Some Thanksgiving Thanks!

Thanksgiving has been called a “uniquely American” holiday, and while that may be something of an overstatement, it is unquestionably a special holiday, and one on which it seems appropriate to reflect on all for which we should be thankful.

So, as I look back at this past year:

• I’m thankful that so many employers voluntarily choose to offer a workplace retirement plan – and that so many workers, given an opportunity to participate, do.

• I’m thankful that a growing number of employers have chosen to automatically enroll valued workers into these programs, and that they are increasingly opting to establish a default contribution rate in excess of the “traditional” 3%.

• I’m thankful that the vast majority of workers defaulted into retirement savings programs tend to remain there – and that there are mechanisms (automatic enrollment, contribution acceleration and qualified default investment alternatives) in place to help them save and invest better than they might otherwise.

• I continue to be thankful that participants, by and large, continue to hang in there with their commitment to retirement savings, despite lingering economic uncertainty and competing financial priorities, such as rising health care costs and college debt.
  

• I’m thankful that more plan sponsors are making it easier for workers to participate in retirement savings programs, and automatically enrolling them sooner and at higher default contribution rates.

• I’m thankful for the strong savings and investment behaviors emerging among younger workers – and for the innovations in plan design and employer support that foster them. I’m thankful that, as powerful as those mechanisms are in encouraging positive savings behavior, we continue to look for ways to improve and enhance their influence(s).

• I’m thankful for qualified default investment alternatives that make it easy for participants to benefit from well-diversified and regularly rebalanced investment portfolios – and for the thoughtful and ongoing review of those options by prudent plan fiduciaries. I’m hopeful that the nuances of those glidepaths have been adequately explained to those who invest in them, and that those nearing retirement will be better served by those devices than many were a decade ago.

• I am thankful that powerful, impactful legislation like the SECURE Act can still pass the often-divided House of Representatives on a robust bipartisan basis – though I can’t help but be disappointed that, for the moment, anyway, the much-needed benefits have fallen prey to other matters.

• I'm thankful for the increase in contribution and benefit limits - so that those who can afford to set aside more for retirement can do so (as we all strive to help our retirement funding keep pace with the cost of living).

• I’m thankful for the development of our new Certified Plan Sponsor Professional(TM) credential, the support of our education partners in not only developing the program, but in partnering with us, and our various advisor networks to help distribute critical education to plan sponsors who, though tasked with an awesome task, are seldom provided the training or education commensurate with that responsibility. 

• I’m thankful that figuring out ways to expand access to workplace retirement plans remains, even now, a bipartisan focus – even if the ways to address it aren’t always.

• I’m thankful that the ongoing “plot” to kill the 401(k)… (still) hasn’t. Yet.

• I’m thankful to be part of a team that champions retirement savings – and to be a part of helping improve and enhance that system.

• I’m thankful that those who regulate our industry continue to seek the input of those in the industry – and that so many, particularly those among our membership, take the time and energy to provide that input.

• I’m thankful for all of you who have supported – and I hope benefited from – our various conferences, education programs and communications throughout the year.

• I’m thankful for the opportunity to acknowledge so many outstanding professionals in our industry through our Top Women Advisor, Top Young Retirement Advisor (“Aces”), Top DC Wholesaler (Wingmen), and Top DC Advisor Team lists. I am thankful for the blue-ribbon panels of judges that volunteer their time, perspective and expertise to those evaluations.

• I’m thankful for the warmth with which readers and members, both old and new, continue to embrace the work we do here.

• I’m thankful for the team at the American Retirement Association, and for the strength, commitment and diversity of the membership. I’m thankful to be part of a growing organization in an important industry at a critical time. I’m thankful to be able, in some small way, to make a difference.

 But most of all, I’m once again thankful for the unconditional love and patience of my family, the camaraderie of an expanding circle of dear friends and colleagues, the opportunity to write and share these thoughts — and for the ongoing support and appreciation of readers… like you.

Wishing you and yours a very happy Thanksgiving!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

How Much (Should) a New Committee Member Know?

A recent federal court decision should remind us all of the importance of plan committee education.

The case involved a suit by participants in the SunTrust 401(k) plan (see Is Fiduciary Responsibility Retroactive?) that challenged the initial selection of, and subsequent acquiescence with, an ostensibly imprudent plan investment menu. The court’s decision focused on one aspect of the case: the liability of “new” plan committee members for actions that predated their involvement on the committee, but continued after their involvement. The court, in a decision that will likely be viewed favorably by new committee members, excluded them from liability for committee moves that predated their participation, at least to the extent they lack “actual knowledge” of imprudence.

Along the way to that determination, Judge Orinda D. Evans of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia incorporated the testimony of those new committee members as to the training/information they received as they joined. While it may reflect their recollection more than the reality, they convey[1] a very strong sense of being handed reading materials, and left to their own devices to fill in the blanks.

