Tools, Training to Address DOL Fiduciary Definition

A DALBAR training program anticipates the best interest contract (BIC) exemption.

It’s not yet a done deal, but DALBAR expects the best interest contract (BIC) exemption in the proposed fiduciary definition by the Department of Labor (DOL) to soon become a reality. As the industry waits to see if and when the definition will be implemented, compensation models are an area of intense scrutiny.

The financial services market research and evaluation firm is rolling out new tools and a self-paced program for advisers to take, to learn what they must do to remain compliant in the face of new regulation if they continue providing advice. Aimed at advisers who work with individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans, the course helps them see best ways to implement the BIC exemption; provides guidance tools for the transition to a new compensation model; examines ways to maintain and increase compensation under the BIC exemption; as well as how to minimize time and cost of compliance. 

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

Background and an overview of the implications of the BIC exemption are discussed in two free briefs: “BICE Requirements Summary” and “Creating a Successful Best Interest Contract Practice.” The requirements summary lays out the choices that financial advisers must make to comply, remain competitive and profitable in the BICE environment. The practice brief highlights the changes that will be required to meet the obligations and implications of a best interest contract, including: business models, small accounts, business development, marketing communications, risk management and compliance.

“As the regulatory changes under consideration by the Labor Department and IRS [Internal Revenue Service] get closer to reality the discussion must shift to how to operate successfully in the new environment,” says Cory Clark, head of research and due diligence at DALBAR.

Court Rejects Excessive Fee Claims Against Principal

Among other things, the 8th Circuit found Principal’s adherence to its agreement with a plan sponsor does not implicate any fiduciary duty.

An appellate court has dismissed a plan sponsor’s lawsuit claiming its plan provider charged excessive fees to retirement plan participants.

Affirming a district court’s decision that McCaffree Financial Corp. failed to state a claim, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Principal Financial Group was not acting as a fiduciary under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it entered into a contract with McCaffree to offer separately managed accounts for McCaffree’s retirement plan for employees.

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

The contract between McCaffree and Principal provided that plan participants could choose to invest their accounts among various separate accounts which invested in Principal mutual funds. Principal reserved the right to limit which separate amounts it made available to participants and McCaffree also had the ability to limit in which accounts employees could invest. Principal presented 63 accounts that could be included in the contract, and this was narrowed down to 29 accounts made available to plan participants.

The contract also provided that participants would pay both management fees and operating expenses to Principal. Principal assessed the management fees as a percentage of the assets invested in a separate account, and this percentage varied for each account according to its associated mutual fund. In addition, Principal could unilaterally adjust the management fee for any account, subject to a cap specified in the contract, and would have to provide participants with at least 30 days’ written notice of such change.

McCaffree entered into the contract in 2009. In 2014, it filed a lawsuit alleging that Principal charged participants invested in these separately managed accounts “grossly excessive management fees and other fees” in violation of its fiduciary duties under ERISA.

The appellate court said that to first state a claim of breach of fiduciary duty, a plaintiff must first plead facts demonstrating the defendant is a fiduciary. Principal was not a named fiduciary to the plan.

NEXT: Five arguments rejected

McCaffree argued that Principal’s selection of 63 separate accounts in the initial investment menu constituted both an exercise of discretionary authority over plan management and over plan administration, so it owed a fiduciary duty to make sure fees for the accounts were reasonable. However, the appellate court noted that the contract clearly identified each account’s management fee and authorized Principal to pass through expenses to participants. The court said sister circuits have held that a service provider’s adherence to its agreement with a plan sponsor does not implicate any fiduciary duty where the parties negotiated and agreed to the terms of the agreement in an arm’s-length bargaining process. Up until it signed the agreement with Principal, McCaffree remained free to reject its terms and contract with another service provider.                        

McCaffree argued that Principal acted as a fiduciary when it selected from the 63 accounts identified, the 29 accounts made available to plan participants. The company contends this winnowing process, after the parties entered into the contract, gave rise to a fiduciary duty to ensure the fees associated with the accounts were reasonable. The court found that McCaffree did not assert that only some of the 63 accounts had excessive fees or that during the winnowing process, Principal made sure participants only had access to the higher-fee accounts. The action subject to complaint is that excessive fees were charged for all the accounts in the contract, so McCaffree cannot base its excessive fee claims on any fiduciary duty Principal may have owed while selecting the 29 accounts, the court concluded.

The appellate court also rejected McCaffree’s argument that Principal’s discretion to increase fees and adjust amounts charged to participants supports its claim that Principal was a fiduciary. Again, the court said the company failed to plead any connection between this and its excessive fee allegations. McCaffree did not allege that Principal exercised this authority, resulting in excessive fees.

Similarly, the court found McCaffree’s allegation that Principal was a fiduciary because it provided participants with “investment advice” was unrelated to the context of the lawsuit. McCaffree also argued Principal inadequately disclosed the additional layer of management fee for the underlying Principal mutual funds in which the separate accounts were invested, but the court found the mutual fund fees were not subject to complaint, so this argument does not apply to the decision whether Principal was a fiduciary for actions relating to the complaint.

The decision in McCaffree Financial Corp. v. Principal Life Insurance Company is here.

«