If the DOL requires the 401k plan fiduciary to ignore a fund’s investment performance, but the SEC still requires funds to disclose that performance, which will 401k investors choose? More importantly, who’s left holding the liability bag?
Conflicts of Interest
Should indirect fees matter? Academics may argue, but regulators will have the final say. Unfortunately, different definitions of fees only confound the ERISA fiduciary.
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?
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.
$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?
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?”
SEC’s Mary Shapiro: “When it comes to 12b-1 fees, there is a need for more fundamental change than mere disclosure reforms and a name change.” FiduciaryNews’ exploration of this hot potato reveals a surprising misconception.
