Posts

Governance
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

What is plan governance?

What is plan governance?

By W. Andrew Larson, CPC

It is our view that the goal of retirement plan governance is two-fold. First, plan governance should ensure that a business’s retirement plan is operated in compliance with Federal laws and regulations.  Second, plan governance should position participants to maximize their chances for successful retirement outcomes. That’s what plan governance should do.  But what is plan governance? Plan governance is a consistent, flexible, ongoing process that is well documented and transparent. This blog will explore, at a high level, what a plan governance process looks like; the make-up and role of the plan governance team; how to deal with service providers; and what it means to be a good consumer of fiduciary services.

No one aspect of plan governance is inordinately difficult; what is difficult is the ability to remain focused, and consistently execute and document the governance process. Typically, plan committee members have day jobs and their plan duties are usually far down on their to-do lists. Given this reality, committee members must diligently help each other create and follow accountability strategies, plus leverage service providers for assistance when needed.

What does a plan governance process look like?

A good governance process includes the following key elements.

Charter

The charter is the blueprint for what is done when and by whom with respect to the retirement plan. Many plans don’t have governance charters. Creating one is essential for establishing a good governance process. The charter addresses details such as who is on the plan committee, the frequency of committee meetings, roles, assignments and expectations, lines of authority and decision-making responsibilities.

The first step in creating the charter is a careful review of the governing plan document to ensure the charter is consistent with the plan in terms of provisions, terminology, lines of authority and reporting. Frequently, any governance provisions that may appear in plan documents are sparse; hence the need for a more robust document in the form of a charter. That said, the charter must be consistent with the plan document or the committee risks not following the terms of the plan, which would be a violation of legal requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

Master Calendar

A master calendar is the plan committee’s essential “must-do” list. It is an important tool to make sure the committee is timely addressing its responsibilities. Standing annual calendar items can include the following items:

    • Review the plan document for needed amendments;
    • Review and assess service providers;
    • Benchmark and evaluate assets;
    • Schedule educational sessions for committee members;
    • Assess the adequacy of the plan’s fidelity bond; and
    • Evaluate committee members based on skill sets needed.

Documentation Protocol

Having detailed documentation of plan committee activity and decisions is a vital part of any liability containment strategy. Plan notes should be thorough and identify the rationale for key decisions made.

Payroll Log

This is a record of all payroll withholding and remission dates and amounts. One of the top concerns of the Department of Labor and IRS in plan operations relates to the timely deposit of employee salary deferrals.

Who’s on the plan governance team?

The make-up of the plan governance committee is one of the least discussed aspects in the realm of plan governance. And it often seems that committee membership comes with lifelong tenure. As we work with committees, we frequently inquire why “so and so” is on the committee. The typical response is something to the effect of “Well, they’ve always been on the committee.” We urge committees to conduct a periodic reset exercise where they identify the skill sets needed for a successful committee. Once the skills are identified, we then ask them to identify specific individuals—including those who may not be current committee members—who fit the skill set profile. This creates discussion of who could or should be on the committee.

It has been our experience that we often find the wrong people on plan governance committees. In many cases, there are people within the organization who want to be on the committee—and should be—but are not considered for membership. Let me share a personal experience illustrating this. I was on the plan governance committee of a former employer. Most decisions we made were second guessed and challenged by one particular noncommittee member employee. This guy read every bit of plan information that was provided. Not only did he read it, he studied it and complained about everything. He was a pain in our rear. However, it became clear this guy had a passion for plan stuff and a real willingness to study, learn, understand and question. He was “the guy” other employees sought out if they had plan questions. We began to discuss adding him to the committee. At first there was considerable pushback because he had been such a nuisance, but it was clear he did his homework and took the subject matter seriously. We added him to the committee on an interim basis, despite some trepidation. Now the end of the story—he became the hardest working and, arguably, the most educated and dedicated committee member. He wanted to do the legwork, was willing to be a team player and, ultimately, was the biggest fan of the plan and supporter of its governance team.

What does the team or committee need to know?

