The ‘Fiduciary Rule’ that Wasn’t

  After years of anticipation — and months of litigation — the Department of Labor’s latest attempt to expand the definition of fiduciary investment advice is now dead.

That said, and with apologies to Mark Twain, reports of the “death” of the fiduciary rule are somewhat exaggerated. The 2024 version — the so-called Retirement Security Rule — was vacated, which, in legal terms, means we treat it as if it never existed.

But ERISA’s fiduciary framework remains very much alive.

Indeed, for advisors already serving as fiduciaries for retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the practical impact of the recent court ruling is minimal. Advisors serving as 3(21) fiduciaries or 3(38) investment managers were — and remain — subject to ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty. 

Many advisory firms, frankly, had already adopted procedures and business models that would likely have satisfied even the Obama-era fiduciary rule.

Where the rule would have mattered was around the edges of the retirement advice marketplace, particularly in the increasingly scrutinized area of rollover recommendations.  That’s where the Labor Department — across three administrations — tried, unsuccessfully, to extend its oversight. 

And however well-intentioned those efforts were in terms of protecting rollover decisions, they always struck this writer as something of a stretch.

The Rollover Question

Under the longstanding framework — rooted in a 1975 regulation — an advisor becomes an ERISA fiduciary only if the advice satisfies a five-part test, including that it be provided on a “regular basis.”  As a result, a one-time recommendation to roll assets from a plan to an IRA would likely fall outside that definition.

ad space

The now-abandoned rule sought to change that dynamic by broadening the circumstances under which advice would trigger fiduciary status — basically laying the foundation for a rule that said a single advice recommendation that was the basis for an ongoing relationship could qualify.  With the rule’s demise, that expansion isn’t happening — at least for now. 

So, it’s not as though there is no fiduciary rule — but to fall under its auspices, advice will need to meet the five-part test — as it has for the past 50 years.

A Familiar Regulatory Patchwork

The result is that the retirement advice marketplace continues to operate under a patchwork of standards.

Advice to a plan sponsor about investment options or plan design typically falls squarely under ERISA fiduciary obligations. But recommendations made to participants — particularly those involving distributions or rollovers — may instead fall under securities regulations such as Regulation Best Interest (a.k.a. Reg BI). 

In practice, the same advisor may operate under different regulatory regimes depending on the conversation.  For sponsors and participants, the distinction is rarely obvious.  And therein lies the danger.

Participants — and often plan sponsors — tend to assume the advisor across the table is already acting in their best interests. 

And this is as good a time as any to remind those you serve about the difference(s).

The Industry Has Already Moved

Even so, the demise of the 2024 rule doesn’t necessarily signal a return to the past[i].

ad space

Over the past decade — beginning with the now-vacated Department of Labor Fiduciary Rule — many firms have shifted toward advisory models that emphasize fiduciary relationships, level fees, and reduced conflicts of interest.

In other words, while the regulatory framework remains largely unchanged, many advisors' business practices have already evolved.  And while some corners of the industry (looking at you, insurance) have resisted that shift, retirement-plan advisors largely haven’t.

Not the End of the Story

If the past decade has shown anything, it’s that the debate over fiduciary advice isn’t a single rulemaking — it’s a regulatory cycle.

For now, the practical reality is simple: advisors who were ERISA fiduciaries before remain ERISA fiduciaries today, and those who weren’t haven’t suddenly been “transformed”. 

But there remain rules — and standards — in place and active despite the recent ruling.

The larger question — whether rollover advice should carry fiduciary responsibility — will likely be settled only in the next regulatory round. Or maybe even by Congress.

-          Nevin E. Adams, JD

[i] Indeed, in addition to the five-part test, PTE 2020-02 remains in effect.

5 Fiduciary Resolutions for 2025

This is the time of year when resolutions for the cessation of bad behaviors and the beginning of better ones are in vogue. Here are five for plan fiduciaries for 2025.

1. Develop a (plan) budget.

Most financially-focused New Year’s Resolutions focus on spending (less) or saving (more) —and the really thoughtful ones do both — all tied around the development of a budget that aligns what we have to spend with what we actually spend.

I expect that most, or at least many, plans also have a budget when it comes to the expenditures that require corporate funding.  Less clear is how many establish some kind of budget when it comes to what participants have to spend.  Now, granted, what they pay will vary based on any number of …variables — but an essential part of ensuring that the fees paid by the plan (for the services provided to the plan) is knowing how much — and for what.

At some level that means not only keeping an eye on things like expense ratios, the options with revenue-sharing, and the availability of alternative share classes (or options like CITs) — but it also means having an awareness not only of the plan features, but the usage rates of those plan features.

Let’s face it - when it comes to retirement plans, there often IS a direct link between spending less and saving more.

2. Check-up—on your target-date fund(s).

Flows to target-date funds (TDF) have continued to be strong — and little wonder, what with their positioning as the qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) of choice for most 401(k)s. That said, the vast majority of those assets are still under the purview of an incredibly small number of firms — with glidepaths that are not nearly as dissimilar as their marketing materials might suggest.

