Uncategorized

Were State Pensions indirectly funding Jeffrey Epstein via Apollo?

/ ChrisTobe / Leave a comment

I asked ChatGPT questions on Jeffrey Epstein and ties to Apollo and state pensions and it came up with this interesting story.

Here is a structured summary of the known facts and plausible linkages:

🔴 1. Leon Black’s Relationship with Epstein (2000–2018)

  • Black paid Epstein $158 million between 2012 and 2017 for “tax and estate planning services,” even after Epstein’s 2008 conviction for soliciting a minor.
  • Black continued associating with Epstein until at least 2018, including visiting his Manhattan townhouse and wiring large payments through Epstein-controlled entities.
  • A 2021 investigation commissioned by Apollo found that Black used Epstein’s advice personally, but no Apollo funds were allegedly involved.

Sources:

🟠 2. Apollo Clients: Public Pensions with Investments During the Epstein Period

Apollo received billions in commitments from public pensions during the time of Black’s Epstein payments:

🔹 CALPERS (California Public Employees’ Retirement System)

  • CALPERS had over $1 billion committed to Apollo funds throughout the 2000s and 2010s.
  • In 2021, CALPERS publicly expressed concern after the Epstein revelations:

“We are troubled by the allegations surrounding Mr. Black… We are monitoring the situation closely.”
— CALPERS spokesperson, January 2021 (per Reuters)

  • Yet CALPERS continued investing in Apollo funds during this period.

🔹 New York State Common Retirement Fund (NYSCRF)

  • NYSCRF had invested in Apollo funds since at least 2004.
  • No public statements were made regarding the Epstein connection.
  • [State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli] did not comment after the Epstein story broke.

🔹 PSERS (Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System)

  • PSERS invested in Apollo throughout the 2000s and 2010s.
  • In 2021, PSERS halted new investments in Apollo citing “reputational concerns,” though it’s unclear if the Epstein revelations or fee transparency were the primary driver.

Sources:

🔵 3. Epstein’s Financial Ties: Were Public Funds Ever Routed Through Apollo or Epstein Entities?

There is no public evidence that Jeffrey Epstein directly managed or influenced public pension fund assets. However:

  • Epstein had ties to multiple billionaires and institutions that did business with Apollo, such as:
    • Glenn Dubin, co-founder of Highbridge Capital (later acquired by JPMorgan)
    • Les Wexner, former L Brands CEO, who helped fund Epstein early on
  • Epstein had extensive ties to JPMorgan, which continued banking him until 2013. JPMorgan is also a massive pension fund service provider (recordkeeping, private equity).

🟡 4. Legal and Reputational Fallout: Are Fiduciaries Complicit?

Despite:

  • Epstein’s 2008 conviction
  • Ongoing media coverage
  • Black’s continued payments until 2017

Many pension funds continued (or even increased) their allocations to Apollo funds during this time. This raises fiduciary questions, including:

🔹 Did pension fund staff and consultants perform enhanced due diligence after 2008?
🔹 Should ongoing associations with figures like Epstein have triggered ethics reviews or investment committee action?
🔹 Are fiduciaries responsible for investing in firms led by individuals involved in known predatory or criminal associations?

These questions are especially relevant under ERISA’s duty of prudence and loyalty for Taft-Hartley and other quasi-ERISA public funds.

🧾 Summary Table: Epstein–Apollo–Pension Fund Triangulation

EntityRelationship to EpsteinRelationship to ApolloPension Exposure
Leon BlackPaid Epstein $158M; personal and professional relationshipCo-founder, CEO until 2021CALPERS, PSERS, NYSCRF, and others
CALPERSNone directly documentedMajor LP in Apollo PE fundsContinued investment through 2021
PSERSNone directly documentedBarred Apollo in 2021Long-time investor
NYSCRFNo public commentMajor Apollo LPContinued investment
JPMorganEpstein’s bank until 2013; now facing civil suitsCo-investor and counterparty to Apollo in some dealsRecordkeeper and PE manager for public pensions

🔚 Conclusion

While no direct Epstein–public pension link has been publicly documented, the indirect reputational and fiduciary exposure from Apollo’s long-term relationship with Epstein is substantial. The fact that most pensions continued to fund Apollo after Epstein’s first conviction in 2008—and after public reporting of payments—raises critical questions about the due diligence, risk oversight, and accountability of plan fiduciaries.

Apollo Global Management has managed to avoid full accountability despite a history of serious legal and ethical violations involving both misleading fee practices and pay-to-play corruption, largely due to a combination of structural legal advantages, regulatory capture, and a complicit investment culture in the pension fund world. Here’s a breakdown of how Apollo has avoided deeper consequences:

1. SEC Fine in 2016 — No Admission of Guilt

In 2016, Apollo paid $52.7 million to settle SEC charges that it misled investors about:

  • Accelerated monitoring fees after portfolio company sales
  • Failure to disclose conflicts of interest regarding interest from loans made to its funds
  • Inadequate supervision regarding a senior partner’s expense-related misconduct

⚠️ Why this wasn’t true accountability:

  • No criminal charges were filed.
  • Apollo did not admit or deny the allegations.
  • The fine was relatively small compared to Apollo’s multi-billion-dollar asset base.

👉 This is a typical outcome of SEC settlements with large private equity firms: civil penalties, no admissions, and limited deterrent effect.

Source:
SEC Press Release (2016)
AI-CIO Coverage

2. CALPERS Corruption Scandal — Apollo Avoided Legal Exposure

Apollo was deeply entangled in the CALPERS pay-to-play scandal in the 2000s. The scandal involved:

  • Alfred Villalobos former LA Deputy Mayor and CALPERS Trustee as a placement agent was paid millions to steer CALPERS money to Apollo
  • Fred Buenrostro, CALPERS CEO, who forged documents and later pled guilty
  • Apollo paid Villalobos over $48 million in fees between 2002 and 2008

Villalobos committed suicide in 2015 before serving a prison term. Buenrostro was sentenced to 4.5 years in prison.

⚠️ Why Apollo escaped further consequences:

  • Apollo claimed it was defrauded by Villalobos and that it relied on Buenrostro’s forged documents.
  • The DOJ and SEC did not pursue charges against Apollo.
  • The Dodd-Frank Act outlawed such placement-agent arrangements after the fact.

Apollo was later barred by the Pennsylvania Public School Employees’ Retirement System (PSERS) in 2021 due to lingering concerns, a rare action by a major pension.

Sources:

3. Regulatory Capture & Pension Fund Complicity

Despite scandals, Apollo continued to receive allocations from:

  • CALPERS
  • PSERS (until 2021)
  • Other state and union pension funds, even after media coverage of improprieties

⚠️ Key reasons for this continued support:

  • Pension boards and consultants often have conflicts of interest.
  • Limited transparency into private equity fees and arrangements.
  • Consultants and gatekeepers benefit from keeping these relationships intact.

