How Much is that (Investment) in the Window…A Higher Level of Fiduciary Oversight Could be Required for 401(k) Plan Brokerage Windows

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

Fiduciaries of 401(k) plans and other retirement plans know that they must prudently monitor the investment options available to participants in the plan, but are they monitoring participants’ investments made through a plan’s brokerage window? Recent commentary from the Department of Labor (DOL) on cryptocurrency investments suggests maybe fiduciaries should be – and that the DOL may check in on that soon.[i]

A “brokerage window” or “self-directed brokerage account” can allow participants access to a broad array of investments beyond the regular investment menu under the plan. Most plan fiduciaries have not paid much attention to the actual brokerage window investments. This is not surprising given the DOL’s relative lack of focus on the matter. The DOL had issued guidance in 2012 that the investment disclosure portion of the fee disclosure rules could apply to brokerage window investments in certain cases but after pushback due to the administrative burdens, the DOL withdrew that guidance. In 2014 the DOL issued a Request for Information about brokerage window practices but no further guidance was issued. Read more

Can’t Touch This … DOL Discourages Plans From Investing in Cryptocurrency

/in , , , , , ,

by Becky Achten

Among the many phrases of ERISA, one that is familiar to investment fiduciaries is the requirement to choose investments with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that a prudent person who is familiar with such matters would use. Recently the Department of Labor (DOL) issued guidance on how this prudence standard applies to fiduciaries who offer cryptocurrency investment alternatives to participants.

In Compliance Assistance Release 2022-01, the DOL reminds fiduciaries of their important role in selecting investments for participant direction. Plan fiduciaries must evaluate each investment option made available to participants to ensure they are prudent. Failure to remove an imprudent investment is a breach of duty. Read more

The Tide is High…Keep Holding On For More Retirement Plan Fee Litigation

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this week in Hughes v. Northwestern University will do nothing to stem the rising tide of retirement plan fee litigation. But the ruling doesn’t mean fiduciary breach claims are more likely to be successful either. Instead, the Court kept its ruling very narrow: a broad investment menu with some prudent funds will not automatically mean the fiduciaries are off the hook for offering imprudent funds.

 

The plaintiffs in Hughes were participants in two 403(b) retirement plans sponsored by Northwestern University. The participants brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the University, the retirement plan committee, and the individuals who administered the plans. The participants alleged the fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by: (1) allowing recordkeeping fees that were too high; (2) allowing plan investments with excessive investment fees; and (3) providing participants too many investment options (over 400!) which resulted in participant confusion and poor investment decisions. Read more

We Interrupt This Program – Is a Multiple Employer Plan In Your Future?

/in , , , , , , , , , ,

by Kevin Selzer

We interrupt our usual Benefits Dial programming – to take a closer look at developments affecting multiple employer plans (MEPs) as part of our series of posts on the recently enacted benefit plan legislation, including the SECURE Act (background here).  The reform to MEPs is seen by many as the biggest disruptor to the retirement plan industry.  Why?  It facilitates the banding together of retirement plan assets from unrelated employers, helping employers punch above their weight.  By combining together to form a larger plan, smaller employers can leverage assets with regard to plan services, and maybe most importantly, investment fees paid by participants. 

MEPs have long been permitted but many employers have been unwilling to participate in those plans.  The biggest deterrent has been the “one bad apple rule.”   That rule provides that a defect in any participating employer’s portion of the MEP can impact the tax qualification of the entire MEP for other participating employers.  In other words, if one participating employer in the MEP is unwilling (or maybe unable) to correct an error, the whole plan can be disqualified by the IRS.  The SECURE Act helps solve this issue with a special kind of MEP called a pooled employer plan (PEP).  PEPs have a specific procedure for dealing with tax qualification defects.  In short, a participating employer in a PEP who refuses to correct the error, can be discharged (spun off) from the PEP to isolate the disqualification impact. The SECURE Act grants relief under ERISA to boot.  Historically, MEPs were treated as a collection of separate plans unless the underlying employers met a commonality standard.  A PEP (called a “Group of Plans” under ERISA) is also treated as a single plan for ERISA purposes under the SECURE Act.  This means, for example, that such plans would be allowed to file a single Form 5500. 

Read more