A TDF is, of course, a plan investment, and like any plan investment, if it fails to pass muster, a plan fiduciary would certainly want to remedy that situation, including removing the fund if necessary (don’t take my word for it — that’s coming straight from the Labor Department). 

That said, TDFs are frequently, if not always, pitched (and likely bought) as a package. While each fund in the family is reviewed separately, and certainly should be, breaking up the set certainly carries with it a series of complicated consequences, not the least of which are participant communication issues and glide path compatibility. Not that those can’t be overcome — and not that those complications would be deemed sufficient to retain an inappropriate investment on the plan menu — but it doesn’t take much imagination to think about the heartburn that might cause.  However, and once again – the Labor Department has suggested that action might be appropriate.

The reasons cited behind TDF selection run a predictable gamut; price/fees, performance (past, of course, despite those disclaimers), platform (as in, it happens either to be their recordkeepers, or compatible with their program) — and doubtless some are actually doing so based on an objective evaluation of the TDF’s suitability for their plan and employee demographics.

Whatever your rationale, it’s likely that things have changed — with the TDF’s designs, the markets, your plan, your workforce, or all of the above – oh, and there might now be a more personalized managed account option. 

The time to consider a change is before you are forced to do so.

3. Pump up - the default rate in your auto-enrollment plan.

While a growing number of employers are auto-enrolling workers in their 401(k) plan (likely even more with the new provisions in SECURE 2.0), one is inclined to assume that nearly two decades after the passage of the Pension Protection Act, if a plan hasn’t done so by now, they likely have some very specific reasons.

But for those who have already embraced automatic enrollment, those are plans who have (apparently) overcome the range of objections; concerns about paternalism, administrative issues, cost — some may even have heard that fixing problems with automatic enrollment can be — well, problematic (though things have gotten a little easier on that front).

There has been movement here over the year s— indeed the most recent PSCA survey found that half of the plans with automatic enrollment set the default deferral rate high enough so that participants receive the full possible company matching contribution (another 10% set it above that rate). More than a third now have a default rate of 6% - or higher!

4. Set goals for your plan (designs).

The mantra about retirement benefits has always been that they exist to help attract and retain good workers. More recently, a reimagined emphasis on financial wellness has offered some nuance to that — to provide better levels of engagement while they are working, to forestall the “distractions” (and potential malfeasance) that financial stress can engender, and ultimately to help workers retire “on time.” These goals are not inherently incompatible, but at any given point in time they require differences in communication, education, emphasis, and potentially program design. 

There is, by the way, a sense of a shift in such things. While the primary goal of participant education has historically been to increase participation rates, the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s 67th Annual Survey of Profit-Sharing and 401(k) plans notes that in 2023 that shifted to increasing financial literacy of employees — cited by 83.6%, and cited as the top priority for more than a third of survey respondents. 

If you haven’t revisited those objectives in a while — or, heaven forbid, have never done so — there’s no time like the present for a reset. After all, as Yogi Berra once commented, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you might wind up someplace else.”

5. Do your homework

Whether you lead a plan committee – or are “just” part of one – it’s important to be prepared.  ERISA requires that the named fiduciary (and there must be one of those) make decisions regarding the plan that are SOLELY in the best interests of plan participants and beneficiaries, and that are the types of decisions that a prudent expert would make about such matters.  Even if you (just) serve on a plan committee, you are also held to that standard.  Legally, you have personal financial responsibility for those decisions – and that motivation alone should provide the requisite focus on preparation. 

That said, ERISA does not require that you make those decisions by yourself—and, in fact, requires that, if you lack the requisite expertise, you enlist the support of those who do have it. 

But you’ll help them – and help yourself – and help the plan participants – if you do your homework BEFORE the committee meeting.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

The Founding Fathers and Fiduciary Fundamentals

Anyone who has ever found their grand idea shackled to the deliberations of a committee, or who has had to kowtow to the sensibilities of a recalcitrant compliance department, can empathize with the process that produced the Declaration of Independence we commemorate this week.

Not that the machinations of a plan committee can be fairly equated to the deliberations—or impact—of the Second Continental Congress, but there are some parallels. Things like…

Committee members should understand their obligations—and the risks.

Those who gathered in Philadelphia that summer of 1776 came from all walks of life, but it seems fair to say that most had something to lose. True, many were merchants (some wealthy, including President of Congress John Hancock) already chafing under the tax burdens imposed by British rule, and perhaps they could see a day when their actions would (eventually) accrue to their economic benefit. Still, they could hardly have undertaken that declaration of independence without a very real concern that in so doing they might well have signed their death warrants.

It’s not quite that serious for plan fiduciaries. However, as ERISA fiduciaries, they are personally liable, and may be required to restore any losses to the plan or to restore any profits gained through improper use of plan assets. Moreover, fiduciaries have potential liability for the actions of their co-fiduciaries. 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.