4. Legal and Structural Impunity

Apollo benefits from:

  • Delaware corporate law that limits fiduciary accountability
  • Limited partner agreements that heavily protect general partners
  • Mandatory arbitration clauses that block class actions or public lawsuits
  • Weak enforcement by DOL and SEC, which often ends with settlements

Summary Table: Apollo’s Avoidance of Accountability

IncidentMisconductConsequenceAccountability Gap
2016 SEC FineMisleading fees, self-dealing$52.7M settlement, no admission of guiltNo executives punished
CALPERS ScandalPay-to-play with CEO and trusteeBuenrostro jailed, Villalobos diedApollo faced no charges
PSERS BlacklistPension barred new commitments2021 halt after internal investigationToo little, too late
Broader industry practicesExcessive fees, hidden termsIndustry-wide normalizationLPs and consultants complicit

Conclusion:

Apollo has avoided real accountability not because the facts were unclear, but because:

  • The private equity industry enjoys legal and regulatory insulation.
  • Pension fiduciaries are either unwilling or unable to act.
  • Enforcement agencies are often reactive and understaffed.

Target Date Benchmarks – ChatGPT

/ ChrisTobe / 1 Comment

Target-date funds are over 50% of 401(k) assets.  Litigation around target date funds I think shows a lack of knowledge around investment performance.    Target date funds were created to hide fees and mask performance concerns, and are impossible to benchmark.  In fact, many were created to manipulate benchmarks.   I feel many plaintiff attorneys are not getting the full potential out of their cases by not looking under the hood of Target Date funds to find out what is really going on. 

In my testimony for the June 2009 joint SEC-DOL hearing on target date funds, I contended that it’s huge growth would further concentrate management into an oligopoly and higher fees. I also criticized the target date structure as a step backward for transparency of fees, performance, and risk. I thought it would push plans toward a one-provider, closed platform that would lead to conflicts of interest and higher fees.

Target Date Fund Asset Allocation Drives Risk and Performance

Asset allocation is the main driver of performance and risk.  Because of the lack of transparency and investment policy guidelines, performance gaming of the benchmark in target date funds in invited.  Target date fund specialist Ron Surz warns against target date funds holding high equity allocations for those close to retirement

Joe Nagengast of Target Date Analytics in the June 2009 joint SEC-DOL hearing on target date funds. “The way to win the short-term performance horse race for target date funds (and the resulting market share) has been, in many time periods, through higher equity allocations.”

I asked ChatGPT to elaborate on this issue and specifically benchmarking to the S&P target date fund index

—————————————————————————-

From ChatGPT.  Asset allocation explains ~90% of return variability, then comparing TDFs with vastly different glide paths or allocations is not apples-to-apples.

⚖️ Why It’s a Problem

401(k) Target Date Funds often differ dramatically in:

  • Equity vs. bond allocations (e.g., 90/10 vs. 60/40 at the same “target date”)
  • Glide path design (to retirement vs. through retirement)
  • Exposure to alternatives, real assets, or high-yield bonds
  • Risk levels (volatility and drawdown potential)

So, simply comparing returns (e.g., over 1, 3, or 5 years) may reward higher-risk funds during bull markets, misleading fiduciaries and participants.

🧠 Bottom Line

You cannot responsibly compare TDFs on return alone when their asset allocations diverge. Fiduciaries must benchmark based on:

  • Risk-adjusted performance
  • Glide path risk levels
  • Appropriateness for the participant demographic
  • Alignment with ERISA’s fiduciary standards

ChatGPT said:

benchmarking Target Date Funds (TDFs) to something like the S&P Target Date Fund Index can be misleading and easily gamed, particularly because:

  1. Benchmarks like the S&P Target Date Index only reflect the average allocation (e.g., average equity/glidepath of funds in that vintage),
  2. There is no requirement that the TDF match the risk profile of the benchmark, and
  3. A higher equity allocation will often outperform the benchmark in bull markets, misleading fiduciaries into thinking the fund is “better managed” rather than just riskier.

🔎 How This Benchmarking Can Be Gamed

TDF managers can “game” the benchmark by:

  • Allocating more to equities (especially international or small-cap)
  • Taking more duration risk in bonds
  • Adding alternative assets like private equity or real estate (often with smoothed NAVs)
  • Using leverage (in CITs especially)

These tactics may result in higher performance in a rising market compared to the benchmark, even though the fund is taking on significantly more risk.

📊 Examples of Equity Overweighting vs. Benchmark

Let’s compare some common 2040 TDFs with the S&P Target Date 2040 Index, which in 2024 had approximately:

  • Equity: ~74%
  • Fixed Income: ~24%
  • Cash/Other: ~2%
Target Date FundEquity AllocationOverweight vs S&P IndexComments
Fidelity Freedom 2040 (Investor)~84%+10%Higher US equity tilt, more aggressive glidepath
T. Rowe Price Retirement 2040~89%+15%Very equity-heavy approach; often leads in returns in bull markets
American Funds 2040~78%+4%Slight overweight, includes active mgmt in underlying funds
Vanguard Target Retirement 2040~72%-2%Closest to S&P Index; more conservative relative to peers
BlackRock LifePath Index 2040~74%0%Benchmarked tightly to average; often used as a baseline
State Street Target Retirement 2040 (CIT)~78%+4%Slightly more risk in equity; often embeds alternatives in CITs

Sources: Fund prospectuses, Morningstar, 2024 allocation snapshots

⚠️ Fiduciary Implications under ERISA

  • Plan fiduciaries may be misled into thinking a fund is “better performing” when it simply takes more risk.
  • Impartial Conduct Standards under ERISA require fiduciaries to consider both performance and risk—a higher return via higher risk is not inherently better.
  • Courts may ask: Did the fiduciary understand that this TDF’s outperformance came from taking more risk than the benchmark?
  • This is especially risky when plan sponsors do not document why they selected or retained a more aggressive fund.

🧠

2. How Much Does It Matter?

  • The 1986 Brinson, Hood & Beebower (BHB) study found that asset allocation explained 93.6% of the variation in quarterly returns of pension fund portfolios.
  • Later updates and critiques (e.g., by Ibbotson & Kaplan in 2000) clarified that while asset allocation doesn’t explain everything, it still dominates over market timing or security selection in terms of predicting return variability.
    • Strategic asset allocation (long-term mix) accounts for about 90% of return variability.
    • Tactical allocation, timing, and security selection account for much less.

3. Impact on Performance vs. Variability

  • Asset allocation drives risk-adjusted returns, not just variability.
  • Picking the right mix of stocks, bonds, and alternatives greatly affects total returns, especially over longer horizons.
  • During market crises or recoveries, asset classes behave very differently—diversification reduces drawdowns.

Key Takeaway

  • TDFs should not be benchmarked only on return versus the S&P TDF Index—risk-adjusted performance and glidepath assumptions matter. A 2040 fund with 90% equity will likely beat the benchmark in good years, but may collapse harder in downturns—especially harming near-retirement investors if the glidepath is too steep.

There are no valid benchmarks for Target Date Funds.  Comparing funds with different asset allocations does not work either.  Target date funds are specifically designed to avoid accountability and thus need the most scrutiny. You have to look under the hood at the individual investment allocations and benchmark those.   Attorneys are defying investment principles and basic math in insisting on using TDF benchmarks in litigation.

Hiding Private Equity in 401(k) Target Date Funds risks the entire TDF as a Prohibited Transaction- ChatGPT

/ ChrisTobe / 1 Comment

Hiding Private Equity in 401(k) Target Date Funds risks the entire TDF as a Prohibited Transaction- ChatGPT

Because Private Equity is clearly an ERISA prohibited transaction,  https://commonsense401kproject.com/2025/07/02/private-equity-is-a-prohibited-transaction-via-chat-gpt/  it can create the false illusion that it adds value to a portfolio like a Target Date fund by overstating performance and understating risks.   As I testified to the ERISA advisory committee last year, SEC-registered mutual funds will not allow this ruse, but that weak state-regulated Collective Investment Trusts (CIT’s) would. https://commonsense401kproject.com/2025/06/29/erisa-advisory-council-testimony-released/ 

Target Date funds that allocate to Private Equity, can become Prohibited Transactions.

