PANC 2014: Enforcement and Litigation

Fee lawsuits pose the biggest threat to plan sponsors—and to advisers and consultants, as well. 

This, said David Levine, principal with Groom Law Group, speaking at the “Enforcement and Litigation” session at the 2014 PLANADVISER National Conference on Tuesday, is due to retirement plan practices’ growing size—and attorneys’ pursuit of deep pockets.

“You are on their radar,” Levine said. “We all live in a land of fee disclosure now. In 2006, it was all about revenue sharing. The claims have now changed. Before, no one knew what a retirement plan’s fees were. Now, there is a focus on share classes, which ostensibly should not be retail. Think of how the government went after Al Capone. He got caught for not paying his taxes. You can get in trouble for not documenting your due diligence and your processes.”

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

One of the biggest and most recent 401(k) fee litigation cases against retirement plans is Tibble v. Edison International. At the end of August, the U.S. Solicitor General filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether the 9th Circuit should have decided to grant Edison the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) six-year limitations allowance; the lower court in the original case charged the plan’s fiduciaries with failing to pursue cheaper share classes for three mutual funds, Levine noted. At the heart of this case is the court’s finding that “Edison didn’t have the due diligence on record to find another share class,” Levine said. “An open statute of limitation could drag you, as an adviser, into the process.”

Of course, Levine said, “the diligence process varies. If you are looking at the investments in a large plan, you should be looking at them quarterly. The investment policy statement [IPS] should be short, sweet and aspirational. Document why you chose a particular share class, level of investments, fund with revenue sharing and your criteria for the wash list. Fiduciary Benchmarks can be a great tool, or you can do an RFP [request for proposals], use internal resources or turn to DCIO [defined contribution investment only] providers.”

However, on top of this, retirement plan advisers do not only need to select a benchmarking process, but also must justify “how you evaluate and update your benchmarking tool, and why you use that tool,” Levine said. “Minutes from the investment committee meetings should show that you spent time and caution making these evaluations, that you considered alternatives. Using words like ‘discussed,’ ‘evaluated’ and ‘options’ are some of the strengths you can show. Don’t ever say ‘this could hurt the company’ or ‘cost the company,’” even though that may be implied.

Another major case is Tussey v. ABB Inc., in which the plaintiffs sued ABB and its recordkeeper, Fidelity, claiming that revenue-sharing payments to Fidelity breached the plan’s fiduciary duties. The District Court awarded a total of $36.9 million against ABB and Fidelity, plus $13.4 million in attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff’s attorney, Jerome Schlichter of Schlichter Bogard & Denton, has told PLANADVISER that this suggests a win is on the horizon for another pending petition, with the case citing Tussey.

“Schlicter is a controversial figure piloting many class action fee litigation suits,” Levine said. Schlicter’s firm has brought a long list of cases involving claims of excessive fees against other companies, including Krueger v. Ameriprise Financial, Gordon v. Mass Mutual, Abbott v. Lockheed Martin, Grabek v. Northrop Grumman and Spano v. Boeing. “These types of lawsuits are $20 million, $30 million, $40 million cases. These are material figures for our clients. Insurance doesn’t always cover this,” Levine said. “Many of these fee cases have been wins, but in reality the only people who win are the attorneys.”

Asked what the threshold is for assets under management (AUM) that would signal to a plan sponsor and adviser that they should seek an institutional share class, Levine joked, “I’m on tape. I’m not giving a number.” However, he continued, “Each situation is unique, and you have to approach the decision much like the selection of a target-date fund [TDF]. You have to understand the demographics of your work force. When do you move out of a mutual fund to a separately managed account or a collective investment trust [CIT]?” It’s all about vetting your decision with the right questions and “documentation, to forestall litigation,” Levine said.

Retirement plan advisers would also be wise to tactfully ask new sponsor clients how proactive they are prepared to be if the adviser finds a problem with the plan.

On the enforcement side of the equation, “it has been falsely reported that the DOL [Department of Labor] has hired thousands of litigators,” Levine said. However, “they are looking at service providers and fiduciaries like you. They have also become very sophisticated in such things as looking at revenue sharing master agreements.”

As for the redefinition of what constitutes a fiduciary, that change is not imminent, Levine said. However, advisers should keep in mind that a broadened redefinition “could make it more difficult for specialist retirement advisers to compete for business on the basis of taking on fiduciary responsibility,” he said.

Advisers should also be cautious about recommending individual retirement account (IRA) rollovers following the “inflammatory GAO [Government Accountability Office] report that used undercover callers to prove a potential bias by providers concerning rollover advice.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is now concentrating on auditing any firm that has been in existence for three years without an audit, Levine said. His advice to prepare for this process: “Mock audits are incredibly helpful.”

How to Attract and Retain RIA Talent

The 2014 RIA (Registered Investment Advisors) Benchmarking Study from Schwab Advisor Services finds employees look beyond their base salary for meaningful compensation.

“Talent management is an essential focus for firms,” says Nick Georgis, vice president, Schwab Advisor Services. “Competitive and comprehensive compensation packages, along with clear paths to partnership, help ensure retention of employees within a highly competitive talent environment, setting up firms for success now and into the future.”

From its analysis of hundreds of RIA firms representing thousands of jobs, Schwab found three main principles can apply to maintain top talent across all employment levels:

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

Align compensation with business strategy. To motivate employees to improve their productivity, and generate greater firm-wide profits, link compensation to performance goals. Regular evaluations can encourage employees to focus on these targets, and can help track an individual’s career development.

Incorporate more than salary into compensation plans. Benefits packages, non-cash rewards and an official course to partnership in the firm can further motivate employee performance. The compensation data Schwab studied found that base salary accounted for 88% of total cash compensation in 2013, but most employees (91%) received some form of incentive compensation. Four in five firms (80%) provide medical insurance, but less than half offer dental, life and vision insurance.

Integrate key employees into the ownership or partnership structure. This process has the added bonus of promoting a sustainable business model. Having more equity partners allows RIA founders and principals to share the responsibilities of maintaining a healthy business, which can lead to greater long-term growth. Larger firms are likelier to develop a formal path to partnership, the study found: One-third (32%) of firms with more $1 billion in assets added new equity owners in 2013, compared with less than one in 10 firms with under $250 million in assets (8%) that did so.

 

According to Schwab, compensation accounts for roughly 75% of a firm’s total expenses. Thus, as part of the 2014 RIA Benchmarking Study, the firm incorporated questions about compensation in its survey of nearly 900 firms, representing nearly 7,962 employees holding 21 roles commonly found at RIA firms.

“We know from this year’s Benchmarking Study that more than one-third of participating firms doubled their assets under management [AUM] and revenues since 2009, which shows remarkable growth … [in] the RIA model,” says  Georgis. “With this growth we see increasing competition for talent.” In 2013, half of new hires left one RIA firm to join another, he points out. Therefore, it is “vitally important” that firms develop effective strategies to incentivize top-tier employees to join and remain in their work force.

Further information about the compensation data from the study is available for download here.

 


 

«