Investment services provider American Century Investments launched a collective investment trust (CIT) designed for defined contribution (DC) participants that incorporates the firm’s One Choice Target Date Portfolios.
“Collective investment trusts are critical to the defined
contribution business because they give plan sponsors and their consultants
more flexibility in building investment lineups for their employees,” says Rick
Luchinsky, senior vice president of defined contribution investment-only (DCIO)
business at American Century Investments.
Like mutual funds, CITs pool the assets of many investors
and can take advantage of economies of scale. But unlike mutual funds, a CIT is
typically operated on behalf of a single qualified retirement plan and is not
available on the retail market. Another key difference is that collective
trusts are issued by banks and trusts rather than by fund companies, meaning
they are not regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Because
CITs are bank products, they are regulated by the comptroller of the currency
and state banking commissioners. This offers sponsors another layer of
protection, in that the bank or trust managers serve as plan fiduciaries under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), and their activities are
subject to scrutiny by banking regulators (see “Investment
Structure: Coloring the Investment Menu”).
American Century Investments says that Kansas City-based
Lockton Companies will be the first client to use the CIT. The firm says
Lockton, a global risk management and employee benefits consulting firm with
about 5,000 associates, will add the CIT as its plan’s qualified default
investment alternative (QDIA).
American Century, which began offering CITs in 2009,
launched the new target-date CIT in order to meet client demand, Luchinsky
says, adding that the One Choice Portfolios are the most popular investment
product among his firm’s DC plan clients.
“Clients asked us to create a CIT using our target-date
strategy,” he says. “This is the result.”
“Lockton is pleased to be the first client to use the new
CIT,” says Thomas Clark, president of Lockton Investment Advisors and leader of
Lockton’s retirement services practice. “After a lengthy due diligence process,
we concluded that the investment philosophy and process of American Century’s
One Choice Portfolios, combined with the pricing advantages of the CIT, were an
excellent fit for our retirement plan.”
More
information about the CIT is available by calling American Century Investments
at 800-345-6488 or by visitinghttp://www.americancentury.com/ipro.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
The
fear among product providers and their broker/dealer sales force is palpable. In
fact, congressional opposition to the proposed rule is already lining up even before
its contents have been announced.
The
fear appears to be justified. In an interview in the Fall 2013 Employee Benefits Committee Newsletter, Phyllis
Borzi, assistant secretary of Labor for Employee Benefits Security at the
Department of Labor (DOL), criticized
brokers who “sell products that financially benefit themselves without
considering whether those investments are really in their clients’ best
interests.” However, the DOL’s own policies may have driven many retirees into
the waiting arms of the very brokers whom Borzi now disparages.
Specifically,
the Deseret opinion issued in 2005 by
the DOL dissuaded many investment advisers—who had already been working within
the plan and educating participants regarding their investments in the plan for
many years—from counseling participants on their rollover options into individual
retirement accounts (IRAs).
In
fact, many retirement plan professionals concluded from Deseret that they would be engaging in a prohibited transaction if
they served as the plan’s investment adviser or manager and also assisted
participants in rolling their plan assets into an IRA – even if it was done at
the specific request of the participant.
In
response, ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) attorneys have
developed all sorts of workarounds in an attempt to provide legal cover to plan
advisers who wanted to assist participants with these rollovers. What has been
missing, though, is a common sense response to Deseret.
In that
document, the DOL correctly noted a plan fiduciary “must act … solely in the
interests of the participant.” However, what if assisting the participant in
rolling his or her assets into an IRA managed by the adviser is in the participant’s best interests? How
could that be a violation of the adviser’s fiduciary duty? Could it in fact be
argued that failing to assist participants in making those important decisions
– and leaving them vulnerable to those seeking to make a quick product sale – is
the actual derogation of the plan adviser’s fiduciary duty to the plan’s
participants?
FINRA’s Caveats
Enter
FINRA, which on December 30, issued Regulatory Notice 13-45 entitled “Rollovers
to Individual Retirement Accounts.” In that document, FINRA noted a number
of factors that plan participants must consider when deciding whether to roll plan
assets into an IRA, including several that an adviser already working with the
plan would know.
For example, can the participant leave the assets in the plan
after a separation event? If so, what investment options are available inside
the plan? Also, what type of individualized investment advice is offered within
the plan, and at what cost?
FINRA
also pointed out an inherent conflict of interest: a broker can collect a
commission only by recommending that the participant roll money out of the plan
and into a product the broker is selling. As a result, the notice stressed that
brokers must ensure their recommendations to plan participants regarding
rollovers comply with suitability requirements based upon the participant’s
long-term interests. Lest anyone think this was simply a friendly reminder, the
self-regulatory organization warned its members, “The recommendation and
marketing of IRA rollovers will be an examination priority for FINRA in 2014.”
So
what does all of this mean for retirement plan advisers?
Well,
this is speculation on my part, but what if the FINRA notice provided insight
into the content of the DOL’s upcoming “fiduciary rule”? The idea is not that
farfetched. In a December webinar hosted by FINRA to outline regulatory
priorities for 2014, insiders noted they were in “regular communication” with
the DOL regarding the issue.
Silver Lining?
Is it
possible the DOL now sees a plan adviser’s fiduciary status as a benefit rather
than a liability when it comes to assisting participants with rollover options?
If that change in focus were to occur, retirement plan advisers would be back
in the driver’s seat when it comes to counseling plan participants who are
nearing retirement.
However,
it is clear that this additional opportunity would bring additional scrutiny. In
fact, even if I am incorrect about the DOL’s change in perspective, there can
be no doubt that regulatory concerns in FINRA’s notice will likely be adopted
as the minimum standards for determining the appropriateness of recommendations
regarding participant rollovers. As a result, it is important that plan advisers
adjust to this new reality.
Specifically,
plan advisers who want to assist participants with rollover options would be
wise to develop the type of written supervisory procedures referenced in the
FINRA notice. Those procedures should outline the information the adviser will
consider in determining whether it is in a participant’s best interests to roll
assets out of the plan and, if so, how the adviser will determine which
investment product(s) are best suited to meet the specific long-term interests
of a participant’s unique situation.
Any
evidence of a one-size-fits-all approach or preferred product provider
arrangement would likely be regulatory red flags. Instead, plan advisers should
strive to use their broad understanding of ERISA, tax, estate planning,
financial planning, wealth management, and product expertise to demonstrate
their recommendations are truly based upon each participant’s best interests.
All
of this may present a daunting set of requirements for retirement plan advisers.
Then again, who is better equipped to provide advice to plan participants than
the plan adviser who has been guiding them for many years?
Phil Troyer is an attorney and vice president of
compliance at Bukaty Companies Financial Services (www.bukaty.com), which has locations in
Kansas City, Denver and Spokane. The firm is managed by Vince Morris, who was
included in PlanSponsor magazine's list of Top 100 Plan Advisers
and twice nominated for Adviser of the Year. Phil can be reached at ptroyer@bukaty.com.
This article is not intended to provide legal advice and
should not be relied upon as such.