Webinar Replay: BidMoni Small Market Solution

BidMoni Small Market Solution Webinar Replay

 

BidMoni has partnered with five national Recordkeeping firms and one national TPA firm to create the first ever fully digital 401K marketplace.  We have worked with advisors across the country to remove the friction points in selling smaller plans, including:

  • Identifying opportunities
  • Generating proposals
  • Running plan comparisons
  • Plan onboarding

 

Lawsuits Over Excess Retirement-Plan Fees on the Rise

 

By Alison L. Martin | June 25, 2020 at 09:30 AM

Almost every employer sponsoring a retirement plan should to be mindful of potential fiduciary liability under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

According to an article published by the America Bar Association, between increased regulatory scrutiny by the Department of Labor and private litigation brought by the ever-expanding plaintiff’s bar, ERISA lawsuits are at an all-time high.

One of the most significant ERISA litigation trends is “excessive fee claims.” In a nutshell, these allege that a retirement plan’s fiduciaries allowed the plan to overpay for recordkeeping and use expensive and underperforming investments. These claims can cost millions of dollars to defend, and settlements can reach tens of millions of dollars.

A financial services company that sponsors a retirement plan may be sued, along with its executives, for excessive fee claims even when they don’t provide any professional services to the plan.

This is because, as plan fiduciaries, they have a duty to ensure that plan fees and investments provided by third parties are reasonable. Moreover, pursuant to ERISA, plan fiduciaries may be personally liable for these losses and the plans do not provide indemnification for them.

What About Smaller Plans?

Although these claims were historically filed against fiduciaries of large plans, the last few years have seen an uptick in lawsuits against fiduciaries of smaller plans, including plans well under $100 million in assets.

It’s apparent that fiduciaries of smaller plans should no longer consider themselves immune from litigation risk.

With a surge in litigation, it’s important that all advisors, regardless of their or their client’s plan size, understand the recent trends pertaining to excessive fee claims and the characteristics that may make them more susceptible to litigation.

What can they do to protect themselves? Of course, plan fiduciaries should always act with care andundivided loyalty to the plan and its participants. And while there’s no foolproof way to avoid an excessive fee claim, there are a few steps that may help reduce exposure:

Click here to view the entire article via ThinkAdvisor.

Can robo advisors truly be 401(k) fiduciaries?

Technology from Vestwell, Fiduciary Shield by BidMoni, and Betterment recently announced Advised 401(k) are making it easier than ever for advisors to offer retirement plans to business-owner clients. By taking on much of the heavy lifting, these tools can make it look easy for any financial planner to moonlight as a retirement plan advisor.

But advisors thinking about entering the retirement plan space as a path to easy money should think twice before jumping in. Deciding to extend your niche market from serving doctors to serving doctors and dentists is one thing. Taking on the mantle of a fiduciary under ERISA is quite another.

The key question is whether a program that purports to give personalized advice to plan participants is using tools that are well-designed for that purpose. In 2015, not long after robo advisors arrived on the scene, the SEC’s Office of Investor Education and Advocacy and FINRA issued a joint investor alert discussing the risks and limitations of automated investment tools. They warned that robo advisors may rely on incorrect assumptions that do not apply to investors’ individual situations.

“Be aware that a tool may ask questions that are over-generalized, ambiguous, misleading, or designed to fit you into the tool’s predetermined options,” the alert stated.

The Massachusetts Securities Division has also expressed concern, stating in 2016 that robos, “cannot fully satisfy their fiduciary obligations” because of their depersonalized nature and inability to provide ongoing due diligence.

As far as I’m aware, no regulatory authority has ever brought an action based on a robo’s failure to meet applicable fiduciary standards, either under ERISA or the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. But advisors should be aware that this issue still lurks unresolved.

Click here to visit www.financial-planning.com and read the full article.

