It is common to hear that private equity (PE) has been the best performing asset class in recent years for institutional investors, but a new academic analysis challenges that idea.
The lawsuit points to a variety of alleged fiduciary breaches related to the Oshkosh Corp.’s retirement plan’s investment and recordkeeping fees.
Knowledge about and connections to the collective investment trust marketplace can be a key selling point for retirement plan advisers in 2020 and beyond—especially when serving small and mid-sized clients.
Among the attractive but less-often-discussed features of collective investment trusts is the fact that the sponsoring trustee—a bank or trust company—must commit to acting in the best interest of unit holders.
Among other enhancements, clients can now add Fingage’s managed account solution for a small fee.
According to the firm, “Sensible Fees” funds will enable investors to pay a low index or ETF-like base fee—only seeing a higher active management fee when fund performance objectives exceed the benchmark.
According to the SEC, Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s share class calculator had two operating errors that caused it not to provide the most beneficial share class to eligible customers; the firm was also accused of not consistently providing this benefit to certain eligible clients.
Fee compression hit recordkeepers first, then asset managers. Advisers are next, experts agree, but they can learn some important lessons from their service provider partners.
Retirement plans of all sizes are seeing their recordkeeping fee schedules questioned, especially when those fees are expressed as a percentage of assets.
The text of the decision highlights that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that a court may permit a party to amend its pleadings “when justice so requires,” and absent special circumstances, such leave should be “freely given.”
Beyond the issue of excessive compensation, the lawsuit questions the collection of “float interest” and asks whether BTG International permitted a provider to create a “captive market for 401(k) rollovers.”
The recordkeeping and investment firm has emphatically denied allegations leveled in multiple lawsuits suggesting it collects “secret payments” and “kickbacks” from external fund providers.
The parties dispute whether the plaintiff has standing to bring any ERISA claims based on a settlement agreement she entered, and, if she does, which claims could be permitted to proceed.
ERISA sets exacting standards when it comes to the treatment of retirement plan investments, but a new appellate court ruling underscores the fact that not all parties dealing with retirement plans generate fiduciary liability.
There are an abundance of lessons to be learned by examining the many twists and turns of Tussey vs. ABB, one of the original examples of retirement plan fee litigation filed under ERISA.
Despite a setback for Oracle at the class certification stage, a new ruling out of a federal court in Colorado pushes back strongly against many—but not all—of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Fiduciary defendants were accused of allowing unreasonable expenses to be charged to participants for administration of the plan and of retaining high-cost and poor-performing investments.