Fee for All

Law firm launches lawsuits over 401(k) fees

In mid-September, multiple class-action lawsuits were filed against several 401(k) plans sponsored by large employers. They name the employers as defendants and, in some cases, plan fiduciary committees and their various individual members under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The plaintiffs allege a variety of breaches of fiduciary duties and prohibited transactions relating to fees paid by 401(k) plans; the complaints say such breaches occurred because the plans and participants were subjected to excessive fees and expenses.

At the heart of the cases is a claim that the plan fiduciaries did not understand properly the revenue-sharing arrangements made with plan service providers as ERISA requires, and that such arrangements violated ERISA’s mandate that actions with respect to the plan and its assets be undertaken solely in the best interests of plan participants and their beneficiaries. Further, the claims maintain, as has been argued but not yet adjudicated in other courts, that those revenue-sharing payments drawn from plan holdings are plan assets. According to the complaints, the “hidden” fees and revenue sharing payments also amounted to prohibited transactions between the plans and their service providers. The plaintiffs also challenge these fees and payments as a violation of the requirement that plan assets be used solely for the benefit of participants and beneficiaries, and various other breaches of fiduciary duty. Additionally, the suits, which, although similar, are not identical in their claims, take issue with the lack of disclosure of fees paid by the plan to participants.

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

All complaints say the participants were not made properly aware of the revenue-sharing and fee arrangements. However the cases differ on how some of those payments were made; some argue that the charges were hidden and made through master trusts while others appear to say payments were excessive and undisclosed—some argue both occurred. The cases argue that, however the fees were paid, participants’ accounts were affected adversely by the application of these charges to their accounts and that, in a worst-case scenario, the fees were complex, excessive, undisclosed, and illegal. Because the complaints argue that the revenue-sharing payments were plan assets, plaintiffs claim that the plan fiduciary defendants are responsible for restoring the losses—arising from their fiduciary breaches—to the retirement plans.

Attorney Jerome Schlichter, whose law firm filed these suits, claims that his firm is not seeking to be seen as the leader of a campaign over the issue. Schlichter asserted in an interview with PLANADVISER that the suits, filed in Illinois, Missouri, and California, by Schlichter, Bogard & Denton, were the results of investigations into the specifics of each plan, a perspective that appears to be supported by the details in each claim. While he acknowledged that there were similarities in the allegations leveled in each complaint, Schlichter refused to estimate a dollar amount of how much in excess fees were being charged by the plans. “No one should read any conclusion into that,” Schlichter declared.

Despite that contention, the claims made in the complaints are applicable to a significant number of retirement plans in existence today because of the prevalence of the fee arrangements and practices cited.

Pro Active

Study finds more actively-managed funds have higher performance

A study from researchers at the Yale School of Management has found that more-actively managed funds tend to beat benchmark performance consistently.

In their paper, Martijn Cremers and Antti Petajisto start with the hypothesis that the more active the fund, the higher its average gross return (before fees and expenses). The researchers developed a measurement they call Active Share, which measures “the fraction of the portfolio that is different from the index.”

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

The authors note that the average fund loses to its benchmark index by 0.33% per year. According to Cremers and Petajisto, the traditionally used measurement of tracking error does not help much when picking funds since their analysis across all tracking-error quintiles showed consistently negative benchmark-adjusted returns and alphas.

However, the researchers’ measurement of Active Share does help when picking funds. The difference in benchmark-adjusted return between the highest and lowest Active Share quintiles is 2.81% per year, according to the study paper.

Further, investors should choose funds in the highest Active Share quintile, the researchers said, since funds in the highest Active Share quintile beat their benchmarks by 1.39%. Funds with the lowest Active Share essentially had performance equal to their benchmarks.

When combined with tracking error, the study found that more-actively managed funds performed better regardless of tracking error, with high Active Share/high tracking error funds performing best.

Additionally, when controlling for size, the study found Active Share was directly related to better performance. Excluding the largest 40% of funds, the highest Active Share funds’ stock picks outperformed their benchmarks by about 2% to 4% per year. The more-actively managed funds in the largest 40% also outperformed their benchmarks, but the researchers concluded the results were not statistically significant.

The researchers noted that prior studies have shown the average fund slightly outperforms the market before expenses and underperforms after expenses. They conclude from their study that funds with the highest Active Share significantly outperform their benchmarks both before and after expenses, while funds with the lowest Active Share underperform after expenses.

The study, “How Active Is Your Fund Manager? A New Measure That Predicts Performance,” is available at www.som.yale.edu/Faculty/petajisto/active50.pdf.

«