I asked ChatGPT how Private Equity cheats on performance and risk.  

⚠️ Core Concern:

Private Equity (PE) self-reports inflated returns and artificially smooths volatility, which distorts inputs used in mean-variance optimization (MVO), risk-parity models, and target-date glidepaths.

🔍 How the Distortion Happens:

1. Self-Reported, Marked-to-Model Valuations

  • Unlike publicly traded equities, PE funds are not marked to market.
  • General Partners (GPs) have wide latitude in determining “fair value” using Level 3 inputs under GAAP/IFRS.
  • There’s no external price discovery like in public markets—creating upward bias in reported IRRs and TVPIs.

Example: GPs may hold a portfolio company at $2.3B valuation for 12 months—until a sale occurs at $1.8B, but all the prior return models assumed $2.3B.

2. Return Smoothing Reduces Apparent Risk

  • PE firms smooth returns by reporting only quarterly, and avoiding mark-downs in downturns unless forced (e.g., in LP secondaries).
  • This lowers measured standard deviation, making PE appear less risky than it truly is.

Ludovic Phalippou, in multiple SSRN papers, shows that real economic volatility of PE is closer to or greater than public equities, but accounting practices mask this.

3. Low Correlation Is Largely an Illusion

  • PE is often shown to have low correlation with the S&P 500 or public equity indices.
  • This is not because the underlying assets are fundamentally different—but because quarterly smoothed valuations fail to reflect the real-time economic correlation.

Empirical studies (e.g., Ang, Chen, Goetzmann 2013) show that lagged public-equity returns can explain much of PE fund performance.

📉 Implications for Asset Allocation Models:

1. Misleading Inputs into MVO and Risk Budgeting

  • MVO and Black-Litterman-type optimizations overweight PE due to inflated Sharpe ratios (high returns / low volatility).
  • Allocators wrongly assume PE offers high return with diversifying low risk.

2. Target-Date Funds and Pension Glides Paths Are Over-Allocating

  • Plan sponsors may use PE-heavy CITs or TDFs based on deceptively low risk and attractive correlation stats.
  • This is especially problematic in state-regulated CITs, where oversight of inputs is weak.

3. Stress Testing Fails to Capture Liquidity & Downside Risk

  • Smoothing hides tail risk and liquidity gaps during downturns (e.g., GFC, COVID).
  • PE dry powder and capital calls may spike just when public markets are down.

🔎 Supporting Academic and Regulatory Sources

  • Ludovic Phalippou, “An Inconvenient Fact: Private Equity Returns & the Billionaire Factory”
    → Calls out manipulated IRRs, opaque fees, and correlation illusions.
  • Andrew Ang (Columbia/BlackRock)
    → PE appears low beta only due to infrequent marking; in reality, it is leveraged equity.
  • U.S. SEC under Gensler has warned of valuation opacity and risk-model distortions in private funds.
  • CFA Institute (2021 paper):
    “Asset Allocation to Alternative Investments” (CFA Institute, 2025):
    Highlights that illiquid assets often have stale and artificially smoothed returns, recommends testing for serial correlation, and states clearly that analysts “need to unsmooth the returns to get a more accurate representation of the risk and return characteristics of the asset class.” blogs.cfainstitute.org+13cfainstitute.org+13
  • 2019 SSRN paper “Unsmoothing Returns of Illiquid Assets” by Couts, Gonçalves, and Rossi, which critiques existing methods and proposes a novel three-step unsmoothing technique—highly relevant for private equity modeling. papers.ssrn.com+2
  •  

🧨 Bottom Line:

Private equity appears safer and more diversifying than it really is because it controls its own marks.
This undermines the integrity of asset allocation models and can lead to over-allocation, particularly in pensions, endowments, and TDFs.

This misrepresentation may expose fiduciaries to legal risks under ERISA’s Impartial Conduct Standards or trust law’s duty of prudence—especially if they’ve failed to adjust for these distortions.

These distortions also apply to private debt, hedge funds, real estate, and other ERISA prohibited transactions like Crypto https://commonsense401kproject.com/2025/07/03/crypto-is-erisa-prohibited-transaction-chatgpt-do-not-use-in-401k/

And Annuities  https://commonsense401kproject.com/2025/06/13/annuities-are-prohibited-transactions-via-chat-gpt/

Target Date funds that use any inputs that are prohibited transactions are at a high risk of making the entire TDF a Prohibited Transaction.

Crypto is ERISA Prohibited Transaction – ChatGPT – do not use in 401(k)

/ ChrisTobe / Leave a comment

I asked this question

How can cryptocurrency not be an ERISA Prohibited Transaction under the Impartial Conduct Standards? Is Bitcoin different than other types? Does putting Crypto in an ETF fix it?

ChatGPT said:

Great question—cryptocurrency, including Bitcoin, poses serious risks under ERISA’s fiduciary and prohibited transaction rules, especially when evaluated through the lens of the Impartial Conduct Standards (ICS) issued by the Department of Labor (DOL) in the context of the Fiduciary Rule and PTE 2020-02.

Let’s break this down:

🔹 ERISA Fiduciary Duties & Impartial Conduct Standards

Under ERISA, fiduciaries must:

  1. Act prudently (duty of care)
  2. Act loyally (duty of loyalty—no self-dealing or conflicts)
  3. Pay only reasonable compensation
  4. Not make misleading statements or omissions

The Impartial Conduct Standards, applicable to rollovers and IRA advice under PTE 2020-02, reinforce these duties and apply broadly when fiduciaries recommend or select investments for ERISA-covered plans or IRAs.

🔶 Why Cryptocurrency (like Bitcoin) Often Violates These Standards

  1. Lack of a prudent process:
    • DOL issued Compliance Assistance Release 2022-01 warning fiduciaries to “exercise extreme care” before including crypto in retirement plans.
    • Crypto’s volatility, speculative nature, custodial risks, and regulatory uncertainty raise prudence red flags.
  2. Duty of loyalty / potential for conflicts:
    • Many crypto providers (e.g., exchanges, fund managers) stand to profit from high fees or self-dealing structures.
    • Fiduciaries recommending crypto could be conflicted if they share revenue, hold equity in crypto firms, or lack independence.
  3. Reasonable compensation:
    • Many crypto platforms and funds (e.g., Grayscale Bitcoin Trust) charge excessive fees relative to the risk/return profile—potentially violating the “reasonable compensation” standard.
  4. Risk of misleading statements:
    • Marketing crypto as “hedges against inflation,” “digital gold,” or “safe diversification” can be misleading if not backed by robust fiduciary analysis.

⚖️ Prohibited Transaction Risk

Crypto holdings may involve:

  • Conflicted compensation (e.g., revenue-sharing with crypto platforms),
  • Use of plan assets in self-dealing by fiduciaries or related parties,
  • Indirect party-in-interest transactions, such as recommending affiliated crypto custodians or ETFs.

This could trigger ERISA §§ 406(a) and 406(b) violations unless a DOL exemption applies—and none exist specific to crypto.

🔹 Is Bitcoin Different from Other Cryptocurrencies?

