DOL: Plan Sponsors in PEPs Don’t Necessarily Need to Purchase Fidelity Bond

The department of labor clarified in a response letter some of the responsibility and costs that plan sponsors can offload or avoid when joining a pooled employer plan. 

The Department of Labor this week gave further clarity on the responsibility a plan sponsor has when joining a pooled employer plan, a relatively new retirement benefit that is still evolving in the marketplace.

Plan sponsors that join PEPs managed by a pooled plan provider are not, in most cases, legally liable as the plan administrator and as such not required to purchase a fidelity bond, the Department of Labor wrote in an information letter.

The letter, in reply to a question from the Surety & Fidelity Association of America, clarified the levels of responsibility and costs plan sponsors participating in a pooled employer plan can offload or avoid when joining a pooled employer plan arrangement that is managed by a pooled plan provider, explained Josh Lichtenstein, partner and head of ERISA Fiduciary Practice at Ropes & Gray.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

“This was really more than anything a clarification of exactly how much responsibility and costs plan sponsors can effectively offload or avoid when they use one of these PEPs as opposed to maintaining their own plan,” said Lichtenstein. “The Department of Labor, I take it from the response …did not view this as a controversial answer.”

Pooled employer plans were created by Congress in 2019 in the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act, or SECURE. Pooled employer plans allow unrelated businesses to participate in one retirement plan managed by a pooled plan provider. The pooled plan provider is the plan fiduciary, with discretion for plan administration and investments.

“[Fidelity bonds are] not terribly expensive, but there’s a cost involved with them and if you don’t already have one, then there’s also the time involved in going out and obtaining it; you have to go to an insurer, you have to get the fidelity bond contract, you have to read over it, make sure everything is appropriate and that you’re comfortable with everything,” added Lichtenstein. “While it’s not a huge undertaking to get a fidelity bond, it is a process and so saving plan sponsors in PEPs from that is one further argument in favor of PEPs simplifying the process of offering a [retirement] plan.”

Additionally, the Department of Labor letter “make[s] it clear that they think that interpretation of the new rules with respect to PEPs under the SECURE Act follows from the Department’s long-held views under Section 412 [of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act] more generally for fidelity bonds,” added Lichtenstein.

“The PEP provider is the administrator of the plan, [and] the plan sponsor and the employees of the plan sponsor shouldn’t be viewed as handling plan funds or other property as they take the money from the plan participants and remit it to the PEP provider, so the provider can actually have it invested in the account,” explained Lichtenstein. “That should not be viewed as handling plan funds or other property in a manner that would require the fidelity bond so it saves the plan sponsor from the cost of buying its own fidelity bond … just the bond that the PEP provider has should be sufficient.”

The letter also clarified that the pooled plan provider “has the ultimate responsibility to have that fidelity surety bond,” Lichtenstein added.

Plan sponsors that are not in a pooled employer plan and the pooled plan provider must protect the plan against loss “by reason of acts of fraud or dishonesty on the part of individuals required to be bonded, whether they act directly or through connivance with others,” according to Department of Labor regulations.

The Department of Labor published this guide on fidelity bonds for plan sponsor questions about fidelity bond requirements and fiduciary liability insurance.  

Expert Panel: The Economic and Political Sides of ESG

Experts caution against including political values in investment strategy, but explain that ESG is not a political agenda.



On Thursday, ISS Media hosted a series of conferences on ESG. One such conference, entitled “ESG Investing: Political Agenda or Economic Factor?” by Amy Resnick, discussed the intersection of ESG and politics.

The expert panel featured Michael Kreps, to co-chair of Groom Law’s Retirement Services and Fiduciary Group; Jeff Mindlin, the Chief Investment Officer at Arizona State University Enterprise Partners; and Timothy Calkins, a Co-Chief Investment Officer at Nottingham Advisors.

What is ESG?

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

The panel largely agreed that ESG is an investment risk strategy that includes ESG factors (environment, social, and governance). This investment lens provides additional data when considering risk and is supposed to guide investment decisions rather than dictate it. It is one of many considerations that an investor or fiduciary might use. Calkins explained that “it’s about additional data to make better investment decisions.”

However, different ESG analyses can result in different ratings for the same investment.

Mindlin lamented that different ratings for the same product makes investing more complicated, and noted that different companies have different access to data about the products they rate.

Calkins expanded and said that even with same data, different analysts will analyze it differently by weighting the same risk factors differently. He doesn’t believe ESG ratings will ever be standardized because it is value-weighted investment. Due to its more subjective nature, different analysts will produce different findings. He recommends that an investor should “find the agency where you like the process the best and then use their ratings” rather than compare multiple ratings from different analysts who are using different criteria.

For example, Calkins suggested that the “Governance” in “ESG” may be the most important of them all, since it speaks directly to management and corruption, and a failure to consider it might be a breach of fiduciary duty in itself. However, not all ESG rating services may share the view that “G” should be weighed more than “E” and “S”.

ESG vs. Divestment

ESG as a philosophy of risk management is in contrast to what Calkins calls “divestment” or intentionally pulling out of and avoiding entire sectors of investment for reasons related to an investor’s political and ethical views. Though Calkins sometimes works with “mission driven” clients who make exclusion and divestment requests, this is not what ESG is strictly speaking, since ESG strategy would normally invest in highly profitable fossil fuels businesses, for example.

Mindlin explains that he tries “to avoid divestment as a strategy”. Viewing ESG as additional information however can lead to greater insight on how to capitalize on climate transition and the growing renewables sector. ESG is a method of reducing risk, but not at the expense of reduced returns, which an investor favoring an exclusionary strategy may be more tolerant of.

ESG and Politics

The panelists did acknowledge that political values often inform how ESG strategy is executed.

Mindlin said of ASU that “Sustainability is key to our identity,” but the challenge is how to “align with that ethos from an investment strategy perspective.” He noted that ASU prides itself on its sustainability ethic and its carbon neutrality.

Calkins said that some rust belt clients are skeptical of ESG. If you frame ESG as a political agenda it can seem like an attack on someone’s political identity. When asked if liberally minded investors are more open to ESG than conservative ones, Calkins responded that it is “certainly an easier conversation” and there isn’t the “same potential pushback.”

He lamented that “politics is trying to get ESG to pick a side” but making ESG a political issue will only make it harder to acquire the data investors need to make decisions. He said that one does not “want to trade off performance for social good, but it’s terrific if you can have both.”

Kreps noted however that political and moral views can cloud the judgement of any fiduciary, regardless of the weighting they give to ESG factors, or their personal political views. He quipped that “if you really hate shoes you won’t want to invest in shoe shops no matter how profitable they are.”

He urged fiduciaries to focus on their client’s interests and consider the fact that retirement benefits are a social good in and of themselves.

«