News

Landing a new 401(k) plan client is no small feat. Advisors must navigate a long sales cycle as plan sponsors carefully vet providers. That’s one reason why minimizing churn in your advisory practice is so important and why a strong, proactive retention strategy is essential for long-term success. 

Larger retirement plans often enjoy lower fees than their smaller counterparts, thanks in part to economies of scale and stronger negotiating power. But this in no way makes them immune to fee-related challenges. While big plans generally benefit from lower fees as a percentage of assets under management, this alone doesn’t guarantee an optimal fee structure. And to complicate matters, big plans can become prime targets for litigation if there is the appearance of excessive fees. 

SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc. recently agreed to a $1.25 million settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed by employees who alleged excessive fees and mismanagement of the company’s retirement plan. The settlement, which resolves a three-year legal battle, covers approximately 40,000 participants who were enrolled in the plan over a period of nearly 10 years, beginning in August 2015. The case highlights key fiduciary practices for plan sponsors. 

Managing smaller retirement plans comes with a unique set of challenges for advisors. These plans often lack the economies of scale that larger plans benefit from, making it more difficult to compete while controlling costs. And with lower assets under management, they may also have limited access to institutional share classes. Advisors must navigate a complex landscape where fees can significantly impact both plan sponsors and participants — financially and legally.

United Surgical Partners International (USPI) is stitching up a legal wound with a costly ERISA settlement. After years of legal wrangling, the Texas-based ambulatory care company has agreed to pay $1.475 million to settle claims related to its 401(k) plan. While the outcome spares USPI the uncertainties of further litigation, the case underscores the importance of regular fee benchmarking in mitigating fiduciary risk. 

Whether it’s a streaming subscription you forgot to cancel or a coupon you let expire before you could use it, nobody likes to find out they could’ve paid less than they did. And while a forgotten Netflix account might rack up a few extra dollars each month, excessive retirement plan fees can put participants — and the plan sponsor — in jeopardy. One recent study shows that a staggering 80% of plans are paying higher fees than they should. 

As the confetti settles and the calendar flips to 2025, it’s the perfect time to set resolutions that truly make an impact — both in your personal life and your retirement plan practice. One resolution that should be on every advisor’s list is to benchmark better. Benchmarking is — or should be — more than just a compliance checkbox; it can be a powerful tool for attracting new prospects, retaining clients and delivering greater value for plan sponsors and participants. 

In an era where innovation drives every facet of business operations, even the most forward-thinking companies can face challenges when it comes to retirement plan fee diligence. NVIDIA, renowned for its groundbreaking advancements in artificial intelligence, recently settled a lawsuit alleging excessive fees in its 401(k) plan. The case underscores a crucial takeaway for plan sponsors: Actionable fee intelligence is an essential part of the fiduciary prudence necessary in today’s retirement plan landscape.

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. 

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.