Yes, Bitcoin is viewed somewhat differently, but it’s not exempt from fiduciary scrutiny:

  • Bitcoin is not a security, per SEC Chair Gensler (most others are), which may reduce some regulatory hurdles.
  • Bitcoin has longer history, greater liquidity, and institutional acceptance than most altcoins.
  • However, its volatility, custodial concerns, and speculative nature still pose ICS and prudence issues under ERISA.

🔹 Does Putting Bitcoin in an ETF Solve the Problem?

Not necessarily. Using a Bitcoin ETF (e.g., BlackRock’s IBIT or Grayscale’s GBTC) addresses some custodial and valuation issues, but fiduciary risks remain:

  • Still speculative and volatile—may not meet prudence test.
  • High fees (especially with trusts like GBTC) may violate “reasonable compensation.”
  • ETF sponsor conflicts (e.g., marketing fees, cross-selling) may still trigger 406(b) violations.
  • DOL has not approved any PTE specific to crypto ETFs in retirement plans.

🔍 Key DOL Guidance & Enforcement

  • 2022 DOL Crypto Guidance: Warned fiduciaries about crypto’s inclusion in 401(k)s; issued investigative subpoenas to plans considering it.
  • ForUsAll v. DOL: Lawsuit over DOL’s crypto warning; DOL defended its authority to flag fiduciary risks.
  • Ongoing enforcement: DOL is watching this space closely and likely to bring enforcement actions if crypto is imprudently included in plans.

✅ Summary

QuestionCrypto (esp. Bitcoin) in DC Plans
Is it a Prohibited Transaction under ERISA?Very likely yes unless clearly exempt and without conflicts
Does it violate the Impartial Conduct Standards?Often yes — due to volatility, lack of prudence, high fees, and conflicts
Is Bitcoin treated differently?Slightly, but not enough to justify inclusion
Does a Bitcoin ETF fix this?No — may reduce some risks, but not prudence or ICS violations

📌 Bottom Line for Fiduciaries

Unless crypto becomes clearly supported by regulatory exemptions, has stable pricing, low fees, and a credible long-term track record in retirement portfolios, its inclusion in ERISA plans is a high-risk move likely to draw litigation and regulatory scrutiny.

Private Equity is a Prohibited Transaction

/ ChrisTobe / Leave a comment

I have been writing about Private Equity not meeting the criteria for exemptions from being classified as Prohibited Transactions in ERISA plans. https://commonsense401kproject.com/2025/01/01/private-equity-in-401k-plans-a-fiduciary-minefield-for-plan-sponsors/  I haven’t received negative feedback from the industry, nor much input from those in financial transparency.  

⚖️ 1. Why It Should Be a Prohibited Transaction

Private Equity products often:

  • Charge high, opaque fees (violating the reasonable compensation prong),
  • Rely on complex, non-transparent disclosures (violating the no misleading statements prong),
  • Are marketed by non-fiduciary parties (violating care and loyalty obligations),
  • Fail to accept ERISA fiduciary status in the PE offering documents, disclaiming responsibility.

This makes them vulnerable on all four elements of the Impartial Conduct Standards, which apply to the DOL’s Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) 2020-02 that governs conflicts of interest.

So, on its face, allowing Private Equity into 401(k)s should be a prohibited transaction unless a strong exemption applies.

🧩 2. How PE Tries to Avoid Prohibited Transaction Classification

Despite these red flags, here’s how PE sponsors and platforms often try to thread the needle:

A. Structuring through Commingled Products

PE is typically offered via:

  • Target Date Funds (TDFs) or
  • Collective Investment Trusts (CITs)
    These are multi-manager, pooled vehicles in which PE is only a sleeve. The fiduciary responsibilities then shift to the TDF or CIT manager, who may be a fiduciary — but the underlying PE managers are not.

➤ This layering dilutes fiduciary clarity and avoids direct ERISA responsibility for the PE firms themselves.

B. Relying on the DOL’s 2020 “Information Letter”

The Department of Labor’s 2020 Information Letter (requested by Pantheon and Partners Group) did not bless PE in DC plans, but it did not ban it either. It merely said:

“…a plan fiduciary would not violate the duties of prudence and loyalty per se by including PE as a component of a diversified investment option.”

This gave cover — but did not offer an exemption or remove fiduciary obligations. Yet many sponsors are treating it as a green light.

C. Outsourcing Fiduciary Responsibility

Plan sponsors may rely on third-party investment consultants (e.g., Mercer, Aon, Callan) or TDF providers (e.g., BlackRock, Fidelity) and claim reliance on prudence of the delegated manager.

However, delegation does not absolve fiduciary liability under ERISA § 405 (co-fiduciary liability), especially if the sponsor fails to monitor the advisor or conduct due diligence on PE’s costs, liquidity, and performance opacity.

📉 3. Why This Still Fails Under the Impartial Conduct Standards

The Impartial Conduct Standards (ICS) were developed under the DOL fiduciary rule and carried into PTE 2020-02, which applies when there are conflicted recommendations (e.g., plan fiduciaries profiting from fund inclusion or relying on conflicted consultants).

Private Equity fails ICS because:

  • Fees and valuation models are rarely benchmarked objectively.
  • Performance data is not standardized (e.g., IRRs vs. time-weighted returns).
  • Contracts often contain waivers of fiduciary duty, arbitration, or non-transparent fee disclosures.
  • There is often no fiduciary warranty under ERISA by the PE provider.

This opens the door to prohibited transaction claims, especially if the PE recommendation:

  • Directly or indirectly benefits the advisor/fiduciary financially.
  • Lacks documentation of a prudent process.

⚖️ 4. What Would Trigger Liability

Plaintiffs could pursue claims under:

  • ERISA §406(a) (dealing with conflicts of interest/self-dealing),
  • ERISA §404(a) (fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty),
  • And potentially ICS violations under PTE 2020-02.

Courts and regulators could hold:

  • Plan fiduciaries liable for imprudence or prohibited transactions,
  • PE managers liable if they acted as de facto fiduciaries or benefited from self-dealing.

I think any plan sponsor who is pitched a Target date fund with any Private Equity, however small, to be wary.    Private Equity will sneak into Target Date Funds first, maybe at 5% then grow to perhaps 20% to increase fees.   BlackRock and Empower are cutting deals in which I believe they are getting lucrative fees from Private Equity in exchange for taking the fiduciary liability for the Private Equity in their target date funds.  I would think when looking at the Private Equity sleave, it would be a party in interest.   My contention is that if the Private Equity sleeve is a prohibited transaction, then the entire target date fund is a prohibited transaction. 

ERISA Advisory Council Testimony released

/ ChrisTobe / 3 Comments

Our (Chris Tobe, CFA,CAIA & James Watkins Esq) summary of our testimony from July 24 on QDIAs in 401ks to the ERISA Advisory Council was released. Of the many witnesses I believe Jim and I urged the most caution and emphasized the need for transparency. You can read the full reports at https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/EBSA/about-ebsa/about-us/erisa-advisory-council/2024-qdia.pdf https://www.psca.org/news/psca-news/2025/5/full-qdia-report-released-by-erisa-advisory-council/

Our portion is below –

 Investment Fiduciaries James Watkins and Chris Tobe 

James Watkins is an attorney with Invest Sense LLC. His current practice provides forensic fiduciary audits for plans and other trustees. Chris Tobe is the Chief Investment Officer for the Hackett Robertson Tobe Group. He works as a consultant to retirement plans and serves as a litigation consultant.