The deposition questions were doubtless focused on the particular aspect of fund selection, and perhaps dealt with nothing beyond that. Indeed, several of the committee members did recount both an exposure to the plan document itself and some awareness of the importance of their role as a plan fiduciary.

As a baseline, I have long maintained that every plan committee member needs to know that:

You are an ERISA fiduciary.

Even if you consider yourself to be a small and relatively silent member of the committee, you direct and influence retirement plan money, and fiduciary status is based on one’s responsibilities with the plan, not a title. Simply stated, if you (or the committee you are part of) control the plan’s assets (such as choosing the investment options or choosing the firm that chooses those options), you are a fiduciary to the extent of that discretion or control.

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.

As an ERISA fiduciary, your liability is personal.

If they didn’t hear this message out the outset, the onset of litigation surely brought this reality home to the committee members. A committee member may be required to restore any losses to the plan or to restore any profits gained through improper use of plan assets. Now, 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.

The plan’s investment policy matters.

Note that I didn’t say the plan’s investment policy statement. The law (ERISA) doesn’t require that you have a written investment policy statement, but that same law does expect that the plan’s investments will be monitored as though one was in writing. Indeed, the vast majority of plans do have a written IPS – more than 90%, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s 61st Annual Survey of Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plans.

More than that, generally speaking, you should find it easier to conduct the plan’s investment business in accordance with a set of established, prudent standards if those standards are in writing, and not crafted at a point in time when you are desperately trying to make sense of the markets. In sum, you want an IPS in place before you need an IPS in place.

And a suggestion for you: have a formal “on-boarding” process for plan committee members.

Every plan, and every plan committee is unique. But the responsibility, and the prudent expert standard to which those responsibilities must be held applies uniformly – and it has been called “the highest known to the law.” In forming and conducting the committee it’s imperative not only that the members be selected wisely, but that they be informed and engaged so that they can adequately and fully discharge those responsibilities.

One recent court decision (Wildman v. Am. Century Servs.) in favor of the plan committee defendants explains that the committee met regularly three times a year, and had “special meetings if something arose that needed to be discussed before the regularly scheduled meetings.” Moreover, the defendants testified that those meetings “were productive and lasted as long as was needed to fully address each issue on the agenda. On average, the meetings lasted an hour to an hour and a half.”

The plan provided “training and information about their fiduciary duties, including a ‘Fiduciary Toolkit,’ which outlined their duties as fiduciaries, as well as a summary plan document, and articles regarding fiduciary duties in general.” That kit included a copy of the current Investment Policy Statement, and the court noted that “the Committee members read these materials and took their responsibilities as fiduciaries seriously.”

Arguably the personal interests of the new plan committee members in the SunTrust case were, at least at this stage, “well-served” by their lack of education (more specifically, the lack of “actual knowledge”) regarding the background of the decisions made prior to their appointment. However, this is only one set of issues, and they may yet be held to account for their subsequent affirmation (be it active or passive) in the continuance of those decisions.

And that’s when ignorance of your duties as a plan fiduciary can be really expensive.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD
 
Footnote

1. Defendant Jerome Lienhard stated in his deposition that he received binders describing the funds in the Plan “presumably” containing documents describing fiduciary standards, that he spoke with Defendants Donna Lange and Ken Houghton about being a Benefits Plan Committee member and, upon becoming a member of the Benefits Plan Committee in August of 2006, familiarized himself with the Plan document. However, he did not recall taking action to determine whether previous breaches of fiduciary responsibility had been committed.

Defendant Christopher Shults said that he received training regarding the funds in the Plan when he became a Benefits Plan Committee member, and that he was “directed… to meet with an investment consultant representative "to become more educated about the investment decisions made by the Benefits Plan Committee.” However, he did not "remember any of the details of specificity around what we discussed" and he did not recall discussing previous investment decisions by the Benefits Plan Committee with the representative. Nor did he recall learning about selection decisions made by the Benefits Plan Committee prior to his becoming a member.

Defendant Mimi Breeden remembered that she “would have talked to subject matter experts and [her] staff and others to come up to speed on what the committee’s work was” and “what key priorities were,” that she “probably” had knowledge of the history of the Plan before 1997 but could not recall it or any information about the 1996 selection of Affiliated Funds, and that she could not recall whether she ever knew about the initial selection of Plan funds in 1996.

Defendant Mary Steele was sure she had read the Plan document at some point while a member of the Benefits Plan Committee and that Defendant Donna Lange briefed her regarding her fiduciary responsibilities as a Benefits Plan Committee member and “the most important things that [she] need[ed] to know about the committee,” and that while she did not remember how the SunTrust proprietary funds first came to be offered in the Plan, but that the 1996 change in the Plan from common trust funds to mutual funds “sound[ed] familiar.”