Indeed, plan fiduciaries would be well advised to bear in mind something that Ben Franklin is said to have remarked during the deliberations in Philadelphia: “We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

Money can be a sticking point.

Before it declared independence, the Second Continental Congress created the Continental Army, named a Commander-in-Chief (George Washington), and authorized the first printing of American money ($1 million in bills of credit). Indeed, in the months (and years) that followed, the costs of (and means of funding) that army would be a constant source of contention between the Congress and the leaders of the Continental Army, even after the fighting on the battlefields was over.

The costs of running a retirement plan are varied, and these days many are borne—directly or indirectly—by the plan and participants themselves. But if the American Revolution was fought over “taxation without representation,” ERISA charges plan fiduciaries with an unequivocal obligation to ensure that every action taken, every service or service provider enlisted, be done for the exclusive benefit of retirement plan participants and their beneficiaries.

It’s not all about money, of course. But—as the Labor Department has noted, and as the plaintiffs’ bar clearly knows—fees and expenses paid by the plan can have an impact on retirement savings and security. Plan fiduciaries should be no less attentive.

It can be hard to break with the status quo.

By the time the Second Continental Congress convened, the “shot heard round the world” at Lexington and Concord was more than a year old, but many of the representatives there still held out hope for some kind of peaceful reconciliation, even as they authorized an army and put George Washington at its helm. Little wonder that, even in the midst of hostilities, there was a strong inclination on the part of several key individuals to put things back the way they had been, to patch them over, rather than to take on what was then the world’s most accomplished military force.

As human beings we are largely predisposed to leaving things the way they are, rather than making abrupt and dramatic changes. Whether this “inertia” comes from a fear of the unknown, a certain laziness about the extra work that might be required, or a sense that advocating change suggests an admission that there was something “wrong” before, it seems fair to say that plan sponsors are, in the absence of a compelling reason for change, inclined to rationalize staying put.

Little wonder that we often see new fund options added, while old and unsatisfactory funds linger on the plan menu, a general hesitation to undertake an evaluation of long-standing providers in the absence of severe service issues, and reluctance to adopt potentially disruptive (and, admittedly, often expensive) plan features like automatic enrollment or deferral acceleration.

While many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were restricted by the entities that appointed them in terms of how they could vote on the issues presented, plan fiduciaries can’t defer that responsibility to others. Rather, their decisions are bound by an obligation that those decisions be made solely in the best interests of plan participants and their beneficiaries—regardless of any other organizational or personal obligations they may have outside their committee role.

It’s important to put it in writing.

While the Declaration of Independence technically had no legal effect, its impact not only on the establishment of the United States, but as a social and political inspiration for many throughout the world since is unquestioned, and perhaps unprecedented. Putting that declaration—and the sentiments behind it—in writing gave it a force and influence far beyond its original purpose.

As for plan fiduciaries, there is an old ERISA adage that says, “prudence is process.” However, an updated version of that adage might be “prudence is process—but only if you can prove it.” To that end, a written record of the activities of plan committee(s) is an essential ingredient in validating not only the results, but also the thought process behind those deliberations. More significantly, those minutes can provide committee members—both past and future—with a sense of the environment at the time decisions were made, the alternatives presented, and the rationale offered for each, as well as what those decisions were.

They also can be an invaluable tool in reassessing those decisions at the appropriate time(s) in the future and making adjustments as warranted—properly documented, of course.

Big change takes time—and effort.

Congress may have declared independence that July, but the reality took considerably more time and effort. Before the year was out, Washington’s troops would cross the Delaware under unimaginable conditions and win a stirring victory at Trenton, on their way to a series of impressive, but largely unappreciated victories against the British army in New Jersey—but less than a year later Washington’s troops would winter at Valley Forge.  It was not won until the victory in Yorktown, Virginia in 1781, and not official for two years after that. 

We do, of course, have much to be thankful for this Independence Day; for those who had the courage to stand up for the principles and ideals on which this nation was founded, for those who were willing then to take up arms to defend those principles and ideals against overwhelming odds, and those who continue to do so to this day.

Plan fiduciaries who are doing their duty and fulfilling their obligations aren’t exactly putting their lives on the line—but in their own special way(s), they’re working to help assure American worker retirement freedoms—their financial independence—every day.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

5 New Year’s Resolutions for 401(k) Plan Fiduciaries

This is the time of year when resolutions for the cessation of bad behaviors and the beginning of better ones are in vogue. Here are three for plan fiduciaries for 2023.

Develop a plan budget.

Most financially-focused New Year’s Resolutions focus on spending (less) or saving (more)—and the really thoughtful ones do both—all tied around the development of a budget that aligns what we have to spend with what we actually spend. 

Most (many?) plans have a budget when it comes to the expenditures that require corporate funding.  Less clear is how many establish some kind of budget when it comes to what participants have to spend.  Now, granted, what they pay will vary based on any number of …variables—but an essential part of ensuring that the fees paid by the plan (for the services provided to the plan) is knowing how much—and for what. 

