Fiduciary, as easy as 1., 2., 3.,

A solid reminder piece was written and published today on NAPA-net.org.  The article was titled '3 Things Every Plan Committee Member should know'.  Here is the link.
 
3 Things Every Plan Committee Member Should Know

Here are the three things:
  

1. You are an ERISA fiduciary. Even as a small and relatively silent member of the committee, you’ll direct and influence retirement plan money — and it’s that influence over the plan’s assets that makes you an ERISA fiduciary. 

2. As an ERISA fiduciary, your liability is personal. How personal? Well, you may be required to restore any losses to the plan or to restore any profits gained through improper use of plan assets. You can obtain insurance to protect against that personal liability — but that’s probably not the fiduciary liability insurance you may already have in place, or the fidelity bond that is often carried to protect the plan against loss resulting from fraudulent or dishonest acts of those covered by the bond. If you’re not sure what you have, find out. Today. 

3. You are responsible for the actions of other plan fiduciaries. All fiduciaries have potential liability for the actions of their co-fiduciaries. For example, the Department of Labor notes that if a fiduciary knowingly participates in another fiduciary’s breach of responsibility, conceals the breach, or does not act to correct it, that fiduciary is liable as well. So, it’s a good idea to know who your co-fiduciaries are—and to keep an eye on what they do, and are permitted to do.

Besides the three basic's, which essentially say, being a fiduciary is serious, potentially hazardous and requires responsible caution, the article also raises a few very good points, namely:

- Many plan committee members come from staff of the employer and are frequently put on the committee for no other reason than that someone has to do it.  Background may not be part of the decision and expertise may be absent altogether.


- Fiduciaries are required to act solely (re: exclusively, i.e. ONLY) in the best interests of the plan participants and beneficiaries, and that they MUST act prudently, usually means they have process' in place for making important decisions.  It goes on to iterate the importance of investment diversification and ensuring that the plan pays only reasonable expenses for services.


Finally, the best point that the article makes, in my opinion, is that it's hard  to be a plan fiduciary.  This is especially true if the committee hasn't read plan documents, doesn't have any policies or procedures to follow or doesn't understand how much they are being charged, and for what or how the fees are being charged. 

Unfortunately, in my professional experience, often it is the case that the expert standard of care fiduciaries are bound to under ERISA is not realistic to expect of the plan committee.  Most plan committees are well intentioned, but not experts.   A wise person once told me that in the absence of expertise when expertise is needed, a prudent person will hire it.  Good advice for the majority of well intentioned, inexpert fiduciaries.

- 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.

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

Bernie, Bernie, Bernie

There was a point in time, not too long ago, that at virtually every meeting I was having, I had to "prove" that my firm wasn't Bernie Madoff.  It was interesting, because the only thing we had in common with Bernie was that we weren't a household name.  In virtually every other way we were exactly the opposite. 

National Trust Companies, unlike Hedge Funds (at the time) have the highest amount of scrutiny of any type of financial institution.  We have up to five separate audits per year including a 6 week long audit by the Office of the Comptroller of Currency (OCC).  Our firm spends approximately 50% of our pre-tax profit on audit alone.......I'll let that one sink in for a moment.

Also, unlike Bernie, as a Discretionary Corporate Trustee overseeing predominantly ERISA plans (and the like), we are held to the highest fiduciary standard, the ERISA fiduciary standard which obligates us to act in the best interest of the participants, act prudently at all times, be fully disclosed, act without conflicts of interest, and engage in best practices (like separation of duties between custody and reporting). 

In fact, arguably, Discretionary Corporate Trustees, via a National Trust Charter would be the SAFEST place where a Plan Sponsor could place their plan assets. 

As a corollary to the above, when we discuss risk mitigation, relief from fiduciary liability exposure (as we've discussed many times on this blog), one of the arguments back we get is that fiduciary liability is a myth, that lawsuits don't happen down market, that all this "fiduciary stuff" is just fear selling.  Some of that is true.  There are certainly more visible lawsuits up-market than down-market and the marketplace does have a lot of "fear sellers" in it, but to say that fiduciary risk is non-existent would be unfair. 

Case in point: According to this press release, the DOL recovered $43m for employer benefit plans that were victimized by the Bernie Madoff ponzi scheme.  In this particular instance, the funds were recovered by the Investment Manager, Austin Capital Management who was acting as a fiduciary over a variety of plans benefiting many employers (big and small) and participants.  Press release below:

http://www.planadviser.com/DOL_Recovers_43_Million_for_Madoff_Victims.aspx

So, when a service provider, like a Discretionary Corporate Trustee, says that one of the benefits of hiring them is to offload some fiduciary risk, bear in mind that they are taking on real, tangible risk on behalf of the client.

Employer Investment Decisions: Any Affect on Performance?

In a recent article from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, the authors further validated what is commonly accepted as fact in the 401(k) industry: participants routinely chase performance and subsequently underperform most basic investment strategies (buy and hold and 1/N rule, for example).  Nothing really new here, but good to know that prevailing thought is once again substantiated.   

More importantly, the article explored investment decisions made at the plan level, seemingly by the Plan Administrator, which offered a different perspective on the “investment decisions” debate.  In their research on plan level investment decisions, the authors focused on plan fund performance versus comparable indexes/randomly selected funds (in the same asset class), as well as whether or not fund additions and replacements added value.  The results mirror the same outcome we typically observe at the participant level: like their employees, employers do not improve investment performance through their fund selection and retention decisions.  For specific details of the study’s results, see the entire article here: How Do Employers' 401(k) Mutual Fund Selections Affect Performance?                 