Defendant Thomas Kuntz did not recall whether he received any training regarding his duties as a Benefits Plan Committee member or whether he reviewed prior meeting minutes, though he recalled that the Benefits Plan Committee, “[a] s a matter of course,” “reviewed all the funds in the plan ... for appropriateness.” In a disposition he explained that he believed the proprietary funds in the Plan were appropriately included because “[t]hey looked to be reasonable choices based on assessments that [he] might have had at the time,” though he did not recall what those assessments were.

Defendant Donna Lange said that she was not aware of the process used in initially selecting the Affiliated Funds in 1996, just that “the approved funds were in place when [she] arrived.” As for that 1996 fund selection, Lange went on to say that she did not "recall studying this other than being aware “this is the plan, this is what we started with.” She did state, however, that she knew the Plan was only using proprietary funds when she arrived.

Defendant Aleem Gillani stated in his deposition that he does not recall ever being briefed or “brought up to speed” on the Benefits Plan Committee's decisions prior to becoming a member, and that he had no knowledge of them when appointed to the Benefits Plan Committee.

Finally, Defendant William H. Rogers, Jr. stated in his deposition that he has no knowledge of the initial Affiliated Funds selection in 1996, 1999, and 2001.

Education Precedents

I’ve been working with retirement plans for my entire professional career, during which I have met, spoken with, and written to tens of thousands of plan sponsors. And yet, in all that time, and with all those people, I’ve not met more than a handful who had chosen that specific role as a career path. More often than not, they’ve found themselves in that role with no training, education or background in the role beyond an out-of-date plan document and the cryptic notes left behind by a harried predecessor.

Indeed, there’s more than a bit of irony that individuals who find themselves in a job with personal liability for their actions (and the actions of their co-fiduciaries), alongside an expectation of prudence that courts have described as the “highest known to man,” have had little in the way of practical, retirement-plan-focused training.

That’s a problem for those plan sponsor fiduciaries, of course, but also for the plan advisors who support them. While some may find it easier to lead someone who doesn’t know any better, every quality advisor I’ve ever met much prefers working with plan sponsors who know their job and responsibilities well enough to appreciate the value and contributions of a trained professional.

NAPA members have long valued the benefits not only of education in the field, but the ability – the critical need – to be able to stay up to date on the latest legal and regulatory developments. In addition to conferences, webcasts, and the NAPA Net Daily, we’ve helped you do just that. In the past few years, we’ve launched several NAPA credentials and certificates – the Certified Plan Fiduciary Advisor and more recently the Nonqualified Plan Advisor, as well as NAPA’s PracticeBuilder and Qualified Plan Financial Consultant (QPFC) credential.

Now it’s time for plan sponsors.

This need for education – and acknowledgement of expertise – of plan sponsors was one of the first items discussed with the Plan Sponsor Council of America as they joined the American Retirement Association. We’ve spent the past year in close collaboration with various subject matter experts, including volunteers and the leadership of the PSCA not only discussing this scope of this education need, but also developing a solution.

Last week we unveiled a new industry credential: the Certified Plan Sponsor Professional (PSCA CPSP^TM), and – coincident with the NAPA 401(k) Summit – we are extending to NAPA Certified Plan Fiduciary Advisors the opportunity to extend complimentary access for some of their plan sponsor clients and prospects to the education program associated with the CPSP credential.

Leveraging the latest in online education technology and adult learning methods, this three-course, nine-module online program was developed by plan sponsors and some of the nation’s leading retirement experts to improve and enhance plan sponsors’ understanding of how to effectively evaluate, design, implement and manage a comprehensive employer-sponsored retirement plan. It deals with establishing organizational objectives, plan design, behavioral finance and employee engagement, investment concepts, fiduciary oversight and risk management, compliance, and even vendor management. In sum, it deals with a broad spectrum of issues, concerns and insights regarding retirement plan design and administration.

The education program is designed so that plan sponsors with varying levels of experience and expertise can move through the course flexibly – but provides enough detail and supporting resources that those who are still relatively early in a plan sponsor role can focus on needed knowledge points. Ultimately, those who attain the CPSP credential, by possessing the requisite experience and passing the rigorous credentialing exam, will have demonstrated that they have the knowledge and practical application skills needed to protect their organization from unnecessary fiduciary risk while helping their plan participants achieve better outcomes.

We’re excited about this new credential, and its prospects – not only for enhancing the knowledge and appreciation of dedicated plan sponsors, and for helping advisors add value to their relationships, but also for the positive impact that valuable, practical, timely education in the hands and minds of dedicated retirement plan professionals surely has on the outcomes from our nation’s retirement system.

You can find out more about the program, the credential and the PSCA National Conference, where we’ll be sponsoring a preparatory boot camp for plan sponsors, at www.pscalearn.org.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD