fiduciary education

Survey Demonstrates Better Results for 401k Participants Using Advice

Survey

A recent study illustrated finds that 401k participants using advice are better diversified and have larger balances. Here are some interesting findings of the survey:

  • Improved Diversification – Participants held 74% more funds in their portfolio (8.67 versus 4.98 funds)
  • Improved Performance – 3 Year Annualized Return was 2.67% better than do-it-yourself investors
  • Larger Balances Seek Advice – Average balance of participants using advice was $107,558 versus $44,178 of do-it-yourself investors

These results are very similar to our experience with 401k investors. We find that participants using advice (or managed accounts) are better diversified and experience better downside protection due to improved risk management. Additionally, the larger the balance, the more likely the participant is to seek advice.

“The numbers tell us that participants with larger account balances are the ones who seek out advice, which helps them continue to move ahead,” said Kelli Send, Senior Vice President, in a press release. “However, the study results argue advice for all will improve diversification and performance.”

Read the Article at PlanSponsor.com

Final Regulation on 401(k) Advice Bill Due Early 2011

2011 CalendarEven though it has been in the works for over four years now, it looks like we might finally receive clarification on the PPA ‘Fiduciary Adviser’ 401(k) advice regulations early next year. Understandably, with the many issues that have garnered more press such as the healthcare debate, 401(k) fee disclosure and target date funds, the regulations have been delayed.

Borzi also said that EBSA was working on a final regulation for its investment advice rule, which should be out early next year. “We’ve resolved most of the policy issues,” concerning the regulation, Borzi said, and are now focusing on “enforcement issues.”

Read the Article at InvestmentAdvisor.com

401(k) Fiduciary Best Practices Available on Your iPod

Written August 17th, 2010 by
2 comments

Talk 401k with Don DavidsonI am an iPod junkie. I admit it. However, I did not take advantage of the vast library of information available in the Podcast section of iTunes until just lately.

I was recently made aware of Don Davidson‘s new “Talk 401k” podcast, and decided to take a listen. After hearing his first podcast with Tom Kmak of Fiduciary Benchmarks, I was sold. The 20 minute interview was concise and informative. I don’t know about you, but when I can listen in and take a break from having to read everything on 401(k) fiduciary best practices, it’s quite nice. I would highly recommend subscribing and listening in when you have a chance.

Subscribe to Don’s Podcast

A Conversation on 401(k) Advice vs. Guidance – PPA Fiduciary Adviser v. The DoL 96-1 Opinion

Advice as an industry is a very young one. The ‘SunAmerica Opinion‘ was issued in December of ’01. The PPA Fiduciary Adviser provisions were written in August of ’06, and the DoL is still working to iron out the final architecture. That being said, since the 401(k) is only a little over 30 years old, advice is its first son, and it is just now starting to mature. Wow, that’s quite an analogy, but I am going to run with it for now…

When marketing our services to companies sponsoring 401(k) plans, we will often face confusion as to what is truly being offered to participants — guidance or advice. The reason being that the word advice has been used liberally by brokers, advisors, and service providers. Unfortunately, that will sometimes lead to companies assuming their participants are receiving the advice they need, rather than knowing what is actually taking place in those education meetings and any 1on1 interactions that follow. Since guidance versus advice has been easily confused, the following is a mock conversation designed to clarify what is and isn’t, should and shouldn’t, be taking place with participants so to protect the plan sponsor from fiduciary liability:

Plan Sponsor (PS): “Our participants are already getting advice.”

BeManaged: “Have you ever sat through one of those sessions?”

PS: “Well, no, but that is what our broker/advisor tells us he/she/they are doing when they are on-site during our committee reviews.”

BeManaged: “I noticed on your company’s 5500 that your plan was with XYZ company, so that likely means your plan advisor is being paid by the investments in the plan. Is that still the case?”

PS: “Yes, I believe so.”

BeManaged: “Please forgive me if I am overstepping my bounds, but if your plan’s advisor is being paid by the investments, there are only a few ways in which they can provide advice without holding the company liable for the advice they deliver. One is through the Pension Protection Act’s Fiduciary Adviser provision. The other is through a highly complicated fee offset arrangement that is extremely rare in our experience. If they are operating as a PPA Fiduciary Adviser, they would have a specific fiduciary agreement in place with the committee. Are you aware of one?

PS: “Um, no. What do you mean we could be held liable for the advice he/she/they are delivering?”

