Compliance October 14, 2010

Bechtel Settles 401(k) Fee Case for $18.5M

Engineering giant Bechtel has agreed to an $18.5 million settlement of an excessive 401(k) fee suit.

Reported by

A Los Angeles Times news report said the agreement would end proceedings in a class-action case filed by two former Bechtel employees in California who alleged the company violated its Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary responsibilities by not using its size to get lower fees from vendors (see Case Sensitive:”Outside” Interests). Bechtel has more than 17,000 401(k) participants.

The settlement still must be approved by a federal judge.

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

According to court papers, Bechtel has agreed for a three-year period to:

not use any of its own affiliates to act as the investment manager for the 401(k) plan,
greatly enhance the disclosures it makes about investment and recordkeeping fees,
not offer any retail mutual fund as an investment option and prohibit all of the plan’s separate account investment managers from investing in retail mutual funds,
not use plan asset-based pricing for recordkeeping service fees,
conduct a competitive bidding process for recordkeeping services when the plan’s current contract with J.P. Morgan Retirement Plan Services expires, which is scheduled to occur no later than 2012.

Depending on how long they’ve been with the company, employees would receive a portion of the settlement proceeds as a credit in their accounts. Those no longer in the plan would receive checks.

“Going forward, Bechtel employees will have a state-of-the-art 401(k) plan with real benefits and a clear, understandable explanation of fees,” said Jerome Schlicter, the employees’ attorney, in a statement, according to the Times. A Bechtel spokeswoman said in a statement that “we believe this settlement of the long-standing litigation is a desirable outcome for everyone involved,” the newspaper reported.

The Bechtel pact is the latest in a string of such settlements that have included Caterpillar (see Court OKs $16.5M Caterpillar 401(k) Fee Pact) and General Dynamics (see Parties Settle General Dynamics 401(k) Fee Case).

In Practice October 14, 2010

PANC 2010: Things You’re (Probably) Doing Wrong as a Plan Adviser

A panel at the recent PLANADVISER National Conference discussed things retirement plan advisers may be doing wrong without knowing it.

Reported by

Rebecca Moore

Melissa Cowan, Director and Program Manager, UBS DC Advisory Program, said benchmarking their own fees is important as a business practice and many advisers don’t take the time to do this. Benchmarking fees, to ensure that the services offered and the time spent on them are reasonable, will show whether an adviser’s business is profitable.

Cowan also pointed out that many advisers don’t properly prepare for meetings. She said advisers should put the “meat” of the agenda on top, collaborate with plan sponsor clients about what should be on the agenda, and keep to the time limit.

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

Nevin Adams, Editor-in-Chief of PLANSPONSOR and PLANADVISER and moderator of the panel, added that advisers shouldn’t include in or start off the meeting with irrelevant information, such as what the market is doing. And, an attendee of the conference adds that if the sponsor is a prospect, advisers should sell themselves first in the meeting; if the sponsor is already a client, start the meeting off with the client’s concerns.

Bradford P. Campbell, of Counsel, Schiff Hardin LLP, says one mistake advisers make is not knowing whether they are a fiduciary. “If you act like a fiduciary, you are one,” he says. He warns that advisers that don’t know whether they are a fiduciary are probably not charging clients as such and are probably not insured as such by an Errors & Omissions (E&O) policy.

Campbell also says advisers that are cross-selling rollover accounts for terminating participants are entering a grey area. If advisers are fiduciaries, regulators might see them as taking advantage of their fiduciary status.

Campbell says advisers can do this right with a thoughtful approach. Only approach participants after they separate and offer a tremendous volume of disclosure. Or, advisers should only do it if a participant approaches them, or put it in the contract with the plan sponsor client that cross-selling is ok.

Rick Shoff, Managing Director, Advisor Support Group, CAPTRUST Financial Advisors, contends that advisers have a tendency to make the simple complex. They have so much information and desperately want to get it out that they can overload the client with too much.

Shoff adds that advisers sometimes get distracted by always chasing the newest or better process or solution. “Don’t keep changing on clients, especially if not adding value,” he warns.

In addition, Shoff says advisers should not get off track from getting and keeping clients.