RIAs join move to right a 401(k) wrong: Lopsided plan expenses -- a non-DOL issue

So if there are more expenses incurred with making decisions to move funds more — who should bear that cost? Not the decision maker?

Should the employees who move their money less and generate fewer expenses for the plan subsidize those who move their money more? Is that the writer’s argument?

In addition, there is good research showing that the more money is moved the more money is lost.

Does it work both ways? If a participant does not feel they are benefitting from the actively managed products the advisor recommends and opts for the passive options, are they excluded from paying a share of the advisor’s expense? Interesting that advisors are recommending or demanding this approach.

Absolutely idiotic. What happens to participation when I charge a $500 per capita to a $750 account balance? How many people with low balances are going to stick around for this nonsense? Wait until the ADP/ACP testing kicks in. Can you find someone sane or knowledgeable for this column?

Hey guys, You are right. The whole point of this story is that advisors are trying to make the plan costs fair for participants and make sure that employers understand how everyone is being charged. I personally know many business owners who don’t understand what they’re paying for their 401(k) plan. In addition, I believe the RIAs that I spoke with all said that they feel these issues need to be addressed case-by-case. Reality Check is right – Of course it’s not fair to charge $500 per capita for a $750 account balance. And, let’s face it, in a larger company you will have many small balances and large balances. But for advisors who work with very small companies – say with less than 10 employees they may decide to use a different structure.

What is clearly happening and what we’re addressing is that advisors and employers are trying to look into different ways to make the costs as fair as possible for all employees.

Here are some questions:

- How do we define “fair?” Then how do we operationalize?

- Are there really that many plan sponsors who don’t know what they’re paying? Would like to see data.

- Is cheaper better?

The department of Labor must not have enough to do. Kind of reminds me of the changes in 403b a couple of years ago. Do not see the need for more and more complexity- except for jobs for attorneys.

Well ERISA is the law and pretty clearly states all material benefits must be formally communicated and on file with the plan sponsor.

However, I have been told if all other plan sponsors are paying $10,000 per account, then it falls within prudent “expert” bounds. Fiduciary does not have any absolute or even objetive standards. it is only what is common practices of fiduciary peers that counts.

If they are all wrong — so be it.