Outside-IN

Outside-INblog

Outside voices and views for advisers

Appointing and monitoring a 401(k) investment manager under ERISA

A recent district court decision has implications for how retirement plan sponsors should monitor their adviser

Jul 13, 2017 @ 2:48 pm

By Marcia S. Wagner

Employee-benefit attorneys advising retirement plan sponsors frequently mention that plan fiduciaries are not liable for the acts or omissions of an appointed investment manager, and aren't obligated to invest or otherwise manage plan assets subject to their oversight.

However, the relevant section of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Section 405(d)(1), does not exactly state that. It provides that if a named fiduciary appoints an investment manager to manage the assets of a plan, then no trustee shall be liable. In the recent case of Perez v. WPN, the Department of Labor took a curious position, saying that since the plan administrator and named fiduciaries of the plan were not trustees, they could not take advantage of the safe-harbor relief under ERISA.

Thankfully, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania disagreed with the DOL. It concluded that ERISA intended to grant safe-harbor relief to fiduciaries who have been granted control of the assets of a plan and who have properly appointed an investment manager to manage plan assets, even if the named fiduciaries are not designated as trustees.

Had the DOL prevailed, the benefits to a plan sponsor or investment committee would have been significantly diminished, because they would need to be trustees of the plan to obtain the benefit of the safe-harbor ERISA relief.

The district court also addressed the issue of the duty to monitor an investment manager, the principles of which would also be applicable to the monitoring of any investment adviser to a plan.

In that discussion, the court referenced a DOL amicus brief that had been filed in an Oklahoma district court case elaborating upon that monitoring duty. In that brief, the DOL stated that "in most instances, it will be enough that appointing fiduciaries adopt and adhere to routine procedures sufficient to alert them to deficiencies in performance which could require corrective action, such as the implementation of a system of regular reports on the investment fiduciaries' decisions and performances."

The DOL explained that appointing fiduciaries are not charged with directly overseeing plan investments, as that would be duplicating the responsibilities of the investment manager. However, the fiduciaries "are required to have procedures in place so that on an ongoing basis they may review and evaluate whether the investment managers are doing an adequate job, and the procedures that are implemented allow the appointing fiduciary under the applicable circumstances to assure themselves that the investment managers are properly discharging their responsibilities."

The time for review of the monitoring procedures is measured under a standard of reasonableness. As the District Court summarized, the minimum requirement is that the appointing fiduciary imposes a regular monitoring procedure. The DOL's guidance requires, under the applicable facts and circumstances, the following:

• the appointing authority must adopt routine monitoring procedures;

• the appointing authority must adhere to those procedures;

• the appointing authority must review the results of the monitoring procedures;

• the procedures must alert the appointing authorities to possible deficiencies; and

• the appointing authority must act to take required corrective action.

The district court emphasized that an appointing fiduciary fails to satisfy the duty to monitor by merely implementing procedures allowing for regular reporting on the investment managers. The duty to monitor is a substantive duty, and "if an appointing fiduciary is relieved from liability simply by implementing monitoring procedures with regular reporting, even when monitoring reveals a need for corrective action, but the appointing fiduciary does not act, the duty to monitor is reduced to a mere procedural implementation."

In sum, Perez v. WPN represented a partial victory for both the DOL and plan fiduciaries appointing an investment manager. Fiduciaries who appoint in accordance with plan procedures can be relieved of responsibility for investing plan assets, even if they are not trustees. However, fiduciaries have a significant and substantive continuing obligation to monitor an appointed manager.

Marcia S. Wagner, managing and founding partner of The Wagner Law Group, specializes in ERISA and employee benefits.

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

Sponsored financial news

Use arjuna-design' to filter and find key information on over 1,400 fee-only registered investment advisory firms.

Rank RIAs by

Upcoming Event

Apr 30

Conference

Retirement Income Summit

Join arjuna-design at the 12th annual Retirement Income Summit - the industry's premier retirement planning conference.Much has changed - and much remains to be learned. Attend and discuss how the future is full of opportunity for ... Learn more

Deputy editor Bob Hordt and senior columnist Bruce Kelly discuss the reasons for the marked shift of advisers between channels, including technology, the DOL fiduciary rule and the broker protocol.

Recommended Video

Channels

Latest news & opinion

Independent broker-dealers are stepping up their game on recruiting from the wirehouses

Independent broker-dealers have narrowed the gap between themselves and the wirehouses and are able to attract more quality brokers from the Big Four.

SEC considers barring aggrieved investors from suing companies

Swept up by pro-business zeitgeist, regulator seeks to reverse two-decade slump in U.S. stock listings.

Wells Fargo, Morgan Stanley use contrary tactics to keep advisers

Wells is helping brokers transition to independence within the firm, while Morgan is taking them to court.

Fidelity pushes Vanguard to compete on brand in 401(k) plans

With Fidelity imposing an additional fee, Vanguard likely will look less attractive compared with comparably priced index-fund providers, advisers said.

Goldman's measure of risk appetite hits record

Global stocks and U.S. Treasuries are seeing their most "extreme" start to a year ever, bank says.

X

Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at arjuna-design. 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 arjuna-design.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist arjuna-design.com

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

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Last News

s&p sheet metal janus funds navs flpsx fund vanguard index funds vs fidelity eaton vance large cap growth social security death benefits for surviving children vanguard target retirement fund 2020 top ten most expensive baseball cards 1988 ferrari gto janus fund nav high yield tax free bonds how to max out retirement savings how much investment income is taxable morgan stanley financial advisor training program make too much for roth ira who was jennifer garner married to how much does h&r block charge per form where do i report 1099 r templeton global total return bond fund what are at least three international accounting standards pimco all asset all authority fund wells fargo in columbia south carolina names of mutual funds dodge and cox stock fund performance best fidelity index mutual funds john hancock income fund unclaimed funds washington state utility stocks with high dividends mutual funds vs ira high yield bond etf vanguard pacific life fixed annuity rates high yield muni etf