BeManaged: “I do not want to alarm you. I would guess that the term ‘advice’ has been used far too loosely. In 1996, the DoL issued an opinion which clarified that general investment education and guidance protected brokers/advisors from acting as a fiduciary, yet we have found many to overstate this guidance as being advice, when in fact it is not. Guidance simply provides a general overview without speaking to specific funds and the percentage that participant should allocate to each one.”

PS: “Isn’t that good enough?”

BeManaged: “That depends on the investment savvy of the individual. Unfortunately, numerous studies have shown that selecting funds, measuring risk, and managing behavior during volatile markets is not the forte of the vast majority of investors. There are entire websites dedicated to sharing these issues such as behaviorgap.com. Even target date funds, looked at as a simple solution to this problem, are not being used correctly based on studies by Vanguard, one of the largest players in that market. Having ongoing advice specific to the participant’s individual situation has become a welcome reprieve to frustrated participants in plans with demographics similar to yours.”

PS: “From what our advisor/broker tells us, there is poor attendance in the advice sessions…or guidance sessions…whatever it is, that they provide.”

BeManaged: “I could guess that if the guidance is provided under the DoL 96-1 opinion I mentioned, it is understandable. Imagine if you walked into a mechanic and explained what the issue was with your vehicle, and regardless of how simple or complicated, they provided you with a number of different approaches on how you can fix it. It was then up to you to decide how to do it yourself. You would never go back to that mechanic again, right? Fortunately, you and I can choose to go to a different mechanic. Unfortunately, unless that individual has enough assets to qualify working with a fiduciary wealth manager, which typically means having assets of $250k at minimum, then they have no one that will provide them with specific, fiduciary advice that has ‘skin in the game’ as does a fiduciary.”

PS: “Ok, so if I sat down with our advisor/broker, and he/she/they provided me specific advice, they are putting the committee members in harms way, and if they are providing general guidance, our participants are not getting what they really need. Am I understanding this correctly?”

BeManaged: “Yes, you are correct. You as a fiduciary are not required to provide advice, but it is simply an understanding of what your participants need. However, if you are not able to abide by Section 404(c) of ERISA, you can be held responsible for the investment decisions of your participants. Therefore, providing yourself and the other committee members protection from ‘advice that goes bad’ is important, and can be done in a simple manner through the PPA Fiduciary Adviser fiduciary safe harbor. And to be clear, if your plan advisor/broker is working under 96-1, you are under no additional liability either. It is simply a ‘line in the sand’ by which the broker can provide guidance without being held out as a fiduciary (see the following reference from the DoL).

The Department notes that the information and materials described in subparagraphs (1)-(4) above merely represent examples of the type of information and materials which may be furnished to participants and beneficiaries without such information and materials constituting ``investment advice.'' In this regard, the Department recognizes that there may be many other examples of information, materials, and educational services which, if furnished to participants and beneficiaries, would not constitute ``investment advice.'' Accordingly, no inferences should be drawn from subparagraphs (1)-(4), above, with respect to whether the furnishing of any information, materials or educational services not described therein may constitute ``investment advice.'' Determinations as to whether the provision of any information, materials or educational services not described herein constitutes the rendering of ``investment advice'' must be made by reference to the criteria set forth in 29 CFR 2510. 3-21(c)(1). READ MORE
PS: "Ok, so if I go through the interaction, how will I know if I am receiving guidance or advice?

BeManaged: “The simplest thing to understand is if the advisor tells you specifically which funds to use and what percentage to put into each, then you are receiving advice. There should be some sort of process used to quantify what kind of investor you are, such as an investor questionnaire which looks at your age, time horizon for retirement and tolerance for risk. If you instead receive general plan and investment information, a general asset allocation model or are given an investment worksheet/website to provide you such a model, your broker is operating under the DoL 96-1 opinion. It would be wise for them to do so as it is quite complicated for them to perform a fee offset to avoid the inherent potential conflicts of interest of providing advice while being paid by the underlying investments in the plan. The DoL’s 96-1 Opinion clarified what was guidance and what is advice, as at that time, fee-only advisors were extremely rare, and investment advice automatically makes an individual a fiduciary, which most broker dealers do not allow. For plan advisors/brokers that are paid by the investments in the plan, 96-1 allowed them to clearly understand where the fiduciary line in the sand is. For the time being, 96-1 does not put you in harm, it just might not be what your participants need.”

PS: “Or our committee members for that matter, if we can be held responsible for participant investment decisions. I am pretty sure we have identified ourself as a 404(c) plan, but remember the requirements being quite onerous.”

BeManaged: “The next step is simple: go through a consultation with your plan advisor on your individual account. What you receive during the interaction will tell you what is happening in your plan, advice or guidance.”

PS: “Easy enough, and they will be here early next week, so this is timely.”

BeManaged: “I would like to schedule a brief call with you following the consultation with your permission.”

PS: “Sure, call me next Wednesday at 10am.”

5 Tips for the Selection and Monitoring of Your 401(k) Advisor


Jason Roberts, Esq., AIFA

Jason Roberts, Esq., AIFA

Jason Roberts, partner at Reish and Reicher, one of the most respected ERISA law firms in the nation, wrote an excellent and concise piece on how to evaluate and monitor the advisor of your plan.

Fiduciaries of employee benefit plans are charged with carrying out their duties prudently and solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries of the plan and are subject to personal liability to, among other things, make good any losses to the plan resulting from a breach of their fiduciary duties. In selecting service providers, the responsible plan fiduciary must engage in an objective process designed to elicit information necessary to assess the qualifications of the service provider, the quality of the work product, and the reasonableness of the fees charged in light of the services provided. In addition, this process should be designed to avoid self-dealing, conflicts of interest or other improper influence.

Before I forget, I would highly recommend plan fiduciaries and advisors to subscribe to their e-newsletter by clicking on the following link, as it consistently keeps both parties up to date on the latest developments in relation to their responsibilities. SUBSCRIBE

Now, back to the five tips. The following were in the July 2010 Report to Plan Sponsors, and serve as a concise outline for plan fiduciaries to ensure they are receiving “reasonable fees for reasonable service” from their advisor as ERISA requires, not just from the service provider(s) of the plan.

  1. Step 1: Evaluate the credentials of the adviser and his or her experience with servicing employee benefit plans, the services to be provided and the fees to be charged.
    1. You should also consider obtaining competing bids from other providers offering equivalent services and document the basis upon which you have selected your adviser, including any relevant industry experience and/or retirement-specific designation(s).
  2. Step 2: Evaluate any potential conflicts of interest and the adviser’s policies and procedures designed to address those conflicts.
    1. The SEC has warned that “business alliances” among pension consultants and money managers can give rise to serious potential conflicts of interest under the Advisers Act that need to be monitored and disclosed to plan fiduciaries. The following questions are designed to aid in determining whether conflicts, or potential conflicts, of interest exist:
      1. - Is the adviser registered with the SEC? If yes, does the adviser comply with all disclosure requirements?
      2. – Does the adviser have relationships with money managers that the adviser recommends?
      3. – Does the adviser, or a related company, receive any payments from money managers?
      4. – Does the adviser use plans that pay the adviser a consulting fee?
      5. – Does the adviser consider him/herself to be a fiduciary under ERISA with respect to the recommendations the adviser provides for the plan?
  3. Step 3: Periodically review the performance of your service providers to ensure that they are providing the services in a manner and at a cost consistent with the agreements.
  4. Step 4: Review plan participant comments or any complaints about the services and periodically ask whether there have been any changes in the information you received from the service provider prior to hiring (e.g. does the provider continue to maintain any required state or federal licenses).
  5. Step 5: Prepare a written record of the process you followed in reviewing potential service providers and the reasons for your selection of a particular provider.

Read the Entire Article

4 Ways the New 408(b)2 Disclosure Regulations Will Benefit Plan Sponsors

The new 408(b)2 disclosure regs have been long awaited, and present a great opportunity for companies to better understand and benchmark the fees associated with their 401(k) provider. Additionally, it will be require 401(k) service providers to better articulate value in light of the fees they charge. ERISA requires plan fiduciaries to review the fee structure of, and I paraphrase, “reasonable fees for reasonable service.” What is reasonable? That is for plan fiduciaries to determine via the value proposition delivered by 401(k) service providers, which includes recordkeepers, TPAs, custodians, advisors and yes, participant advice providers.

While the impact of this disclosure does not directly impact us as a 401(k) participant advice provider since we have been transparent and conflict-free from the start, there are a lot of benefits for the companies and employees we serve. Here are a few:

  1. Service Providers Must Disclose Whether They are Fiduciaries – There is so much confusion over this issue, it is great to see the regulations require this so to clarify for plan sponsors who is and who is not acting as a fiduciary. Most plan fiduciaries have been confused by this over the proliferation of the terms used by service providers such as fiduciary, co-fiduciary, fiduciary warrant and especially advice, which automatically makes someone a fiduciary. Per InvestmentNews.com:

    “Along with requiring bundled service providers to break out costs of their record-keeping services, the new regulation also requires providers to disclose whether they are acting as fiduciaries to plans.”
  2. Disclosure Simplifies Plan Reviews and Benchmarking – Understanding value will be much easier if there is some standardization and definition of what services are to be included under each term. Making an apples to apples comparison is critical for making a large decision on a large purchase, such as a 401(k) service provider.

