A small number of people—formerly participants in the Defined Contribution Plan—decided, for reasons that defy both logic and fiscal restraint, to move their money out of the Plan … only to place it with a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) charging a rather eye-watering 1% to 1.5% per year. Just for advice that, in many cases, doesn’t deliver better returns than what they already had.
To put that into context: on a seven-figure balance of $1–$1.5 million, that decision quietly translates into roughly $10,000 to $18,000 a year—proof that expensive decisions rarely feel expensive at the moment they’re made.
And the kicker? The Local 697 Plan offers the very same guidance for free. It’s part of the privilege of being a participant in the Plan.
Yes. You read that correctly. You can meet with the Funds Registered Investment Advisor (RIA)—face to face, virtually, or by phone—and receive professional, unbiased advice at no cost.
Yes. That’s right. Free. No five-figure invoices. No higher-cost versions of what you already own, created to enrich that RIA, rather than improve your results.
Read that paragraph again—it states that even if you roll your money into the exact same assets, you’ll now pay a higher fee. Why? Because as an individual, you no longer benefit from the share class with the lowest cost.
It’s true. On top of the 1% to 1.5% or more that they are charging you, that RIA will place you into a similar investment—but at a higher price, right from the start. Why do I know that? Because the lowest-cost investments are usually institutional share classes. These require massive minimums—often millions—and are designed for large entities like your Local 697 D.C. Plan, endowments, or wealthy individuals pooling assets. The result: lower fees thanks to economies of scale—something individual investors lose when they roll out.
Yes. You get a different cost structure, specifically the ones associated with retail shares (Investor Class). These have higher fees (like 12b-1 fees or sales loads) to cover distribution and servicing for smaller investors and, yes, some of those excess fees go to pay that RIA you rolled your money over to. Kind of a recurring finders fee if you will – and that’s on top of the 1% - 1.5% of the assets you have with that other firm and are paying them.
You know what? Our RIA won’t sell you anything. He can’t. His only role is to help you optimize your investment strategy using the options already available within the Plan— so your strategy aligns with your goals.
And this is the often-overlooked advantage of the Local 697 Plan: its investments are institutional share classes. These are the lowest-cost versions of those funds, typically available only to large plans like ours that can pool assets and benefit from economies of scale. It’s a quiet advantage—but a meaningful one.
How meaningful is that difference? Over the lifetime of an investment, the gap between retail and institutional expense ratios can compound into a six-figure sum. In practical terms, that’s the kind of money that could purchase a home in much of the United States—not because the fees are dramatic in any single year, but because small percentages, given enough time, become very large numbers
How meaningful? I am glad you asked. Say you’re paying 1.5% on a 1.5 million portfolio for the first fifteen years of your retirement, that and the difference between the retail expense and the institutional fees is enough to buy a typical house in:
Iowa (~$230.6K)
Oklahoma (~$245.9K)
Ohio (~$248.6K)
Michigan (~$249.3K)
Louisiana (~$253.2K)
Mississippi (~$255.1K)
Arkansas (~$255.3K)
West Virginia (~$258.8K)
Indiana (~$258.9K)
Missouri (~$263.3K)
Kentucky (~$270.2K) (right around $270K)
Here’s another way to frame it: in roughly 88–92% of U.S. states, $270,000 is enough to cover about 40% of the median home price. Put differently, that’s nearly half the cost of a typical home—enough to secure a serious down payment in almost every state, turning what seems like an abstract number into something tangible you could actually live in.
So, here’s the first takeaway. Smart people recognize the value of what they already have. Wise people know how to make the most of it. Others, depending on their balance, may end up paying an additional $10,000 to $18,000 each year simply for reassurance they didn’t actually need.
Again, over a 15-year period, that can amount to roughly $270,000 in advisory fees—money redirected away from compounding for retirement and toward compensating someone else for confirming what was already true. And again, no. That figure does not include the additional fees you are paying for the retail share classes of the investments they put you into.
The cost is easy to overlook in the short term, yet meaningful over time—and entirely avoidable.
