The Importance of Implementing Retirement Plan Best Practice Standards

The relevance of fiduciary best practice standards for retirement plan sponsors is rather intuitive, given that legal and performance pressures endured by companies are tremendous, coming from multiple directions and for various reasons. A shift towards heightened awareness of fiduciary responsibilities and ”what not to do” can be seen in many recent ERISA lawsuit settlements alleging breaches in fiduciaries duties, but perhaps none more so than that of ATH Holding Company, LLC.

At the heart of a $23.6M settlement were allegations surrounding the multi-billion dollar retirement plan’s investment and recordkeeping fees. Despite the plan’s investment lineup being almost exclusively composed of Vanguard mutual funds – which are regarded as one of the nation’s leading low-cost index providers – the plaintiffs alleged that the retirement committee should have selected even less expensive share classes. For example, the Plan was offering the Vanguard Extended Market Index Fund, which charged 0.24%, while there was a 0.06% share class available.

Further, the plaintiffs alleged that collective investment trusts and separately managed accounts were available at even less expensive fees than what was available to the plan in a mutual fund product for virtually identical investment strategies.

Differences between various share classes of mutual fund products include the Net Expense Ratio, minimum investment requirements, and revenue sharing amounts (12b-1, Sub-TA and Shareholder Service fees). Revenue sharing is a layered expense on top of the fee paid to the underlying investment manager and it is often used to pay or supplement outside service provider fees for service (advisor, recordkeeper, third-party administrator, etc.). Further confusing the issue, revenue sharing amounts are not consistent across the same share classes of different mutual funds.

The practice of not offering participants the lowest cost share class available for a given investment strategy is out of alignment with industry best practices standards because it reduces the transparency of fees for participants and may cause certain participants to pay more for the operation of the plan than others, simply as a result of selecting certain investment alternatives.

SD Retirement Solutions recommends the lowest cost share classes of our preferred investments in an effort to eliminate the consideration of how to account for revenue sharing arrangements. When some amount of revenue sharing is unavoidable, we have the option to credit the revenue sharing back to the individual participant’s account that generated it. If that option is not available, we will often credit the revenue sharing against custody fees, not advisory or recordkeeping fees. We believe that this supports our position as an independent investment advisor. Full fee transparency is a philosophy on which we have built our practice as a fee-based SEC Registered Investment Advisory firm.

While the ATH monetary settlement was quite large, there were also a number of nonmonetary terms that were worth noting, including:

  • The retirement committee must engage an independent investment consultant who is experienced with investment options in defined contributions plans.
  • The committee must issue a request for proposal (RFP) for recordkeeping services for the plan.

This case and its settlement can serve as a great example of the continued emphasis on share class alternatives and their expenses, which is now inclusive of other investment vehicles for even mid-sized and smaller plans. Similarly, this case also encompasses the preference for setting recordkeeping fees on a per-participant rather than pro rata basis—given the costs for the services does not grow with increases in assets or with new contributions.

You’ve heard our thoughts… We’d like to hear yours

The Schneider Downs Our Thoughts On blog exists to create a dialogue on issues that are important to organizations and individuals. While we enjoy sharing our ideas and insights, we’re especially interested in what you may have to say. If you have a question or a comment about this article – or any article from the Our Thoughts On blog – we hope you’ll share it with us. After all, a dialogue is an exchange of ideas, and we’d like to hear from you. Email us at [email protected].

Material discussed is meant for informational purposes only, and it is not to be construed as investment, tax, or legal advice. Please note that individual situations can vary. Therefore, this information should be relied upon when coordinated with individual professional advice.

© 2022 Schneider Downs. All rights-reserved. All content on this site is property of Schneider Downs unless otherwise noted and should not be used without written permission.

our thoughts on
Audit, ERISA BY Patti Giudici
IRS Notice 2022-33 – Extensions for Certain Provisions of the SECURE Act, CARES Act, and Miners Act
SDWMA Named One of the Nation’s Top DC Advisor Teams in 2021 by NAPA
DOL Releases Cautionary Guidance on Crypto in Retirement Plans
The Russia/Ukraine Conflict: What Happened and What it Means for Investors
Audit, ERISA BY Patti Giudici
Are You Ready to Implement SAS 136?
457(b) Plans – What You Should Know
Register to receive our weekly newsletter with our most recent columns and insights.
Have a question? Ask us!

We’d love to hear from you. Drop us a note, and we’ll respond to you as quickly as possible.

Ask us
contact us

This site uses cookies to ensure that we give you the best user experience. Cookies assist in navigation, analyzing traffic and in our marketing efforts as described in our Privacy Policy.