  3. Independence and Conflicts to be Better Articulated – Understanding the inherent conflicts of interest with various service providers. Per InvestmentNews.com,

    “Under the rule, consultants — and many plan service providers — will be required to reveal to DB and DC plan sponsors
    hitherto undisclosed compensation they are receiving, including any revenue sharing or finder’s fees.”
  4. Transparency Improves ClarityIt is obvious, but understanding what plans are paying for various providers has been extremely difficult to understand for many companies. Including us. We do not do plan-level consulting work, but when we are working on a plan that has a fiduciary plan consultant, the quality of the plan has a distinctly different flavor than the plans that do not. Service and value are the at the crux of the conversation, which ultimately resonate in greater outcomes for participants. Per InvestmentNews.com,

Alison Borland, retirement strategy leader at unbundled provider Hewitt Associates, Lincolnshire, Ill., said: “The regulations will put different types of service providers, including bundled and unbundled providers, on a level playing field.”

“Ultimately that means better transparency, more negotiating power and lower total costs for plan sponsors and plan participants.”
Cheaper is not always better. Receiving the best value for a reasonable cost is all this disclosure regulation is aiming at in our humble opinion, which is great for plan fiduciaries and their participants, which includes themselves.

BeManaged Cited in Congressional Testimony Regarding 401(k) Advice

Committee on Ways and MeansOur friend Matthew Hutcheson, Independent Fiduciary, recently conducted testimony with the Congressional Ways and Means Committee. The goal of the testimony was to discuss fiduciary best practices as well as avoiding the potential conflicts of interest inherent to the broker dealer model in the 401(k) world. When the topic of 401(k) advice was discussed, information we provided him was cited. Our information spoke to the potential conflicts of interest that could have existed under the original January ’09 proposal, which has since been replaced by a conflict-free proposal by the DoL in February of ’10. The following is the testimony and the reference to us:

Independent Fiduciary Adviser, Chad Griffeth, AIF®, makes the following observation:

If the provider of the advice is being paid by the mutual funds in any way, trust is damaged dramatically. The reality of the situation is that the advice provider must earn participants’ and management’s respect, and the story of true independence, fiduciary prudence, and thus acting in the sole interest of the participant’s best interest is critical to the success of the advice provider, and thus the participants. If participants do not trust the source of the advice and account management, they will not use it, even though they need it. Thus, participants will likely not experience the success they need for a dignified retirement.[6]

Read the Full Testimony

Thoughts on 401(k) Advice Session from fi360 National Conference (Presentation Included)

fi360 logoFor the third straight year, I attended the fi360 National Conference, the premier fiduciary-focused conference in the nation. The sessions were outstanding, focusing on the many changes taking place within the retirement plan industry, including those proposed for 401(k) advice. I was fortunate enough to be able to speak on an esteemed panel regarding the topic to a packed house of concerned advisors and retirement plan providers. Here are some key points that were discussed:

  • Shifting Liability and RiskJason Roberts, Partner at Reish and Reicher, mentioned that providing fiduciary advice is one of the best risk-shifting mechanisms for advisors and employers.
  • Fiduciary Advice is Ongoing – All panel members were emphatic that in order to provide proper fiduciary advice, it must be ongoing. If there is not a mechanism/service orientation toward delivering advice in an ongoing fashion, it can translate into a liability for both advisors and their employer clients.
  • Liability Risk is RealMike DiCenso, National Practice Leader of Gallagher Retirement Services shared an entertaining overview (see presentation below) of the risk of liability for plan fiduciaries as it relates to ERISA plan settlements. Take a look at the presentation, it puts the potential risk to the bottom line in perspective.
  • Outsourcing is Ideal – As Jason Roberts wrote in January, outsourcing investment advice can often result in a more effective and less risky approach for advisors and plan sponsors to provide 401(k) investors advice. The responsibilities, fiduciary requirements and documentation required of an advisor to provide advice are intense, thus they must consider the risk/reward of doing so.
  • Protecting Plan Sponsors – When an employer is considering advice, delivering a fiduciary safe harbor from the advice delivered is critical to protecting them and their liability exposure. Signing on as a plan-level fiduciary is very different from signing on as a participant-level fiduciary, which is a best practice to protect employers.
  • Is the Reward Worth the Risk? – On the topic of risk and reward, Scott Holsopple of Smart401k discussed that while the risk of providing plan advice and participant advice is high for the adviser, the reward may not be what they expect. The cost of the services must be reasonable (as ERISA requires), and within an institutional environment such as a 401(k), fees are quite different from those of a retail investor.  In addition, as a plan fiduciary there is a responsibility to oversee the services provided to the participants. If the plan adviser is also the participant level adviser there are inherent issues with over-site. Someone operating in both positions would need to prudently select and monitor themselves.