At some level that means not only keeping an eye on things like expense ratios, the options with revenue-sharing, and the availability of alternative share classes (or options like CITs)—but it also means having an awareness not only of the plan features, but the usage rates of those plan features.

Because when it comes to retirement plans, there often IS a direct link between spending less and saving more.

Put your fund menu on a diet.

Though it is a point often made with studies (well, one frequently cited study, actually) dealing with jellies and ice cream, a long-standing behavioral finance tenet is that more choice doesn’t lead to better decisions. So, what’s with those (still) burgeoning 401(k) investment menus? The 65^th annual Plan Sponsor Council of America’s Survey of Profit-Sharing and 401(k) Plans found that more than a quarter of plan sponsors offer 26 OR MORE options, while another 18% offered 21-25, and 27% offered 16-20.

Odds are that there are funds on the current menu that either aren’t being used or aren’t being used widely—options that contribute little other than clutter to your investment review and to the decisions of your participants.

Take a look—your retirement plan menu shouldn’t be a kitchen sink “solution.”

Check-up—on your target-date fund(s).

Flows to target-date funds (TDF) have continued to be strong—and little wonder, what with their positioning as the qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) of choice for most 401(k)s. That said, the vast majority of those assets are still under the purview of an incredibly small number of firms—with glidepaths that are not as dissimilar as their marketing materials might suggest. 

A TDF is, of course, a plan investment, and like any plan investment, if it fails to pass muster, a plan fiduciary would certainly want to remedy that situation, including removing the fund if necessary (don’t take my word for it—that’s coming straight from the Labor Department).  

That said, TDFs are frequently, if not always, pitched (and likely bought) as a package. While each fund in the family is reviewed separately, and certainly should be, breaking up the set certainly carries with it a series of complicated consequences, not the least of which are participant communication issues and glide path compatibility. Not that those can’t be overcome—and not that those complications would be deemed sufficient to retain an inappropriate investment on the plan menu—but it doesn’t take much imagination to think about the heartburn that might cause.

The reasons cited behind TDF selection run a predictable gamut; price/fees, performance (past, of course, despite those disclaimers), platform (as in, it happens either to be their recordkeepers, or compatible with their program)—and doubtless some are actually doing so based on an objective evaluation of the TDF’s suitability for their plan and employee demographics. 

Whatever your rationale, it’s likely that things have changed—with the TDF’s designs, the markets, your plan, your workforce, or all of the above. 

Pump up the default rate in your auto-enrollment plan.

While a growing number of employers are auto-enrolling workers in their 401(k) plan, one is inclined to assume that, a decade and a half after the passage of the Pension Protection Act, if a plan hasn’t done so by now, they likely have some very specific reasons.

But for those who have already embraced automatic enrollment, those are plans who have (apparently) overcome the range of objections; concerns about paternalism, administrative issues, cost—some may even have heard that fixing problems with automatic enrollment can be—well, problematic (though things have gotten a little easier on that front).

There has been movement here over the years—indeed the most recent PSCA survey found that two-thirds (65%) of plans with automatic enrollment set the default deferral rate high enough so that participants receive the full possible company matching contribution, up from 57.1% as recently as 2020. In fact, the most common default rate for automatic enrollment plans is now more than 6%. 

Set goals for your plan designs.

The mantra about retirement benefits has always been that they exist to help attract and retain good workers. More recently, a reimagined emphasis on financial wellness has offered some nuance to that—to provide better levels of engagement while they are working, to forestall the “distractions” (and potential malfeasance) that financial stress can engender, and ultimately to help workers retire “on time.” These goals are not inherently incompatible, but at any given point in time they require differences in communication, education, emphasis, and potentially program design.  

There is, by the way, a sense of a shift in such things. While the primary goal of participant education has historically been to increase participation rates, the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s 65^th Annual Survey of Profit-Sharing and 401(k) plans notes that in 2020 that shifted to increasing financial literacy of employees in 2020—a shift that held in the most recent survey with 77.4% of organizations now stating that as their primary educational goal. The secondary goal was increasing appreciation for the plan (likely as a retention method) followed by providing retirement planning to employees. The percent of organizations offering financial wellness programs increased to 27%, including more than half of large employers.

If you haven’t revisited those objectives in a while—or, heaven forbid, have never done so—there’s no time like the present for a reset. After all, as Yogi Berra once commented, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you might wind up someplace else.” 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

The 'Best' of 2022

I’ve been writing a weekly column (and then some) for more than two decades now. Some are easier to write (and read)—and some hold up better (and longer) than others. These are some of my (and perhaps your) favorites from 2022.

