DOL Unwraps New Default Investment Guidelines

On September 26, US Department of Labor (DoL) officials released a proposed safe harbor rule covering retirement plan sponsors who have default investment options for employees entering plans via auto-enrollment or in situations in which individual account plan assets are invested on behalf of participants or beneficiaries who fail to give investment instructions.

On September 26, US Department of Labor (DoL) officials released a proposed safe harbor rule covering retirement plan sponsors who have default investment options for employees entering plans via auto-enrollment or in situations in which individual account plan assets are invested on behalf of participants or beneficiaries who fail to give investment instructions.

Under the proposed regulation a participant will be considered to have exercised control over the assets in his retirement account if the plan fiduciary invests those assets in a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) if the participant does not affirmatively elect an investment. The QDIA can be a lifecycle or target-date fund, a balanced fund, or a managed account. The QDIA must be diversified, so it minimizes the risk of large losses, and it must be either managed by an investment manager or by an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

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

Even though the introduction of the QDIA offers some fiduciary relief to plan fiduciaries, they still are expected to fulfill their traditional due diligence of selecting and monitoring the investment selection prudently.

Administrative Requirements

In order to qualify for the relief, participants must be given the option to self-direct their investments and the plan must offer a “broad range of investment alternatives’ as defined under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) section 404(c). Participants must be allowed to move money out of the QDIA with the same frequency as other plan investments without suffering a financial penalty (but not less than quarterly). Larry Goldbrum, general counsel at the SPARK Institute, the legislative arm of the Society of Professional Administrators and Recordkeepers , comments that this is an area in which he hopes the DoL will offer clarification because it is not clear if a fund that imposes a redemption fee would be allowed as a QDIA, although plan fiduciaries need to consider whether a fund that imposes a redemption fee is appropriate as a default investment, in any event.

The proposed rule also requires that a notice be furnished to participants and beneficiaries 30 days in advance of the first investment, and on an annual basis thereafter – a notice that must contain a description of the circumstances under which assets will be invested in a QDIA; a description of the investment objectives of the QDIA; and an explanation of the right of participants and beneficiaries to direct investment of the assets out of the QDIA. The 30-day requirement would seem to suggest that the default fund guidance might be applicable to plans that have immediate eligibility or eligibility of less than 30 days, Goldbrum said, because the participant will not be given the proper advance notice.

The plan participants invested in the QDIA also must be given any material, including investment prospectuses and other notices, provided to the plan by the QDIA. This is another area Goldbrum would like clarified because, he said, this provision seems to suggest that the participant invested in the default fund would need to receive annual reports or proxy voting statements, which would imply that the participant is receiving more information than those who, at least in theory, are actively managing their account.

A fact sheet about the proposal is here. The text of the proposed rule is here.

ING Agrees to Settlement in Spitzer Fee Suits

ING Group has agreed to pay $33 million to settle lawsuits which allege it took fees in exchange for promoting particular funds in retirement plans and did not disclose those fees.

ING Group has agreed to pay $33 million to settle lawsuits which allege it took fees in exchange for promoting particular funds in retirement plans and did not disclose those fees.

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer’s office announced on Tuesday that, under the settlement agreement, ING would pay $30 million to New York state teachers who invested through ING and $3 million to New Hampshire state employees for failing to disclose the fees to retirement plan participants.

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

Somewhat ominously, David Brown, assistant attorney general and head of the agency’s investment protection bureau, told Reuters that Spitzer’s office is pursuing similar investigations of other retirement plan providers.

In addition, the settlement requires ING to provide full disclosure of its fee structure to investors and provide new information about the payments it collects for including other companies’ funds in its retirement plans. Reuters reports the disclosure includes a cover-page summary of plan costs, a chart showing how expenses can eat into returns over time, and a statement saying fund managers are paying ING to have their funds offered as options.

Spitzer is expecting the settlement to have an impact on the retirement industry and that clearer disclosure will help individuals and companies choose lower-cost providers, Reuters said.

Spitzer began investigating ING after reading reports of a deal between the insurer and a New York teachers union in which ING paid the union as much as $3 million a year to endorse and promote ING annuity plans and did not fully disclose these payments to union members.

The union settled with Spitzer in June, at the same time the New Hampshire’s Bureau of Securities Regulation began an investigation, saying ING committed fraud and allowed improper trades of mutual funds, according to Reuters. The Bureau also accused ING of not disclosing revenue-sharing agreements with fund companies.

You can read more about the settlement at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/oct/oct10a_06.html

«