Many attendees asked for the presentation, so here you go. If you have any questions or comments on the session, we would love to hear them in the comments section below. If you have trouble viewing the presentation, you can download it here.

View more presentations from BeManaged.

DoL to Issue New 401(k) Advice Rule Potentially by the Fall

The time has comeThe comment period for the DoL’s new 401(k) advice period ended on March 5th, and the 70 response letters will be under consideration by the Employee Benefits Security Administration. Financial-Planning.com reported that the Department could have the rule on advice finalized as soon as this fall. Though it might end up being four years since the PPA was passed before this rule is finalized, it should be worth the wait for 401(k) investors due to its conflict-free, fiduciary approach.

The article in Financial Planning had some interesting tidbits on the advice rule, as it has been a highly contentious issue, which is reflective of the time that has passed without final clarification.

(Assistant Secretary of Labor Phyllis) Borzi noted that investment advice in defined contribution plans has been EBSA’s “most controversial regulation, having already been debated by two or three Congresses.”

Advice in 401(k) plans has proven so thorny, Borzi noted, that it was the final item in the Pension Protection Act, “with the debate focused on who should be able to provide investment advice—and that it be reliable, simple, understandable and relevant advice.”

Effectively, the PPA of 2006 changed ERISA, and since then, the “dispute has been as to the nature of the safeguards to provide advice that is independent of the plan,” Borzi said.

“This is a very controversial regulation. It was published on the day the new administration took office, and we took a fresh look. The comment period closed two, three days ago,” Borzi said on Friday. “We have received 70 comment letters and have promised Congress we will be faithful to the intent of the original statute.”

Read Article at Financial-Planning.com

BeManaged Featured in May Edition of Financial Advisor Magazine


Financial Advisor Magazine, May '10

Financial Advisor Magazine, May '10

In this month’s F-A Magazine, BeManaged was featured in the article titled “Better Laid Plans,” which is focused on how companies around the nation are answering the call for 401(k) advice. It was a privilege to be included in the article, but there is a key point we would like to correct about how we operate.

We do NOT control the investor’s contributions. The participant is ALWAYS in complete control, we simply provide encouragement and strategies for how to increase those contributions.

One advisor working in this space, Chad Griffeth, markets 401(k) advice through his company BeManaged in Grand Rapids, Mich. (Bemanagednow.com). The company was four years old on Valentine’s Day.

“I used to be a broker,” says Griffeth, who does the marketing while his partner, John Whaley, a CFA, does the research on investment options and determines asset allocations. “The first thing people would ask is if I could manage their 401(k) plans for them.” He and Whaley set up their company hoping to give investors with just $30,000 in their accounts an institutional level of service.

Companies that seek 401(k) advice for employees tend to be paternalistic, to want the best for their workers and to offer a good plan with well-thought-out options, Griffeth says. In its pursuit of such business, BeManaged has won the contract to work with the 4,600 401(k) plan participants at health and beauty products marketer Amway, whose headquarters are located near where BeManaged is based.

Amway performed a five-year due diligence search to find advisors for their employees before settling on BeManaged. “Other vendors wanted to sell products or move the 401(k) somewhere else,” Griffeth says. The way the firm works is to set up its consulting site at Amway’s offices, sometimes for three weeks at a time. The firm is happy to use the funds in the company’s plan, which Griffeth says are good ones.

“We don’t have clients come to us,” he says. “We have a very humble office and that allows us to be efficient.” Employees have a choice to either simply be advised on their plan or to be managed. Most choose the latter.

When BeManaged sets up at the company’s headquarters, Amway employees can go to the 401(k) Web site and schedule a Web consultation and then come to one of the spots where BeManaged advisors are waiting. “Consultations are free,” Griffeth says. “We can control risk, control the contribution and control their behavior.”

BeManaged charges a standard fee of 15 basis points, which is capped at $125 per quarter. The company is growing slowly and the Amway account was a big break. “Amway is very well known for its culture and a lot of other employers took notice,” Griffeth says.

Read the Article “Better Laid Plans