
- It is quicker to make investment decisions themselves rather than having to meet and obtain approval from the plan sponsor.
- If an adviser is exclusively a 3(38) then the number of funds which will need to be monitored will drop dramatically. As a 3(38) will only have to monitor the funds which they have chosen. But a 3(21) will have to monitor every fund chosen by all the plan sponsor they work with.
- There seems to be a trend towards greater fiduciary responsibilities for advisers and acting as a 3(38) may get you ahead of the curve.
- There can be a selling point that they are taking the risk off the plan sponsor who are increasingly wary of fiduciary risks.
- However, some drawbacks may be that despite providing the service at a premium price to outsource fiduciary risk, this could create a new risk for the plan sponsors. For example, as the fees for participants may become higher, even when the participants may not be receiving any visible benefit.
- Would you like to be involved in managing your plan’s investments? If yes, then you need to get a 3(21) fiduciary, who will share their advice and will let you decide what you should do with your investments.
- How busy are you? If you don’t have time to meet regularly, monitor the investment performance, listen to the recommendations, etc. you will need a 3(38) fiduciary, who will do most decision-making for you
- Do you want to get as much fiduciary protection as possible? If yes, then a 3(38) is what you will need, because their level of fiduciary responsibility is much higher than of a 3(21) fiduciary.
It’s difficult to find experienced people for this subject, however, you seem like you know what you’re talking about! Thanks