_{Reproduced with permission from Daily Report for Executives, No. 27 (Feb. 11, 2008), p. C-1.
Copyright 2008 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (800-372-1033)}

Labor Department Effort to Enhance Plan Fees Disclosure Draws Mixed Response

Plan providers and sponsors generally are happy with the Labor Department’s fee disclosure guidance, while those who represent participants see a need for more work, according to interviews conducted by BNA during December and January.

In response to cries that tax code Section 401(k) plan sponsors were neither asking for nor getting the fee disclosure they needed, the Labor Department issued final regulations covering reporting requirements under Schedule C of the Form 5500 (221 PBD, 11/16/07; 34 BPR 2702, 11/20/07), and proposed regulations under Employee Retirement Income Security Act Section 408(b)(2)’s prohibited transaction exemption (238 PBD, 12/13/07; 34 BPR 2925, 12/18/07). The department also intends to issue new rules governing direct disclosure to participants.

The Labor Department’s three-prong effort was prompted by many allegations of conflicts and abuse involving hidden and excessive plan fees (118 PBD, 6/21/04; 31 BPR 1364, 6/22/04; see also 117 PBD, 6/19/07; 34 BPR 1568, 6/26/07). These allegations prompted a series of lawsuits challenging the practices of a number of large companies and their providers (241 PBD, 12/19/06; 34 BPR 32, 1/2/07).

Despite the new regulations, some practitioners, such as San Francisco investment consultant Jon C. Chambers, still will be looking for congressional action to protect the interests of plan participants. He told BNA Jan. 22 that many plan sponsors will remain unaware of the revenue sharing payments between affiliated vendors, will not know the true cost of the recordkeeping and administrative services they are paying in bundled service arrangements that rise in cost as plan assets increase, and will not fully understand when brokers and others are dispensing financial advice or merely purveying financial information.

David B. Loeper, a Richmond, Va., investment adviser who has written a book on plan fees, also criticized the department’s final and proposed regulations. He told BNA Jan. 23 the regulations appear to have been written directly by or with substantial input from the plan service provider industry “because they keep in place the means for service providers to continue to confuse unsophisticated plan sponsors regarding plan fees.”

Among those defending the Labor Department’s effort was David Wray, president of the Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America (PSCA), Chicago. He told BNA Jan. 16 that Section 401(k) plans are truly a “wonder” for most plan participants and that the new regulations will help preserve their benefits by giving plan sponsors the information they need to comply with their fiduciary duties.

Despite the significant disagreement among those interviewed over the new regulations, David Certner, legislative counsel and policy director for AARP, Washington, D.C., told BNA Jan. 18 that a very positive result of all the attention that plan fees have been getting is that sponsors and participants now are much more aware of the issues surrounding such fees.

Pending Legislation

While the Labor Department continued its work on plan fee regulation, legislation designed to compel the disclosure of “hidden fees” and “conflicts of interest” was introduced in both houses of Congress. The first bill (H.R. 3185) was introduced last July 26 by House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (R-Calif.) (144 PBD, 7/27/07; 34 BPR 1775, 7/31/07). This was followed by a bill introduced in the Senate Dec. 13 by Sens. Herbert H. Kohl (D-Wis.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) (239 PBD, 12/14/07; 34 BPR 2929, 7/31/07).

Both bills are designed to increase the information given to employers who sponsor 401(k) plans, to give participants information about the overall levels of fees when they choose investment options and on their quarterly statement, and to require disclosure of relationships between all parties with a financial interest in the plan.

For the most part, organizations representing sponsors and providers told BNA the Labor Department’s efforts were sufficient and that legislation was not needed. In addition to PSCA, such organizations included the American Benefits Council (ABC), the Investment Company Institute (ICI), and Vanguard Mutual Funds.

AARP’s Certner said “obviously” the Labor Department “has not gone as far as it could” regarding disclosure. He stressed that keeping fees “reasonable” is crucial to participants. Debra Davis, of the Pension Rights Center, Washington, D.C., told BNA Dec. 14 her organization believes more disclosure is needed to fully protect the financial security interests of plan participants and is encouraged that legislation is proceeding.