Let me know what you think in the comments below… particularly if I have missed one of your favorites…  

7 Things to Know About the New ESG Regulation

There’s a lot to unpack in that regulation (and the rest of the 236-pages that help explain its process and rationale), but here’s a few things that seem particularly important to note at the outset. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/7-things-know-about-new-esg-regulation

‘Damned’ (Even) If You Do

The flurry of lawsuits unleashed on holders of the BlackRock LifePath target-date funds is not without precedent—but it’s surely a head scratcher. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/damned-even-if-you-do

Things to Ponder

In the course of my day, I talk to (and email with) people, read a lot, and every so often jot down a random thought or insight that gives me pause and makes me think. See what you think. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/things-ponder

6 Obstacles to Retirement Income Adoption

It’s ironic that programs designed to provide retirement income pay so little attention to the realization of that objective. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/6-obstacles-retirement-income-adoption

The Sure Not-So-Sure Thing

Perhaps the only “sure” things are death and taxes after all—but the lesson for those of us still drawing a paycheck and planning for retirement is the importance of preparing for that third “sure” thing when it comes to retirement planning. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/sure-not-so-sure-thing

7 Assumptions That Can Derail Your Retirement Reality

The future is an uncertain thing, and planning for uncertainty inevitably involves making some assumptions. Here are seven that, done improperly, can—yes, derail your retirement realities. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/7-assumptions-can-derail-your-retirement-reality

5 Dangerous Fiduciary Assumptions

There’s an old saying that when you assume… well, here are some assumptions that can create real headaches for retirement plan fiduciaries. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/5-dangerous-fiduciary-assumptions

9 Things You May Not Know About the Saver’s Credit 

As I was pulling together tax information this weekend, I was reminded that, in addition to the benefits of pre-tax savings and deferred taxes on retirement savings, there’s another tax benefit—but one of which many aren’t aware. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-savers-credit

Not-So-Unforeseen Outcomes

Thanks to their mother, my kids have grown up with a variety of pets in our house—but none more bizarre than our experience with… a chicken. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/not-so-unforeseen-outcomes

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

A Guide Path for Your Glide Path(s)

A recent report—and a new wave of litigation—reminds us that all target-date funds are not designed the same. 

We all know that target-date funds are different, even if their names sometimes suggest otherwise.  Different management teams both set and monitor asset allocations—allocations that can vary widely with regard to the type and quantity of underlying assets. Fees can certainly be different, and some favor a reliance on passive investing versus an active engagement. But the difference that can often account for many of the other differences is the glide path, and more specifically the glide path’s “goal”—and here I am referring to the difference between funds that opt for a “to” retirement versus a “through” retirement focus. 

Now, admittedly it’s a “target date” fund, not necessarily a retirement date fund—and indeed if those were once upon a time considered one and the same, that’s apparently no longer the case. Indeed, and as a recent stream of litigation reminds us, the largest target-date fund providers these days are nearly all in what we call “through” retirement date funds, meaning that their glidepath is designed to carry you past the traditional retirement date “through” to the end of your life.

That’s not an illogical approach—after all, once you get to 65, your odds of making it to 85 (or beyond) are surprisingly good, and two decades is a lifetime[i] (and then some) when it comes to investment time horizons. Indeed, and without question, target-date funds have been a godsend for millions and millions of individuals who are time-pressed and lacking in investment expertise. Let’s face it, even those who have a fair degree of investment acumen find it challenging to keep up with the demands of personal portfolio management alongside the demands of a daily schedule. 

That said, a recent Morningstar whitepaper cautioned (in its title, helpfully) “Plan Sponsors May Not Always Consider Participants’ Behavior or Needs When Selecting Target-Date Glide Paths.” That paper cautioned that “through” glidepaths generally include around 13 percentage points more in equity at age 65 than their peers invested in “to” glide paths, as the average “through” series holds 46% in stocks versus just 33% for the average “to” series. That makes them riskier (or at least more volatile), and potentially riskier than those defaulted into those options may know—or desire.

Therein lies the rub—the Morningstar paper also reminds us that nearly a decade ago the Labor Department provided some "Tips for ERISA Fiduciaries" regarding target-date funds. Tips that included the importance of “Establish[ing] a process for comparing and selecting TDFs,” under which the Labor Department suggested that plan fiduciaries “… should consider how well the TDF’s characteristics align with eligible employees’ ages and likely retirement dates. It also may be helpful for plan fiduciaries to discuss with their prospective TDF providers the possible significance of other characteristics of the participant population, such as participation in a traditional defined benefit pension plan offered by the employer, salary levels, turnover rates, contribution rates and withdrawal patterns.”

Considering the variety of workforce demographics, and the relatively small number of target-date providers garnering the majority of money flowing into TDFs, it seems unlikely that many plan sponsors have yet really focused on the Labor Department’s tips, specifically with regard to questions of demographic alignment with the TDF glidepaths. For those who haven’t, it’s certainly worth a (re)consideration. 

And while you’re at it, it might be a good idea to make sure that it’s aligned with the communication and education to the participants who’ve been placed upon them.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] More cynically perhaps, one can understand and appreciate the interests of those designing the glidepaths in assuming that those invested there would choose to continue to retain that investment expertise, rather than cycle it down and reinvest in a completely different asset class.

Are We Ready for Retirement Income?