Mr. Watkins stated there are three cases that he refers to as the “responsibility trinity,” that defines the area of fiduciary responsibility right now: 1. Tibble v. Edison – recognized the Restatement of Trusts (Restatement) as a legitimate resource in resolving fiduciary issues and ruled that a plan sponsor has an ongoing fiduciary duty to monitor plan investment options for prudence 2. Hughes v. Northwestern – ruled that a plan sponsor has a fiduciary duty to ensure that each investment option within a plan is prudent and to remove any that are not 3. Brotherston v. Putnam – ruled that comparable index funds can be used for benchmarking purposes, citing Section 100 b(1) of the Restatement, that index funds are proper comparators Mr. Watkins stressed that he is a big proponent of cost benefit analysis and believes the math is not that hard to do, especially as it is being used to determine whether an investment is in the best interest of a participant. Mr. Watkins stated that the industry does not support his focus on cost benefit analysis given studies that show the majority of actively managed funds are not cost efficient.

   Regarding annuities within a QDIA, Mr. Watkins noted that he most often is asked by the plan sponsor considering an in-plan annuity solution whether a participant can get out of it, and if so, how. Mr. Watkins’s understanding is the only way a participant can get out of an annuity without harsh tax penalties is to do a 1035 exchange (a tax-free exchange of an existing annuity contract, life insurance policy, or endowment for another of like kind). Mr. Watkins stated that he is aware of a lot of annuity providers trying to embed annuities into target date funds within qualified plans. He suggested that this raises the question about the 50 feasibility of a 1035 exchange in a qualified plan, and whether it is the only way you can make this move or can a participant make an exchange from a like product to another like product.

  Mr. Watkins thinks that enhanced disclosures should be provided to participants with the appropriate information to ensure that they understand the annuity product, which should include the conditions for them to “break even” and how that would work if they were to surrender the annuity contract. Mr. Watkins stated that, if annuities are embedded in QDIAs, there needs to be much more meaningful, clear, and simple disclosures provided to enable the participant to make an informed decision and comply with IRC section 404(c). Mr. Watkins concluded by stating he does not believe annuities should be offered in a plan nor specifically in a QDIA. If ERISA does not require that a plan offer guaranteed income products or annuities, he does not see a reason to do so. His biggest concern is that once a participant is in an annuity, they lose control and are locked in. Mr. Watkins was asked if he has seen any ERISA 3(38) fiduciaries (those who have the authority to buy and sell assets, make strategic decisions, and otherwise handle all aspects of account investing) implementing annuity solutions in collective investment trusts or in unregistered products. He indicated that many plan sponsors are encountering products embedded in collective investment trusts and a lot of proprietary products. He believes that collective investment trusts are not transparent enough and participants do not understand or have access to information, as they would in a mutual fund that posts information in a newspaper or Morningstar. He stated that collective investment trusts typically do not publicly publish their performance results or their fees.

  Mr. Tobe began his testimony by stating that target date funds hold 50% of all 401(k) assets and thinks they deserve more fiduciary oversight by regulatory agencies. Historically, TDFs have been primarily offered in mutual funds registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), but the trend is that more target date assets are flowing into weakly regulated state collective investment trusts. The SEC does not allow investments in annuities, crypto currency, and private equity, for example, in mutual funds. By contrast, state-governed collective investment trusts do permit these types of investments, and do not offer the same level of disclosures and transparency as mutual funds. They also have lower capital requirements as well. 51 Mr. Tobe suggested the Council should examine federally-regulated investment vehicles being used as they are more transparent. He believes that collective investment trusts should become federally-regulated rather than being regulated at a state level. He noted that there are some collective investment trusts that are superior to mutual funds because they are “clones of a mutual fund” but have lower fees.

    In his opinion, the collective investment trusts being offered by insurance companies are deploying illiquid investments (annuities, private equity). He stated that this is just a way to get highpriced annuities into the mainstream target date fund solutions. He raised concerns that there are no requirements for the insurance companies to disclose interest spreads, and that there is no transparency into the revenue that the insurance companies are earning. Mr. Tobe believes that QDIAs should be held to the highest standard, that all investments should be held to the highest federal standards, such as compliance with Global Investment Performance Standards, and that the Department should be pushing for more transparency for collective investment trusts. Mr. Tobe testified that he would not recommend annuities, private equity or crypto currency in any DC plan or embedded in a QDIA as those investments are too expensive and risky right now. When asked how participants should protect themselves from market volatility, Mr. Tobe suggested that a participant should move into the lowest risk target date fund; annuities bear embedded risks that are not readily transparent to the holder. He believes that annuities could be downgraded and that insurance companies have high default risk that translates to high risk for that component of a participants’ investment. He stated that the risks for partial annuitization are the same until there is more transparency and information on annuities.

Mr. Watkins stated that a lot of the concerns could be addressed if the insurance companies could guarantee that annuities could provide a commensurate return, but historically that has been very expensive.

  Some Council members noted this was inconsistent with their professional experience and 52 suggested it should be researched further. Members of Council also questioned the witnesses’ opinions regarding the insurance companies default risks, noting that historical failure of insurance companies has been very low and less than 0.03%.

When asked where they would want to see changes that would provide them with comfort with the annuity products, Mr. Tobe suggested federal regulations that oversee the insurance agencies, coordinated in partnership with the Department for ERISA-based assets. When asked what level of fees and risk would satisfy the witnesses that a product is worthwhile, Mr. Watkins responded that the issuer would need to provide a cost benefit analysis that shows the return and guarantee. Mr. Tobe also offered a detailed example of how to diversify over 4 to 5 insurance companies to minimize the default risk and use synthetic stable value-like solutions for annuities to keep the fees low.   

   When asked if defined contribution plans should only use mutual funds due to their greater transparency, Mr. Tobe replied no and that he would rather see greater transparency requirements for collective investment trusts.

State Guarantee Associations behind Annuities are a Joke

/ ChrisTobe / Leave a comment

State Guaranty Associations are so flimsy that none are rated by S&P or Moody’s.  There is no money in them, the reserves are not in the association, only in the companies themselves. 

Most did not even pay out claims in the last major default, Executive Life – only Illinois and Pennsylvania associations made partial payments, only after court orders.

I asked ChatGPT about Guarantee Associations in the context of an ERISA Fiduciary and got the following response.

⚖️ ERISA Fiduciary Standards vs. State Guaranty Associations

1. Duty of Prudence and Care (§404(a)(1)(B))

ERISA requires fiduciaries to act:

“with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing…”

  • SIGAs do not meet the “prudent expert” standard.
    A prudent expert would not rely on:
    • An entity with no prefunding or reserve capital
    • No federal backing
    • No credit rating from any recognized rating agency
    • A history of failure to pay during systemic defaults (e.g., Executive Life)
  • As you noted, only Illinois and Pennsylvania eventually made partial payouts, and only after litigation. That alone defeats the fiduciary standard of prudent selection and monitoring.

2. Duty of Loyalty (§404(a)(1)(A))

Fiduciaries must act solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits.

  • If a fiduciary chooses an annuity or insurance-based structure based on a belief that the SIGA will protect beneficiaries, without disclosing its inadequacy, they may be violating their loyalty duty.
  • Relying on industry marketing or regulatory illusion about SIGAs—when informed sources (like the Federal Reserve, EU regulators, and academics) have raised red flags—could be seen as self-serving or negligent.

