The retirement industry has been confronted with excessive fee litigation of one type or another for more than a decade and a half—and there’s no sign of it letting up. Those cases have put forth certain assumptions (presumptions?) regarding prudent practices.
At times it seems that every plan in American with more than $1 billion in assets has fallen short of at least what the plaintiffs’ bar has sought to establish as prudent.
In fairness, without explanation the assertions might very well constitute a problem—and doubtless these plan design issues are part and parcel of many a committee review. On the other hand, the lawsuits seem to put forth the notion that the mere existence of these conditions constitutes a de facto breach.
This week, we’d like to know how many of these factors are part of your current plan design evaluations—and if that’s “new,” or has always been part of your screening.
You can REPLY to this week’s NAPA-Net Reader Poll at https://www.research.net/r/BDZ87V9
And we’ll have it all wrapped up for you on Friday…