 It’s ironic that programs designed to provide retirement income pay so little attention to the realization of that objective.

That’s right—for the vast majority of participants today, creating that “paycheck for the rest of your life” remains a DIY undertaking. To this day only about half of defined contribution plans currently provide an option for participants to establish a systematic series of periodic payments, much less an annuity or other in-plan retirement income option. 

However, the need for that solution is widely acknowledged—and there are some new, if somewhat familiar, solutions emerging. 

Earlier this month, BlackRock garnered some headlines with news that not only was it building annuity contracts into a target-date fund series, but also that it had already lined up five large plan sponsors (with some $7.5 billion in assets) to implement the option as a default. 

That followed by a few months the March announcement of a consortium of providers (American Century Investments, Lincoln Financial Group, Nationwide, Prime Capital Investment Advisors, SS&C Technologies, Wilmington Trust, N.A. and Wilshire) that had collaborated on a new in-plan target-date fund series with guaranteed income for life baked in. One that is also purportedly “portable among major recordkeepers where Income America 5ForLife is available”).

SECURE ‘Acts’

Those announcements, of course, came in the wake of the SECURE Act, which included three specific provisions designed to overcome the reluctance of plan fiduciaries (and participants?) to embrace these options:

• Portability—generally, it permits special distributions of a “lifetime income investment” when the investment is no longer authorized to be held under the plan, which makes it possible for a participant to keep the investment even if the plan sponsor changes recordkeepers or decides to eliminate the investment from the plan lineup. 
• Disclosures—requires plans to give participants projections of their current account balance as a monthly benefit using assumptions prescribed by the Secretary of Labor, a provision designed to help participants better understand what their projected retirement savings will produce in terms of monthly income in retirement. Or, said another way, to help get them oriented to thinking about turning that retirement savings balance into that proverbial paycheck for life.
• Fiduciary Safe Harbor—which, in essence, provides that a DC plan fiduciary that selects a “guaranteed lifetime income contract” to be offered under its plan, he/she will be deemed to have acted prudently if it follows a series of steps outlined in the law. That means that the fiduciary will not be liable if the insurance company later defaults on its obligation to participants who invest in the contract.

It remains to be seen if all this will actually move the needle—but they do seem to directly confront—and, at least potentially—resolve the issues that have long been put forth as objections to the embrace of lifetime income options on a retirement plan menu. Indeed, both offerings also deal with the more traditional objection to annuity products—their cost—if they actually work.

There’s no question that participants need help structuring their income in retirement—and little doubt that a lifetime income option could help (certainly with some help from a trusted advisor). Wrapping a complicated product (and lifetime income is complicated) in a relatively simple product is certainly one way to ease acceptance. Moreover, doing so with a product in which contributions are defaulted should certainly improve the rate of adoption by participants—if plan sponsors are inclined to make it available on that basis. 

And if advisors are willing to help. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Limiting Fiduciary Liability (Costs)

A recent survey of insurers highlights the criteria that a number of the nation’s leading fiduciary liability insurers identified as the biggest sources of fiduciary risk—within the control of plan fiduciaries. 

Now, arguably, the report—titled “What Drives Fiduciary Liability?”—might have been more accurately titled “What Drives Fiduciary Liability Insurance Costs?”—or even more precisely “What Drives Fiduciary Liability Insurance Costs That You Can Do Something About?” Indeed, the report’s authors note that it was specifically focused on sources of risk that are within the control of fiduciaries. That’s key, because there are things that attract litigation (such as plan size or even stock price) that aren’t. 

Moreover, the survey respondents (there were 8 of the 12 that Aon said account for 85% of the total gross written premium placed by the firms in 2020) were asked only to evaluate pricing criteria as having a significant, small or nonexistent impact—though one might want to find something between significant and small, at least.

The survey’s authors identified five key takeaways—and while there are more elements discussed in the report, that seems a good place to start:

1. Fees are very important.

Well, to quote Homer Simpson, “doh.” Indeed, the only surprises here are that (only) 88% of the respondents identified periodic fee benchmarking reviews by the investment committee as a “significant” driver of insurance premiums; (just) 75% said it was significant if the plan uses revenue-sharing or Sub-TA type revenues; and (a mere) 63% said that using retail mutual fund share classes would fall in that category. Granted, with only 8 respondents (albeit with big market share), we’re talking small numbers.

Moreover, note that these points aren’t about what the fees are, and certainly not what they are relative to the services provided (the true measure of “reasonable”), but about fee structures and process. It is, in other words, about what might be seen as the “appearance” of impropriety. Indeed, as has been borne out in litigation, there’s no legal issue with any of the foregoing—but all of these practices (or, in the case of the review, non-practices) have been challenged as if they were themselves a violation, or at least an indicator, of a fiduciary breach. 

Suffice it to say that if the plan is currently doing (or not doing, in the case of a review) these things, you should be sure to have prudently considered the reasons—and to have documented that consideration—but can likely expect to pay more in insurance premiums, regardless. 

