Isn't it funny that within a week of the industry complaining to delay the implementation of 408(b)(2) because of the lack of the much promised FAQ guide on the part of the DOL, the DOL comes out with its much promised FAQ guide? Under the name "Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-02 408(b)(2) FAQ Guide," this 38-question-and-answer compendium no doubt became an instant bestseller within the hallowed halls of 401(k)-dom.
Unfortunately, as Fred Reish warned at an industry conference recently, with or without the DOL's FAQ, the new Fee Disclosure Rule – a.k.a. 408(b)(2) – contains its fair share of traps for 401(k) plan sponsors, their service providers and plan participants. I'm sure there are plenty more, but here are the three most apparent reasons for each of these constituencies to fear what happens once the new rule is implemented come July 1st:
1) 401(k) Plan Sponsors – There are plenty of hazards in this new rule for this group, including jumbled and inconsistent formatting requirements (meaning every vendor can disclosure in a different manner), the impending volume of such disclosure (more pages only makes it harder to find key data) and, as Reish points out, the inevitable "race to the bottom" tired 401(k) plan sponsors will resort to when they only look at fees and not service value. But the biggest trap is this: 401(k) plan sponsors will now be held liable for service providers who fail to comply with the rule unless they fire those service providers. Given the likelihood of muddled reporting buried deep into a non-searchable ream of paper, how will otherwise busy 401(k) plan sponsors even know if the service provider is non-compliant?
Recommended For You
2) 401(k) Service Providers – Again, there is no shortage of "gotcha" points for these folks either, from failing to properly identify services to failing to disclose all fees to failing to separate those fees by service. The most ominous threat, however, consumes the very nightmares of those service providers providing bundled services: Any plan sponsor or participant who felt they got a "free" service – and believe me, even regulators are shocked by the number of people that fall into this category – will wake up one day to discover, much to their chagrin, a sizeable percentage of their savings has been continually siphoned off by some of the nation's largest companies. Let's not even mention the executive perks and bonuses at those big firms.
3) 401(k) Plan Participants – This unlucky group is regularly vexed by the consequences of a poor education. Don't get me wrong: I'm not speaking of scholarly endeavor. In fact, academic studies have shown even PhD's flunk the basic aptitude test when it comes to managing their 401(k) assets. Yes, like the plan sponsors, this group will no doubt be made deaf and dumb by disclosure. Yes, savvy service providers (and lazy financial writers) will point the participants' noses at irrelevant fees like mutual fund expense ratios. But, here's the real reason employees should fear 408(b)(2): While the DOL expects participants to be informed if some fees are paid out of the fund (e.g., revenue sharing and 12b-1), nowhere does the DOL mandate the participants be made aware this represents a conflict of interest and the investment may not be in the best interest of the participant.
It's important to understand 408(b)(2) is not a panacea, but only the first step towards giving plan participants the level of fiduciary attention they merit. It'll be interesting to see how this all evolves over the next several months and, in fact, if a new 408(b)(2) Benchmarking industry blossoms as a result of the Fee Disclosure Rule. More portentous, though, is the looming cloud of liability and how class-action attorney might use 408(b)(2) as a tool to drive more revenue to their own coffers.
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.