Leaderboard

Selecting any service provider- a fiduciary one or a non-fiduciary one is a fiduciary decision, and one that requires monitoring to ensure the selection is still a prudent one. The difference with selecting a "fiduciary" service provider is that it springs on the selecting fiduciary "co-fiduciary" liability - which in my mind requires a much higher level of monitoring scrutiny. A non-fiduciary who makes a mistake may be fired - but a co-fiduciary that makes a mistake causes the other fiduciaries to have responsibility to correct the error - as if they made the mistake themselves (admittedly, an over-simplification). As such, my position is, and has been, do not elevate functions that can be performed "ministerially" to the level of a fiduciary function, as that creates not only the liability for the prudent selection, but the co-fiduciary liability for on-going performance of those functions. Despite having heard the "pitch" from a number 3(16) service providers, I have yet to have any one of them answer the question of "what's different between your process and the process the recordkeeper engages in to perform that same function?" - except to have them proclaim "proudly" that they do it as a fiduciary.... Tautological reasoning doesn't go far with me....