POSTED BY: dee (March 15, 2007 03:28 PM)
This is great information, although it is still a bit confusing to regular-folk, like me, who don't get heavily involved in the details because they are too confusing. It should be REQUIRED that all brokers/agents/fiduciaries disclose, along with the Form 5498 (is that the name of it??) at the end of the year, how much was paid to them. They MUST know how much they make on each client, so they should be required to disclose the amount so investors can individually decide if the service is worth the cost. That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it. thanks.

POSTED BY: James D. Tilford (March 19, 2007 05:17 PM)
Given all the mumbo jumbo and impossible to understand lexicon,just follow the advice of Jack Bogle and buy the index funds.In 401k's or I.R.A.'s they will always be the most cost effective for the investor.

POSTED BY: (March 21, 2007 09:02 AM)
i agree they should publish the costs information, and i dont mind the costs as long they give me good return. just like gov published about inflation rate.

POSTED BY: Jim Bigham (May 16, 2007 03:09 PM)
Mr. Hutcheson makes some excellent points regarding hidden fees but I take exception with the characterization of G Fiduciary as a "consulting" firm. “Matt Hutcheson, an independent fiduciary consultant” is affiliated with G Fiduciary, LLC out of Portland, OR. He is identified on their web site as the “architect” of their retirement plan product. According to Eleanor Laise of the Wall Street Journal online, this company is a "401(k) provider which offers just one investment option: a fund that is 60% stocks and 40% bonds". Provider or Consultant? It's unclear.

POSTED BY: Deb (May 16, 2007 07:10 PM)
The United States Congressional website says Hutcheson is an expert independent fiduciary.

POSTED BY: Jim Bigham (May 17, 2007 10:51 AM)
Deb, I believe you’re referring to the U.S. House Education and Labor Committee to which he provided testimony at a hearing about “hidden 401(k) fees” on March 6th, 2007. I do not doubt his fiduciary expertise. I’ve read that testimony and it’s full of excellent information that describes some of what is occurring to participants. Respectfully though, my point is simple. You cannot claim the role of “consultant” when you are affiliated with a firm that acts as a plan provider. If he represented Fidelity, Merrill Lynch, or John Hancock would you still consider him an “independent” fiduciary. What does “independent” mean in this case? “OK, right now I’m acting as your consultant, but later we’ll talk about the retirement plan we sell.” Huh? I do question the committee vetting process for these witnesses. The same hearing featured Stephen Butler, (quoting the Committee web site) “of Pension Dynamics Corporation, a third party administration firm designing, installing, administering and advising 401(k) plans since 1980.”(End of quote) This "consultant" is a Registered Representative of his own broker / dealer firm (Pension Dynamics Securities), and states in publicly available NASD filings that he is a "mutual fund retailer". Noticeably absent from Mr. Butler’s written testimony about hidden expenses are the payments Mr. Hutcheson describes in this article as Hidden Fee Type 3, common to TPA firms. Surprising? Regards, Jim

POSTED BY: Dan Peterson (May 17, 2007 11:33 AM)
G Fiduciary is neither a provider nor a consultant. G Fiduciary is an independent plan sponsor. As sponsor of the G Plan, G Fiduciary is a fiduciary as defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Mr. Matthew D. Hutcheson is an expert independent fiduciary who both designed our plan and serves as one of its fiduciaries. Trying to understand the G Fiduciary architecture through the lens of the conventional 401(k) marketplace is difficult. We have designed and govern the plan according to strict policies of fiduciary independence. Its structure is unique; it embodies several elements for which patent protection is being sought. The goal of the G Plan is to provide retirement income security for American workers in an efficient and prudent manner. Should you have specific questions, you may contact me directly at dsp@gfiduciary.com. My name is Dan Peterson, and I serve as Managing Director of G Fiduciary, LLC.

POSTED BY: Matthew D. Hutcheson (May 17, 2007 05:57 PM)
My name is Matthew Hutcheson. As the author of this paper and research, I’d like to clarify a point made by Mr. Bingham’s excellent observations and comments, which I greatly appreciate. To clarify, I am a "Certified Pension Consultant" by professional designation. Professionally I am an Independent Pension Fiduciary. I am independent in every way, and have never sold investment products, nor have I ever held investment licenses to do so. Nor do I consult for or represent any financial institution. I am a participant-advocate, and a Congressional expert witness on retirement plan economics and principles of fiduciary governance. Thank you for letting me clarify that I am in very explicit terms, independent in every way. Thank you for this excellent dialog, and I hope others will share their thoughts as well.

POSTED BY: Jim Bigham (May 22, 2007 06:21 PM)
Thanks to Mr. Peterson for the clarification. His comment confirms that G Fiduciary is not a “consulting firm” as stated in the author’s sidebar to this article. Now whether the firm is a Provider or a so-called “Independent Plan Sponsor” is unclear. It’s likely they are a not a provider in the traditional sense. However, in addition to Eleanor Laise (quoted in my previous comment), John Wasik of Bloomberg identifies Mr. Hutcheson as "an independent fiduciary and founder of Tualatin, Oregon-based Gemini Financial LLC, which offers a low-cost retirement plan." The article is titled, "Bare-Bones 401(k) Plan Will Be in Vogue in 2007" and appeared on Feb 12, 2007. According to the Oregon Secretary of State, Gemini was renamed G Fiduciary, LLC a few weeks after this article was published. I look forward to learning more about this “patent pending” retirement plan structure. Best regards all, Jim Bigham

POSTED BY: Susan Johnson (May 22, 2007 10:41 PM)
Jim sounds like he's obsessed with G Fiduciary. Creepy.

POSTED BY: Mark Smythee (May 22, 2007 11:39 PM)
dude, give it a rest. you sound ridiculous. this thread is about 401k fees and you are trying to turn it into an internal investigation about something off topic. whether g fiduciary is a consultant or a law firm or an accounting firm or an insurance agency or a bakery or a dog grooming business doesn't matter to any of us. why don't you just call them and ask them what they are and spare us the rhetoric?

POSTED BY: Jon Frandsen (May 23, 2007 12:59 PM)
This is Jon Frandsen, the editor of the Kiplinger Recommends feature. Kiplinger sought out Mr. Hutcheson's article because he is a respected and independent expert on the question of 401 (k) fees, an issue of immense importance to businesses and their employees. His analysis of this problem speaks for itself.

POSTED BY: Quigley (May 26, 2007 07:02 PM)
I participate in a company-sponsored 401K and now find that if I want to sell a small amt of shares, the fee for the sale is $1200 and I end up with a whopping $200. Now maybe I can find out why. Thanks for the article.

POSTED BY: Bruce Allen (May 27, 2007 07:27 PM)
What is so sad is that 401k participants don't ask even the most basic questions about this "benefit". As a nation, we learned nothing from all of the garbage that came out of Wall St. at the end of the dotcom, enron, worldcom, conflicted advice era.

POSTED BY: Nomen (October 09, 2007 10:47 AM)
I rolled over my 401K as soon as I retired. My employer picked 401K was rife with hidden fees. Even the uninsured money market paid only half the interest as any local bank paid for an insured account. My 401K even took 25% of the interest as a fee. The new 401K rules coming sound like a license to steal and let the employer off the hook.