Data & Research March 2, 2020

Plan Size, Average Account Balance Are Drivers of Plan Fees

Small 401(k) plans have larger costs than large 401(k) plans, but even plans with the same total assets can have different costs, an analysis from the 401k Averages Book shows.

Reported by

Yet another reason to encourage 401(k) plan participants to boost their retirement plan savings: average account balance is one of the key drivers of 401(k) plan costs, data from the 401k Averages Book 19th Edition shows.

The average total plan cost for a small retirement plan (100 participants/$5,000,000 assets) declined from 1.25% to 1.24% over the past year, while the average total plan cost for a large retirement plan (1,000 participants/$50,000,000 assets) declined from 0.95% to 0.93%.

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

“Overall fee disclosure and greater transparency has helped drive down 401(k) fees. But what we continue to find is large plans, with larger average account balances, pay less than smaller plans,” said Joseph Valletta, author of the 401k Averages Book. “People in the industry understand this but I doubt participants of smaller companies are aware of this gap.”

In general, investment fees continue to decline. All scenarios (expect one) saw a year-over-year decrease in total investment costs of between 0.01% and 0.03%. Larger plans experienced greater decreases than smaller plans. Valletta notes these fees are typically paid by participants.

Total 401(k) plan costs, which includes all of the investment, recordkeeping, administration and trustee costs paid by the plan sponsor or participants, declined for most plan sizes. Nineteen of 24 scenarios saw a decrease in total plan costs from last year, while the other five remained unchanged.

In a comparison of the average costs of two $5,000,000 401(k) plans—one with 100 participants and the other with 500 participants—the data showed plans with larger average account balances will pay lower fees as a percentage of total assets. Total plan costs for the 100-participant plan ranged from a low of 0.43% and a high of 1.65%, with a median of 1.28%. The average account balance for this plan is $50,000. Total plan costs for the 500-participant plan—with an average account balance of $10,000—ranged from a low of 0.70% to a high of 2.01%, with a median of 1.55%.

The data also shows the average investment expense for the 100-participant plan is 1.15%, compared to 1.22% for the 500-participant plan. The average total plan costs are 1.23% and 1.51%, respectively.

The plan cost breakdown for the 100-participant plan is 52.04% revenue sharing—the portion of the investment cost received by other service providers to the plan—41.46% investment cost and 6.5% recordkeeping and administration cost. The breakdown for the 500-participant plan is 47.68%, 33.11% and 19.21%, respectively.

Valletta says plan sponsors should take their plan’s average account balance into consideration when benchmarking fees.

The amount of revenue sharing paid by a plan is impacted by its size, according to 401k Averages Book. Average revenue sharing can be as high as 1.19% for the smallest plans and as low as 0.16% for larger plans.

And there is a wide range between high and low-cost providers. The range of cost is greatest within the small plan market. The range of a plan with $1,000,000 in assets and 100 participants ($10,000 average account balance) is 0.72% to 2.81%.

The 401k Averages book may be purchased from https://www.401ksource.com/.
Compliance March 2, 2020

John Hancock Latest to Face DC Plan ERISA Self-Dealing Lawsuit

The self-dealing lawsuit suggests the firm failed to monitor or control the plan’s administrative expenses, allegedly costing the plan millions of dollars in excessive administrative fees.

Reported by

Participants in John Hancock Life Insurance Company’s defined contribution (DC) plan have filed a new Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary breach lawsuit against their employer in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The proposed class action suggests that John Hancock breached its fiduciary duties “by applying an imprudent and inappropriate preference for John Hancock products within the plan, despite their poor performance, high costs and lack of traction among fiduciaries of similarly-sized plans.”

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

In addition, the self-dealing lawsuit suggests the firm failed to monitor or control the plan’s administrative expenses, allegedly costing the plan millions of dollars in excessive administrative fees over the course of the class period.

Similar to other ERISA fiduciary breach lawsuits filed against other retirement plan service providers and investment managers, the complaint begins with generalized argumentation to the effect that financial service companies like John Hancock face a high potential for imprudent and disloyal conduct while operating their own retirement plans. The plaintiff suggests that the plan’s fiduciaries are in a position to benefit the company through the plan by, for example, using proprietary investment products that a non-conflicted and objective fiduciary would not choose.

“Defendant has not acted in the best interest of the plan and its participants,” the complaint states. “Instead, defendant used the plan—one of the largest 401(k) plans in the country—to promote John Hancock’s proprietary financial products and earn profits for John Hancock. Throughout the class period, defendant has offered only John Hancock investment products within the plan. Defendant failed to objectively evaluate the plan’s options in an unbiased manner or consider whether participants would be better served by other investment alternatives in the marketplace.”

The plaintiff suggests this has resulted in “tens of millions of dollars in lost investment returns” for the plan and its participants “since the start of the class period in 2014.” At the same time, the plaintiff alleges, John Hancock “failed to prudently and loyally monitor the plan’s administrative expenses, and instead allowed the plan to pay over three-times what a prudent and loyal fiduciary would have paid for such services.” The plaintiff says these excessive administrative payments, allegedly made in the form of revenue sharing payments coming directly from the investment fees charged to the plan for investing in John Hancock mutual funds, resulted in millions of dollars in additional losses to the plan and its participants during the class period.

This is far from the first self-dealing lawsuit to be filed in recent years against an investment manager or retirement plan recordkeeper under ERISA. Results have so far been mixed in such cases. Back in October 2019, a federal district court judge granted Morgan Stanley’s motion to dismiss an ERISA self-dealing lawsuit accusing it of various fiduciary breaches. Participants in Morgan Stanley’s 401(k) plan filed the lawsuit in 2016 on behalf of approximately 60,000 current and former plan participants, alleging the plan included investment options with excessive fees and used Morgan Stanley proprietary funds rather than other funds that would have been better and cheaper for participants. On the other hand, a different district court early last year issued a mixed ruling in a self-dealing lawsuit filed against Charles Schwab—permitting some claims to proceed while denying others.

In this new case, the plaintiff says the plan’s use of John Hancock target-risk funds “offers a good example of defendant’s imprudent and self-interested process for managing the plan’s investments.”

“The plan’s menu included all five of John Hancock’s target-risk funds (Multimanager Lifestyle Balanced, Conservative, Moderate, Growth and Aggressive) throughout the class period, and for most of that period, the John Hancock Multimanager Lifestyle Balanced Fund was the default fund for participants who did not elect an investment,” the lawsuit states. “As of year-end 2018, the plan had more than $105 million invested in the John Hancock Multimanager Lifestyle Balanced Fund, and had over $295 million invested in the target-risk funds in total.  Based on a review of publicly-filed Form 5500s from the 2017 and 2018 plan years for plans with over $500 million in assets, plaintiff is not aware of any defined contribution plan other than the plan that offered John Hancock’s target-risk funds (Multimanager Lifestyle Balanced, Conservative, Moderate, Growth or Aggressive) during that time period. The fiduciaries of other large defined contributions did not utilize these John Hancock target-risk funds for good reason. As of the end of 2019, all five target-risk funds materially trailed their custom benchmarks.”

According to the plaintiff, superior alternatives existed for each of the target-risk funds in the plan, and the fact that John Hancock used its own target-risk funds in spite of these superior alternatives “supports an inference that its process for selecting and monitoring the plan’s investments was self-interested and imprudent.”

The complaint goes on to allege that, in addition to the failures with respect to the plans’ investment program, the firm failed to properly monitor and control the plan’s recordkeeping expenses.

John Hancock declined to comment about the lawsuit. The full text of the complaint is available here.

«