With their takeover of
Congress, Democrats have vowed to scrutinize the Bush administration much more
carefully than they claim that Republicans did when they were in
charge.
Congressional
review won’t just apply to government agencies, it also will hit the private
sector-and the retirement finance industry will be one of the first under the
microscope, according to James Delaplane, a partner at
the Washington law firm Davis
& Harman.
Sometime in March, the
House Education and Labor Committee likely will launch hearings on 401(k) fees.
The impetus is a November report by the Government Accountability Office that
called for greater transparency in fees and demonstrated how small cost
increases can dramatically curb fund returns.
The report was requested
by Rep. George Miller, D-California and chairman of the committee, who worries
that hidden fees are eroding the savings of many Americans. Miller’s stewardship
of the labor panel will be characterized by a focus on what he says are the
economic hardships facing the middle class even in the midst of high corporate
profits.
For 401(k) plan
sponsors, this could translate into some uncomfortable grilling on Capitol
Hill.
“They’re going to be a
rough set of hearings,” Delaplane told an audience this month at the Pensions & Investments East Coast
Defined Contribution Conference in Palm
Beach Gardens, Florida. “Hold on to your
hats.”
Miller has indicated
that he will be a tenacious watchdog. “The core part of this committee is
effective oversight,” he says.
The California lawmaker’s
reach will extend beyond the Bush administration. The 401(k) hearings are “an
example of stepped-up oversight, not just of government agencies but also of
employer programs,” Delaplane says. “He’s an extremely aggressive chairman. He
will be the one who defines retirement policy in the House—and it won’t always
be pretty.”
An industry advocate
argues that a problem with analyzing 401(k) fees is that they are charged for
investment management. Parsing the value of the service can depend on how well
the fund does, says Mike Barry, president of Plan Advisory Services.
A higher fee may be
worth it, if a participant is receiving superior returns for his or her money.
Each plan may have unique justifications for why it costs more—or less—than
others.
“There’s no way to
compare this apple to that apple,” Barry says.
The Department of Labor
had been drafting regulations for 401(k) fees before the GAO report was issued.
And fees have been the subject of numerous court cases.
Lori Lucas, senior vice
president of Callan Associates, says that providers should improve fee analysis
and benchmarking. Fees must be reasonable for what the plan provides—a rule that
can be amorphous.
“That’s where the art
and complexity of this exercise comes into play,” she
says.
The 401(k) examination
could result in highlighting investment management, record keeping and trustee
charges in revenue-sharing agreements. Currently, in such arrangements fees are
taken out of profit—and participants may not know they’re being
assessed.
“Disclosure is not just
about participants making better choices, but participants driving change,”
Barry says.
—Mark Schoeff Jr.