The short answer to this question is the plan governance team must know enough to successfully run the plan. ERISA requires plan committee members be held to an expert standard in terms of their decision making with respect to the plan. This does not mean the committee members have to be expert in all topics, but they need to understand what they don’t know and when they need to enlist additional, expert-level support to make prudent decisions. At a minimum, committee members need a general understanding of the following tenets:

  • ERISA governance requirements;
  • Key plan document provisions;
  • Service providers duties, costs and contractual expectations; and
  • Reporting and compliance requirements.

Understanding what plan service providers do and don’t do is commonly a mystery to many plan committees. More service provider training and understanding is a common recommendation we make to plan committees.

Why are we hiring a fiduciary?

In recent years, many organizations have begun to offer various fiduciary services to retirement plans. Plan committees have many fiduciary support options from which to choose. One of the most important governance decisions a plan committee will ever make is whether to retain an outside fiduciary. There are right and wrong reasons to retain an outside fiduciary, and plan committee records and/or minutes should articulate the rationale for any fiduciary-related decision made by the committee. For example, a committee retaining an outside fiduciary to reduce committee members’ liability may be selecting a fiduciary for the wrong reason. Retaining a fiduciary to reduce the committee’s workload may be a valid reason to retain a fiduciary. Effectively, hiring a fiduciary doesn’t limit the committee’s liability; retaining a fiduciary merely changes the nature of the committee’s responsibilities to overseeing the retained fiduciary.

And it is important to remember that all fiduciaries are NOT created equal. There are important differences among providers that should be discussed and documented in the decision-making process, and reflected in service agreements. This is what I mean by being a good consumer of fiduciary services.

Conclusion

Good governance comes down to having the right people, with the right support following a consistent process, and documenting decisions and actions. It means asking probing questions and realizing when outside, nonconflicted support is necessary. The rationale for key decisions and the recording of such is as important as the decision itself.  Maintaining a solid governance process is the best strategy to help minimize the liability of the plan sponsor and plan committee, and provide participants with the best opportunity for successful retirement outcomes.

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
fiduciary
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

What is a “flexible” ERISA 3(38)

“Is there such a thing as a ‘flexible’ ERISA 3(38) fiduciary?”  

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from New Hampshire is representative of a common inquiry related to ERISA fiduciary services.

Highlights of the Discussion

According to a strict reading of ERISA and its regulations under 29 U.S.C. Title 29 §3(38)—no; there is no such legally defined entity. However, in practice, there are ERISA 3(38) fiduciary services that are advertised as “flexible.” Let’s start with the definition of an ERISA §3(38) plan fiduciary. An ERISA 3(38) fiduciary is an investment manager that is a registered investment advisor (e.g., RIA, bank or insurance company), appointed by the plan sponsor to fully manage the assets of the plan. Such individual or entity has the power to manage, acquire, or dispose of any asset of a plan; is responsible for selecting, monitoring and replacing plan investment options; and has full discretion regarding a plan’s investment management process. When the 3(38) fiduciary is appointed, a written agreement must be executed acknowledging the 3(38)’s fiduciary responsibility for managing the assets of the plan. ERISA 3(38) relieves the plan sponsor of fiduciary liability with respect to the selection, performance, monitoring and replacement of the investments for a plan when the sponsor has prudently selected the 3(38) investment manager; and the sponsor continues to monitor the 3(38)’s services. As one can see, the strict definition of an ERISA 3(38) does not seem to leave room for too much, if any, flexibility.

A few firms that offer 3(38) services have added the “flexible” moniker or adjective to describe situations where the plan sponsor can provide the 3(38) investment manager with “suggestions” regarding the investment line up. These plan sponsor suggestions could range widely from encouraging the 3(38) to take over and assume responsibility for an existing investment line up; providing input on investments the plan sponsors would like the 3(38) to add to the 3(38)’s available options; or having the ability to select from a broad universe of investments that are within the 3(38)’s fiduciary coverage universe to create the investment line up. The gnawing question becomes has the plan sponsor exerted discretion over the investment decisions and, thereby, clawed back some of the fiduciary responsibility it sought to relinquish? There is no clear answer. It is another one of those “facts and circumstances” situations the DOL and courts would evaluate on a case by case basis. But it is important to be aware of and take into consideration when making a decision that flexibility can muddy the fiduciary liability and relief waters.

