<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Fiduciary News | Fees | Activity</title>
	<link>https://fiduciarynews.com/groups/fees/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://fiduciarynews.com/groups/fees/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed for the group, Fees.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 23:55:37 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
	
						<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">8c4f2c9440b54596829d847e0534ea12</guid>
				<title>Christopher Carosa, CTFA posted an update in the group Fees: Why a Fee Disclosure? - It’s just not working. In fact, d [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/397/</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 02:59:45 -0500</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why a Fee Disclosure? &#8211; It’s just not working. In fact, does it have any meaning at all, other than to confuse plan participants? It’s one thing to place the burden of discerning the value of fees on the plan sponsor for, after all, that is their fiduciary duty. But why bring the plan participant in it? It’s not like they can do anything about&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-397"><a href="https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/397/" rel="nofollow ugc">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">9d18ed9f45f3896f416ff23abb362682</guid>
				<title>Christopher Carosa, CTFA posted an update in the group Fees: When it comes to retirement plans, what is more important [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/396/</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 02:57:48 -0500</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to retirement plans, what is more important than fees? &#8211; As David Huntley, co-editor of the 401k Averages Book explains in the attached article, fees are the be-all and end-all when it comes to value. The DOL apparently shares this opinion. In your mind, what’s more important than fees?<br />
[bpfb_link u&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-396"><a href="https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/396/" rel="nofollow ugc">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">98f4a02ab9c87847939a79d3ea723e3e</guid>
				<title>Christopher Carosa, CTFA posted an update in the group Fees: What’s the best way to improve 401k participant fee d [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/395/</link>
				<pubDate>Fri, 04 Dec 2015 02:56:26 -0500</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What’s the best way to improve 401k participant fee disclosure? &#8211; While it may be correct that it does more harm than good, it’s not going away. Our only hope is to make it better.How do you see that happening? Is there something more important than fees to disclose to 401k plan participants?<br />
[bpfb_link url&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-395"><a href="https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/395/" rel="nofollow ugc">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">2131d59032340fbf53022083dab7ed24</guid>
				<title>Christopher Carosa, CTFA joined the group Fees</title>
				<link>https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/337/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2015 14:52:13 -0500</pubDate>

				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">b4a6f96f6dd18a0235940147570c4ede</guid>
				<title>Christopher Carosa, CTFA posted an update in the group Fees: What’s the best way to improve 401k participant fee d [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/35/</link>
				<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:34:35 -0400</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What’s the best way to improve 401k participant fee disclosure? While it may be correct that it does more harm than good, it’s not going away. Our only hope is to make it better.How do you see that happening? Is there something more important than fees to disclose to 401k plan participants?<br />
[bpfb_link url&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-35"><a href="https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/35/" rel="nofollow ugc">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">d209753e22291758003fb9be27849657</guid>
				<title>Christopher Carosa, CTFA posted an update in the group Fees: When it comes to retirement plans, what is more important [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/34/</link>
				<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:34:03 -0400</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When it comes to retirement plans, what is more important than fees? As David Huntley, co-editor of the 401k Averages Book explains in the attached article, fees are the be-all and end-all when it comes to value. The DOL apparently shares this opinion. In your mind, what’s more important than fees?<br />
[bpfb_link u&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-34"><a href="https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/34/" rel="nofollow ugc">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">d18e4625a24dde9bb714c3b9aa943a01</guid>
				<title>Christopher Carosa, CTFA posted an update in the group Fees: Why a Fee Disclosure? It’s just not working. In fact, does i [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/33/</link>
				<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:33:29 -0400</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why a Fee Disclosure? It’s just not working. In fact, does it have any meaning at all, other than to confuse plan participants? It’s one thing to place the burden of discerning the value of fees on the plan sponsor for, after all, that is their fiduciary duty. But why bring the plan participant in it? It’s not like they can do anything about it.<br />
[&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-33"><a href="https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/33/" rel="nofollow ugc">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">bb2bfbf310a97b8aba01f8af56992446</guid>
				<title>Christopher Carosa, CTFA posted an update in the group Fees: How do you solve a problem like revenue sharing? Should [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/32/</link>
				<pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2015 20:31:59 -0400</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How do you solve a problem like revenue sharing? Should revenue sharing stay or should it go? It’s the cousin of the infamous 12b-1, long out of favor and now a target of the SEC. Is there really any difference between revenue sharing or 12b-1? And, if not, then why shouldn’t they be treated the same?<br />
[bpfb_link url&hellip;<span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-32"><a href="https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/32/" rel="nofollow ugc">[Read more]</a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">548c92d8dbeab42a44ba1f8eb5572fad</guid>
				<title>Michael R. Murphy created the group Fees</title>
				<link>https://fiduciarynews.com/activity/p/7/</link>
				<pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2015 22:01:07 -0400</pubDate>

				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>