2. Committee minutes are important, but it matters less who takes them.

Only a third of the survey respondents said that taking formal minutes was a “significant” factor (the rest said the impact was “small”—bearing in mind that the only other option was “nonexistent”), so I have a feeling that the Aon report authors exercised a little editorial “discretion” in positioning that as important. In fact, that seemed very low to me, certainly in view of the impact in persuading a judge (much less a DOL auditor) that you do, in fact, have a prudent process in place. Perhaps it reflects what still seems to be a consistent caution from the legal community: that such things can be a “smoking gun” in litigation. On the other hand, I’ve seen committee minutes be effective shields in having cases dismissed at the pleading stage, so…

The report does indicate that there is no particular advantage in having an advisor or legal counsel act as scribe, though the latter might well limit the “smoking gun” risk.

3. Investment advisors are viewed as a moderate influencer of premiums.

This one was a bit of a head-scratcher as well—perhaps reflecting the varying quality and expertise of the investment advisors whose expertise might be tapped. The Aon report said the responses were split almost evenly among the impact of an advisor being deemed as significant, small or nonexistent, and even when going on to qualify that statement (with the quality of the advisor), only a quarter (that’s two firms) said it would have a significant impact on pricing. (Half described the impact as “small.”) 

There were some qualifiers here—the impact was seen as small by one “unless related party in which case significant impact” (and I’m assuming a negative one), another stated that an “experienced advisor is expected,” and still another cautioned that while this was a factor, “…outside vendors are not foolproof and the insured retains fiduciary liability with respect to them.” 

4. Employer stock in DC plans remains a top concern for insurers.

This one appears to matter—a lot. Then again, it wasn’t unanimous—88% rated it as a significant factor, though that figure dropped to 50% when there is a limit on the size of the investment, which is increasingly common. Indeed, so-called “stock drop” suits seem to (still) crop up every time there is a disappointing earnings announcement or some piece of bad PR that drives down the stock price. 

That said, it’s one thing to bring suit—and yet, it remains a hard suit to win based on recent case history. 

Not mentioned: the inclusion of proprietary funds. It’s seldom a standalone rationale for bringing suit, but—well, it’s increasingly common, at least among organizations that have that capability.

5. Environmental, social and governance (ESG) options in DC plans play a minor role in pricing fiduciary liability insurance.

The inclusion of this particular item was a bit of a head-scratcher, though the results—62% said it had no impact on the premium pricing—were not. In fairness, and as noted by the survey’s authors, the survey was fielded after the Biden administration’s announcement that it was not going to enforce the rule put in place by the Trump administration, but my guess (and theirs) is that it simply reflects the relatively small take-up rate by plans and the tepid adoption by participants. Indeed, one of the survey respondents commented that the impact “depends on the % of plan assets or # of investment options offered. As well as if the plan were to attempt to force a requirement to its participants.” 

Ultimately, and as one of the survey respondents noted, “While we look at a number of items that are in the survey, the problem is that there is pressure to settle, in some cases because the cost to defend would be greater than the settlement value. Defense costs and settlement amounts in the so-called fee cases are incredibly high, even where the client has robust fiduciary processes.”

Still, forewarned is forearmed. Like vaccines, addressing those issues might not completely forestall litigation—but it would surely make for a less painful set of “symptoms.”

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

History’s Lessons for Plan Fiduciaries

 

The study of history is a passion of mine, and while it seems a bit trite, the old adage that those who don’t remember the past are doomed to repeat it seems more apropos by the day. Regardless, I never cease to be touched by the experience of walking the grounds where famous individuals or great historic events took place. 

A few years back I had the opportunity to be in Philadelphia for a few days beyond the customary speaking event “fly-by,” and was thrilled to be able to tour Independence Hall where, in 1776, the Continental Congress crafted what we will shortly celebrate as the Declaration of Independence. Those who think that partisan divides, cynical self-interest, and political acrimony are recent “innovations” in government would perhaps be shocked to learn that regional tensions have always been part-and-parcel of our republic… even before it was a republic. 

The room was smaller than I had imagined—and I couldn’t imagine what it must have felt like on a July day with no air conditioning. The chairs (though doubtless replicas) looked… uncomfortable, to say the least. The idea that the debates—and ultimately the consensus (of sorts) that was wrested from this group of disparate individuals with varied (and competing) objectives in that room was—to me, anyway, nothing short of extraordinary. To this day the reality that our nation was born from—and has survived—those contradictions is a testament to the power of the ideals expressed on that July day in 1776, even if some would require the passage of time (and a Civil War) to achieve. 

But, as we commemorate this Independence Day holiday, there are, I think, lessons to be learned from that experience that can be applied to our work with retirement plans, particularly those who serve those plans as fiduciaries. 

Inertia is a powerful force.

By the time the Second Continental Congress convened, the “shot heard round the world” had already been fired at Lexington, but many of the representatives in Philadelphia still held out hope for some kind of peaceful reconciliation. Little wonder that, even in the midst of hostilities, there was a strong inclination on the part of several key individuals to put things back the way they had been, to patch them over, rather than to take on the world’s most accomplished military force.