And, here is takeaway #2: It’s also worth noting that this success was achieved within a system most participants did very little to actively shape. Over the years, many offered minimal input, attended few meetings, and rarely engaged beyond the occasional event or announcement. They didn’t contribute ideas, debate decisions, or invest much effort in understanding how this Plan or any of the other Benefit Funds, or the Union actually worked—often remaining silent while others raised concerns, simply because they hadn’t taken the time to learn enough to participate meaningfully.
The result is telling. Despite benefiting substantially from a system they were largely disengaged from, some now elect to pay a significant premium—sometimes approaching $18,000 annually—for outside validation. (That is a very expensive ego trip.)
We appreciate that this decision is deeply personal—though one can’t help admiring the irony. With a single stroke of a pen, poof: what once came to them at minimal cost now carries a price tag magnitudes higher. For context, it now costs considerably more than spending a perfectly enjoyable hour, perhaps ninety minutes, sitting with a cup of coffee at one of our educational sections.
The consolation prize, of course, is that you’ll be reminded of this decision every month, via a quietly higher fee. A sort of financial souvenir. One imagines that, in hindsight, an hour in a meeting now looks like something of a bargain.
Alas, since enthusiasm for attending was… muted, those meetings will no longer be taking place. Which leaves us with little to add, other than the gentle observation that the cheapest opportunities are usually the ones we decline first—and miss most later.
That said, this Plan’s value, however, speaks for itself. The Plan continues to serve those who understand its value without needing to purchase affirmation elsewhere.
What happens if someone leaves—and later wants to come back?
Sometimes the answer will be no. Systems have memories. Commitments matter. And once a P.I.T.A, always a P.I.T.A. Other times, the door will open again, because people change, contexts shift, and learning often arrives late—but still arrives.
The more interesting question isn’t can they come back. It’s why they left in the first place.
Because no one is really paying an extra $15,000–$18,000 a year for better math. They’re paying for reassurance. For status. For the feeling that they’ve “upgraded” to something that looks more exclusive.
That’s a decision based on a narrative you, they or someone else created. It is not a financial decision.
If the Plan quietly helped someone build a six- or seven-figure balance while they were working, then the uncomfortable truth is this: the system already worked. Paying someone else to come to the same conclusion—using nicer fonts and a conference room—doesn’t change the outcome. It just changes who gets paid along the way.
Here’s takeaway #3 – If the Plan was good enough to get you to your retirement, what makes you think it would not be good enough to get you through your retirement?
And let’s pause on the comforting theatre of the Registered Investment Advisor—the tasteful office, the reassuring graphs, the aura of exclusivity. Do you believe they act entirely in your best interest? Fully? Mostly? Half? A more honest estimate might hover closer to about 30%. Unlike the Local 697 Board, which is bound by a fiduciary duty—the gold standard—most RIAs are merely required to be “reasonable. And reasonable isn’t the same as loyal. It’s certainly not the same as fiduciary and most definitely not the same as putting your interests first when doing so conflicts with theirs.
Conveniently, if “reasonable” involves higher fees that underwrite your RIA’s next summer escape, and you sign off on it, the law will generally agree: perfectly reasonable. Case closed. You pay more. They do very well. That’s how it’s designed.
Meanwhile, quietly and without theatrics, the Benefit Plans continue to do what they were designed to do: deliver a serious a Defined Contribution Pension Plan, a solid Defined Benefit Pension Plan, provide RSPC (Plan P) credits, a SUB Fund, an HRA—an entire financial ecosystem that few individuals could replicate on their own, let alone do so efficiently or cheaply. These are the unglamorous mechanisms that turn ordinary working lives into genuinely secure retirements.
The Local 697 Plan isn’t merely “good enough.” It’s the sort of thing people only fully appreciate after they’ve paid a great deal more to discover that reassurance, when bought elsewhere, is astonishingly expensive.
Here’s takeaway #3:
If something worked—steadily, predictably, without drama—for decades, why do people suddenly doubt it at the exact moment when serious decisions are being made?
Getting to retirement isn’t an accident. It’s the result of a system that did its job, year after year, without asking for applause. The instinct to switch after the hard part is done isn’t about performance—it’s about fear dressed up as sophistication.
We tell ourselves a new chapter requires a new solution. But often, the right move isn’t to upgrade. It’s to trust what already proved itself.
If the Plan was good enough to carry you to retirement, maybe the real insight is this:
it was also built to carry you through it.