Nevin's Data "Points"

  Every so often a report comes along that says less about retirement policy than it does about the temptation to reduce complex issues to a simplistic scoreboard — that fits a particular agenda.  Even if it amounts to jamming a square peg into a round hole. This week’s entry comes from a report arguing that 401(k) plans without private equity and other alternative investments “significantly outperformed” pension plans that invested heavily in those alternatives. The implication, of course, is that pension plans — and perhaps the experts managing them — somehow got it wrong. More precisely, it takes to task the decision(s) by those once-vaunted defined benefit plans for having the temerity to invest in … private markets (gasp!).  Now, there are plenty of reasons to approach the introduction of private markets to defined contribution plans with caution — and that was before the recent Labor Department proposal. [i] But any credible retirement plan professional understand...

  After years of anticipation — and months of litigation — the Department of Labor’s latest attempt to expand the definition of fiduciary investment advice is now dead. That said, and with apologies to Mark Twain, reports of the “death” of the fiduciary rule are somewhat exaggerated. The 2024 version — the so-called Retirement Security Rule — was  vacated , which, in legal terms, means we treat it as if it never existed. But ERISA’s fiduciary framework remains very much alive. Indeed, for advisors already serving as fiduciaries for retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the practical impact of the recent court ruling is minimal. Advisors serving as 3(21) fiduciaries or 3(38) investment managers were — and remain — subject to ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty.  Many advisory firms, frankly, had already adopted procedures and business models that would likely have satisfied even the Obama-era fiduciary rule. Where the rule...

  Some months back, the Labor Department published an intriguing three-part “proposed rule” that, to my eye, offered helpful fiduciary tips that go well beyond pooled employer plans (PEPs). The title alone — “ Pooled Employer Plans: Big Plans for Small Businesses ” — told you all you needed to know about the motives behind the publication. And, true to form, both the data provided on the current state of pooled employer plan adoption and the focus of the request for information (RFI) included were very much in the spirit of removing barriers to PEP adoption, if not outright promotion of the same. But what I viewed as the third part of the publication (though it’s labeled V. Fiduciary Tips for Small Employers Selecting a PEP) was, to my eye, the most intriguing aspect, in no small part because it served as a valuable reminder that there ARE fiduciary considerations in making that choice — something that purveyors of that option have been known to gloss over. As I was recently scann...