Duty on company stock needs clarity

Dec 8, 2013 @ 12:01 am

Financial advisers should applaud the Labor Department's decision to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the fiduciary duty of those overseeing defined-contribution plans that contain company stock.

The Supreme Court's intervention is required to eliminate inconsistencies between rulings by different courts on the duty of plan fiduciaries in such cases.

The majority of cases have held that fiduciaries in such plans were presumed, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, to have acted prudently when they caused the plans to continue holding company stock as the stock prices plunged, unless the company was in dire economic condition.


However, a ruling by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last September, in a case involving Fifth Third Bancorp, said: Not so fast. It ruled that the presumption of reasonable behavior by fiduciaries does not apply at the initial stage of a case.

Financial advisers should hope that the Supreme Court takes the case and rules clearly that fiduciaries of defined-contribution plans that allow participants to invest in company stock, or in which companies make their matching contributions in company stock, have a duty to protect plan participants when company performance suffers badly because of operational issues.

For many workers, the assets in their DC plans are vital to their retirement and shouldn't be tied to the financial health of the companies that employ them.

Advisers should be reminding clients who participate in 401(k) and other DC plans that allow company stock purchases that it is unwise to put too much of their plan assets in company stock.

Defined-benefit pension plans are allowed to have only 10% of plan assets invested in company stock or other company assets. If that limit is appropriate for DB plans, then it is certainly the upper limit for participants in 401(k) plans because they have fewer protections than DB plan participants.


Advisers may think that they are preaching to the choir, that their clients are aware of the danger of having too much of their retirement assets invested in the stock of the companies that employ them. They may be correct, but inertia is powerful, and without timely reminders, clients may neglect to take actions that they know they should take, such as selling all or part of the employer's stock contribution to get back to a safe level.


What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Featured video


Schwab's Tabor: Top 3 takeaways from the women's think tank

Leslie Tabor is a firm believer that women bring tremendous value to the industry, but there's still work to be done to attract them to financial services.

Latest news & opinion

Senate committee approves tax plan but full passage not assured

Several Republican senators expressed reservations about the bill, and the GOP cannot afford too many defections.

House passes tax bill, focus turns to Senate

Tax reform legislation expected to have more of a challenge in upper chamber.

SEC enforcement of advisers drops in Trump era

The agency pursued 82 cases against advisers and firms in fiscal year 2017, down from 98 the previous year.

PIABA accuses Finra of conflicts of interest

Public Investors Arbitration Bar Association report slams self-regulator over its picks for board of governors.

Betterment launches 'free' charitable-giving platform

Robo-software provider lets investors donate directly from their accounts, and will not charge charities with less than $1 million on the platform.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print