3. Duty to Monitor and Evaluate Risk

ERISA fiduciaries must continually evaluate risks and the financial condition of providers.

  • Given the known systemic risks, including:
    • Private equity ownership of insurers (Kirti & Sarin 2020)
    • Long-duration illiquid assets in General Accounts
    • Minimal real oversight by state regulators
    • EU regulator concern in 2017 about systemic fragility of U.S. insurance regulation

…it’s arguable that no prudent fiduciary should rely solely—or even primarily—on SIGAs as a source of security.

📚 Supporting Academic and Regulatory Warnings

  • Lambert & Tobe (2024) – Warn of “a possible US retirement crisis” driven by misleading safety claims of annuities.
  • Todd & Wallace (1992, Fed Minneapolis) – Exposed the moral hazard of undercapitalized SIGAs and deceptive perceptions of insurance safety.
  • Perez (2016) – Documents political interference and regulatory capture at the state level.
  • EU Concerns (2017) – EU regulators raised cross-border solvency concerns for U.S. insurers, especially given weak state regulation.

🚫 What This Means for Fiduciary Actions

ERISA fiduciaries should not rely on State Guaranty Associations as a primary or sufficient reason to:

  • Justify annuity purchases for pension risk transfers (PRTs) or 401(k) plans.
  • Accept insurer counterparty risk without thorough, independent due diligence.
  • Claim “safety” without disclosing SIGA limits, lack of reserves, and legal uncertainty.

Instead, fiduciaries should:

  • Require contractual provisions for downgrade protections and capital reserves.
  • Insist on federal-level guarantees or fully collateralized structures.
  • Disclose the inadequacy of SIGAs in plan documents and fiduciary reports.

🧾 Bottom Line

State Guaranty Associations offer the illusion of safety, not the substance.
No fiduciary acting under the ERISA standard of prudence and loyalty should rely on them as a meaningful risk mitigator.

Annuities are Prohibited Transactions

/ ChrisTobe / 1 Comment

I have been writing extensively on my blog about annuities not meeting the criteria for exemptions from being classified as ERISA Prohibited Transactions.  https://commonsense401kproject.com/2025/05/10/annuities-flunk-prohibited-transactions-exemption-scotus-ruling-will-open-floodgates-of-litigation/

 

First I started with the four pillars of the DOL’s Impartial Conduct Standards under PTE 2020‑02:

A. Care Obligation
B. Loyalty Obligation
C. Reasonable Compensation
D. No Materially Misleading Statements (including omissions)

Many annuity sales into ERISA plans currently fail one or more of these obligations, particularly with respect to:

  • Hidden spread compensation,
  • Inadequate due diligence on the general account backing the annuity,
  • Opaque or omitted disclosures,
  • And advisors who do not formally acknowledge fiduciary status in writing.

Have Any Annuity Contracts Accepted ERISA Fiduciary Responsibility?

✅ Very Few — and Almost Never in the Contract Itself

In general:

  • Group annuity contracts (e.g., used in 401(k) plans or defined benefit de-risking) may be accompanied by side agreements or representations from advisors, but:
    • The insurance contract itself typically does not declare the insurer (or even the selling agent) as a fiduciary.
    • Fiduciary acknowledgments, if they exist, come in the form of separate representations or appendices (required under PTE 2020-02 or 84-24).

🟥 In Most Cases:

  • Insurers explicitly disclaim fiduciary status in contracts.
  • Brokers or agents resist fiduciary acknowledgments—unless they’re affiliated RIAs under pressure.
  • Disclosure documents are vague, omitting spread compensation or how crediting rates are determined.

Examples of Industry Practice:

1. Disclaiming Fiduciary Status

Many annuity providers include contract clauses like:

“The insurer and its agents are not acting in a fiduciary capacity under ERISA or any applicable law in connection with the sale of this product.”

2. Delegating Due Diligence to the Plan Sponsor

Even in group annuity settings (e.g., stable value GICs, fixed annuity options), the language often places full fiduciary duty on the plan sponsor, e.g.:

“The Plan Fiduciary represents that it has independently evaluated the investment and insurance features of this contract.”

3. PTE 84-24 Acknowledgments—But Weakly Enforced

Some insurers may have separate PTE 84‑24 disclosure forms, which technically acknowledge:

  • Reasonable compensation,
  • Advisor acting in the best interest,
  • No misleading info.

But in practice, these are often:

  • Not thoroughly explained to the plan,
  • Signed by non-fiduciary agents,
  • Not integrated into the contract,
  • Poorly documented or monitored.

Recommendations for Plan Sponsors

If a plan is considering an annuity product under ERISA, the following should be required:

  1. Fiduciary Acknowledgment Letter — from the advisor or insurer.
  2. PTE 2020-02 or 84-24 Compliance Certificate — signed and included with plan records.
  3. Full Disclosure Statement — fees, conflicts, and spread compensation outlined clearly.
  4. Contract Review — ensure it doesn’t disclaim fiduciary responsibility while shifting burden to the sponsor.

———————————————————————————————————–

CONCLUSION

I am hopeful that the new SCOTUS decision will guide judges to compel them to disclose in discovery https://commonsense401kproject.com/2025/04/21/scotus-9-0-erisa-decision-in-cunningham-v-cornell-university-case-confirms-my-view-on-annuities-as-prohibited-transactions/. These spreads, which I feel in most cases are excessive, could be used to measure damages. 

Annuities flunk Prohibited Transactions Exemption – SCOTUS ruling will open floodgates of litigation.

/ ChrisTobe / Leave a comment

Annuities have always flunked but no one has ever challenged them because of their total lack of transparency.  Now with SCOTUS Cornell decision, the burden of proof has shifted to the plans to defend why they think annuities are exempt from being prohibited transactions, and for the most part they are clueless.

Most annuities in most DC plans are labeled “parties in interest” because they have a relationship with the administrator/recordkeeper.   This relationship creates a potential conflict of interest and labeled a Prohibited Transaction.  A Prohibited Transaction Exemption (PTE) must be used to include the annuities in the plan.

PTE’s are subject to the ERISA Impartial Conduct Standards which are a set of requirements for fiduciaries providing investment advice to retirement investors, ensuring they act in the best interest of the client, receive reasonable compensation, and avoid making misleading statements. 

Annuities for decades have claimed Prohibited transaction exemptions behind PTE 84-24 and more recently PTE 2020-02 with few challenges or any accountability.[1]  However, the recent SCOTUS decision clearly says plans are responsible for verifying that their investments qualify for the prohibited transaction exemptions.  The PTEs that apply to the insurance products they put in their plans where most are “parties in interest” must meet the Impartial Conduct Standards.[2]     

Judge Lynn when ruling on Fixed Index Annuities in 2017 stated   Because “insurers generally reserve rights to change participation rates, interest caps, and fees,” FIAs can “effectively transfer investment risks from insurers to investors.”[3]  this control by insurers clearly violates Impartial Conduct Standards.[4]  

ERISA PTE 84-24, which is based on the Restatement of Trust, states the annuities must meet the following requirements called the Impartial Conduct Standards and Written Disclosures and Policies and Procedures backing up these standards.  Most annuities I have seen do not even come close.

