Third Parties Help Small DB Plans With Administration

Larger DB plans have access to liability hedging, overlay managers and derivatives to manage interest rate risk, and small plans want these capabilities but cannot afford the expense, says James Tamposi with Cerulli Associates.

Smaller defined benefit (DB) plans rely more heavily than large DB plans on third parties, i.e., asset managers, investment consultants, actuarial consultants and third-party administrators (TPAs), according to Cerulli. The smaller plans require more hand-holding for such essentials as filing regulatory paperwork, and they cannot afford some of the more expensive perks, such as frequent updates from the actuary.

“Consultants generally agree that there may be more upfront effort with smaller clients—educating, developing the relationship, building trust—but once they are on board, they take less time,” says James Tamposi, research analyst at Cerulli. Larger clients have access to liability hedging, overlay managers and derivatives to manage interest rate risk. Many small plans want these capabilities but cannot afford the 

Small DB plans also tend to have a larger allocation to passively managed products due to their lower cost than actively managed products. They also are more loyal than large DB plans.

Additionally, small DB plans are more inclined to have an outsourced chief investment officer (OCIO), Tamposi says. “Because there is so much hand-holding with the investment consultant, smaller clients may decide to forego discretion altogether, letting an investment professional take the reins.”

For TPAs, working with small clients tends to be more time-consuming and difficult. “We often hear from TPAs that smaller corporations craft benefits around owners and management teams, making plan design more complex,” says Alexi Maravel, director at Cerulli. “Therefore, there is most consulting done upfront for the smaller plans. Larger plans’ structures tend to be less complex, because they pool a much larger and more homogeneous participant base.”

Health Care Provider Accused of Excessive Fees in 403(b) and 401(k) Plans

A lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to take advantage of the plans' bargaining power by only offering actively managed retail mutual funds as investment options.

Participants in Kaleida Health’s 403(b) and 401(k) plans have filed a lawsuit individually and on behalf the plans and all other similarly situated participants over excessive investment fees.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to take advantage of the plans’ bargaining power by only offering actively managed retail mutual funds as investment options instead of identical investor class mutual funds with lower operating expenses. The named defendants are Kaleida Health, its retirement plan committee and its director of employee benefits and pension plans.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

The complaint notes that the investment options offered by each of the plans are nearly identical. It specifically calls out the 11 T. Rowe Price target-date funds (TDFs) offered by the plans, saying they are all adviser or retail class funds—as opposed to investor or institutional class funds—that charge a 12b-1 fee of .25% of the fund’s net assets. These funds also have investor or institutional class shares that do not charge a 12b-1 fee.

“In the extremely competitive 401(k) and 403 (b) marketplaces, retirement plans with very large pools of assets, such as the plans, which together have over $400 million in assets, have the ability to use their bargaining power to obtain institutional classes of shares without 12b-1 fees and, therefore, lower operating expenses,” the complaint says. “Defendants’ selection of mutual funds with 12b-1 fees instead of offering identical funds without those fees is imprudent since participants derive no benefit from those fees.”

The plaintiffs point out in the lawsuit that the retail class funds offered by the plans are the only class of TDFs offered, but also constitute a majority of the mutual fund options offered by the plans.

Kaleida Health has not yet responded to a request for comment about the lawsuit.

«