Different "F" Word.

Fiduciary Delegation - Myth or Reality?

I get asked about this quite often, so I thought it would be a good topic for discussion here. Specifically, the question that I get asked is whether or not Fiduciary Liability (not responsibility or status) can in fact be transferred from a Plan Sponsor or business owner onto another entity or not. Below, I will try and tackle this question appropriately so that it makes sense for all who may be interested.

The notion that fiduciary responsibility and liability cannot be delegated is explicitly false under law. ERISA itself makes this clear, DOL regulations make it clearer, and case law reinforces it. The most obvious way to delegate is simply to hire someone else to be in charge. For example, when one of our clients prudently hires and monitors Unified Trust as discretionary trustee, the client should be able to effectively delegate much of its fiduciary responsibility with respect to plan assets and the client should not be liable for Unified’s acts and omissions as discretionary trustee. The client simply has a fiduciary responsibility to prudently hire and appoint Unified and to monitor our performance as discretionary trustee.

Another path to delegation is through an ERISA investment manager. ERISA section 3(38) defines an investment manager as any fiduciary (other than a trustee or a named fiduciary):

• who has the power to manage, acquire, or dispose of any asset of a plan;
• is a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA), bank or insurance company;
• has acknowledged in writing that he/she is a fiduciary with respect to the plan.

A named fiduciary can appoint and delegate certain plan functions to an investment manager (pursuant to ERISA section 402(c)(3)) and not be liable for the acts and omissions of the investment manager (pursuant to ERISA section 405(d)(1)). Of course, the one caveat is that the appointment of the investment manager must be prudent and this responsibility lies solely with the appointing fiduciary, typically the Plan Sponsor. Click here to read an article previously published in the Journal of Financial Planning that goes into detail on this very topic and how it can benefit Plan Sponsors.

To Summarize:
Myth – You Can’t delegate fiduciary responsibility

• This is false. Delegation is perfectly legal under ERISA……just rarely done in actual practice.
• Several sections under ERISA specifically outline how delegation would occur. These are sections 402c, 403a, 405(c)(1)/405(c)(2)/405(d)405(c)(1)/405(c)(2)/405(d)(1).
  

402(c) – Formally Divides duties among named fiduciaries
403(a)1 – Formally delegate to a Corporate Trustee
403(a)2 and 402(c)(3) – Formally delegate to an Investment Manager
405(c)(1)/405(c)(2)/405(d)(1) – Formally delegate duties of a named fiduciary to another fiduciary (who is not named) – I.E. Independent Fiduciary
405(d)(1)) – “named fiduciaries are not liable for the acts and omissions of other named fiduciaries” if those fiduciaries have been prudently appointed and retained.

• Based on the above if the plan sponsor delegates the role of trustee to a Corporate (fully discretionary) trustee and does so prudently, that plan sponsor is not responsible for the acts and omissions of that trustee. This includes the delegation of prudently selecting and monitoring investments.
• Bottom-Line – No one can fully remove the Plan Sponsor’s fiduciary role or ALL of its responsibilities, but parts of it can be outsourced to professional fiduciaries including the role of discretionary trustee. The client in this environment transfers liability to this discretionary trustee. This is generally a good thing. The client is still the Plan Sponsor and named administrator and thus is still responsible for settler/ministerial functions as well as prudently hiring and monitoring service providers including the outsourced trustee service.