IBJNews

WALKER: A watershed 401(k) deadline is hurtling our way

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

Brent WalkerApril 1 will be a significant date for employers with 401(k) or other retirement plans. This is the deadline for their plan’s service providers to provide written disclosures about services provided, costs charged and their fiduciary status to the retirement plan.

It is a watershed event for the 401(k) plan industry, which is notorious for its lack of transparency around costs and services. For a long time, there has been a trend to bury the plans’ administrative costs within high-expense investment choices or insurance company annuity wrappers with no disclosure on the reimbursements paid to plan providers. As a result, many employers do not know what they are really paying for their retirement plan.

This all changes thanks to the U.S. Department of Labor’s new disclosure rule known as Regulation 408(b)(2). Service providers that must follow this rule include fiduciaries, investment advisers, record keepers and brokers. Simply put, anyone who gets paid in the operation of the 401(k) plan must disclose his or her compensation.

Fiduciaries of retirement plans must evaluate the expenses paid by their plans for services and investments. In fact, it is both a fiduciary breach and a prohibited transaction to allow your plan to pay more than reasonable expenses.

Plan fiduciaries may include the employer’s (also known as “plan sponsor”) retirement plan committee, plan trustee, investment adviser and all individuals exercising discretion in the administration of the plan. While these new rules and disclosures are a good thing, the result is that plan sponsors will face both higher expectations and legal responsibilities.

As game-changing as April 1 promises to be, June 1 could prove even more profound. Starting in June, all plan participants must be told something they probably never knew—how much they pay each quarter for their 401(k) plan. And this is not just in percentages. They must receive quarterly statements showing the dollar amount of plan-related expenses actually charged or deducted from their accounts.

If employers do not take a proactive stance on this issue, problems may ensue. Many participants believe they pay nothing for the services provided for their 401(k).

Remember that this disclosure follows a period in 2008 in which most participants experienced severe investment losses and may not have recovered those losses yet. It is likely there will be a number of concerned participants over these costs.

These concerned employees will likely camp out at their plan sponsor’s door, wanting to know why they are paying so much. If the plan sponsor does not have a good answer to these questions, and without proper communication and education, the perception could evolve that the retirement plan is not attractive and the whole purpose of the benefit plan is diminished.

And it is quite possible that the plan sponsor might not have good answers. Because 401(k) plan costs have been hidden for so long, it is no surprise that costs vary widely from one provider to the next. It is easy in such a system for companies to overpay for their retirement plan since they never get an invoice and the expenses are all taken from the plan assets.

So if you have a plan that is much more expensive than what you think it is, you want to know that ahead of time before the information gets out to your employees.

Make sure you receive cost and service disclosures as soon as possible in advance of the April 1 deadline to give ample review time before the June 1 participant disclosure deadline.

And when you receive the disclosures, you have a duty to review and evaluate them. Is the cost of the plan reasonable in relation to the services being received? Are the services appropriate for the plan? Are they meeting the needs of the fiduciaries and participants? Are there conflicts of interests and, if so, are they being managed properly?

While transparency on costs and services is good, it is up to plan sponsors and fiduciaries to use this information to better serve the participants. Remember, the ultimate goal of a retirement plan is to help employees retire successfully. Reasonable costs, good investment choices, and solid education on how to use these investments are the foundation of a good retirement plan.•

__________

Brent Walker, certified financial planner, is president of WealthPoint Advisors, an Indianapolis-based, fee-only wealth management firm. Views expressed are the writer’s. He can be reached at 818-1040 or bwalker@wealthpointadv.com.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT