Scope of protecting participant account information not clear

Scope of protecting participant account information not clear
By blocking access, sponsors may actually increase chance of harm.
JUL 20, 2019

While plan fiduciaries should undoubtedly protect participants' confidential information, the scope of that duty is not entirely clear. By focusing solely on blocking access to participants' account information, plan sponsors may actually increase the likelihood their plan participants will be exploited for commercial purposes — especially at retirement. The danger of adopting a complete hands-off approach to participants was best exhibited by the Department of Labor's prior position on rollovers. According to DOL Advisory Opinion 2005-23A, if someone who was already serving as a plan fiduciary provided rollover advice to a participant, it could be deemed a prohibited transaction. By contrast, if someone who was not a fiduciary to the plan recommended a rollover to a participant, it was not even considered fiduciary investment advice.

Contradiction

The fallout from this position should have been predictable. Plan advisers who were already subject to the fiduciary standard were discouraged from assisting participants when a termination event occurred. By contrast, brokers who had no relationship with the plan were free to swoop in and sell retired participants expensive investment products for big commissions. Fortunately, the DOL eventually recognized this overly paternalistic approach was leading to the exact result it had sought to prevent. Its amendment of the "fiduciary rule" reversed Advisory Opinion 2005-23A by deeming all rollover recommendations to be fiduciary investment advice, regardless of the provider's prior fiduciary status. Similarly, plan sponsors that seek to create a protective wall around their participants fail to appreciate that at some point, many of those participants will leave the plan with sizeable account balances and they'll have no idea how to manage them. In many cases, that is like throwing sheep to the wolves. However, some plan sponsors have embraced a more nuanced approach. Rather than attempting to create a barrier, they have proactively engaged with advisers to ensure their participants will receive the guidance they need. For example, a construction company that sponsors a very lucrative employee stock option plan recently insisted we provide holistic financial wellness counseling to its employees. At the same time, it required us to offer investment management services to its retiring employees at a reduced fixed rate to ensure they would receive appropriate advice at a reasonable cost as they departed the plan. Such arrangements do not violate the law. In fact, the standard proposed by the plaintiffs' counsel in Cassell, et al v. Vanderbilt University, et al is much more restrictive than the applicable regulations. For example, federal privacy laws (SEC Regulation S-P) do not apply to retirement plans. However, even when Reg S-P does apply, it actually permits investment advisers to market products and services to their clients and to enter into joint marketing agreements with unaffiliated third parties, so long as those activities are properly disclosed in the advisers' privacy policy. ​

Additional services

That is not to say additional protections for plan participants do not or should not exist under ERISA. For example, a plan adviser utilizing a third-party marketing agreement permitted under Reg S-P could be deemed to have engaged in a prohibited transaction under ERISA section 406(b). However, as long as it is charging a reasonable fee, ERISA section 408(b)(2) would permit the adviser to offer additional services to the plan and its participants. All of this begs the question, which plan sponsor is truly acting in the best interests of its participants? The one that blocks participants from receiving the advice many desperately need (thus leaving them vulnerable to exploitation from outsiders) or one that leverages its status to ensure its participants receive advice on fair terms from someone who is required to act in a fiduciary capacity? Phil Troyer is chief compliance officer of Resources Investment Advisors and securities principal with Triad Advisors.

Latest News

Advisor moves: Atlas tops $1B as Wells Fargo, UBS add bank veterans
Advisor moves: Atlas tops $1B as Wells Fargo, UBS add bank veterans

Wells Fargo adds two bank-channel recruits, UBS lands a JPMorgan Chase veteran, and a multi-family office lifts Atlas past $1B

Advisor mom’s son used her password to log into clients’ accounts, sell deal with conflicts, according to Washington state
Advisor mom’s son used her password to log into clients’ accounts, sell deal with conflicts, according to Washington state

“The state comes down on you in years when you make 40% returns for clients,” said Bill Swayne, the advisor and son of Candace Swayne.

Osaic in talks with Anthropic as AI reshapes advisor workforce
Osaic in talks with Anthropic as AI reshapes advisor workforce

The Independent broker-dealer giant has had “active conversations” with the Claude maker, which is days away from its expected IPO

The retirement milestone advisors aren't tracking
The retirement milestone advisors aren't tracking

For Gen X clients entering life after work, answering the financial question isn't enough to solve the entire retirement equation.

Wealthtech firms target stock pay, pensions and heirs for advisors
Wealthtech firms target stock pay, pensions and heirs for advisors

Tools from Grantd, Income Lab and Healthspan Wealth aim to keep RIAs involved in clients’ biggest money decisions

SPONSORED Best Practices for Engaging Women Around Alternatives

Growing wealth, evolving priorities, and untapped opportunities are reshaping how women approach long-term investing.

SPONSORED Built on insurance experience to deliver on long-term promises

Knighthead Life entered the market with a competitive MYGA. A strong launch earned advisor confidence and paved the way for FIAs.