My Photo
Follow Me

Blogroll

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    « In Search of the Elusive Non-ERISA 403(b) | Main | The Plan Document – More Like Guidelines or Actual Rules? »

    10 March 2010

    TrackBack

    TrackBack URL for this entry:
    http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a0128755f82c4970c0120a923b1af970b

    Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Weighing In on the 3(21) vs. 3(38) Debate:

    Comments

    Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

    Gary Allen

    Adam, a very good post and I agree with your comments completely. Both types of fiduciaries serve a good and valuable service. I often hear people say the extra cost of a 3(38), however as a practicing 3(38) I do not find our services or those of other 3(38) advisors we know to be more expensive than a traditional 3(21) or even a non-fiduciary advisor. We often find our pricing structure to be similar or less than much of the competition out there. I guess the real question in my mind is, are we charging too little or are others charging to much for their services?

    John Haley

    Great article Adam. Keep up the good work!

    With a 3(21) Fiduciary, if very specific advice is given and the client chooses to follow that advice, would you agree that most of the Fiduciary liability rests with the advisor? What percentage would you estimate? (Tough questions to answer I realize)

    My Best,

    John O'Reilly

    Agree with Gary Allen - 3(38) is competitively priced and often less expensive, sometimes much less expensive. Of course often a cost comparison is pretty much impossible due to a lack of transparency with mainstream plans.

    Since a 3(38) typically has a fee schedule, it means that the percentage cost automatically lowers as assets increase. In a mainstream plan, the plan sponsor has to cry bloody murder and be moved to a different class fund with lower revenue sharing rates.

    It still shocks me that "the mainstream is the mainstream". How have they kept their stranglehold. Has there ever been a comparison more lop-sided than the mainstream to a 3(38) plan? Yet it continues to be a struggle to convince plan sponsors.

    The comments to this entry are closed.