Castle Rock Investment Company

Independent Guide, Trusted Partner.

traditional

Fund Families sued by their own employees over their retirement plans??

by

By Mack Bekeza

Over the past two years, a number of investment firms have been sued by their employees over their 401(k) plans. That’s right! Investment firms have been sued over their own in-house retirement plans! Why? In most cases, these firms would only provide proprietary funds to their employees at a full or slightly reduced cost. In fact, here are just a few of the recent cases from the past two years:

1. Transamerica
2. Fidelity Investments
3. Ameriprise
4. New York Life
5. Great West (Empower)
6. MFS Investment Management
7. Waddell and Reed
8. Allianz Global Investors
9. MassMutual
10. Neuberger Berman
11. Putnam Investments
12. BB&T
13. Edward Jones
14. Morgan Stanley
15. American Century

Why do these investment firms offer their own funds to their employees without significantly lower fees? First, they do not want to convey to their employees that there are potentially superior investment opportunities outside of the company. For instance, Fidelity might not want to offer an outside fund that could be cheaper and possibly better performing than a comparable Fidelity fund. Additionally, since these plans tend to be very significant in size, reducing investment fees for their own employees could be problematic, since it could potentially increase fees for their retail investors to absorb the cost.

Is there a solution to this dilemma? Yes, there actually is! For the investment firms that are currently offering their proprietary funds to their employees without reduced expenses, these firms should consider offering outside funds to their employees. This could potentially result in lower expenses for the employees. Furthermore, this could remove the target off their backs from ERISA once the DOL regulation becomes effective in April of 2017. Of course, this is a lot easier said than done because it requires investment firms to expose their weak spots in their investment line ups, which could also potentially leak out to their retail investors. Also, a retirement plan was never meant to make the employer money, it is supposed to be a generous benefit for its employees.

With the new DOL regulation coming in April 2017, 2016 has proven that broker dealers and investment advisors are not the only target, but the fund families have also been dealing with quite the roller coaster themselves. And, as retirement investors, we should be glad that the investment business is starting to clean up its act for good and will in return make the industry more beneficial for everyone.

© Castle Rock Investment Company. All rights reserved. Please share your insights with us at mack@castlerockinvesting.com or via phone at 303-719-7523

The People’s Best Interest…The Battle Continues

by

By Mack Bekeza

The official ruling for “fiduciaries,” meaning people who are legally bound in the best interest of retirement investors, will not take effect until April of 2017. However, the Department of Labor (“The DOL”) has been bombarded by lawsuits. This brings us to the recent filing from the National Association for Fixed Annuities (“NAFA”) in June 2016 with regards to how the ruling is defining a “fiduciary,” along with other material in the ruling.

Before we get into what exactly NAFA is complaining about, let’s review how the DOL defines a “fiduciary, which is:

“Any person who exercises any discretionary authority or control respecting the management or disposition of its assets or has any discretionary authority or responsibility in the administration of the plan” as well as “any person who renders investment advice for a fee”. [1]

So, what exactly is NAFA complaining about? According to them, “Congress intended ERISA fiduciary duties to apply only to those who participate in ongoing management of a plan or its assets.” As we mentioned in the previous paragraph, this is not the case. NAFA completely disregarded that fiduciaries are those who render investment advice for a fee. Put it this way, an annuity can play a large role in someone’s retirement, so how would selling annuities to people not be considered rendering investment advice?

Another claim made by NAFA was in regards to how the DOL is allegedly “exceeding its authority by imposing ERISA fiduciary obligation on parties to transactions involving IRAs.” Again, NAFA has it wrong. Although investment advisors to IRAs are considered fiduciaries, those individuals are not subject to the same scrutiny that an ERISA fiduciary would be.

This case is an excellent example of how people who work in the commission-based side of the financial services industry are trying to keep their industry alive. They realize that (as of late April 2017) their ways will no longer work for them in the marketplace, so they are desperate to fight this. Keeping things how they are now can lead to many retirement investors losing billions of their hard earned dollars from commissions and expensive products.

Attached is a link to the article that we used as a reference. And, for those who want to see the DOL’s official response to NAFA, click here! However, just a warning, the official response is about 105 pages long.

© 2016 Castle Rock Investment Company. All rights reserved. Please share your insights with us at info@castlerockinvesting.com or via phone at 303-719-7523

[1] As a note, Castle Rock Investment Company falls under the DOL’s definition of a fiduciary for both ERISA plans and IRAs.