Advisors across the retirement plan industry often grapple with questions about compensation models. Whether it’s determining how much to charge based on assets or deciding when to use a flat fee, these decisions are made even more complex due to evolving technology, industry changes and rising client expectations.
Building brand awareness is key for any retirement plan advisor. To stand out in a crowded marketplace, it’s crucial that advisors not only differentiate their offering but also create a connection with their target audience.
According to an ERISA lawsuit recently filed against Nordstrom, it’s not just the handbags that come with a hefty price tag — the suit alleges their retirement plan fees were excessive too. Plaintiffs say the luxury retailer overcharged employees for administrative services and misused the forfeiture funds of former workers as well. While the suit is still pending, some of the details have already hit the runway.
In the future, the way retirement plan advisors operate could look as different as a flying car does from a horse-drawn carriage. And while you might not be soaring through the skies to your next retirement plan committee meeting just yet, the landscape of retirement planning is evolving rapidly.
In its commercials, PNC likes to say it’s “brilliantly boring,” emphasizing that it strives to be “boring” with customers’ money. The company, whose plan has about $8.1 billion in assets according to its most recent Form 5500 filing, prevailed in a recent ERISA lawsuit by sticking to the basics: regular benchmarking, thorough reviews and consistent oversight. It turns out that when the stakes were high, the “boring” work won the day against an expert witness who may have been more flash than facts.
No matter how impressive your credentials, the foundation of every advisor-client relationship is trust. According to Edelman, a leader in the communications and public relations space, trust is a core pillar of business success. This is true for the largest multinational corporation down to a small firm or solopreneur.
Plaintiffs in a recent ERISA lawsuit against health insurance giant Humana didn’t get the diagnosis they hoped for. Initially filed in 2021, the suit went through multiple attempts at prior dismissal that, early on, looked promising for the plaintiffs. But in May of 2024, a district court judge dismissed the case, citing a lack of sufficient evidence, and declared Humana’s plan fit. Key to the company’s clean bill of health was its frequent benchmarking and solicitation of an RFP, underscoring the importance of robust documentation and proactive measures when it comes to maintaining reasonable fees.
After several bumps in the road, a class action ERISA suit against the auto parts supplier Magna International has finally reached a settlement. The suit, which alleges that approximately 20,000 workers were adversely affected by underperforming funds and high fees, took the long road in reaching its destination. While details of the settlement are still pending, the plan in question had more than $1.6 billion in assets under management at the time of filing.
From a small family-owned business to a multinational corporation, every client — and plan — deserves the highest level of service. But the specific offering appropriate for each plan can depend largely on its size, and the fees for investments and services can range widely. By leveraging the power of negotiation, advisory know-how and frequent benchmarking, you can help keep fees reasonable for clients no matter how large or small their plan. Here’s a breakdown of how fees can differ between plans based on size.
As of March 2023, United Surgical Partners International’s 401(k) plan seemed to have a clean bill of health. A prior lawsuit alleging that the Texas-based ambulatory care company neglected its fiduciary duty by maintaining low-performing, high-cost funds in its 401(k) plan had been dismissed not once, but twice. The second opinion, however, didn’t stick. By April 2024, the company’s legal situation became more uncertain, as a federal appeals court reversed that decision and allowed the suit to proceed. The case illustrates the sometimes-protracted nature of ERISA litigation and highlights the importance of proper benchmarking as one part of a prudent, multi-pronged strategy to help avoid costly and time-consuming court proceedings.