Nevin's Data "Points"

There was another judicial decision in another revenue-sharing case earlier this month—and another victory for a plan sponsor. The case was Loomis v. Exelon (see Another Plan Sponsor Win on Revenue-Sharing ), a case argued before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously weighed in on the case that appears to be setting the tone in most of these cases, “Hecker v. Deere & Co.” Hecker, as you may recall, involved a situation with a large, multi-billion-dollar plan that offered its participants access to a couple of dozen funds from a single provider alongside a self-directed brokerage window that afforded access to funds beyond that. The 7th Circuit dismissed that challenge, finding that the competitive forces of the market were sufficient to ensure reasonable fee levels for the specific funds on the menu, and that, if the participants felt otherwise, they could always pursue other options via the brokerage window. In Exelon, there was no brokerage window, though

Last week the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on “promoting retirement security.” While options were presented to improve things (see “ Industry Groups Urge No Changes to Retirement Savings Tax Advantages ”), the discussion quickly veered toward a debate on whether and how well—or poorly—the current system is working. That said, listening to the witnesses, 1 one might well have thought they were discussing completely different systems—from one that is striking a good balance between incentivizing employers and encouraging participants to one that is all about providing tax benefits for saving to those who don’t require such enticements; from one that is putting too much responsibility on individual savers to one that has managed to, on a voluntary basis, draw the support of roughly eight in 10 workers. One that has failed, and seems unlikely to ever deliver a real retirement income solution—or one that has the potential to make that a reality. Metrics Systems As always, the

During last week’s GOP presidential candidate debate, Texas Governor Rick Perry grabbed headlines by reaffirming his position that Social Security is a “Ponzi scheme.” Pundits were quick to jump on the comment, apparently believing that such rhetoric will “spook” the electorate (specifically older and independent voters) and ultimately make Perry unelectable, while purists were quick to point out the distinctions between the operation and intent of the two approaches, apparently believing that the technical distinction would matter (to anyone besides purists). True, a Ponzi scheme, such as the one Bernie Madoff ran, as well as Charles Ponzi’s original design, is positioned as an investment. Investors hand over money to someone, believing that their money will be invested and grow. Instead, the scheme “runner” generally pays off longer-term participants with money invested by newer investors. Sooner or later, there are not enough new investors to fulfill those expectations and the wh

Today PLANSPONSOR opens nominations for our Retirement Plan Adviser of the Year awards. Each year we receive a number of inquiries from advisers and plan sponsors about the awards, and many of these fall into a category I tend to think of as “exploratory”—feelers as to what we are looking for. At its core, what we hope to acknowledge—and, thus, what we are looking for—hasn’t changed from when we first launched the award in 2005: advisers who make a difference by enhancing the nation’s retirement security, through their support of plan sponsor and plan participant information, support, and education. Since its inception, we’ve focused on advisers who do so through quantifiable measures: increased participation, higher deferral rates, better plan and participant asset allocation, and delivering expanded service and/or better expense management. A Different World The world has, of course, undergone much change since we first launched those awards, and advisers now have an expanded