As human beings we are largely predisposed to leave things the way they are, rather than making abrupt and dramatic change. Whether this “inertia” comes from a fear of the unknown, a certain laziness about the extra work that might be required, or a sense that advocating change suggests an admission that there was something “wrong” before, it seems fair to say that plan sponsors are, generally speaking, and in the absence of a compelling reason for change, inclined to rationalize staying put.

Little wonder that we often see new fund options added, while old and unsatisfactory funds linger on the plan menu, a general hesitation to undertake an evaluation of long-standing providers in the absence of severe service issues, and reluctance to adopt potentially disruptive (and, admittedly, often expensive) plan features like automatic enrollment or deferral acceleration.

While many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were restricted by the entities that appointed them in terms of how they could vote on the issues presented, plan fiduciaries are bound by a higher obligation—that their decisions be made solely in the best interests of plan participants and their beneficiaries—regardless of any other organizational or personal obligations they may have outside their committee role.

Selection of committee members is crucial.

The Second Continental Congress was comprised of representatives from what amounted to 13 different governments, with delegates selected by processes ranging from extralegal conventions, ad hoc committees, to elected assemblies –with varying degrees of voting authority granted to them, to boot. Needless to say, that made reaching consensus even more complicated than under “ordinary” circumstances.

Today the process of putting together an investment or plan committee runs the gamut—everything from simply extrapolating roles from an organization chart to a random assortment of individuals to a thoughtful consideration of individuals and their qualifications to act as a plan fiduciary. But if you want a good result, you need to have the right individuals—and, certainly in the case of ERISA fiduciaries, if those individuals lack the requisite knowledge on a particular issue, they need to access that expertise from individuals who do.

Know that there are risks.

Those that gathered in Philadelphia that summer of 1776 came from all walks of life, but it seems fair to say that most had something to lose by signing on to a declaration of independence. True, many were merchants (some wealthy, including President of Congress John Hancock), and perhaps they could see a day when their actions would accrue to their economic benefit. Still, they could hardly have undertaken that declaration without a very real concern that in so doing they might well have signed their death warrants. As Ben Franklin is said to have commented just before signing the Declaration, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Despite the threat of litigation, it is not quite that serious for ERISA plan fiduciaries. However, there is the matter of personal liability—not only for your actions, but for those of your fellow fiduciaries—and thus, you might be required to restore any losses to the plan or to restore any profits gained through improper use of plan assets. So, it’s a good idea not only to know who your co-fiduciaries are—but to keep an eye on what they do, and are permitted to do.

It’s important to put it in writing.

While the Declaration of Independence technically had no legal effect, with the possible exception of the Gettysburg Address (which was heavily inspired by the former), its impact not only on the establishment of the United States, but as a social and political inspiration for many throughout the world is unquestioned, and perhaps unprecedented. Putting that declaration—and the sentiments expressed—in writing gave it a force and influence far beyond its original purpose.

Plan fiduciaries are sometimes cautioned (often by legal counsel) about committing to writing certain decisions, notably an investment policy statement. In fairness, the law does not require one, though ERISA basically anticipates that plan fiduciaries will conduct themselves as though they had one in place. And, generally speaking, plan sponsors (and the advisors they work with) 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—rather than being crafted at a point in time when you are desperately trying to make sense of the markets. That said, and in the defense of caution, if there’s something worse than not having an IPS, it’s having an IPS that isn’t followed.

There is an old ERISA adage that says, “Prudence is process.” However, an updated version of that adage might be “prudence is process—but only if you can prove it.” To that end, a written record of the activities of plan committee(s) is an essential ingredient in validating not only the results, but also the thought process behind those deliberations. More significantly, those minutes can provide committee members—both past and future—with a sense of the environment at the time decisions were made, the alternatives presented and the rationale offered for each, as well as what those decisions were. 

Those might not serve to inspire future generations—but they can be an invaluable tool in reassessing those decisions at the appropriate time(s) in the future and making adjustments as warranted—properly documented, of course.

Actions can speak louder than words.

As dramatic and inspiring as the words of the Declaration of Independence surely were (and are), if they never got beyond the document in which they appeared, it’s unlikely we’d be talking about them today. Indeed, it’s likely that, without the actions committed to in that Declaration, their signatures on the document would have only ensured that they wound up on the gallows.

Anyone who has ever had a grand idea shackled to the deliberations of a moribund committee, or who has had to kowtow to the sensibilities of a recalcitrant compliance department, can empathize with the process that produced the Declaration of Independence we’ll commemorate this week.

Yes, Independence Day is a great opportunity to reflect and remember that our actions have consequence(s)—and that while plan committee meetings and deliberations may sometimes seem like little more than obligatory (and tedious) reviews of arcane information, it’s worth remembering that those decisions affect people’s lives—and, ultimately, their financial independence. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD