We have all been in a situation where we have received completely conflicting information when shopping for products from different companies. It can sometimes be easy to determine the right choice – other times its much more difficult.
It happens in other areas of life too. For example, after our daughter’s birth, one of the nurses working with my wife told her that her mobility would be very limited – it was likely she wouldn’t be driving and moving around actively for three to four weeks. A few hours later, the physician dropped in for an update and told her that she would be fine in a couple of days and encouraged her to resume her schedule as soon as possible!
Many fiduciaries at smaller employers are not well-versed in the ins and outs of 401k administration and compliance. They are at the mercy of industry practitioners (like me). Understandably, it can be difficult to distinguish the truth from the BS. It’s hard for large firms and even more difficult for smaller firms. Unfortunately, in the small retirement plan industry, the BS is rampant. Here are three examples I just recently came across:
I was reviewing the fiduciary liabilities and obligations with the office manager of a small firm. She had been tasked with the responsibility of exploring 401k options. As a part of our discussion, I introduced her to the fiduciary codes 3(21) and 3(38).
I explained how these two types of fiduciaries are different and how advisers can share or take some of their liability. Some advisory firms like PlanVision are willing to accept the liability of the 3(38) Investment Manager for plans.
She had discussed this issue with another consultant. The consultant explained that they didn’t want to hire a 3(38) because they would not be able to change the investments in their 401k lineup on their own if they hired a 3(38) adviser.
In a literal sense, this is correct. But how often is a smaller employer interested in making changes to their fund lineup based upon their own research? Does it make any sense at all for a plan sponsor to do this? NO. It’s ridiculous. Why would an employer, who has more than enough to do already, want to take on the liability of making changes to their 401k fund lineup based upon their own selection of funds? Also, if they went insane for a while and decided they don’t want the 3(38) service from their adviser, they could just take it out of their contract.
I was contacted by an employee of a plan sponsor with a relatively smallish plan. Not tiny, but small. About 350 participants and $5 million in the plan. She was doing research and, smartly, was hoping to include index funds in her plan.
Her employer’s plan adviser, however, told her they were not available for her plan – it was too small. What??? Nonsense! Their plan is not too small. Plans of any size, including start-up plans, can use Vanguard Admiral Share Class index funds.
The real reason they can’t offer these funds is because many low-cost index funds won’t support revenue sharing! Too small? Pathetic.
With low-cost index funds there will be administrative and support costs. However, the record keeper can clearly separate out those costs so the employer can include low-cost index funds and the employees or employer can pay for all plan support services separately.
Similar to example 2. An overseas employer with American expats inquired with PlanVision. They are interested in implementing a 401k or 403b plan for their American staff. During the evaluation process, they have become educated about the benefits of low-cost index funds. They have a relationship with a large, well-known broker-dealer. When they asked their broker if they could include index funds, they were told they could not.
Why not? Why can’t their broker simply offer index funds and bill the plan sponsor directly for their guidance? Because this would be too transparent! It is simpler for the broker to hide their overall revenue if they can build it into the investments in the form of revenue sharing. And, once again, it’s harder to share revenue from low-cost index funds.
I’m an advocate of innovation and competition and believe they help consumers receive more value. In the marketplace of ideas and services, there are legitimate differences in philosophy and process from firm to firm. Understanding these distinctions is a buyer’s responsibility.
Yet many financial service firms intentionally deceive plan sponsors. Yes, intentionally. They know better. In many cases, unfortunately, their business model relies on this deception.
Vanguard is a great success story. John Bogle attribute much of their marketing success to candor. It’s easy to see why candor works so well in an industry with so little of it.