Podcast Center
Video Center
Webcasts
Resource Center
Events
April 11, 2013 at 11:44 AM
The first two months of the year saw the release of a pair of independent studies — the first from the National Bureau of Economic Research and the second from Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research —that might have flipped the debate on the cost of a uniform fiduciary standard.
Indeed, the issue of the fiduciary standard never should have centered on fees. Fiduciaries can charge any range of fees, as long as they’re “fair.” The real issue should have been, and always will be, conflicts of interest. Remember, the singular motto of the fiduciary duty isn’t “charge the lowest fee,” it’s “always act in the best interest of the client.”
It’s always in the best interest of an investor to invest in securities that have the best chance to maximize returns. The NBER paper (“It Pays to Set the Menu: Mutual Fund Investment Options in 401(k) Plans”) concludes brokers are more likely to keep and recommend affiliated funds even if they appear in the worst decile of investment performance. The study found these poorer-performing affiliated funds went on to underperform by an average of 3.6 percent. This equates to a cost of more than $1 billion a month—or about $30 billion in total since the SEC first proposed the uniform fiduciary standard.
Before the dust even settled on the NBER study, another study came out in February. The CRR research focused exclusively on IRAs. It echoed the conclusions of earlier studies that show broker-sold funds—regardless of their performance decile—underperform direct-buy funds from as low as 23 basis points to as high as 2.55 percent. The CRR paper looked at 2009 data and concluded (not considering performance at all) 12b-1 fees alone cost IRA investors $2 billion.
