The most pertinent issue may not be the fiduciary imperative, but the marketing imperative. This makes things extremely difficult for the 401k plan sponsor who may sometimes confuse which has priority. Here’s an example of why a plan sponsor might be concerned.
Tag "DOL"
“That is one of the key weaknesses of the SEC’s Reg BI. It allows brokers to claim they are working in an investor’s best interest without being held to a legal duty of loyalty”
Although we’ve seen a broader acceptance of using an IPS, their use is by no means universal and particularly lacking among smaller employers. Perhaps there’s a realization that, if you don’t get the IPS right, you’ll only increase your liability.
“Surveys show about half of investors don’t know how much they’re paying for advice, and about one in six think they pay nothing.”
It appears all but certain the floodgates will soon open wide, unleashing a torrent of trade association sponsored 401k MEPs. If you’re looking for the trigger that will open those floodgates, here’s what you should be paying attention to.
“401k Multiple Employer Plans (MEPs) are a solution for the small to mid-sized employer market that will lead to the expansion of retirement plan coverage for America’s workers.”
401k plan sponsors have a renewed focus on the three F-words of offering employee retirement benefits: Fiduciary, Fees, and Financial Wellness. Here’s how plan sponsors answer questions related to each of these three F-words.
Regulators (including the DOL) seem intent on splitting the baby in half by allowing two incompatible business models – one fiduciary with no self-dealing fees, the other non-fiduciary with conflict-of-interest fees – to coexist within the same market. Does this mean “fiduciary” has lost its inherent advantage?
Was “fiduciary” done in by over-saturation? Or was it the victim of a super successful negative campaign? Or is there something missing in our analysis?
FiduciaryNews.com Trending Topics for ERISA Plan Sponsors: Week Ending 6/14/19
SECURE, BI, and 3% fees!