US providers face tough disclosure laws from July

Service providers in the US will be required to disclose any direct and indirect compensation to plan fiduciaries from July 16, 2011, under new regulations issued by the Department of Labour.

The US Department of Labour’s (DOL) Interim Final Regulation (IFR), issued last July, will enable plan fiduciaries to receive the information they need to make meaningful evaluations of the fees paid by their plans and plan participants.

The IFR requires existing contracts to disclose compensation by the July date, with new or renewed contracts after this date being disclosed before they are entered into and mid-contract changes within 60 days from the date the provider is aware of the change.

The rule comes after concerns were expressed by the DOL, Congress and the retirement industry over the lack of information provided to plan fiduciaries regarding their service providers’ complex compensation structures, making it difficult for these fiduciaries to comply with their fiduciary obligation to determine if fees are reasonable, and if any compensation arrangements involve conflicts of interest.

The rule is part of the DOL’s three-pronged program to address its concern regarding inadequate fee disclosure.

Plan fiduciaries will need to take the following steps to meet the July deadline:

Sponsored Content

1.     Identify all retirement plan service providers

2.     Request in writing the necessary information from each service provider

3.     Determine whether the service providers are “covered service providers”

4.     Follow up any covered service providers who do not provide the necessary information

5.     Evaluate the information received to assess the reasonableness of fees, potential conflicts of interest and other issues that may be revealed

6.     Document in meeting minutes in the second and third quarters of 2011 that the regulation’s requirements have been met

7.     Repeat annually – or at the time of contract changes if sooner

From the July deadline, plan fiduciaries who do not receive the required disclosures will have engaged in a prohibited transaction. However, due to the prohibited transaction exemption, plan fiduciaries will be relieved of any liability if they:

1.     request the necessary information in writing from the provider

2.     notify the DOL if the required information is not provided within 90 days, and

3.     formally evaluate whether the plan should continue to do business with the service provider.

In other DOL news, the department has issued proposed rules requiring additional disclosure on Qualified Default Investment Alternatives (QDIAs).

These proposed rules are aimed at making plan participants more aware of the asset allocations of the various age-based strategies, and how they will change over time; of the specific current age range targeted for the respective target retirement dates and any assumptions made about the participant’s contributions and withdrawals after the target date; and that the participant and their beneficiaries may incur losses and the age-based strategy does not guarantee that there will be sufficient assets for retirement on the target date.

Similar changes have also been proposed for the original QDIA regulations and corresponding requirements have been proposed for the participant fee disclosure rules when individual account plans offer target date or similar investment alternatives.

Leave a Comment

Sort content by

The cost of bad asset allocation

A study of 300 US pension funds by CEM Benchmarking reinforces the importance of asset allocation, highlighting the performance of asset classes, as well as new evidence on correlations between asset classes. Alex Beath, author of the study, discusses the implications for asset allocation with Amanda White. A CEM Benchmarking study “Asset Allocation and Fund

The OECD’s plan for long-term investment

G20 financial ministers and central bank governors welcomed the findings of the G20/OECD roundtable on institutional investors and long-term investment last month, which included clear plans to incentivise institutional investors to undertake more long-term investments. The roundtable, “From solutions to actions: implementing measures to encourage institutional long-term investment financing”, held in Singapore recognised that long-term

Why long-horizon investors should adopt factor-based asset allocation

Long-horizon investors can withstand macro-economic volatility and so should tilt towards strategies that are exposed to that, including value, small cap and momentum. Oleg Ruban, vice president in the applied research team at MSCI says this validates factor-investing and factor-based asset allocation for these investors.   Appropriate asset allocation requires explicit attention be paid to

The case for long-termism

Keith Ambachtsheer’s lead article in the Fall 2014 edition of the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management, takes readers through an historical and logical journey that supports the case for long-termism. Importantly he validates this with four high-profile investor case studies which demonstrate that a long-term view benefits society but also the investors, willing to

Investors alter allocations because of climate risks

A number of large institutional investors, including AP1, the Environment Agency and AustralianSuper, made changes to their strategic asset allocation as a result of Mercer’s 2011 study on climate risks, and now the consultant is working with a new raft of investors to assess forward-looking climate change scenarios against their current allocations. Meanwhile one of

Real estate sector continues to lead on sustainability: GRESB

This year’s Global Real Estate Sustainability Benchmark (GRESB) reveals that sustainability reporting has improved in coverage and quality of data, with the average overall score increasing due to increasing implementation and measurement. The average score is now 47 (out of 100) which is up nine points this year. The benchmark collects data from 637 listed

Previous