The university is also called out for failing to adequately
benchmark plan fees.
Not exact matches
The plaintiff argues that determining the price that would be available on a flat per - participant basis, or the price available under other
fee models requires soliciting bids from competing providers: «In billion - dollar
plans with over 36,000 participants, such as the
Plan here,
benchmarking based on
fee surveys alone is inadequate.
The plaintiff argues that based on information currently available regarding the
plan's features, the nature of the administrative services provided by TIAA, the
plan's participant level, and the recordkeeping market,
benchmarking data indicates that a reasonable recordkeeping
fee for the
plan would have been a fixed amount between $ 1,500,000 and $ 1,900,000 per year (approximately $ 50 per participant with an account balance); however, TIAA is collecting roughly $ 10,000,000 per year (on average approximately $ 277 per participant).
To quote CST's MRFP: «For 2009 the
Plan's rate of return, net of
fees, was 5.3 % versus an investment policy
benchmark of 8.9 %.
According to two panelist experts speaking at PSNC 2015, relying on publicly available
fee benchmarking is generally not a marker of top - performing
plans and
plan sponsors.
To help advisers clearly illustrate the value of their clients»
plans, Ascensus routinely
benchmarks its
fees and disclosure practices against those of its peers.
The spate of U.S. litigation should prompt Canadian employers to mull over the following obvious questions: Do
plan fees hold up against a
benchmark of
fees charged by other
plans?