Plan Sponsor

Subsequent to the 2012 implementation of ERISA fee reporting regulations (ERISA 408(b)(2) & 404(a)(5)), the Department of Labor (DOL) began to consider the appropriateness of the allocation of plan fees among participants. This is a subject that generally had not been on the radar screen of many plan fiduciaries, but once identified, tends to generate considerable traction due to its obvious validity. Ironically, a plan sponsors’ diligent attention to obtaining the lowest accessible share class for new funds in plan menus has contributed to this fee imbalance among a plan’s participants.

The duty to provide participants with sufficient information to make consistently informed retirement investment decisions is a basic fiduciary responsibility under ERISA Section 404(a). However, there could be some plan committees who feel their participants are not consistently making prudent decisions.

Despite the fact that women tend to live longer, female workers typically have lower retirement account balances than their male counterparts. Many factors may contribute to this disparity, including lower earnings, greater part-time work and time off for child and eldercare, lower levels of financial literacy and lower risk/lower return investment choices.

It may be advantageous for a plan sponsor to consider adopting a traditional safe harbor design for their retirement plan. Adopting a safe harbor retirement plan design permits an employer to essentially avoid discrimination testing (the testing is deemed met).

Many plan providers struggle with deciding how many investment options to offer in their retirement plans. While people generally like to have lots of options when making other decisions, having too many plan options can potentially lead to poor investment decisions by plan participants. In addition, increasing plan options can also increase plan costs, as well as the administration associated with the plan.