Compliance December 22, 2021

Natixis ERISA Lawsuit Clears Early Dismissal

Like the many other ERISA lawsuits filed against large financial service providers, the complaint alleges that the defendants failed to administer the plan in the best interest of participants and failed to employ a prudent process.

Reported by

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed against Natixis Investment Managers and its retirement committee.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

The lawsuit, which can now proceed to discovery, claims the defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the company’s 401(k) Savings and Retirement Plan, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to administer the plan in the best interest of participants and failed to employ a prudent process for managing the plan. Instead, it says, the defendants have managed the plan in a manner that benefits Natixis, the majority owner of several boutique mutual fund companies such as Oakmark, Vaughan Nelson, Loomis Sayles and AEW, at the participants’ expense. The plaintiff claims Natixis used the plan as an opportunity to promote its mutual fund business and maximize profits.

The suit asserts multiple claims for breaches of the fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence, as well as a claim for failure to monitor fiduciaries. In addition, the lawsuit claims that the proclivity for proprietary mutual funds has cost plan participants millions of dollars in excess fees.

“For plans with $250 million to $500 million in assets, like the plan, the average asset-weighted total plan cost is 0.43%,” the lawsuit states. “In contrast, the plan’s total costs were roughly 50% higher, ranging from 0.60% to 0.66% throughout the statutory period.”

The new order explains the court’s rationale for permitting the suit to continue, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a claim for breach of the duties of prudence and loyalty to survive the defendants’ motion to dismiss.

“The plaintiffs’ several factual allegations related to the plan’s lineup of proprietary funds, their underperformance, excessive fees, trends in the marketplace, outflows and negative alpha over a meaningful number of years, are sufficient to suggest plausibly that, had the defendants prudently monitored the investments within the plan, in a process that was not tainted by self-interest, many of the proprietary funds would not have been selected or would have been removed,” the order says.

The full text of the order is available here.

Data & Research December 21, 2021

How Consumption Changes as Retirement Progresses

The traditional view is that retirees prefer steady consumption as they age, but research suggests that spending declines as retirement progresses.

Reported by

Whether households prefer a constant, increasing or decreasing level of spending in retirement is important for financial planners to understand. It is often assumed that retirees would like to maintain a constant standard of living, but research suggests that retired households in fact decrease their consumption over time.

The Center for Retirement Research (CRR) at Boston College’s “Do Retirees Want to Consume More, Less, or the Same as They Age” study found that, overall, consumption declines as households age. The rate of decline was about 1.5% to 1.6% every two years, meaning that 20 years into retirement, consumption would be about 12% to 13% lower than at the beginning. This decline slightly speeds up later in retirement.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

According to the study, some reasons for the consumption change could be a decline in work-related expenses, as retirees no longer must spend on professional attire and commuting. Food expenditures decrease as retirees have more time to spend cooking and shopping for low prices. The last reason is that some people have been forced into involuntary retirement, and the study suggests that the negative shock of leaving work before planned can lead people to reduce their consumption.

While those three factors explain the change in consumption at retirement, they do not fully explain consumption changes during retirement. The study found that, if households have not saved enough to maintain their spending, consumption would obviously have to decline through retirement, regardless of household preferences. Those who made the most money saw their consumption decrease about 0.7% every two years, while those who made less saw their consumption decrease 1.6% to 2% every two years.

The second constraint the study looked at that may impact consumption patters is health. Households, for example, may want to travel or eat out more but are unable to due to health limitations. The study found that consumption for those in very good or excellent health decreases by about 1.3% every two years, while those who self-report good health or fair or poor health decreases by 1.5% and 3.1% every two years. The study also found that the consumption of households with poor health tends to tick up in later years, which might reflect higher late-life medical expenses.

The final constraint the study looked at involves the length of the retirement period. Those who expect to live longer may want to consume more slowly, while those who think they have a low probability of living to old age may want to front-load their consumption, the study suggests. However, since longer life expectancies are highly correlated with higher wealth, the study focused on the variation in consumption by health status and household type for those who had the most wealth.

The higher-wealth households who self-report very good or excellent health at retirement have a flat consumption pattern, declining by only about 0.6% every two years, while consumption for those who start retirement with good or fair or poor health declines by about 1.1% and 3.2%, respectively. The study also shows that some consumption increases later in retirement for those households in fair or poor health.

«