The Impartial Conduct Standards have 4 major obligations.   A. Care Obligation    B. Loyalty Obligation C. Reasonable compensation limitation D. No materially misleading statements (including by omission)

Care Obligation This obligation reflects the care, skill, prudence, and diligence – similar to Prudent Person Fiduciary standard.   Diversification is one of the most basic fiduciary duties. Under the CFA pension trustee standard for acting with prudence and reasonable care the plan should seek appropriate levels of diversification.[5]    Fixed annuities flunk this diversification test with single entity credit and liquidity risk. [6] 

The Federal Reserve in April 2025 said “Life insurers continued to hold a significant share of risky and illiquid assets on their balance sheets” [7]  Under the CFA pension trustee standard Principle #3 to Act with skill competence and diligence it cites need for awareness of investments liquidity, and any other risks.  Certain types of investments …necessitate more thorough investigation and understanding than do fundamental investments, such as straightforward and transparent equity, fixed-income, or mutual fund products   Annuities call for more diligence by sponsors which needs to be fully documented by plans.  Plan sponsors could mitigate this credit and liquidity risk in their annuity contracts with downgrade clauses which allow liquidity at book value if the annuity issuer is downgraded but these type clauses have not been adopted for most plans.[8]

Loyalty Obligation Annuity contracts are designed to avoid all fiduciary obligation with no loyalty to participants. Diligence is nearly impossible with misleading, nontransparent contracts, and the lack of plan/participant ownership of securities. Secret kickbacks and commissions place the financial interests of the Insurers and their affiliates over those of retirement investors.  The new fiduciary rule requires the advisor to show their loyalty with a “Fiduciary Acknowledgement Disclosure.” which has been strongly opposed by the Annuity industry.   Plans typically agree to Annuity contracts that avoid any fiduciary language or responsibility on the part of the issuer. [9]   The Federal Reserve in 1992 exposed the varying weak state regulatory and reserve claims and most plans are not even aware of which state issued their annuity contract.[10]

Reasonable compensation limitation Annuities have a total lack of disclosure of profits, fees and compensation – effectively denying any chance for a prospective purchaser to make an “informed decision.”  CFA Institute Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS) are transparency standards on performance and fees. Annuities typically do not comply with CFA GIPS standards.[11]

Noted Morningstar analyst John Rekenthaler said in April 2022 that in selecting 401(k) investment options, “inappropriate are investments that don’t price daily.”  Annuities typically do not price daily and do not provide valuation transparency.[12]

A number of lawsuits have settled with claims of excessive secret fees and spreads in annuities. An insurance executive bragged at a conference of fees over 200 basis points (2%) in 2013. [13]  In a report, Morningstar acknowledges that annuities fees inside 401(k) plans are challenging to understand.  ‘No insurer tells you what is in the spread.’    ‘Insurance firms collect a spread”[14]     I was quoted on NBC that the TIAA Fixed Annuity made spread fees of around 120 basis points.  TIAA makes $billions in undisclosed profits on their fixed annuity products. TIAA annuity has been called the company’s profit “engine” driving $46.2  in bonuses to their top five executives.[15]    These IPG fixed annuity contracts have been characterized by DC plan group NAGDCA as having serious fiduciary issues with hidden fees.  “Due to the fact that the plan sponsor does not own the underlying investments, the portfolio holdings, performance, risk, and management fees are generally not disclosed. This limits the ability of plan sponsors to compare returns with other SVFs [stable-value funds]. It also makes it nearly impossible for plan sponsors to know the fees (which can be increased without disclosure) paid by participants in these funds—a critical component of a fiduciary’s responsibility “ [16] 

No materially misleading statements (including by omission) Annuities have numerous material misleading statements in their contracts, including the total lack of disclosure of spread/fees.   Under the CFA pension trustee standard for policies Trustees should … draft written policies that include a discussion of risk tolerances, return objectives, liquidity requirements.[17] Plans with annuities many times do not have Investment Policy Statements or weak IPS that do not provide transparency or accountability for the annuities.[18]

The Annuity industry thrives on secret commissions.[19]  The GAO and Senator Warren reported on these commissions.[20] The annuity industry has fought the so-called Biden Fiduciary rule which would expose many annuity commissions in 401(k) plans.   The annuity industry trade group that coordinates weak state insurance commissioners National Association Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) best interest rule was ridiculed by a DOL Official “compensation is not considered a conflict of interest,” All 50 State Insurance Commissioners have rejected Fiduciary standards by adopting the NAIC best interest rules.[21]

Annuities claim principal protection, but some fixed annuity contracts recently have “broken the buck” and violated their contracts by forcing significant losses on participants.  The written disclosures under weak state regulations omit critical information on risks and fees also prevents any opportunity for an “informed decision.”

Conclusion

Annuities clearly flunk all 4 major obligations of the Impartial Conduct Standards and are not exempt as Prohibited Transactions. 

Plans with annuities have huge fiduciary liabilities which grow larger each year.  With the new Supreme Court Case CunninghamV.Cornell the risk of litigation, and potential damages have grown greatly. [22]  Within 2 weeks of the decision a case of annuities as prohibited transactions has already been filed.

Plan sponsors should amend their Annuity contracts to at least stop the growth of fiduciary liability.

1. A Most Favored Nation (MFN) clause to make sure they have the best rate/largest payouts/ lowest spread fees of all the annuity providers similar clients

2. A downgrade clause that allows liquidity at full book value if the insurance company issuing the annuity is downgraded.

3. Annuity provider agrees to be ERISA Fiduciary

If they cannot get these 3 clauses – the plan must demand that the annuity provider let them out of the contract, and if not consider legal action against the insurance company.

[1] https://commonsense401kproject.com/2024/11/19/burden-of-proof-is-on-plan-sponsors-hoping-to-qualifyfor-annuity-prohibited-transactions-exemption/

[2] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/high-courts-cornell-ruling-stands-to-supercharge-401k-suits

[3] Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et. al. v Hugler, 231 F. Supp. 3d 152 (N.D. Tex. 2017) (Lynn decision), 187

[4] Attorney James Watkins writes on the Fiduciary Risks of Annuities

Plan Sponsor and RIA Alert: Navigating the 78(3) Fiduciary Liability “Gotcha”

[5] https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/codes-and-standards/pension-trustee-code

[6] “Safe” Annuity Retirement Products and a Possible US Retirement Crisis   Dr. Tom Lambert and Chris Tobe  https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4761980

[7] https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/financial-stability-report-20250425.pdf

[8] American Academy of Actuaries Report of the GIC With Credit Rating Downgrade  October 1999 https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/pdf/life/gic.pdf

[9] https://commonsense401kproject.com/2024/11/19/burden-of-proof-is-on-plan-sponsors-hoping-to-qualifyfor-annuity-prohibited-transactions-exemption/

[10] . Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Summer 1992  Todd, Wallace  SPDA’s and GIC’s http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/QR/QR1631.pdf

[11] https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/-/media/documents/book/rf-publication/2017/rf-v2017-n3-1.pdf

https://www.cfainstitute.org/en/membership/professional-development/refresher-readings/gips-overview

[12]https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1090732/what-belongs-in-401k-plans

[13] Annuity Executive brags on 200bps 2% fees https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-06/prudential-says-annuity-fees-would-make-bankers-dance?embedded-checkout=true