Conclusion

Some firms advertise a flexible 3(38) investment management solution. Plan sponsors and their advisors should be sure they 1) understand what precisely the flexibility is; 2) evaluate if it could potentially affect liability; 3) make a prudent, educated decision based on the information; and 3) record the decision making process for their fiduciary process records.

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

401(k) Plan Committee Charter

“If a 401(k) plan has an investment or administrative committee, is the committee required to have a charter?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from Ohio is representative of a common inquiry related to 401(k) plan committees.

Highlights of the Discussion

Neither the Department of Labor (DOL) nor the IRS, both of which regulate qualified retirement plans, specifically require that a 401(k) plan committee have a charter. However, more and more firms with plan committees are adopting committee charters as a fiduciary best practice. Practically speaking, a committee charter can help committee members understand their roles and responsibilities.

Retirement plan committee charters are distinct from an investment policy statement. (Please see Investment Policy Statement Checklist and an Education Policy Statement.)

A plan committee charter should be approved by the board of directors of the company and answer the following questions:

  • What authority does the committee have?
  • What is the committee’s purpose?
  • How is the committee structured?
  • Who may serve on the committee?
  • How are committee members replaced?
  • How will the committee delegate authority?
  • How will the committee assign responsibilities and duties?
  • How frequently will the committee meet?
  • What procedures will the committee follow?
  • What are the standing agenda items and how are new topics introduced?
  • What is the process for selecting and managing plan service providers?
  • What reporting will the committee do and to whom?
  • What are the procedures for protecting committee members financially?

Retirement plan committees that do have charters should be sure to follow them, and review them regularly to determine if adjustments are needed.

Here is a sample format:

  • Introduction
  • Purpose of the Plan Committee
  • Committee Membership
  • Schedule and Organization of Meetings
  • Authority and Responsibilities
  • Procedures for Decision Making
  • Meeting Minutes and Reports
  • Fiduciary Liability and Protection

Conclusion

For retirement plans that have investment or administrative committees, having a committee charter in place could be a good fiduciary liability mitigation tactic—as long as it is followed.

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

401(k) Record Retention Rules

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Annuity provider selection safe harbor for defined contribution plans

“Has the Department of Labor (DOL) issued guidance on how to prudently select annuity providers for a defined contribution (DC) plan?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.  A recent call with a financial advisor from Massachusetts is representative of a common inquiry related to annuities within defined contribution plans.

Highlights of the Discussion

Yes, the DOL has described a five-step, “safe harbor” procedure for plan sponsors and their advisors to follow in order to satisfy their fiduciary responsibilities when selecting and monitoring an annuity provider and contract for benefit distributions from DC plans. (Note: The DOL is contemplating proposed amendments to the annuity selection safe harbor related to the assessment of an annuity provider’s ability to make all future payments.)

According to DOL Reg. 2550.404(a)-4, issued in 2008, and as further clarified by DOL Field Assistance Bulletin 2015-02, in order to satisfy the safe harbor selection process a plan fiduciary must

  1. Engage in an objective, thorough and analytical search for the purpose of identifying and selecting providers from which to purchase annuities;
  2. Appropriately consider information sufficient to assess the ability of the annuity provider to make all future payments under the annuity contract;
  3. Appropriately consider the cost (including fees and commissions) of the annuity contract in relation to the benefits and administrative services to be provided under such contract;
  4. Appropriately conclude that, at the time of the selection, the annuity provider is financially able to make all future payments under the annuity contract and the cost of the annuity contract is reasonable in relation to the benefits and services to be provided under the contract; and
  5. If necessary, consult with an appropriate expert or experts for purposes of compliance with these provisions.

The safe harbor rule provides that “the time of selection” means:

  • the time that the annuity provider and contract are selected for distribution of benefits to a specific participant or beneficiary; or
  • the time that the annuity provider is selected to provide annuities as a distribution option for participants or beneficiaries to choose at future dates.

The fiduciary must periodically review the continuing appropriateness of the conclusion that the annuity provider is financially able to make all future payments under the annuity contract, as well as the reasonableness of the cost of the contract in relation to the benefits and services to be provided. The fiduciary is not, however, required to review the appropriateness of its conclusions with respect to an annuity contract purchased for any specific participant or beneficiary.