It’s fair to say that when monitoring potential investments, fiduciaries are confronted with an overwhelming amount of information and are often faced with the burden of interpreting conflicting statistics.  One idea that has been gaining traction for employers is to outsource (i.e., allocate) specific duties to others such as a discretionary investment manager or a discretionary corporate trustee.  Discretionary corporate trustees, as independent fiduciaries, relieve the employer of making investment decisions.  Further, they provide their clients with a systematic method for selecting, monitoring and replacing plan investments if needed. 

The Duty to Monitor - Serious Business!

Way back in June of 2009 we wrote a post called 'Fiduciary Delegation - Myth or Reality', located here;


http://the401kplanblog.blogspot.com/2009_06_01_archive.html

The post discusses the merits of (and how to do it) one fiduciary, such as the plan sponsor, delegating away fiduciary responsibility to another fiduciary, such as a discretionary trustee.  It also specifically points to the parts of the ERISA that relates to appointment and delegation.  In our minds when we wrote that we were thinking specifically of how a plan sponsor might shield itself from fiduciary responsibility surrounding selection and monitoring of investments and the risks associated.  Part and parcel to delegation is 'Prudent Selection and Monitoring'.  The idea was that in order to accomplish some risk mitigation, the plan sponsor would need to make sure the appointed fiduciary was prudently appointed and somehow monitored going forward.  What we didn't deal with in the post, but held true then and still holds true now was that ALL parties associated with the plan, fiduciary or not, must be prudently appointed and monitored.  This Duty to Monitor is part of basic fiduciary responsibility.

Flash forward to 2012.  Very recently, Plan Sponsor Magazine published an article specifically dealing with a plan sponsor, Clark Graphics, failing to properly monitor its' functional Administrator (ERISA 3(16)) or their hired service provider, the Third Party Administrator (TPA).  You can find the article here;

http://www.plansponsor.com/Employer_to_Pay_500K_for_Failing_to_Monitor_TPA.aspx

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) suit alleged insufficient oversight and mishandling of plan assets resulting in multiple violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Specifically, the suit alleged that the owners, failed in their fiduciary responsibilities as plan trustees by neglecting to monitor the actions of the plans’ administrator.  The results were that the owner's of the company are being asked to restore the funds to the two plans in question amounting to approx. $500k and that the administrator in question is required to restore the same sum offset by the amount paid by the owners.  One way or the other, the plan participants will be made whole from the administrative mistakes.  Both the owner and the service provider are no longer allowed to serve as fiduciaries or service providers to any other plans.


“Employers that sponsor retirement plans have a fiduciary duty to monitor plan assets and ensure they are handled appropriately and protected,” said Assistant Secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security Phyllis C. Borzi. “Contracting with an outside firm to manage those assets does not absolve them of their legal responsibilities.”

We can't think of a better case to illustrate the importance of monitoring service providers.  That said, this case begs the question;

Are the business owner's or an appointed internal committee of business managers the appropriate people to serve as the plan trustee or as fiduciaries responsible for service provider oversight?  

This author would argue that the answer to that question, most of the time, is no, but that these are the individuals often in charge of doing just that.  In our experience, the expert level of care required is mainly not available within the staff of most employers.  The requisite skills, interest or ERISA education is, simply put, not present.  In our opinion, the party in the best position to provide prudent monitoring of service providers is the Retirement Plan Consultant or Plan Advisor.  If you are a Retirement Plan Professional reading this post, we think it would be a great idea to list this amongst your services offered.

Discretionary v. Directed Trustees: Fiduciary Focus

In case you haven't seen it, yesterday in Morningstar's Fiduciary Focus column, Here --> http://www.morningstar.com/advisor/t/50458854/discretionary-trustees-vs-directed-trustees.htm, author Scott Simon tackled a topic that we, and our firm, Unified Trust, have been tackling for years. The topic is Discretionary Trustees vs. Directed Trustees. I got rather excited, thinking to myself selfishly that finally, someone else is going to discuss the merits of appointing a discretionary corporate trustee and the advantages of that over the more common, less valueable step-sister, the Directed Corporate Trustee.

Note, that while the article is, in my opinion, well written, factual and fairly thorough, I was disappointed, nonetheless, to read that he was referring to Discretionary Trustees in the broader sense. He makes the valid point that all trustees appointed by the Plan Sponsor are Discretionary Trustees unless specifically appointed as a Directed Trustee. That includes individuals, such as business owners or boards or officers appointed in this role. The only place he even mentions that you can appoint a Discretionary CORPORATE Trustee is as an aside where he states how uncommon this appointment is. He doesn't go into the merits of Prudent Fiduciary Appointment, or even compare contrast the differences between the two types of Corporate Trustees. You can incidentally find that on this blog.

Here -->http://the401kplanblog.blogspot.com/2011/11/practical-differences-of-various.html
and
Here -->http://the401kplanblog.blogspot.com/2011/04/338-im-discretionary-trustee-service.html

Disappointment aside, he does make a few very good points.

1.) All trustees are Discretionary unless specifically identified as Directed in the Plan Document at which point the responsibilities of trustee fall back to the Named Fiduciary, typically the Plan Sponsor. The good example of US Airways and their relationship to Fidelity Trust Company is provided.

2.) Directed Trustees provide a very limited array of services, typically asset custody, following direction and ensuring transaction accuracy. They are a highly limited fiduciary, and most (that I've seen) disavow fiduciary status in the contracts.

3.) No one can ensure blanket relief from fiduciary liability. There are only degrees of limited relief. Unfortunately, he doesn't point out that the highest degree is to prudently appoint a Discretionary Corporate Trustee.

So, long story short (too late, I know), Scott Simon wrote a decent article making the point that the devil is in the details, and that Plan Sponsors should be wary of unscrupulous sales pitches about fiduciary relief.

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

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.