Nevin's Data "Points"

There’s an old saying that when you assume… well, here are some assumptions that can create real headaches for retirement plan fiduciaries. Assuming that the worst-case deadline for depositing participant contributions IS the deadline for depositing participant contributions. The legal requirements for depositing contributions to the plan are perhaps the most widely misunderstood elements of plan administration. A delay in contribution deposits is also one of the most common signs that an employer is in financial trouble—and that the Labor Department is likely to investigate. Note that the law requires that participant contributions be deposited in the plan as soon as it is reasonably possible to segregate them from the company’s assets, but no later than the 15th business day of the month following the payday. If employers can reasonably make the deposits sooner, they need to do so. Many have read the worst-case situation (the 15th business day of the month following

A recent report—and a new wave of litigation—reminds us that all target-date funds are not designed the same.  We all know that target-date funds are different, even if their names sometimes suggest otherwise.  Different management teams both set and monitor asset allocations—allocations that can vary widely with regard to the type and quantity of underlying assets. Fees can certainly be different, and some favor a reliance on passive investing versus an active engagement. But the difference that can often account for many of the other differences is the glide path, and more specifically the glide path’s “goal”—and here I am referring to the difference between funds that opt for a “to” retirement versus a “through” retirement focus.  Now, admittedly it’s a “target date” fund, not necessarily a retirement date fund—and indeed if those were once upon a time considered one and the same, that’s apparently no longer the case. Indeed, and as a recent stream of litigation rem

The flurry of lawsuits unleashed on holders of the BlackRock LifePath target-date funds is not without precedent—but it’s surely a head scratcher. I’m referring, of course, to the recent  swarm of lawsuits  challenging nearly a dozen of the nation’s largest 401(k) plans and their decision(s) to select, and hold, on their investment menu the BlackRock LifePath target-date fund suite. It’s a decision that the Shah Miller law firm (on behalf of multiple ex-participant plaintiffs) says was the result of fiduciaries who “chased low fees” over performance. [i] Of course, it’s not unusual for these types of lawsuits cite obscure articles as authority, rely on Form 5500 data that often doesn’t tell the whole story, state as fact things that are really only theories (or opinions), lean on averages, or base comparative conclusions on surveys distorted by sampling size or content.  But in a characterization straight out of George Orwell’s  1984 , this one draws straight from a po

 Despite surveys to the contrary, a new study finds that overall interest in ESG strategies by participants is “relatively weak” and “driven by naïve diversification.” The difference may, of course, be attributed to the difference between what individuals say—and what they actually do. Unlike surveys that purport to capture participant (and plan sponsor) sentiments, the research by David Blanchett of PGIM and Zhikun Liu of the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) looks at the actual allocation decisions of 9,324 [i]  newly enrolled DC participants who are self-directing their accounts in a DC plan that offers at least one ESG fund.  ‘Weak Preferences’ They do so in a paper titled “ ESG Fund Allocations Among New, Do-It-Yourself Defined Contribution Plan Participants ,” they claim to find that overall interest in ESG strategies among these participants is “relatively weak,” with only 8.9% of participants having  any  allocation to an ESG fund and average allocations