Nevin's Data "Points"

One could hardly read the headlines this past week without experiencing a certain sense of déjà vu. After all, it’s been not quite 10 years since the then relatively obscure St. Louis-based law firm of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton launched about a dozen of what have come to be referred to as “excessive fee” lawsuits. Not that the recent batch of suits targeting multi-billion dollar university plans are a mere recounting of the charges leveled against their private sector counterparts. No, in the years since then the Schlichter law firm has sharpened their pencils, and their criticism. Those early suits focused on what, in comparison to the most recent waves, seem almost quaintly simplistic: allegedly undisclosed revenue-sharing practices, the use of non-institutional class shares by large 401(k) plans, the apparent lack of participant disclosure of hard-dollar fees (which even then were disclosed to regulators), and even the presentation of ostensibly passive funds as actively ...

Last week another of the so-called excessive fee lawsuits was settled – not adjudicated, mind you. Here are some factors that the targets of these lawsuits seem to have in common. Now, in fairness, most of these cases haven’t actually gone to court – and, by my count, most of the ones that actually get to court are won by the employers/plan sponsors. Even the Tibble case , which drew so much attention when it made it to the Supreme Court, eventually came out in favor of the plan sponsors (though they “lost” the Supreme Court decision). However, a lot of litigation has been filed over the past decade, and millions of dollars spent — reminding me of an old mentor’s admonition that you can spend a lot of money in court being “right.” That so many employers have decided that it is “cheaper” to settle for millions of dollars gives you some idea of the magnitude of these challenges. So, with that in mind – and with apologies to Jeff (“you might be a redneck…”) Foxworthy: Your plan m...

Among the assorted “idiot lights” that adorn my current car dashboard is one that alerts me to low tire pressure. It’s come in handy on precisely two occasions – one when a nail had punctured my tire (though I had already discerned that I had a problem from the sound of the flat tire nanoseconds before the light came on); the other when I had neglected to keep an eye on the tire pressure (which coincided with a day that I had let my daughter take my car to work). Other than that, it’s never really been on or an issue – or a help – until recently, when it came on, and stayed on, about 100 miles from home. Now my owner’s manual suggested that this behavior might be a sign of a bad sensor, and sure enough, (after 100 miles of driving angst) that was subsequently confirmed by my mechanic – who also informed us that it would cost a couple of hundred dollars to replace it. Perhaps needless to say, that light continues to illuminate my dashboard. Since the initial flurry of so-called “e...

The Nov. 7 issue of The   New York Times included a story about “ Finding, and Battling, Hidden Costs of 401(k) Plans .” The story focused primarily on the plight of Ronald Tussey, the named plaintiff in Tussey v. ABB, Inc. , one of the so-called “excess fee” revenue sharing cases. Tussey, now 70, claims that he was told that his retirement plan was “free,” even though, according to the Times article, “middlemen 1 were deducting expenses from his savings.” The story also notes that Tussey “never thought that his retirement plan might be flawed,” and that “he trusted his company so much he kept his money in his 401(k) long after he left.” Over the years, I have been astounded at the allegations of fiduciary misconduct in these revenue-sharing cases. Each has its own flavor, of course, but for the most part they have struck me not so much as the outcomes of bad acts, per se, but rather steps that should have been taken in keeping with their fiduciary duty to ensure that t...