U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–061 PDF 2004

INVESTING FOR THE FUTURE:

529 STATE TUITION SAVING PLANS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE AND 

GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTEREPRISES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 2, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Financial Services

Serial No. 108–90

(

(II)

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES 

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio, Chairman

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

SUE W. KELLY, New York, Vice Chair 

RON PAUL, Texas 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

DOUG OSE, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

JEB HENSARLING, Texas 

SCOTT GARRETT, New Jersey 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

BARNEY FRANK, Massachusetts 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

JULIA CARSON, Indiana 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

KEN LUCAS, Kentucky 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

CHRIS BELL, Texas 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

Robert U. Foster, III, Staff Director 

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE AND GOVERNMENT SPONSORED

ENTERPRISES

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana, Chairman

DOUG OSE, California, Vice Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware 

PETER T. KING, New York 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

SUE W. KELLY, New York 

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JIM RYUN, Kansas 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York, 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

RUBE ́ N HINOJOSA, Texas 

KEN LUCAS, Kentucky 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

STEVE ISRAEL, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri 

CAROLYN MCCARTHY, New York 

JOE BACA, California 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

NYDIA M. VELA ́ ZQUEZ, New York 

(V)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on: 

June 2, 2004 ...................................................................................................... 1

Appendix: 

June 2, 2004 ...................................................................................................... 39

WITNESSES 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 2004

Bullard, Mercer E., President and Founder, Fund Democracy, Inc., and Assistant Professor of Law, University of Mississippi School of Law .................. 18

Cantor, Diana, Executive Director, Virginia College Savings Plan and Chair, 

College Savings Plans Network .......................................................................... 6

Lackritz, Marc E., President, Securities Industry Association ............................ 11

McNeela, Daniel, Senior Analyst, Morningstar, Inc. ............................................ 15

Olivas, Michael A., William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law and Director, Institute for Higher Education Law and Governance, University of 

Houston Law Center ............................................................................................ 13

Williams, Jacqueline, Executive Director, Ohio Tuitions Trust Authority and 

Member of the Executive Committee, College Savings Plans Network .......... 8

APPENDIX 

Prepared statements: 

Oxley, Hon. Michael G. .................................................................................... 40

Gillmor, Hon. Paul E. ....................................................................................... 42

Hinojosa, Hon. Rube ́n ....................................................................................... 44

Kanjorski, Hon. Paul E. ................................................................................... 45

Bullard, Mercer E. ............................................................................................ 47

Cantor, Diana ................................................................................................... 78

Lackritz, Marc E. .............................................................................................. 89

McNeela, Daniel ............................................................................................... 129

Olivas, Michael A. ............................................................................................ 133

Williams, Jacqueline ........................................................................................ 156

(1)

INVESTING FOR THE FUTURE: 

529 STATE TUITION SAVING PLANS 

Wednesday, June 2, 2004

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON CAPITAL MARKETS, INSURANCE

AND GOVERNMENT SPONSORED ENTERPRISES, COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:06 a.m., in Room 

2128, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Richard H. Baker 

[chairman of the subcommittee] Presiding. 

Present: Representatives Baker, Gillmor, Oxley (ex officio), 

Biggert, Capito, Kennedy, Tiberi, Brown-Waite, Kanjorski, Hooley, 

Sherman, Meeks, Inslee, Moore, Lucas of Kentucky, Crowley, Clay, 

McCarthy, Baca, Emanuel, and Scott. 

Chairman BAKER. I would like to ask our meeting to come to 

order and welcome our witnesses to the table this morning. 

This morning, the committee meets to examine the manner in 

which special State education enhancement programs function for 

the benefit of prospective college students and moms and dads, 

typically characterized as Section 529 plans. All States, with the 

exception of Washington and the District of Columbia, have established some 529 plan and make it available to their constituents. 

While the SEC does not have direct supervisory responsibility for 

the conduct of the 529 plans, they do, under Federal securities law, 

exercise jurisdiction with regard to fraud and other misconduct as 

well as having direct responsibility to regulate the broker dealers 

and the municipal security dealers that sell interest in 529 plans. 

So there is a Federal nexus for some examination of the manner 

in which these plans are operated. 

In the past several years, the committee has engaged in marketsector by market-sector review of current regulatory structure and 

determined the adequacy of current disclosure regimes, the transparency, suitability, the method by which the average consumer 

may judge whether a particular investment is appropriate for their 

needs. 

Chairman Oxley has recently written the SEC with his own list 

of questions relative to the 529 plan disclosure requirements that 

raise several interesting points. One of the obvious and apparent 

conclusions that I have reached is, there is not, at least today, a 

national standard of conduct for a State 529 plan to provide comparability between States. If one is enrolled in a plan in State A 

and then subsequently moves to State B, there may be tax consequences to the individual that are not clearly understood or perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:50 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95061.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
2

haps properly disclosed today. Whether or not the offering materials are substantially different in content and presentation from 

marketing materials, whether there is sufficiency in clear disclosure of fee schedules, many of these issues sound like repeats of 

the same questions on other subjects in months past. And so the 

committee’s review of these matters is certainly understandable 

and appropriate given our market sector responsibilities. 

