RiXtrema Launches Plan Monitor to Minimize Fiduciary Risk

In an ever-evolving fiduciary landscape, the tool aims to identify in real time issues that may put plan advisers at risk, such as the availability of lower-cost share classes.

RiXtrema, a provider of risk management tools and analysis to the financial advisory community, has added a new Plan Monitor solution to its 401kFiduciaryOptimizer 2.0.

The new feature monitors retirement plans daily for instances that may raise fiduciary risk including the availability of better share classes and lower cost funds identical to plan menu funds.

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

“Ten years after the initial filing in a Los Angeles federal court, the Supreme Court recently ruled that a fiduciary must monitor ‘at regular intervals’ and make decisions with the same vigor as if it was the decision to first admit a fund into the plan,” explains RiXtrema President Daniel Satchkov. “This further raises the bar in terms of plan fiduciaries’ responsibility to plan participants and our objective is to help facilitate advisers’ and their plan sponsor clients’ ability to make timely decisions in accordance with the mandate of the courts.”

Initially ruled on by the Supreme Court in 2015, the case of Tibble v. Edison established that under trust law, a trustee has a continuing duty to monitor trust investments and remove imprudent ones. This continuing duty exists separate and apart from the trustee’s duty to exercise prudence in selecting investments at the outset. The trustee must systematically consider all the investments of the trust at regular intervals to ensure that they are appropriate.

RiXtrema emphasizes, “Virtually anyone accepting compensation for plans for any sort of financial advice is now an ERISA fiduciary. Significant attorney fee awards have increased incentives to litigate. This means that not only large, but also medium, small and even ‘micro’ plans will be the focus of legal action. Recruiting of plaintiffs for ERISA litigation is now done through billboards and TV ads. ERISA courts expect immediate action when the problem is known and fiduciaries are expected to know their plan.”

Satchkov adds, “The key question that advisers and plan sponsors must ask themselves is: ‘How quickly should I fix my plan?’ The answer from Tibble v. Edison is, right now. Defendants in argued that two to five months were necessary for them to fix the problem with share classes once identified, which doesn’t seem unreasonable. But Judge Wilson’s opinion actually makes it clear that for most plan menu problems, the fix should be done ‘immediately’. We recognized a need in the industry for a whole new set of tools to ensure that problems could be quickly identified and remedied. That is why we created Plan Monitor which will watch your plans continuously.”

To learn more about Plan Monitor and the 401kFiduciaryOptimizer, visit rixtrema.net/401k/index.

Strategic Beta ETFs Among Fasting Growing Asset Classes

An increasingly popular asset class, investors shouldn't pay significantly higher fees for these strategies than market-cap-weighted alternatives, which capture the same performance drivers and can replicate most of their returns.

New research from Morningstar, dubbed “A Global Guide to Strategic-Beta Exchange-Traded Products,” offers a helpful overview—and a word of caution—about the strategic beta exchange-traded fund (ETF) landscape.

Ben Johnson, Morningstar’s director of global ETF and passive strategies research, says one clear finding is that in the years to come, an increasingly crowded and competitive landscape will put pressure on fees.

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

“It remains to be seen whether incumbents’ fees will face pressure from competitors, investors, or both,” he explains.

Findings from the analysis show, as of June 30, 2017, there were 1,320 strategic-beta exchange-traded products, with collective assets under management of approximately $707 billion worldwide. Assets in these products grew an impressive 28.4% relative to their June 30, 2016 level, Morningstar reports.

As the research shows, the number of assets and funds in this space has grown much more rapidly than the broader ETF market as well as the broad asset management industry.  Johnson notes there were 204 new strategic-beta ETFs brought to market in the 12 months through June 2017, down slightly from 211 during the prior period.

“Morningstar has assigned Morningstar Analyst Ratings to 119 strategic-beta ETPs worldwide since November 2016,” Johnson adds. “These funds collectively held more than $495 billion in investors’ money as of June 30, 2017—representing 70% of the total amount invested in strategic-beta ETPs around the globe.”

Fueling the rapid expansion, Morningstar’s research finds, is in part the fact that the fees levied by strategic-beta ETFs are, on average, “competitive with those charged by the universe of ETFs ex-strategic beta.”

Crucial for investors to consider, the research is also frank about the limits of the emerging asset class. Morningstar’s separate Strategic Beta Performance Replication Study challenges some strategic-beta funds’ pricing by attempting to determine whether it is possible to replicate strategic-beta equity funds’ performance with various combinations of market-cap-weighted alternatives.

“Strategic-beta funds aren’t as distinctive as they may first appear. It’s possible to replicate most of their performance with size and value exposures that simple cap-weighted indexes can offer, suggesting that most of these funds just repackage market risk,” explains Alex Bryan, director of passive strategies research, North America. “Investors shouldn’t pay significantly higher fees for these strategies than market-cap-weighted alternatives, which capture the same performance drivers and can replicate most of their returns.”

The Morningstar researchers conclude that many strategic-beta funds are still worth investing in, even if their merits are sometimes exaggerated, as a large minority of strategic-beta funds did outperform their replicating portfolios. Additionally, the researchers feel it is “more efficient to purchase a strategic-beta fund than trying to reassemble its factor exposures, which often shift over time.”

More information and analysis is available from Morningstar here

«