[14] https://riabiz.com/a/2024/5/11/fidelity-voya-and-boa-smooth-blackrocks-launch-of-guaranteed-paycheck-etfs-but-401k-plan-participants-may-yet-balk-at-high-unseeable-fees-and-intangibility-of-benefits

[15] https://www.nbcnews.com/investigations/tiaa-pushes-costly-retirement-products-cover-losses-whistleblower-rcna161198

[16] http://www.nagdca.org/documents/StableValueFunds.pdf_ The National Association of Government Defined Contribution Administrators, Inc. (NAGDCA) September 2010

[17][17] https://rpc.cfainstitute.org/codes-and-standards/pension-trustee-code

[18] https://commonsense401kproject.com/2023/03/12/investment-policy-statements-crucial-to-fiduciary-duty/

[19] Consumer Federation of America on Biden Annuity Rule https://consumerfed.org/annuity-industry-kickbacks-cost-retirement-savers-billions/

[20] https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-104632   and Senator Warrens reported on Annuity kickbacks.[xiii]   https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/senator_warrens_annuity_report_-_sept_2024.pdf

[21] https://401kspecialistmag.com/all-50-states-now-on-board-with-naic-best-interest-annuity-rule/

[22]   https://commonsense401kproject.com/2025/04/21/scotus-9-0-erisa-decision-in-cunningham-v-cornell-university-case-confirms-my-view-on-annuities-as-prohibited-transactions/

SCOTUS’ 9-0 ERISA decision in Cunningham v. Cornell University case– confirms my view on Annuities as Prohibited Transactions

/ jwatkins / Leave a comment

SCOTUS 9-0 ERISA decision – confirms my view on Annuities as Prohibited Transactions

By Chris Tobe, CFA, CAIA

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of 401(k) Transparency, while also placing the burden of proof on plan sponsors alleging that they are protected under an exception to the Prohibited Transaction rules.  This rule facilitates forcing disclosures on conflicts of interest and hidden fees.[i]  Investments that the managers have the potential for a conflict of interest are labeled “Parties of Interest” in the DOL/IRS 5500 forms attached financials for ERISA plans.  These parties in interest have the burden of proof that they have an exemption from the Prohibited Transactions rules. 

Fixed Annuities, known as IPG’s, are prevalent in large ERISA DC plans.  The largest IPG is TIAA Retirement Choice Annuity which is central in the Cornell plan and, along with Fidelity, the focus of the SCOTUS decision.

I believe that all annuities are prohibited transactions due to the inherent conflict of interest issues, and in most cases, the annuity issuer and annuity salesperson  are labeled in plans as parties in interest.  Prohibited transaction exemptions are subject to meeting certain requirements.  But the DOL does not even attempt to enforce them.   Many plans just blindly accept the claims of annuity salesmen that these contracts have a “get out of jail free card” in the form of a PTE.

Prohibited Transactions Exemption PTE 84-24

Annuities for decades have claimed Prohibited transaction exemptions behind PTE 84-24.  However, plans are responsible for verifying that the prohibited transaction exemptions apply to the insurance products they put in their plans.   This SCOTUS decision and future similar cases may force accountability for the first time.

ERISA PTE 84-24, which is  based on the Restatement of Trust,  states the annuities must meet the following requirements called the Impartial Conduct Standards and Written Disclosures and Policies and Procedures backing up these standards.  Most annuities I have seen do not even come close.

The Impartial Conduct Standards have 4 major obligations.   A. Care Obligation    B. Loyalty Obligation C. Reasonable compensation limitation  D. No materially misleading statements (including by omission)

Care Obligation This obligation reflects the care, skill, prudence, and diligence – similar to Prudent Person Fiduciary standard.   Diversification is one of the most basic fiduciary duties.  Fixed annuities flunk this with single entity credit and liquidity risk. Diligence is nearly impossible with misleading, nontransparent contracts, and the lack of plan/participant ownership of securities.[ii] The Federal Reserve in 1992 exposed the weak state regulatory and reserve claims.[iii]

Loyalty Obligation Annuity contracts are designed to avoid all fiduciary obligation with no loyalty to participants.   Secret kickbacks and commissions place the financial interests of the Insurers and their affiliates over those of retirement investors. In most cases, the annuity investor has little chance of even breaking even on the investment. The exemption requires the advisor to show their loyalty with a “Fiduciary Acknowledgement Disclosure.”   Annuity contracts avoid any fiduciary language or responsibility.

Reasonable compensation limitation Annuities have a total lack of disclosure of profits, fees and compensation – effectively denying any chance for a prospective purchaser to make an “informed decision.” They also have secret kickback commissions.[iv]   A number of lawsuits have settled with claims of excessive secret fees and spreads. An insurance executive bragged at a conference of fees over 200 basis points (2%) in 2013. [v]

No materially misleading statements (including by omission) Annuities have numerous material misleading statements, including the total lack of disclosure of spread/fees.  They claim principal protection, but some fixed annuity contracts recently have “broken the buck” and violated their contracts.  The written disclosures under weak state regulations omit critical information on risks and fees also prevents any opportunity for an “informed decision.”

GOING FORWARD

While Annuities are by far the largest area involved, I believe SCOTUS’ Cunningham decision will result in some significant consequwemces:

  1.  ERISA class action 401k litigation will explode especially against conflicted products like annuities[vi]
  2. Plans are now talking about taking legal action against vendors, who tricked them into these non-transparent products[vii]
  3. Plans will be more reluctant to take on non-transparent products like annuities[viii]
  4. Plans will be more reluctant to take on non-transparent products like crypto and private equity[ix]
  5. Plans will be more reluctant to do non-transparent administrative practices like revenue sharing[x] 

Plan Sponsors with fixed annuity contracts should demand
: 1. A MFN clause to make sure they have the best rate. A MNF (Most Favored Nation) clause is a clause that states that money managers are getting the lowest fee for their pension clients.
2. A downgrade lause that allows liquidity at full book value if the insurance company issuing the annuity is downgraded.

Annuities are clearly prohibited transactions that do not qualify for an exemption but have used their lobbying power in Washington and in states, to exempt themselves from all accountability.  This recent SCOTUS decision  may  help get accountability and transparency in plans through litigation.

[i] https://www.fingerlakes1.com/2025/04/18/supreme-court-cornell-erisa-401k-fees-decision-2025

[ii] https://commonsense401kproject.com/2024/03/26/just-how-safe-are-safe-annuity-retirement-products-new-paper-shows-annuity-risks-are-too-high-for-any-fiduciary/

[iii] Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Summer 1992  Todd, Wallace  SPDA’s and GIC’s http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/QR/QR1631.pdf

[iv] https://consumerfed.org/annuity-industry-kickbacks-cost-retirement-savers-billions/

[v] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-06/prudential-says-annuity-fees-would-make-bankers-dance?embedded-checkout=true

[vi] https://commonsense401kproject.com/2024/11/19/burden-of-proof-is-on-plan-sponsors-hoping-to-qualifyfor-annuity-prohibited-transactions-exemption/

[vii] https://commonsense401kproject.com/2024/07/31/chris-tobe-dol-testimony/

[viii] https://fiduciarywise.com/cunninghamvcornelluniversity/

[ix] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/retirement-plan-sponsors-investment-advisors-should-take-ron-rhoades-zfp8c/?trackingId=cl6WVzR8TvCNYE2H6M59WQ%3D%3D

[x] https://commonsense401kproject.com/2022/04/02/revenue-sharing-in-401k-plans/