Conclusion

Similar to selecting plan investments, choosing an annuity provider for a DC plan is a fiduciary function, subject to ERISA’s standards of prudence and loyalty. One way to satisfy this fiduciary responsibility is to follow the DOL’s safe harbor selection process as outlined in DOL Reg. 2550.404(a)-4 and Field Assistance Bulletin 2015-02.

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Discretionary plan trustee vs. directed trustee

“What defines a discretionary plan trustee vs. a directed plan trustee?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from Kentucky is representative of a common inquiry related to retirement plan trustees.

Highlights of the Discussion

ERISA Section 403(a) (see page 207 of linked information) provides that the assets of a qualified retirement plan must be held in trust by one or more trustees. The trustee will be either named in the plan document or appointed by a person who is a named fiduciary. The appointment of a plan’s trustee(s) is an important fiduciary decision that must be undertaken in a prudent manner by the plan sponsor or retirement plan committee with the proper authority.

Not all trustees, however, have the same authority or discretion to manage or control the assets of a plan. A trustee that has exclusive authority and discretion to manage and control the assets of the plan is a discretionary trustee. A discretionary trustee may be an employee of the company, but, more than likely, this role is outsourced to a third party.

However, a plan can expressly provide that the trustee is subject to the direction of a named fiduciary who is not a trustee. This is a directed trustee. The scope of a directed trustee’s duties is “significantly narrower than the duties generally ascribed to a discretionary trustee …” (Field Assistance Bulletin 2004-03). While a directed trustee is still a plan fiduciary, his or her fiduciary liability is limited, because he or she is required to act upon the direction of another plan fiduciary. The use of a directed trustee is a common plan model in the retirement industry. Many organizations serve as directed trustees.

“Direction” of the trustee is proper only if it is “made in accordance with the terms of the plan” and “not contrary to the Act [ERISA].” Accordingly, when a directed trustee knows or should know that a direction from a named fiduciary of the plan is not made in accordance with the terms of the plan or is contrary to ERISA, the directed trustee should not, consistent with its fiduciary responsibilities, follow the direction.

Conclusion

There are two basic flavors of qualified retirement plan trustee: discretionary and directed. Check the terms of the governing plan document and trust agreement for a particular plan to determine which applies.

 

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

SEP and SIMPLE IRA Plans and ERISA Fidelity Bonds

“Do SEP and SIMPLE IRA Plans Require an ERISA Fidelity Bond?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from Florida is representative of a common inquiry related to savings incentive match plans for employees (SIMPLE) IRA plans and simplified employee pension (SEP) plans.

Highlights of Discussion

Generally, yes, but this is a great question with a multi-layered answer depending on the individuals and/or entities that handle the assets of these plans. ERISA Section 412 requires that every fiduciary of an employee benefit plan and every person who handles funds or other property of such a plan be bonded in order to protect the assets of the plan against the risk of loss due to fraud or dishonesty. For this purpose, SEP and SIMPLE IRA plans are considered employee benefit plans. The DOL further explained (albeit somewhat vaguely) its position on the matter in Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2008-4, Q&A 16. With regard to having a fidelity bond, the DOL states: “There is no specific exemption … for SEP or SIMPLE IRA retirement plans. Such plans are generally structured in such a way, however, that if any person does “handle” funds or other property of such plans that person will fall under one of ERISA’s financial institution exemptions” (See DOL Reg. §§ 2580.412-27 and 28).

The logic here is that, typically, employees establish their SIMPLE IRAs and SEP IRAs at banks, trust companies or insurance providers, and such institutions are exempt from the bonding requirement provided they are subject to supervision or examination by federal or state regulators and meet certain financial requirements. The Pension Protection Act added an exemption to the ERISA bonding requirement for entities registered as broker/dealers under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 if the broker/dealer is subject to the fidelity bond requirements of a self-regulatory organization. Consequently, the employees of qualified financial institutions that hold SEP IRA and SIMPLE IRA plan assets need not be covered by an ERISA fidelity bond.

However, there is no exemption from the ERISA bonding requirement for the fiduciaries of employers who handle SEP and SIMPLE IRA plan assets prior to the assets being held in their respective IRAs. When do SEP and SIMPLE IRA contributions become plan assets? In the case of salary reduction (SAR) SEP and SIMPLE IRA employee salary deferrals, such amounts become plan assets as of the earliest date on which they can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets (DOL Reg. 2510.3-102). In contrast, employer contributions generally become plan assets only when the contributions actually have been made to the plan (FAB 2008-01 and Advisory Opinion 1993-14A).

