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

Sponsored financial news

Featured video


When can advisers expect an SEC fiduciary rule proposal and other regs this year?

Managing editor Christina Nelson and senior reporter Mark Schoeff Jr. discuss regulations of consequence to financial advisers in 2018, and their likely timing.

Recommended Video

Path to growth

Latest news & opinion

UBS adviser count continues to decline

Firm to merge U.S., global wealth management units on Feb. 1

TD Ameritrade launches all-night trading for ETFs

Twelve funds now can be traded after-hours, but the list will grow, company says.

Cutting through the red tape of adviser regulation is tricky

Don't expect a simple rollback of rules under the Trump administration in 2018 — instead, regulators are on pace to bolster financial adviser oversight.

Bond investors have more to worry about than a government shutdown

Inflation worries, international rates pushing Treasuries yields higher.

State measures to prevent elder financial abuse gaining steam

A growing number of states are looking to pass rules preventing exploitation of seniors.


Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.


Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print