The dome of the Capitol is reflected in a puddle in Washington February 17, 2012.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Another debt ceiling debacle could sink the economy

Last year's Congressional debt standoff hurt consumer confidence more than the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Betsey Johnson and Justin Wolfers write. This time could be worse.  Read more at Counterparties  

Department of Labor unveils 401(k) fee rules

Related Topics

NEW YORK | Thu Jul 15, 2010 7:11pm EDT

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Advisers and brokers who manage 401(k) plans will have to provide detailed information about the fees they charge under new rules unveiled by the U.S. Department of Labor on Thursday, but the changes are not as onerous as the brokerage industry first feared.

The rules require advisers to provide a detailed account of the fees they are charging to manage the retirement plans, which are mainly employer-sponsored.

Phyllis Borzi, assistant secretary for the Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration, said the rules are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register tomorrow and go into effect in July 2011.

Advisers will also have to reveal how they and their firm will be paid. Are they paid, for example, by billing the plan's sponsor directly or through revenue-sharing agreements, where some of the expenses charged for a mutual fund included in the plan are used to pay the adviser and firm?

"For broker-dealers, this is really as good as it could have been," said Jason Roberts, an attorney with Reish & Reicher who specializes in pension plans.

Under the initial proposed rules, advisers and brokers were also going to have to give employers a written contract detailing their services. This requirement has been removed.

Instead, they will have to provide written disclosures about their services and fees, which is a far less burdensome task, said Roberts.

"A contract really solidifies that I'm going to provide these services and you are going to hold me to them," said Roberts. "You can say things much more generally in a disclosure format."

Jeffrey Turner, of the Division of Regulations at the Labor Department, told reporters on a media call on Thursday afternoon that having a contract was "not the most significant part of the process."

The main thing was to have the disclosures about fees in writing, he said.

The American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries applauded the new rules.

"Providers now have clear guidance on what disclosures are required and plan sponsors will have the information they need to make informed choices about their retirement plans," said Brian Graff, chief executive of ASPPA, in a statement.

The proposed rules, which were first released in December 2007, also required advisers and brokers to provide a narrative description of any potential conflicts of interest they may face and how they would be overcome, for example, if the broker's firm also owned a mutual fund company that would benefit if the 401(k) plan bought those funds.

This narrative description is also no longer required. Instead, advisers and brokers will have to detail any additional compensation they receive, such as a commission for selling a particular investment.

(Reporting by Helen Kearney; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
paulflorez wrote:
“A contract really solidifies that I’m going to provide these services and you are going to hold me to them,” said Roberts. “You can say things much more generally in a disclosure format.”

So with these new rules, a consumer will not be able to solidly “hold” a provider accountable for the services the consumer is purchasing from them; HOW is that better for the consumer?

Jul 15, 2010 7:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
ogre12 wrote:
Just liberal demwits trying to make a terd smell like a rose…smoke and mirrors. Tea Party can put teeth into this. I am sick and tired of the same old same old from democrats and republicans. I am sick and tired of an ineffective 2 party system that no longer works, nor has it worked for a long time, for anybody except themselves. The biggest change will be to bring term limits to congressional members and that should happen now! I am sick and tired of these two parties that are so advesarial that between the 2 houses they cant even to plant a stop sign on a residential neighborhood in Washington DC for Pete’s sake!! I am coming closer to believing in a referendum system of voting for the most important decisions in this nation..I dunno. I certainly have no faith in demwits nor republicans even though I am a moderate conservative.

Jul 15, 2010 7:48pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
paulflorez wrote:
Tea Partiers are Republicans, they will vote for Republicans in November, there is little difference.

Jul 15, 2010 8:02pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.