[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6063533,"mediaKeyId","3268469-bad480a3ccc9c93103294b008be42735","parentId",3268469,"title","Subcommittee reviews participant-directed plan fees after recent Supreme Court ruling; forfeiture use and per-head pricing discussed","audioSeconds",1462,"startMs",2000000,"endMs",3462000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3268469-bad480a3ccc9c93103294b008be42735&start=2000&end=3462","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3268469-bad480a3ccc9c93103294b008be42735/thumbnail_2000000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6063533/Simsbury-Center/Capitol-County/Connecticut/Subcommittee-reviews-participant-directed-plan-fees-after-recent-Supreme-Court-ruling-forfeiture-use-and-per-head-pricing-discussed","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6063533-a70bb4e40a02df946ad00b8a3caff2b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1775775855&Signature=kyfu5~wQTHqgJz66e4a4DgAOUlbsZCqFNFHAcU-lS7xeuDw-tN33sH-d6YBRtRyCom3vonxfB74wQbCwhN8liTHg56bmWuoJ3QVTDodUCTRQgKynw9vJNagfS9MNTRgreFuOibWvzW26qD3Z8eWnB~wgR6vbr6610D~wKx-Utf8X1ykSsHY3T-j-JcO9Nek8HWPyQjilptWfLhBfk0Ce-5RhgJf48RAHqP1p4W9LIu49L-wtz3mZRFMIE-skAuCpxvPrzJmDM8Q9ddzhkLdCOc9cNTdEgxvInlRBsive4-p55JqNWngne0nShGzGN7ml8dLnvfxwPFQl1wCFJMxviA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Simsbury Center, CT","date","2025-05-06T20:10:45Z","article","The Retirement Plan Subcommittee on May 6 received a focused briefing on fees and participant-directed assets for the town’s defined-contribution plans, including the 457 plan, board of education plan, and 401(a). The briefing followed a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision referenced in the presentation and addressed record-keeping fee structure, fee-benchmarking results, and options for using plan forfeitures.

Adviser Tyler said the quarter’s topic was “fee focused” and that a recent court ruling (referred to in the meeting as the “Cornell Cunningham” matter) changes the litigation posture for plan fiduciaries, shifting to a presumption that sponsors must demonstrate fees are reasonable. “The idea now is that you're guilty until proven innocent with respect to, paying record keeping fees, and you'll have to actually prove that those fees are reasonable,” Tyler said during the presentation.

Benchmarking and fees: the advisers reported the town’s record-keeping fee was 16 basis points for the plans reviewed—below the average for comparably sized plans—and the overall weighted investment plus record-keeping cost was roughly 49 basis points for the largest plan. Investment expense for the menu averaged about 33 basis points; Mission Square’s record-keeping charge was reported at about 16 basis points. The advisers said the town’s plans benchmark “really well” and require no immediate change to the fund menu.

Per-head vs. asset-based record-keeping: advisers described a market trend toward per-participant (per-head) pricing for record keeping, particularly for very large plans (north of $1 billion), with representative per-head prices of roughly $25–$30 for very large plans. The town currently pays asset-based record-keeping fees; the committee asked advisers to request a per-head quote from Mission Square so the committee can understand whether a change would benefit or harm participants. “We can do that exercise for the next meeting,” Tyler said.

Forfeiture account and plan-document review: presenters noted forfeiture balances and potential uses. The board-of-education plan’s forfeiture balance was cited as about $147,000. Advisers reviewed the typical permitted uses of forfeiture dollars—(1) offset employer contributions, (2) pay plan expenses (audit, advisor fees), or (3) return as a one-time payment to participants—and told the committee that plan documents govern which of those options apply. Kelsey (town staff) agreed to provide plan documents and the advisers recommended confirming the chosen approach in the plan document if the town prefers a single permitted use.

Process and risk: advisers flagged litigation risk from both record-keeping fee claims and emerging litigation over forfeiture usage; they said many plans elect explicit plan-document language to state how forfeitures will be used. Committee members discussed whether forfeiture decisions are subject to collective bargaining; advisers said forfeitures are town-owned dollars once vesting conditions are not met and that the plan document and any applicable bargaining agreements must be checked.

What’s next: staff agreed to a set of follow-ups: (1) Kelsey will provide plan documents for counsel review, (2) advisers will request per-head pricing from Mission Square, and (3) the subcommittee will receive a fuller benchmarking package and any recommended plan-document language at a future meeting. Tyler also noted the plans’ target-date and other fund options were performing in line with expectations and no immediate fund-menu changes were recommended.

