There will be many service providers looking for ways around the new fee disclosures rules in order to take advantage of plan sponsors and participants. This is unfortunate since the reason for the regualtions is to improve the quality of retirement plans offered to employers. If the retirement plan is to survive in the private sector the interest of plan participant must come first above all else.

Roberta Ufford, principal at Groom Law Firm, said she agrees brokers must be cautious if they elect to state a range of fees. Ranges rather than specifics make sense for brokerage windows because so many compensation arrangements are possible, but broker/dealers must ensure their range numbers are realistic and standard for the industry.”When you use a range, it should be appropriate for the circumstance, she said. “[The] DoL intended to provide flexibility [by allowing ranges]  when more specific disclosure would be difficult to provide, and that can be a great thing, but if you’re trying to get a specific answer for when it’s OK to use a range instead of more specific information, there is no specific answer. So you really have to use a good-faith effort here.”

Ufford thinks the real problem could arise with small-plan advisers who may not have been disclosing detailed information about compensation. Many recordkeepers and other plan services providers already have systems in place to disclose specific indirect compensation because of Schedule C on Form 5500, which has required plan sponsors and administrators to report service provider fees and compensation for plan years beginning in 2009 (see “EBSA Issues Schedule C Fee Disclosure Guidance“).

There will continue to be confusion on fee disclosure, particularly when there is a brokerage window within the plan. Plan sponsors will never really know there fee disclosure information is complete or realistic when working with a broker dealer.

Please comment or call to discuss how this affect you and your plan.