Court cases provide evidence that this is indeed how the DOL enforces the bonding requirement for SAR-SEP and SIMPLE IRA plans. In Chao v. Smith, Civil Action No. 1:06CV0051, the employer failed to remit employee contributions to a SIMPLE IRA plan. In addition to restoring the salary deferrals to the plan, as part of the settlement the employer was required to secure a fidelity bond and keep it active throughout the life of the plan “as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.”  Similarly, in Chao v. Harman, Civil Action Number 4:07cv11772,  the DOL sued business executives and trustees of a firm’s SIMPLE IRA plan in Jackson, Michigan, for failing to forward employee contributions to workers’ accounts and obtain a fidelity bond. Finally, the DOL sued an employer with a SAR-SEP plan for mishandling of employee deferrals and lack of a fidelity bond (Chao v. Gary Raykhinshteyn, Civil Action No. 01-60056).

In each case, the DOL made a point to state employers with similar problems who are not yet the subject of an investigation may be eligible to participate in the DOL’s Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program (VFCP) to correct the errors and avoid enforcement actions and civil penalties as well as any applicable excise taxes.

Since some form of employer contribution is required with a SIMPLE IRA plan, employers who fail to make these contributions have an IRS operational failure and may have the ability to correct the error by following the applicable provisions of the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System in Revenue Procedure 2016-51.

Conclusion

While the DOL offers exemptions from the ERISA fidelity bonding requirement to qualified financial institutions that hold SEP and SIMPLE IRA assets, the agency requires employers who sponsor SEP or SIMPLE IRA plans and other plan fiduciaries who handle plan assets to be covered by an ERISA fidelity bond to prevent against loss as a result of fraud and/or dishonesty.

 

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Fiduciary Enforcement: A Camel’s Nose Under the Tent?

By W. Andrew Larson, CPC

Retirement Learning Center

We closed our eyes. We held our breath. June 9, 2017, came and passed, and the new Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rules for financial advisors became applicable, albeit subject to a relaxed transition period that runs through July 1, 2019. Gee, it didn’t seem so bad after all. Perhaps the new regulations aren’t the media event many of us made them out to be. Or is there more to the regulations than we realize that will lead to more serious and less desirable consequences down the line. Is there a camel putting its nose under the tent?

Clearly, the new regulations have resulted in broker-dealers implementing significant changes to their platforms, pricing, processes and products. These changes will have long-term effects for consumers, advisors and broker dealers. Originally, the concern over the regulations focused on the application of certain Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) rules to IRAs and rollover transactions. Under the new rules, previously commonplace transactions, such as recommending a rollover to an IRA, become a prohibited transaction and, potentially, subject to penalty unless an advisor follows an exclusion (e.g., providing education not advice) or the Best Interest Contract exemption (BICE) from the regulations. One immediate impact of these changes for advisors is increased oversight and the need for intensified documentation of IRA-related transactions—in particular—rollovers. One immediate impact on consumers seems to be reduced choice with their IRA accounts.

What about enforcement of the new rules? Well, according to DOL Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2017-02 and the DOL’s extension to the special transition period, until July 1, 2019, under a temporary enforcement policy, the DOL will not take any enforcement action against, “… fiduciaries who are working diligently and in good faith to comply with the fiduciary exemptions.” Likewise the IRS will not IRS will not apply § 4975 and related reporting obligations with respect to any transaction or agreement to which the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy applies. But, I am less concerned about the DOL and IRS, and their enforcement and reporting initiatives. The good news regarding federal-level initiatives, whatever they may be, is that they create a level playing field applicable to all players in essentially the same manner.

No, my concern with the new regulations is not at the federal level but rather at the state level. Under the regulations “state camels” may be placing their noses under the retirement tent. What could possibly go wrong? Before we explore the new state level issues let’s review the traditional ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) enforcement environment.

The governance and control of retirement plans sits with the Federal government and courts. The DOL writes the rules for both retirement plans and IRAs. The DOL has enforcement authority over retirement plans under ERISA, and the IRS has enforcement authority over IRAs through the IRC. While there is no private right of action for IRAs, the IRC’s prohibited transaction provisions generally prohibit IRA fiduciaries from self-dealing, enforced through an excise tax.

