Too many accept the definition of “fees” without deliberation. Yet, even by looking solely at the fees associated with investment choice, the fiduciary can land in a state of confusion. This only increases liability. How can we fix this?
Posts From Christopher Carosa, CTFA
Under the DOL’s proposed Investment Advice Rule, if a plan enters into a prohibited relationship with a vendor – or if an existing relationship now becomes prohibited – fiduciary liability rises. Can the 401k fiduciary afford to ignore these critical issues?
Are you breathing a sigh of relief? Commentators seem to have coalesced around several key benefits of this proposed Rule. Can you see these helping your plan’s participants?
Most interesting, though, may loom the warning of Justice Alito: When is comes to fiduciary duty, disclosure isn’t enough. One wonders if the DOL is listening.
At one point within two days of a total meltdown, our financial markets appear to have recovered. Can we now say with certainty what went wrong? Will misguided “solutions” only place our markets are risk once more?
As usual, be careful about elixirs marketed as cure-alls. Personally involved in creating CITs in the early 1990s specifically to market to 401k plans, I’ll share my experiences with you here.
$16.5 million is a large price to pay for disclosure and due diligence a plan fiduciary can simply and consistently address. This may be the easiest action a 401k plan fiduciary to take to prevent the camel from sticking his nose under the tent.
The question now on the mind of every 401k fiduciary: Will the DOL’s new rule increase my personal fiduciary liability?
FiduciaryNews asked several prominent independent investment advisers what they felt about the joint agency RFI. They revealed six major concerns every 401k fiduciary must consider regarding annuities.
Why wait until now to bring up the three-month old blog? The bigger question, however, remains, “How should a 401k fiduciary analyze mutual fund fees?”
