T. Rowe Price Accused of Self-Dealing in 401(k)

The lawsuit alleges the defendants failed to loyally and prudently monitor the fees and performance of 401(k) plan investment options, and simply retained in-house funds to enrich T. Rowe Price.

David G. Feinberg, a participant in the T. Rowe Price U.S. Retirement Program, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of the 401(k) plan and all similarly situated plan participants and beneficiaries, as well as all predecessor plans, accusing the firm of self-dealing.

According to the complaint, the defendants favored the economic interests of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. and its affiliates over the interests of their employees in saving for their retirement. “Defendants did so by offering, during the Class Period (February 14, 2011 through judgment in this case), only T. Rowe Price’s own in-house investment funds in its 401(k) Plan. This exclusive relationship provided a windfall to T. Rowe Price affiliates T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc. and T. Rowe Price Trust Company,” the lawsuit says. These affiliates serve as investment advisers for those funds and collect the fees charged to investors in those funds.

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

The lawsuit alleges the defendants failed to loyally and prudently monitor the fees and performance of 401(k) plan investment options, and simply retained the in-house funds to enrich T. Rowe Price.

In a statement to PLANADVISER, T. Rowe Price said: “We believe the suit is without merit and intend to defend vigorously.”

The lawsuit also accuses the defendants of frequently offering the higher cost retail class versions of their mutual funds in the 401(k) plan despite the fact that significantly cheaper versions of these funds were available, including institutional share classes, collective investment trusts, and separately managed accounts. In addition, the complaint says, “In those instances when cheaper alternatives to certain retail class mutual funds did not exist, Defendants could have used the fact that the 401(k) Plan was a large institutional investor as leverage in negotiations to create cheaper alternatives.”

NEXT: Participants treated differently than commercial customers

The lawsuit says the defendants offered more expensive classes of collective investment trusts to 401(k) plan participants than they made available to their commercial customers. In addition, the complaint accuses defendants of offering investment management services for some of their collective investment trusts and institutional mutual funds to commercial customers as a sub-adviser for less cost than charged to the plan. “In so doing, Defendants provided the identical services to 401(k) Plan participants while using their role as fiduciaries to collect higher fees than they otherwise could from third-parties,” the complaint says.

The lawsuit claims that as a result of defendants’ fiduciary breaches and prohibited transactions under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), 401(k) plan participants were deprived of millions of dollars in retirement savings that they would have earned if funds had been selected irrespective of their affiliation.

As an example, the complaint suggests that if funds from other established fund companies, such as Vanguard Investments, had been used instead, participants' fees would have been reduced by $27 million or more during the class period. If such funds had, instead, been offered to participants in those asset classes and investment fund categories in which T. Rowe Price performance is weak, participants' earnings would have increased by $123 million or more.

The lawsuit also notes that at the inception of the class period, the 401(k) plan exclusively held T. Rowe Price proprietary funds, and almost all of these were the expensive retail class versions of T. Rowe Price mutual funds. It accuses the plan trustees of breaching their fiduciary duties under ERISA by either failing to remedy their predecessors’ breaches, or, in a few cases of offering expensive retail class versions of proprietary mutual funds, waiting too long to act to shift into lower cost versions of the funds.  

The lawsuit seeks relief including disgorgement of all investment advisory fees paid to T. Rowe Price and/or its subsidiaries from 401(k) plan assets, as well as the difference in performance between readily available and better performing non-proprietary funds that could have been offered in the 401(k) plan. It says that during the class period, 401(k) plan participants paid TRP Associates in excess of $50 million in fees.

Investors Pour Money Into Mutual Funds and ETPs in January

Passive strategies continued to lead demand.

Long-term mutual funds and exchange-traded products (ETPs) experienced net deposits of $58.1 billion in January, a significant improvement over the $5.6 billion in net deposits seen in December, according to Strategic Insight, parent company of PLANADVISER.

Passive strategies continued to lead demand among long-term funds with inflows of $71.9 billion (including $39.2 billion to ETPs). While actively managed funds experienced aggregate net redemptions of $13.7 billion, these outflows were much less severe than the $63 billion in outflows actively managed long-term funds experienced in December.

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

Taxable Bonds experienced the highest net deposits among long-term funds at $32.9 billion. Taxable Bond funds experienced net inflows in both passive ($22 billion) and active ($10.9 billion) segments. Tax-Free Bond funds in January experienced a rebound in net flows of $4.4 billion after having seen net outflows of $16.3 billion in December.

International Equity funds led Equity funds overall with $15.3 billion in net deposits. Domestic Equity funds meanwhile saw inflows of $5.5 billion. Equity outflows were concentrated among active products ($28.7 billion) while passive Equity funds experienced inflows of $49.5 billion.

Money Market funds experienced net redemptions of $44.6 billion in January, primarily through outflows from Taxable Money Market funds. Prime Money Market funds had been the leading contributor to outflows from Taxable Money Market funds throughout 2016. But, in January, Prime Money Market funds saw inflows of $5.8 billion, while Government and Treasury Money Market funds led outflows at $30.5 billion and $20 billion, respectively.

«