Brian Graff, executive director/chief executive officer of the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries (ASPPA), Arlington, Va., told BNA Jan. 9 the Labor Department’s efforts have narrowed the gap in disclosure requirements between plan providers offering bundled services and those offering unbundled services. However, he said his organization continues to support legislation as a way to achieve “complete uniformity.”

According to Graff, ASPPA wanted to see enhanced disclosure regarding investment fees, commission and transaction fees, and recordkeeping and administrative fees, and is pleased the new regulations will impact significantly the disclosure of all but the recordkeeping and administrative expenses.

Los Angeles Pension plan attorney Fred Reish, managing partner with Reish, Luftman, Reicher & Cohen, among others, was skeptical about the Labor Department’s upcoming efforts to establish requirements for plan participant disclosure. Reish told BNA Jan. 7 that participants need information to make decisions not only about which investments to select among their plan’s choices, but to determine the extent to which any of their plan choices are reasonable, and therefore whether to invest in the plan at all. Reish said the Labor Department was unlikely to go this far in its regulations and that legislation may be the only way to ensure such disclosure.

PSCA’s Wray cautioned it is always better to proceed with regulation rather than legislation. He said regulation offers the flexibility to make changes if things do not work out as foreseen. Once legislation is passed, the matter is “cast in stone,” since it “takes a monumental effort” to get a bill through Congress, he said.

Applause From Plan Community

In response to the new regulations, Sherwin S. Kaplan, attorney with Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner, Washington, D.C., told BNA Jan. 4 that the department’s regulatory efforts to date “go an awful long way” toward resolving problems associated with plan fee disclosure. As currently set out, the regulations would require that all fees be disclosed and would therefore provide a basis for eliminating most of the conflict-of-interest issues surrounding plan fees, he said.

Agreeing with Kaplan was Jan C. Jacobson, senior counsel, American Benefits Council, Washington, D.C. She told BNA Jan. 11 the Labor Department has been working on disclosure regulations for quite awhile and has been giving it much thought. In drafting the rules, the department sought to balance the need for disclosure against the added cost of providing such disclosure, she said.

With regard to the Section 408(b)(2) regulations, the department seems to have done a “pretty good job” of striking this balance and of significantly increasing disclosure, she said. This is particularly the case regarding the significantly increased disclosure of indirect payments, Jacobson added.

Former Assistant Secretary of Labor Anne L. Combs, now a principal with Vanguard, Valley Forge, Pa., told BNA Jan. 7 that when read together, both the Labor Department’s final regulations and proposed regulations are “very comprehensive” and eliminate the abuses and conflicts that many in the pension plan community have been concerned about. She indicated that Vanguard still is studying the Section 408(b)(2) proposal and intends to file comments to the Labor Department by the Feb. 11 deadline.

Combs, who heads Vanguard’s Institutional Strategic Consulting group, which oversees the company’s retirement policy, research, and plan consulting activities, implied that problems relating to fee disclosure were likely a thing of the past, saying there now is intense competition on fees in the marketplace, which has enabled plan sponsors to really hold providers’ “feet to the fire” regarding the negotiation of fees.

Clarification Needed

Combs said she expected the Labor Department to issue some clarification on a number of issues. For example, she said the proposal was unclear as to which provider, in certain situations, would be required to make the actual disclosure. She said there would be confusion as to who should make the disclosure when a mutual fund has hired a sub-adviser to perform certain functions, such as handling proxy voting.

She also identified another troublesome area regarding the Section 408(b)(2) rules. As it stands now, plan providers would have only 90 days after the proposal’s effective date in which to have all plan contracts newly in place to satisfy the provision’s prohibited transaction exemption, she said, adding that 90 days is too short a time to expect this to happen. The Labor Department needs to clarify this or delay the effective date of the Section 408(b)(2) rules, Combs said.

Jacobson said ABC still is looking at the proposal and plans to file comments offering suggestions on how to “tweak” the proposal. She suggested further guidance is needed from the Labor Department under the Section 408(b)(2) proposal to clarify what bundled providers should do in situations where they are unable to get fee information from other service providers who are providing services as part of the bundled arrangement.

According to Jacobson, under the proposal, if a plan sponsor is unable to get the information from a provider that the plan is required to disclose, there is a mechanism in place whereby the sponsor can be excluded from the requirement by telling the Labor Department in writing that it was unable to get the information from the provider. Similarly, there needs to be an exception for mutual fund companies or other providers where they can be held harmless if they are unable to get the needed information from another plan provider, she said.

Jacobson also said ABC was concerned that many larger plans will be required under the Form 5500, Schedule C, regulations to increase significantly the number of providers that need to be reported. She explained that under the old requirements a plan was required to disclose only the top 40 plan providers by payment amount. Now, sponsors will need to report every provider receiving $5,000 or more from the plan. This could lead to the reporting of hundreds of providers for many larger plans, she said.

Small Plans and Schedule C

Reish identified several problems with the new Form 5500 Schedule C. He pointed out that these reporting requirements only apply to plans with more than 100 participants. Thus, he said only about 20 percent of plans will be required to report under these regulations. Although these 20 percent represent roughly 75 to 80 percent of all plan participants, the plans not covered are the ones more likely to be disadvantaged due to lack of disclosure from their providers, he told BNA.

Reish said the Schedule C rules, when effective, will apply to after-the-fact reporting, while the proposed regulation under Section 408(b)(2) would apply to before-the-fact disclosure. Before-the-fact disclosure “necessarily relies on formulas and descriptive information,” while after-the-fact reporting “can be of the actual numbers or, at least of reasonable estimates,” he said.

“So, while before-the-fact information is very valuable in making decisions, after-the-fact actual numbers are easier to understand and evaluate,” he said. Thus, Reish said he “believed that the reporting should go to plans of all sizes, particularly since smaller plans will need the easy-to-understand numbers more than large plans, because large plans can afford consultants to figure it out for them.”

Disagreeing with Reish, Vanguard’s Combs said the Labor Department’s decision to exclude plans with fewer than 100 participants from the Form 5500 Schedule C reporting requirements was appropriate given the added costs required. Although she acknowledged that small plans have seen the brunt of the problems associated with plan fees, she said the Labor Department made its decision to exclude such plans after undertaking a cost-benefit analysis.

Gap in Reporting Requirement

Reish also said the Schedule C reporting requirement creates a “hole big enough to drive a truck through.” He explained that, regarding “eligible indirect payments” to providers, which include revenue sharing, finder’s fees, so-called Section 12b-1 fees permitted under securities law, transfer agency fees, etc., plan fiduciary reporting is limited to mean merely checking a box to indicate that at some point the plan was given information on indirect compensation received by the provider.

Those fees will not be specifically reported, but instead plans will merely report that they got the necessary information by listing the service provider and checking a box on the Schedule C to the Form 5500, Reish said.

Thus, according to Reish, “there is no way under this requirement” for the Labor Department or for plan sponsors to really understand what arrangements exist between providers regarding such indirect compensation. Although this provision gives the appearance of compliance, it is without substance because the value of how much money is changing hands between providers is not disclosed, he said.

Reish also pointed out that the Schedule C does not require the reporting of recordkeeping and administration charges by plan providers offering bundled services to plans, nor does it require reporting of provider payments to affiliated service providers from revenue sharing payments.

High Grades for Section 408(b)(2) Disclosure

Although dissatisfied with a number of provisions pertaining to the new Schedule C, Reish found more to like under the proposed Section 408(b)(2) regulations. For example, he said that while the 2009 Schedule C only applies to plans with 100 or more participants, the proposed regulations, when final, will apply to all Section 401(k) plans.

Reish also praised the disclosure of indirect compensation in Section 408(b)(2). Unlike the Form 5500 requirement, there is no check-a-box requirement, he said. Instead, the proposal mandates full disclosure of indirect compensation updated within 30 days. The 30-day rule “simply states that, when a provider becomes aware of a change, the service provider must notify the responsible plan fiduciaries within 30 days of learning about the change. So, service providers must update the plan fiduciaries as the fees, expenses and/or revenue sharing changes,” he said.

The proposal also seems to require service providers to explain the significance of the documents they provide to plan sponsors, according to Reish. He said he was referring to a situation where the plan fiduciaries are given a lengthy printed document, such as a prospectus.

Reish noted that the preamble to the proposed regulation states that the Labor Department expects that the service provider in such a situation “will explain why it is giving the prospectus to the plan fiduciary, what information it is intended to supply, and where the information may be found in the prospectus. In other words, it is not enough to just ‘dump’ a stack of lengthy documents on the desk of the responsible fiduciary,” Reish said.

Preamble Language Insufficient

Investment advisor Loeper, principal with Financeware, a Richmond, Va.-based registered investment adviser and supplier of Internet tools to financial firms, disagreed with Reish that such language in the preamble will be sufficient to benefit plan sponsors. Speaking to BNA, Loeper asked why the regulations have to be so complicated. The Labor Department could easily have required that all the information be compiled in one summary that is easy to find and use, he said.

For plan sponsors, the regulations make finding the information they need analogous to “peeling an onion,” Loeper said. If the department was serious about giving plan sponsors the information they need, it would have incorporated within the regulations, as part of the disclosure requirements for providers, the depatment’s own publication on plan fees, DOL’s 401(k) Plan Fee Tool Kit, which appears on the agency’s Web page, he said.

Expense Recapture

With regard to expense recapture, Reish said the disclosure, “both on the Schedule C and at the point of sale, due to the Section 408(b)(2) regulation, would result in plan sponsors paying more attention to fees and expenses and being more aware of revenue sharing.”

If a plan sponsor becomes aware it is overpaying for mutual funds, the fiduciaries can negotiate either to have less expensive mutual funds, which typically pay less revenue sharing, or to keep the mutual funds currently in the plan but negotiate for expense recapture, according to Reish.

Reish said further that “typically, mutual funds pay money to Section 401(k) recordkeepers, which are often affiliated with the mutual fund family, to subsidize the cost of the recordkeeping and administration for the plan. Those payments are typically based on … a percentage of plan assets. So, as a plan grows, the revenue sharing, in ordinary circumstances, grows faster than the expense of recordkeeping and administering the plan,” he added.

“At some point, that means that the recordkeeper is receiving more money than it needs to cover its costs and a reasonable profit margin,” Reish said. At that point, the fiduciary should negotiate for part of that revenue sharing to be recaptured by the plan to be used for the benefit of the participants, he said.

Disproportionate Fees ‘Unknown.’

However, Chambers, a principal in the investment consulting firm Schultz Collins Lawson Chambers Inc., said he did not believe that many plans would realize they were overpaying and thus few were likely to recapture such expenses. If plan sponsors do not know how much they are paying for each administrative component of the bundle, they cannot determine whether they are being fairly charged, he said.

In his testimony before the House Education and Labor Committee last October, Chambers described a situation where his firm helped a large Section 401(k) plan sponsor, which thought it was paying a reasonable expense ratio to its provider. Based on the information his firm presented, the plan sponsor “negotiated share class transitions that saved participants more than $1 million per year,” he told the committee.

Chambers said the main point in this particular case was that his firm was “able to improve the 401(k) fee structure for a large group of plan participants that already benefited from low cost investment options, and from relatively sophisticated fiduciary oversight.” Chambers said he concluded from this that better disclosure of 401(k) fees could help many plans, “particularly smaller plans that simply cannot afford to engage independent consultants to review their fee arrangements.”

ICI Explains Utility of Asset-Based Fees

Testifying before the House Committee on Ways and Means in October, Paul Schott Stevens, president and CEO of the Investment Company Institute, said mutual funds need to use asset-based fees to cover administrative services, because this “effectively spreads the costs of acquiring necessary services over a shareholder or participant base.”

He said that “in plans, asset-based fees allow new participants and those with lower wages or smaller accounts to participate without their fixed share of administration costs falling disproportionately, as a percentage of account balance, on them.”

Furthermore, Stevens told the committee “asset-based fee arrangements also help pay for plan start-up or service provider transition costs, which can be significant. To avoid the plan incurring all those expenses in the first year, asset-based fees allow a provider to recoup its expenses over several years as plan assets grow.”

Sophisticated Nature of Larger Plans

Despite the fact that plaintiffs’ litigation challenging Section 401(k) plan fees as being excessive and/or hidden have been directed exclusively at large employers, large plans are not having problems regarding fee disclosure and are not paying excessive plan fees, according to the PSCA’s Wray.

Large employers have the ability to operate plans more efficiently, he said, adding that IBM is able to operate its Section 401(k) plan at a cost of about .02 percent or 2 basis points.

Although problems have been identified with some smaller plans regarding plan fee disclosure, the reality is that plaintiffs’ attorneys are not going to sue small plan sponsors, which, unlike large plans, do not have deep pockets, according to Wray.

Chambers said Wray’s IBM example was a “terrific one.” If IBM can run its plan for 2 basis points, “one wonders why costs are 35 to 40 times higher for other, similarly sized plans,” he said. “The answer may be that IBM is sophisticated, but that other plan sponsors aren’t sophisticated.”

Conflicts From Uneven Disclosure

Chambers said there are unacceptable conflicts inherent with uneven disclosure, which he said occurs if recordkeepers are not required to disclose revenue sharing payments between their affiliates.

As an example, if a recordkeeper offers a platform that includes a proprietary fund and one from another fund family, the recordkeeper would, under the department’s new regulations, be required to disclose the revenue sharing payment from the nonaffiliated fund but not from its affiliated fund, he said. If the recordkeeper recommended its own affiliated fund over the nonaffiliated fund, the plan would not know if this was due to the merits of the affiliated fund or because the recordkeeper was earning more money, he added.

In his testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee, ICI’s Stevens said that participant accounting, compliance services, and participant communications often are bundled together because this is an efficient way to provide the service, just as a “vacation tour operator will package airfare, hotel, ground transportation, entertainment and amenities all for a single price.” Stevens said “any attempt to ‘price’ each component would be artificial.”

PSCA’s Wray agreed with Stevens that it was unnecessary for providers to break out each component cost. He said only the total cost matters. “If you purchase a car, you want to know the total cost of the car. You really don’t need to know the cost of each car component, such as the cost of each spark plug,” he said.

Furthermore, Wray said plan sponsors that want to pay for the plan’s administrative costs can use unbundled providers.
Chambers said the car purchase analogy has been “pushed too far, too often, and doesn’t work well in the 401(k) context.” According to Chambers, the “employer controls the employees’ selection of investment funds in a 401(k) plan, but doesn’t control the employees’ selection of cars, which in the real world are usually purchased from independent dealers.”

Furthermore, he said “to make the car purchase analogy more accurate in the 401(k) context, if I could only buy a car from my employer, and my employer was getting kickbacks from the cars’ tire manufacturers, spark plug makers, etc., I would want to know all about those kickbacks, particularly if I could get a better deal on a similar car through an unaffiliated dealer.” Chambers added, “Requiring across-the-board fee unbundling would go a long way towards fixing this problem.”

Chambers also disagreed with Wray on the issue of bundling fees for small plans. He said “permitting vendors to combine fees for administrative services and fees for investment management into a single number mitigates the competitive pressure to reduce investment fees.”

“Although plan sponsors are free to engage unbundled vendors, the business has become so complex, and pricing structures so opaque that it is extremely difficult for most plan sponsors to properly compare bundled and unbundled vendors. Better disclosure rules would make these comparisons easier,” Chambers said.

‘Zero Cost’ to Employers

Chambers also said the regulations still do not address the conflicts of interest brought by representatives of the insurance and financial services industry when they act as plan consultants. These brokers, agents, and others want to be viewed merely as nonfiduciary dispensers of investment information when it comes to potential liability exposure. However, given the manner of the consultants’ presentations to plans, which often is geared to convince plans to purchase investments that will monetarily benefit the consultants, many plan sponsors become confused and believe they are getting objective financial advice from these nonfiduciaries, he said.

Because plan sponsors are consistently told that the cost of administrative services is “zero,” they do not realize, or perhaps in some cases do not care, that such costs are being passed on to their employees, Chambers added.

Loeper said providers are able to avoid being called fiduciaries by giving plans a recommended fund list often consisting of three funds, each of which will provide compensation to the consultant or broker.

‘Reasonableness’ of Fees Debated

Loeper said the Labor Department will use its enforcement authority to crack down only in situations where fees are found to be “truly egregious.” Particularly with respect to small plans, without sufficient Labor Department enforcement, it is the norm for plan fees to be “unreasonably high,” he said.

Wray said he did not believe there was a problem regarding providers and their fiduciary status. He said only plan sponsors are fiduciaries, and the costs to plans would become prohibitive if providers were deemed to be fiduciaries. If providers were fiduciaries, they would need to purchase fiduciary liability insurance and would pass on that cost to plans, he said.

Wray also said that in smaller plans, the owner-managers often are the ones with the largest balance in the Section 401(k) plan and thus these owners have significant incentives to use plan providers that will benefit themselves as well as the other participants.

Under Section 408(b)(2), plan sponsors will be getting information on the total fees paid, Wray said. They will ask the correct question, and the provider must answer. Thus, Wray said the Labor Department has achieved its goal to ensure that small employers will continue to maintain their plans.

Michael Hadley, ICI’s associate general counsel for pension regulation, disputed the claim that mutual fund charges within plans are unreasonable. Speaking to BNA Jan. 17, he said a 2006 study showed that the dollar weighted average cost of a retail mutual fund is 88 basis points, while the dollar weighted average cost of a mutual fund in a 401(k) plan is only 74 basis points.

Loeper challenged those findings by saying that by using dollar weighted average cost, ICI’s numbers are dominated by lower-cost larger plans, which make up only a minority of outstanding plans. The true cost for many smaller plans is much higher, probably somewhere north of 200 basis points, Loeper contended.

Loeper asked why ICI uses in its report, The Economics of Providing 401(k) Plans: Services, Fees, and Expenses, 2006, a simple average cost of 1.54 percent for all mutual funds, but does not present a simple average for mutual funds in Section 401(k) plans. He suggested the answer may be that ICI is worried that releasing such data will show that the simple average cost of Section 401(k) plans is much higher than the simple average cost for all plans.

Furthermore, Loeper pointed out that ICI’s own data indicated that plan money market funds are more expensive than retail money market funds. He said this should not be the case because Section 401(k) plans are “supposed to be institutions with institutional quality and pricing.”

Disclosure to Participants

Plan benefits attorney Kaplan said that assuring disclosure to plan fiduciaries is more important than participant disclosure because plan fiduciaries select the options which will be available to participants. One major disclosure issue that does affect participants does not involve fees, but, rather, disclosure of the risk of investing too much in company stock, he said. Kaplan said the Labor Department likely will address this issue with additional regulation under ERISA Section 404©.

Putting a large amount of money in your own company’s stock is about the most risky investment you can make, Kaplan said. Employers that offer such investments ultimately will be required to disclose the inherent risk of these funds to their plan participants, he added.

Kaplan also questioned whether disclosure of plan fees to participants would be meaningful. Most plans, if they offer a choice of investments in the same asset class, will offer fund choices that have similar expense ratios, he said. Therefore, disclosure of fees really would not matter much to the participants, he added. Furthermore, a fund’s cost should not be the only issue considered when a participant makes an investment choice; participants should consider performance and other factors along with the cost, he said.

Vanguard’s Combs said if participants selected funds on cost alone, they would end up having portfolios consisting solely of low-cost money market funds, short-term bond funds, and employer stock. It is crucial, however, for participants to be given the information they need to ensure that they broadly diversify their plan investments, she added.

PSCA’s Wray said participants need merely to get a simple monthly statement listing the funds they have selected, the expense ratio of each fund, and the individual balance held in each of their funds. Furthermore, participants should not be getting information on 12b-1 fees, revenue sharing, subtransfer fees, etc. This information may “plant suspicion” in their minds and will risk having them drop out of the plan, he said.

Responding to Reish’s comments that participants faced with high fees may want to avoid investing in their employers’ plans, Wray said the risk of not participating in the plan would be devastating for many participants because otherwise they are unlikely to save for retirement. Combine automatic enrollment, payroll deduction, tax deduction and deferment, and an employer matching contribution, and it would be difficult to imagine many employees who would be better off not investing in a plan, Wray added.

Online Plan Fee Information

Loeper said plan providers can, at little expense, electronically post a summary of charges to participants. In addition, the electronic posting should give participants online access to all documents received by the plan sponsor, including SEC required Form ADVs, any group annuity contracts, or other written contracts given by the provider, he said.

AARP’s Certner said providing such online access would enable more sophisticated participants to get the information they need to make their own investment decisions and to put pressure on their employers if problems with fees are discovered.

Jon C. Chambers’s written testimony before the House Education and Labor Committee appears here

Investment Company Institute President Paul Schott Stevens’s testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means

The Investment Company Institute’s publication, The Economics of Providing 401(k) Plans: Services, Fees, and Expenses, 2006

The Labor Department’s 401(k) Plan Fee Tool Kit