The perception that trust companies and other such entities ordinarily provide legal protection to plan sponsors for the selection, monitoring, and replacement of plan assets is wrong.
A poster child for the way in which a 401(k) plan should not be run.
Serving two masters in the realm of financial services is impossible, argues W. Scott Simon.
The best way to resolve the fiduciary dilemma lies in subjecting both RIAs and broker/dealers to the ‘sole interest’ fiduciary standard of care found in ERISA, argues W. Scott Simon.
The answer to the complexity, inefficiency, and unnecessarily expensive practice of revenue-sharing so well exposed in Tussey v. ABB is to simply do away with revenue- sharing, writes W. Scott Simon.
Plan sponsors may find it more difficult to mitigate the risk of its fiduciaries and to offer plan participants institutionally priced investment options with a product-driven bundled plan solution, writes Scott Simon.
A solution where different entities provide different plan services to a plan has the double-barreled virtues of looking like a bundled plan, without actually being a bundled plan.
W. Scott Simon In this month’s column, I continue to mine the riches provided by federal district court judge Nanette Laughrey in her 81-
How plan sponsors choose to delegate responsibilities can impact their degree of liability.
Investors in stable value funds, such as fiduciaries of retirement plans, often overlook important details about these offerings.
There doesn’t appear to be anything in ERISA that would allow a product provider to limit its fiduciary role to the fund level or platform level.
Spread profits earned by insurance companies on general account stable value funds still remain hidden to plan sponsors.