GRP Advisor Alliance and BidMoni Form Strategic Partnership

New 401k RFP Dashboard Aims to ‘Empower Advisory Firms’

GRP Advisor Alliance and BidMoni form strategic partnership to give advisors competitive edge

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Regulatory Resources for Employee Benefit Plans

March 25, 2020

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Regulatory Resources for Employee Benefit Plans

The past week has brought an onslaught of changes for the world, including changes in U.S. federal legislation to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

ComplianceDashboard has compiled a list of resources we feel may aid your everyday. The resources provide access to the following:

  • COVID-19 information for advisers and employers.
  • A summary of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).
  • A list of state websites where businesses and individuals may access state-specific guidance regarding legislation and government actions.
  • Links to federal agency sites including CMS, DOL, and IRS.
  • A listing (by most recent date of release) of articles from reputable sources re: employer considerations for benefit plans.

Click here to continue reading the full ComplianceDashboard Resource List.

 

 

How Fiduciaries Can Make Small Changes To Ensure Plan Participants Make The Most Of Their 401(k)s

The big mistakes employers make when setting up 401(k) plans

Recordkeeping Fees Under the Microscope

Recordkeeping Fees Under the Microscope

Retirement plans of all sizes are seeing their recordkeeping fee schedules questioned, especially when those fees are expressed as a percentage of assets.

Responding to PLANADVISER’s coverage of the recently revealed fiduciary breach lawsuit settlement entered into by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a reader sent the following query: “I noticed in the MIT lawsuit you reported that one of the non-monetary provisions was that fees paid to the recordkeeper for basic recordkeeping services will not be determined on a percentage-of-plan-assets basis. I assume MITs plan’s size [approximately $3.8 billion] was the reason that this was objectionable?”

The question sounds straightforward, but it actually keys into a complicated debate that is unfolding in the retirement plan industry about the appropriate way to pay for recordkeeping under the Employee Retiremnet Income Secuirty Act (ERISA). ERISA demands, among many other things, that fiduciary retirement plan sponsors carefully evaluate and monitor the reasonableness of fees being paid by their participants. The law does not stipulate, however, that one specific type of fee structure is superior in itself, nor does it suggest all prudent plan fiduciaries must run their plans the same way.

Taking a step back, the reader is right in that the general wisdom in the retirement plan industry was for a long time that small plans could reasonably pay for recordkeeping on a percentage-of-assets basis. Because 401(k) plans and accounts generally start out quite small, this approach makes for a good deal for new plans/participants, at least at first. Down the line, growing plans or those starting out with substantial assets can negotiate for per participant fees. But historically, even many large plans have long paid for defined contribution (DC) plan recordkeeping on an asset-based schedule.

Today, the landscape is rapidly shifting, and it definitely seems to be the case that per-participant recordkeeping fees are becoming the expected best practice, no matter what size the plan. Plaintiffs’ attorneys and progressive plan sponsors are driving this trend. Their argument is simply that, with today’s digital recordkeeping technology, it is no more work for the plan provider to administer an account with $1,000,000 versus an account with $100. Thus, the argument goes, it is not reasonable under ERISA for the fee to grow while the service being provided remains the same.

ERISA experts say the issue of what constitutes fair and reasonable recordkeeping fees is actually quite complex. One cannot simply say in isolation of other crucial details that one method of payment is better. In fact, some observers argue that asset-based fees are actually in a sense fairer and more progressive, in that participants with small balances pay less in fees relative to those people who have large accounts and presumably are wealthier. In the end, as explained by ERISA attorneys and judges ruling in ERISA cases, most important is that plan sponsors deliberate carefully and document their decisions—that a prudent process is followed in creating and then monitoring whatever fee structure is ultimately used.

Click here to continue reading.

 

 

Watch BidMoni Demo Fiduciary Shield at FinovateFall 2019

FinovateFall 2019 was held in New York City from September 23-25.  Finovate showcases the top tech innovations and provides a unique insight into the future of the fintech industry.

BidMoni was selected as a product demonstrator for FinovateFall 2019 to demonstrate the many ways Fiduciary Shield is changing how advisors engage the 401(k) market.

CEO Stephen Daigle provided a live demonstration of Fiduciary Shield within the 7-minute Finovate format.

Click here to view the entire 7 minute demo!