Podcast Center
Video Center
Webcasts
Resource Center
Events
November 13, 2014 at 09:09 AM
ERISA has given 401(k) plan sponsors several alternatives when it comes to addressing unwanted fiduciary liability. Two of the methods outlined in the law focus on the provision of investment services.
While both can deal with discretionary investment authority, convention has deemed the 3(21) ERISA fiduciary as offering non-discretionary services while the 3(38) ERISA fiduciary offers discretionary services. In addition, only certain specifically enumerated entities can offer 3(38) services while there are no qualification requirements for 3(21) providers.
From both the plan sponsor’s and the service provider’s point of view, the real difference between 3(21) and 3(38) comes when determining each party’s level of fiduciary liability. A 3(21) provider becomes a co-fiduciary and only shares the liability with the plan sponsor. On the other hand, the plan sponsor transfers all fiduciary liability pertaining to investments to the 3(38) provider. That’s a big difference.
From the perspective of the 401(k) plan sponsor, especially for smaller companies that neither possess nor desire to possess the relevant expertise when it comes to selecting and monitoring plan investments, why take on any fiduciary liability in that area if you don’t have to?
In almost all cases, a 3(38) provider offers more to the plan sponsor than a 3(21) provider.
Given that, why would any 401(k) plan sponsor still hire a 3(21) advisor when a 3(38) advisor (notice the spelling) adds immeasurable value?
I can think of a few reasons why the 3(38) option may not be preferred. First and foremost, in transfer the fiduciary liability (generally considered a good thing), the plan sponsor cedes total control of investment selection to the advisor. Some plan sponsors might not be comfortable with losing this control. Sure, they can write in the agreement certain “oversight” (e.g., giving 30 notice before replacing investment options), but adding that oversight will now add fiduciary liability – the very thing the plan sponsor is trying to remove.
There are also cases where the plan sponsor will want to retain certain preferred investment options, despite the 3(38) advisor’s clear insistence they may not be appropriate for the plan. These “favorite sons” can range from specific mutual funds to company stock to an open-ended self-directed option. Again, the investment management agreement can be written to remove the decision to offer these options from the 3(38) advisor’s discretion, but then the plan sponsor re-assumes the previously transferred fiduciary liability.
But there’s another angle in this.
That’s the perspective of the 3(38) “Investment Manager” (the term comes directly from ERISA and is probably a better description since it avoids that whole “advisor”/“advisor” mess we got into a couple of weeks ago).
There are not many 3(38) providers who would be willing to take on the potential fiduciary liability of, say, company stock or a self-directed option, even if an agreement purports to waive that specific liability. (We all know what smart lawyers can do to supposedly “air-tight” agreements.)
