Abstract
Both the United States and Australia have increased the use of default settings in defined contribution (DC) plans such as 401(k)s. However, policy makers in the two countries have taken different approaches to important aspects of default investment products. This article discusses the regulation of those default investment products particularly regarding the assignment of fiduciary responsibility. It concludes that Australia’s approach offers two lessons for the U.S. First, disclosure to and education of participants who are defaulted into investment products appears to be of limited value to those participants. Second, to the extent possible, the locus of fiduciary responsibility for default investment products should be on those who are expert on and manage those products.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