The Federal venue offers several significant advantages. Federal law is uniformly applicable in all 50 states: One set of rules; one level playing field. In general, Federal rulings result in consistent interpretation (usually!) of the applicable laws. Next, Federal litigation is expensive. This means the issues brought forth are usually legitimate and not frivolous. Litigation occurs with significant issues when the plaintiffs believe they have a winnable case.

How are states able to become involved in retirement enforcement and litigation? Let’s examine how the regulations bring state courts into the retirement arena. Recall many IRA providers and advisors will utilize the BICE to avoid prohibited transactions. The BICE is a contract between the client (e.g., an IRA owner) and the advisor or other service provider. Contract law is based at the state level. Thus, if a plaintiff believes the advisor, provider, etc., has violated one or more elements of the BICE contract he or she can seek relief in state court. As the rule stands today, a BICE contract is enforceable under state law, and must provide for the right to sue in a class action.

And it gets worse. Each state’s contract law is unique. Much contract law is similar but not completely so. Thus, a BICE contract violation in one state may not be a BICE contract violation in another state. Theoretically, large retirement vendors will need to concern themselves with 50 sets of state ERISA BICE contract rules.

I would argue the States are not well versed in, nor facile with, the complexities of the Federal retirement regulatory environment. At a recent conference, one of the speakers was the official responsible for launching a state-run retirement program for small businesses. This state program requires most small businesses to offer a Roth IRA retirement program to employees. Again, this was an IRA-based program. I was, honestly, appalled at the official’s lack of insight and understanding of IRA programs, retirement plans and retirement regulations. Perhaps this is unfair of me, but I don’t see why states should commit resources to an area where the federal government and its agencies have done a credible job with enforcement and the protection of workers and their retirement benefits and rights. Another level of enforcement will simply increase costs that ultimately are paid by investors. I fail to see the benefit or the need for this new level of enforcement.

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
fiduciary
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Fiduciary Advisers

What is a 408(g) fiduciary adviser?

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs and qualified retirement plans.  We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with an advisor in Washington is representative of a common inquiry involving investment advice fiduciaries.

Highlights of discussion

  • “Fiduciary Advisers” may provide investment advice to qualified plan participants through an “eligible investment advice arrangement” that is based on a level-fee arrangement for the fiduciary adviser, a certified computer model or both [ERISA §408(g)].
  • A fiduciary adviser may also work with IRA owners as well.
  • Plan sponsors who engage a fiduciary adviser for their participants will not be responsible for the specific investment advice given, provided the adopting plan sponsors follow certain monitoring and disclosure rules. Plan sponsors are still responsible for the prudent selection and monitoring of the available investments under the plan and the fiduciary adviser.
  • The fiduciary adviser role is part of a statutory prohibited transaction exemption for the provision of investment advice that has been around since 2007, having been created by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA-06).  It has received very little attention over the years until now given the new emphasis on defining investment advice fiduciaries.
  • A fiduciary adviser could be a registered investment adviser, a broker-dealer, a trust department of a bank, or an insurance company.
  • To satisfy the exemption, a fiduciary adviser must provide written notification to plan fiduciaries that he/she intends to use an eligible investment advice arrangement that will be audited by an independent auditor on an annual basis. The fiduciary adviser must also give detailed written notices to plan participants regarding the advice arrangement before any advice is given.
  • Every year the eligible investment advice arrangement must be audited by a qualified independent auditor to verify that it meets the requirements. The auditor is required to issue a written report to the plan fiduciary that authorized the arrangement. If the report reveals noncompliance with the regulations, the fiduciary adviser must send a copy of the report to the Department of Labor (DOL). In both cases the report must identify the 1) fiduciary adviser, 2) type of arrangement, 3) eligible investment advice expert and date of the computer model certification (if applicable), and 4) findings of the auditor.

Conclusion

Under PPA-06, plan sponsors can authorize fiduciary advisers to offer investment advice to their plan participants and beneficiaries as part of an eligible investment advice arrangement.  Plan sponsors will not be held liable for the advice given by fiduciary advisers, provided all the requirements of the prohibited transaction exemption are met.

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved