Discussion about this post

User's avatar
James Robertson's avatar

There is another part to the passive story that I witnessed when I used to sit on my former employer's Deferred Comp committee for many years, before retiring. We always hired experts to give us advice and our plan's offerings changed over time from all actively managed funds when I started working there in the early 80s to slowly incorporating more passive funds in this century after the dot com bust, as passive started to gain traction. Then there was a big change a year or two after the GFC. I remember it had to do with some sort of change in ERISA that resulted in our expert advising to start offering target date funds, more low cost passive and also reduce the overall number of choices we had previously offered, which ended up as reducing actively managed funds with higher costs (but we kept a few, particularly in the bond funds, to keep old timers like me happy). If I recall correctly, this had something to due with changes in how the plan sponsor's fiduciary duties were defined by the Labor Department in new regulations. One thing that struck me was when our expert was asked why we should do these things, his reply was that it was what the majority of other plans were doing and we were less likely to get sued for breach of fiduciary responsibility, if we followed what the majority of other firms were adopting as "best practices". In other words, just follow the crowd and you are less likely to get sued.

Expand full comment
Aaron David Garfinkel's avatar

You would laugh if you saw the investment vehicles offered in my employer 401k lol. I’ve been thinking about it for months and it’s pretty frustrating.

Expand full comment
22 more comments...

No posts