Transparency - "Yay!!!"
Government regulation - "Boo!!!"

I'm glad to see a more fee transparent environment evolving. Believe
it or not, some of us on the sales side WANT more transparency and
have been pushing for it for years. Those of us who disclose all costs
and fees are at a distinct disadvantage to those that hide theirs. Its
hard for a business owner to compare plans when they don't really know
about the plan they currently have. When we make a proposal to a new
prospect we usually end up spending most of our time teaching them
about what they already have as opposed to what we are actually
offering.

I guess it partly goes back to the education/understanding/ignorance
topic that has been so widely discussed here lately. If we had the
education we wouldn't need gov't intervention, business owners would
demand it of their plan providers.

- quote -

401(k) fees:

"Under current law, 401(k) providers, such as mutual fund
families or insurance companies, are not held to any
consistent standard for disclosing fees. As a result,
employers often have insufficient information when they make
decisions about a 401 (k)'s options and services. For
instance, money management firms routinely list
administrative fees, which are generally paid for by
employers, as "zero." But in truth, administrative costs are
generally covered by charging higher investment fees, which
come out of employees' account balances. The bill would
require 401(k) providers to break out all costs.

The House bill would also correct current law, which does
not require that employees be told about fees that reduce
their investment returns. Opponents of the measure, mainly
410(k) providers, argue that more information would be more
confusing."

See article linked now at
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html ("Better
Savings Plans," Dec. 3 Editorial). Registration at the Times
is free. Over some ten years, I have received no junk mail
in consequence of being registered with the Times.