Like millions of retirees who assumed their companies had
taken care of them, Ronald Tussey never thought that his retirement plan
might be flawed. He trusted his company so much he kept his money in
his 401(k) long after he left.
Having worked as an engineer for 37 years, ultimately at
ABB Inc.,
where he retired 11 years ago, Mr. Tussey said he never paid much
attention to the fees in his retirement plan and "assumed the company
was looking out for my best interests."
But after seeing a television program on the
negative impact that 401(k) expenses can have on retirement savings, he
hired a lawyer, who filed a class-action lawsuit in 2006 against ABB and
plan administrators.
August Kryger | The New York Times
Ronald Tussey, whose lawsuit against a former
employer became a landmark case highlighting expenses in 401(k) plans,
at his home in Lake Ozark, Mo., Nov. 6, 2014.
Mr. Tussey's suit became a landmark case that highlighted
the sometimes excessive expenses in 401(k) plans. The suit remains
largely unresolved today, while Mr. Tussey has become an archetype of an
inexperienced litigant caught up in a legal battle far more complex
than he ever expected.
"I had no idea about litigation," Mr. Tussey says. "It was unbelievable."
Like many employees, Mr. Tussey, now 70, was told
that his retirement plan was "free," even though middlemen were
deducting expenses from his savings.
In many retirement plans, a significant amount of
future retirees' funds are devoured by fees. According to a 2012 study
published by the progressive think tank Demos, high 401(k) fees can
drain $155,000 from an average household over a lifetime. Higher-earning
households can lose even more — up to $278,000.
Growing employee resistance, resulting from a
greater awareness of plan costs, has resulted in more than 30 lawsuits
against 401(k) plans and employers since 2006. Seventeen have been
dismissed, but these suits are time-consuming, complex and difficult to
litigate. The oldest 401(k) suits, like Mr. Tussey's, have been winding
through courtrooms for the last half decade.
Despite a federal requirement that plan fees be disclosed
and numerous reports on 401(k) plan flaws, few employees question how
much they are being charged, much less take their employers to court. As
Mr. Tussey learned, time spent on legal proceedings is clearly not on a
par with time spent traveling the world, working in the community or
taking up a new hobby.
After more than six years of litigation, a federal
court in Missouri ruled in March 2012 that ABB and its record keeper,
Fidelity Investments, violated fiduciary duties to the plan and
participants and were liable for $37 million.
ABB appealed part of the case, but the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis this year
upheld the Federal District Court judgment that $13.4 million be awarded
to participants.
A $1.7 million district court judgment against Fidelity was reversed by the higher court.
Nothing, to date, has been paid to ABB 401(k) plan
participants. Lawyers representing the employees want the Supreme Court
to review the case.
In the meantime, though, there are lessons here for current and future retirees.
David Franklin | E+ | Getty Images
At the heart of the suits are a raft of obscure fees and
services that few employees will be able to discern. Unless employers
absorb all of the expenses, you must pay the bills for plan
record-keeping, administration and fund management.
Most fund expenses not covered by employers are
deducted from plan assets — the money pooled for your retirement — and
show up in an "expense ratio," which is expressed as an annual
percentage of what you have invested. If your plan charges 1 percent on
$100,000 invested, you are paying $1,000 annually in fees.
How much is too much for 401(k) expenses? It
depends on the size and complexity of the plan. The Department of
Labor's fee disclosure requirement, which went into effect about two
years ago, will tell you how much is being deducted from your savings,
but it won't tell you if that amount is too much.
In the somewhat opaque world of 401(k) expenses, a
large plan may be the best deal, but smaller plans can still offer
lower expenses if employers shop around. Often only an audit by an
independent fiduciary who knows how to compare similar plans can
determine whether you are being overcharged.
Jerome J. Schlichter, a St. Louis lawyer who
represented Mr. Tussey and plaintiffs in other 401(k) suits, said there
were some common elements in plans that could indicate lofty expenses
and conflicts.
Even though no extra service may be provided, record
keepers may reap higher compensation just because total assets increase
from year to year. This number can be hard to find and even tougher to
examine. Is your plan's record-keeping fee fair? You may need an
independent consultant — someone with no financial interest in the plan,
funds or middlemen — to properly vet this number.
Also look at revenue sharing. This is an often
complex arrangement where a fund manager "shares" some of the fees it
receives from fund expenses with other service providers, such as
brokers. This practice, though declining, is particularly insidious
since it provides little or no value to employees. It is derisively
referred to as a "kickback" by 401(k) critics.
Expenses, perhaps the largest target for 401(k)
suits, can be the easiest to vet because fees can be compared across
plans and funds. Does your plan charge a "retail" fund fee? It shouldn't
because 401(k)'s, even small ones, have access to the lowest-cost
"institutional" or exchange-traded funds, which charge as little as 0.04
percent annually.
If your fund company offers multiple "share"
classes, you will also need to know if you are getting the least
expensive class. To get a basic idea, compare your plan with similar
401(k)'s on
Brightscope.com. You can also look up individual fund expenses on
Morningstar.com.
You will also need to see what kinds of funds are
in your plan. Is your employer, particularly if it's a financial
services company, offering "in-house" or "proprietary" mutual funds?
They may be more expensive than other funds and pose clear conflicts of
interest.
And keep an eye out for unnecessary fees that may
be eating up your nest egg. These include commissions, also known as
"loads," 12b-1 marketing fees, insurance-related charges, "wrap" fees
and transaction expenses.
Even if you are acutely attentive to financial details or
can fathom the arcane language of annual plan statements like 5500
forms, this is tough. Except for fund management fees, it's not easy to
spot a blatant overcharge. Mr. Schlichter has found that even in a new
era of plan disclosure, most employees "are not aware of these fees and
don't learn much from their plan statements."
For help, you might want to consult outside
resources, like the website Personal Capital. The online money manager
has a free
401(k) Fee Analyzer. It will tell you how expenses are affecting your nest egg.
The Department of Labor's website has a wealth of information on
401(k) fees and disclosure, and you can also find a breakdown of 401(k) expenses
at Bankrate.com.
What if you've found that your plan is a rotten
deal, but you don't want to move your money and can't get your employer
to change the plan?
As Mr. Tussey knows, it may be a long, rocky road
through the court system, at the end of which you may not reap a penny.
Lawyers representing employees must prove not only
that plan participants were charged exorbitant fees or employers showed
a clear conflict of interest, but also that employers broke federal law
by breaching their fiduciary duty. That's a legal standard that says
employers must do everything in their power to act prudently on behalf
of workers. In the case of 401(k) plans, that means finding a reasonable
selection of low-cost funds and services.
But the legal landscape may change substantially.
In October, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a 401(k) fee case. If the
court rules in favor of employees, the floodgates could open for more
retirement plan lawsuits.