The Markets January 22, 2019

Optimal Number of 401(k) Investment Categories Between 12 and 20 Study Says

Offering fewer than 12 categories may mean participants are not being given sufficient opportunity to diversify, and offering more than 20 could lead to lower average investment in each fund, which may cause higher fees, ERISApedia.com says.

Reported by

Any 401(k) plan that has fewer than 12 and more than 20 investment categories is an outlier, according to the 401(k) Portfolio Study of Investment Categories by ERISApedia.com.

The study report says that offering fewer than 12 categories may mean that participants are not being given sufficient opportunity to diversify. Offering more than 20 investment categories could lead to lower average investment in each fund, which may cause higher fees. An overly large number of investment categories may also contribute to participant confusion.

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

The ERISApedia.com Market-Based Portfolio Model (EMBP) provides a model to help establish investment lineups in 401(k) plans. It is not based on any formal academic principles but instead relies on market data at the investment category and the fund level to provide guidance to investment fiduciaries and financial advisers. EMBP involves a two-step process for establishing investment lineups in 401(k) plans. First is to determine the core investment categories to offer (including the number categories and the specific categories to include), and second is picking the individual fund or funds within each investment category. Based on the EMBP, the optimal number of investment categories is between 12 and 20.

The study finds the top five investment categories ranked by number of plans is Large Blend, Large Growth, Intermediate-Term Bond, Large Value and Target-Date. The top five ranked by average balance per plan are Target-Date, Stable Value, Large Blend, Large Growth and Intermediate-Term Bond.

However, there appears to be a fair amount of investment category variance among all plans. On average there are about 5.8 missing investment categories (the absence of categories in the top 20) and 4.0 extraneous categories (inclusion of categories not in the top 20) per plan for a total variance of 9.8. Much of the variance is concentrated in plans with less than $10 million in assets, which the study report says could be an indication that smaller plans do not have the resources to design a rational investment lineup.

Overall, the study finds that fund redundancy is relatively low, as only about 20% of all plans have fund redundancy in excess of six. However, the amount of fund redundancy increases as plan size increases. Fund redundancy most frequently is four for plans with more than $500 million in assets.

The report notes that there may be good reasons for relatively high fund redundancy. For example, an investment fiduciary may wish to provide an actively managed and passive fund for each of several of the major investment categories.

Interested parties may request a free copy of the report at https://www.erisapedia.com/signupv2?FreeSearch=1.
Compliance January 22, 2019

Putnam Asks Supreme Court to Weigh In On Fund Comparisons in ERISA Cases

The question was included in its petition for writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to settle a circuit split about burden of proof in ERISA cases.

Reported by

Putnam Investments has filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to settle questions in a case in which it was accused of engaging in self-dealing by including high-expense, underperforming proprietary funds in its own 401(k) plan.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, last year, ruled for Putnam. However, “finding several errors of law in the district court’s rulings,” the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Appellate Court said “we align ourselves with the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits and hold that once an ERISA plaintiff has shown a breach of fiduciary duty and loss to the plan, the burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove that such loss was not caused by its breach, that is, to prove that the resulting investment decision was objectively prudent.”

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

Putnam asked, and the Appellate Court agreed, to stay the case pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court.

However, in addition to asking the high court to weigh in on whether the plaintiff or the defendant bears the burden of proof on loss causation under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 409(a), Putnam asked the court to determine “whether, as the First Circuit concluded, showing that particular investment options did not perform as well as a set of index funds selected by the plaintiffs with the benefit of hindsight, suffices as a matter of law to establish “losses to the plan.”

Notably, in his decision in the case, U.S. District Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found the comparison of the Putnam mutual funds’ average fees to Vanguard passively managed index funds’ average fees flawed. Vanguard is a low-cost mutual fund provider operating index funds “at-cost.” Putnam mutual funds operate for profit and include both index and actively managed investments. Young said the expert’s analysis “thus compares apples and oranges.”

«