Two weeks ago on these pages I penned an article titled “What are Ayres/Curtis Thinking?” After a litany of questions and at least one medieval allusion, I tantalizingly questioned whether Ayres/Curtis “have an end other than ‘proving’ we have a 401k fee problem.”
It turns out I was more correct that even I thought. How do I know? Because Quinn Curtis told me (you can read about it here in “Exclusive Interview: Quinn Curtis Reveals True Intent of the Curtis/Ayres 401k Fee Paper,” FiduciaryNews.com, March 18, 2014).
In retrospect, I should have suspected their true intent. The paper is filled with citations of so many court cases it read more like a legal brief than a typical financial research paper. It was the data analysis, though, that threw me, and, I would surmise, many others. In fact, as Curtis explains, he and Ayres didn’t really want to argue of investment theory or the definition of “high” fees. The two definitely believe the costs of at least some 401k plans remains too high, but, despite the headline grabbing nature of “high fees,” this was not their point.
Complete your profile to continue reading and get FREE access to BenefitsPRO, part of your ALM digital membership.
Your access to unlimited BenefitsPRO content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking benefits news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.