Ending: The committee took no formal vote on record-keeping structure or forfeiture policy at the May 6 meeting; it asked staff and advisers to return with pricing comparisons and plan-document recommendations.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Simsbury Retirement Plan Subcommittee Meeting - May 6, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Retirement Plan Subcommittee on May 6 received a focused briefing on fees and participant-directed assets for the town’s defined-contribution plans, including the 457 plan, board of education plan, and 401(a).","taxTitle","Simsbury Center, Capitol County, Connecticut","taxId",70146,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6063538,"Retirement subcommittee reaffirms policy, hears mixed Q1 market report; portfolios near actuarial expectations",618,55000,673000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3268469-bad480a3ccc9c93103294b008be42735&start=55&end=673","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3268469-bad480a3ccc9c93103294b008be42735/thumbnail_55000.jpg","/articles/6063538/Simsbury-Center/Capitol-County/Connecticut/Retirement-subcommittee-reaffirms-policy-hears-mixed-Q1-market-report-portfolios-near-actuarial-expectations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6063538-ee4796b588cc4f84746c42b5335b1711/orig.mp4?Expires=1775775855&Signature=TfkQh~l9E2xjlsxvQtGblM6F69Ql7xm2jKfw267z81PR1XjEzLEXz5JA93-~jpMvVYBILFlG0SMwWHZFgHbvK~CC7v7KqfFNSazIQDIF3JMPK-YBzD~zI6RsLfK1kxqV1egQaq9JQvkX4BZ7NgaywjzcUnfmntD7TfLOvKYhhA-AKL-pDv0qL7V4o3sLqs3Sp74y3bouLF0hK~tyrjOpXDVKOWj5tJxuibFJfvahKersR8bObQM4HaONDPs778Tjrq9oPAxPoWFgv~4bo5RuIsQ363xRHGj6hKqZnVjWReBFWm~DKcTvSifbK-rPKmIQKxtLrGYfmDpCgxXSYZbKrA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Simsbury’s Retirement Plan Subcommittee on May 6 heard an investment update that affirmed the subcommittee’s policy statements and described mixed results across markets in the first quarter, with the town’s pension and OPEB portfolios generally tracking actuarial expectations.

The consulting team told the subcommittee that the plan policy statements do not require edits at this time and that the portfolios are “in good working order.” The advisers reported that the town pension plan was up roughly 0.7% for the quarter and that longer-term returns put the plans near actuarial assumptions.

The consultants framed the quarter around three cross-currents: trade-policy headlines and tariff announcements that introduced volatility, “sticky” inflation remaining above the Fed’s 2% target, and divergent returns between U.S. equities (hurt by a pullback in the largest technology names) and international equities, which outperformed year-to-date. “The policy statements are in good functioning order. We don't have any recommendations to commit the committee to make changes,” said Chris, an investment presenter, during the meeting.

Why it matters: the subcommittee oversees roughly $30.1 million in town plan assets and related trusts; quarterly performance and strategic allocation decisions feed into actuarial reporting and will be used when the advisers report to the Board of Finance in September. The committee was told the town pension portfolio holds about $30,100,000 in invested assets; the police pension about $22,400,000; and the OPEB trust roughly $25,100,000.

Details and debate: the consulting team highlighted a sharp year-to-date gap between U.S. and international equity returns—international equities were up in double digits year-to-date at the time of presentation while the S&P 500 was down—and noted that this pattern altered short-term active-manager performance. “Those big 7…can influence things in the other direction as well,” the consultant said, referring to the largest U.S. technology names that concentrated returns in recent years.

Committee members asked whether the plans remain on track to meet investment assumptions. The consultants said fiscal-year-to-date numbers (the nine months ending in March) were running at a level that could accrete to actuarial expectations but cautioned the committee the final fiscal-quarter results through June would determine the year outcome.

OPEB and indexing vs. active management: advisers described the OPEB trust as an “all indexed approach” that has produced returns similar to the pensions while noting the OPEB uses certain iShares ETFs acquired under a legacy structure. The consultants proposed bringing a fuller analysis back to the committee at a subsequent meeting to examine whether (1) lower-cost indexed fund alternatives exist and (2) whether a controlled introduction of active management is appropriate for the $25 million OPEB trust. “We could drive those fees even a bit lower, using a more traditional index funds, versus these ETFs,” Chris said, and suggested a cautious, gradual approach if the committee wanted to introduce active management.

Other governance notes: the advisers affirmed the committee’s governance practices—regular meetings, credentialed oversight, and periodic manager underwriting—and had no immediate concerns with the manager roster. The presenters also said they would prepare a fuller comparative package of active-manager net-of-fee performance for the committee for discussion in the autumn.

What’s next: Chris agreed to present a full report to the Board of Finance in September. The subcommittee scheduled its next regular meeting for the second business day after Labor Day and asked staff and advisers to return with the requested detail on OPEB structure and manager comparisons.

Ending: No formal policy changes or votes were taken on investment structure at the May 6 meeting; the advisers’ recommendation was limited to a reaffirmation of the policy statement and a request for further analysis on the OPEB indexing/active-management question.","At its May 6 subcommittee meeting, Simsbury’s retirement plan advisers told the Retirement Plan Subcommittee that policy statements require no edits, first-quarter markets were mixed—U.S. large caps lagged while international equities outperformed—and plan portfolios remain broadly in line with actuarial targets.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Subcommittee reviews participant-directed plan fees after recent Supreme Court ruling; forfeiture use and per-head pricing discussed

Retirement subcommittee reaffirms policy, hears mixed Q1 market report; portfolios near actuarial expectations