I will say that, today, I feel we have invited individuals to give 

the committee insight into the manner by which 529 plans function 

that have already exhibited high standards of professional conduct 

and perhaps can give us insight into where the industry may be 

moving. 

And I wanted to conclude my remarks simply with an observation. It may be that an enhanced self-regulatory model may work 

well here as well and that, by States conducting their own review 

and examination, could come to standards for comparability on a 

national scale that could perhaps result in recognition of some system that an individual 529 plan might receive a nationally recognized merit award or status or recognition, thereby indicating to a 

State who refuses to adopt the model code that there are certain 

elements of that State’s plan which are perhaps aberrant or not 

sufficient to warrant such recognition. 

I would much prefer to see a self-regulatory model at this point 

than having the Federal Government intercede into another area 

where their participation may not be necessarily welcome in the 

first place. 

To that end, I certainly appreciate those who are participating in 

the hearing this morning. It is the beginning of our process of understanding, and we certainly will reach no conclusions before a 

thorough exchange of ideas has been provided to all stakeholders. 

With that, I yield such time as the gentleman may consume to Mr. 

Kanjorski. 

Mr. KANJORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, in Pennsylvania, we take pride in reminding others of many wise observations of Benjamin Franklin. As I prepared 

for today’s hearing, I was accordingly reminded of one of his more 

insightful reflections, ‘‘An investment in knowledge always pays 

the best interest.’’ this statement is as true today as it was more 

than 200 years ago in part because of Section 529 tuition savings 

plans. 

During the last decade, the cost of attending a university has increased 40 percent while the typical household income has increased just 12 percent. Additionally, the average cost of attending 

a 4-year university now stands at $34,000 for State institutions 

and at $90,000 for private colleges. Moreover, the price tag for a 

higher education is expected to continue to grow in the future, likely continuing to outstrip any gains in families’ earnings. 

Because Democrats and Republicans alike recognize that an investment in higher education continues to produce appreciable returns for individuals in society, we have worked cooperatively in 

recent years to help families cover this necessary financial expense. 

In 1996, for example, we joined together to create 529 plans. As a 

result, families today can use this instrument to set aside money 

for higher education purposes that grows free of any Federal tax. 

3

Section 529 plans have grown greatly in popularity since their 

inception in the late 1990s, and they are now one of the most common ways to save for a college education. Total assets in 529 plans 

which stood at $2.6 billion at the end of 2000 rose to $8.5 billion 

at the close of 2001. They also doubled in value in 2003, reaching 

$35 billion and covering more than 4 million accounts by the year’s 

end. 

In addition, the experts at the Federal Research Corporation now predict that American families will invest $300 billion in 529 plans 

by 2010. The tremendous expansion of the tuition savings plans industry has now produced some predictable growing pains. Although 

we created 529 plans in the Federal Tax Code of 1996, we did not 

simultaneously implement a comprehensive regulatory regime to 

cover this financial product. As a result, some have begun to raise 

concerns about the need to improve the oversight of this sector of 

our financial system. 

For the purposes of our securities laws, the States generally have 

oversight responsibilities for Section 529 plans. One problem that 

has received substantial attention in recent months with respect to 

the 529 plans concerns the disclosures that investors currently receive about the performance of these financial products. As we will 

hear later this morning, many States have begun to take action on 

their own to protect investors, including working to develop a 

model disclosure regime. 

National authorities in recent months have also begun to examine 529 plans which remain subject to Federal antifraud rules and 

broker dealer sales practice requirements. Earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission announced the creation of a 

task force to study the fee disclosure regime and sale of 529 plans. 

Additionally, we have learned that the National Association of Security Dealers is now investigating whether some brokers in selling 

out-of-State 529 plans ultimately exposed their clients to lower investment returns and higher State taxes. 

From my perspective, it is very important to study these issues 

and for State and Federal regulators to take coordinated action to 

protect families who invest in 529 plans. Greater standardization 

in disclosing fees and expenses will facilitate direct comparisons in 

performance between the various 529 plans across State lines. I am 

therefore pleased that the College Savings Plans Network has 

begun the work needed to implement a comprehensive disclosure 

system that will provide a greater comparability of 529 plans for 

investors and help to ensure that we have access to the same quality of information as mutual fund investors. 

As we proceed today, I hope they will also examine the interplay 

between 529 plans and the proposal by the Bush Administration to 

create life savings accounts. As currently conceived, LSAs will permit individuals to save money tax-free for any purpose, including 

higher education. A recent study by the Senate Finance Committee 

determined that, because LSAs would be more flexible than 529 accounts, they could compete with tax-favored savings programs for 

education, particularly among persons with limited disposable income. We should therefore explore today whether the increased 

flexibility of LSAs might undermine a family’s well-intentioned efforts to save for a child’s higher education. 

4

In sum, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for convening today’s 

hearings on 529 plans. We should conduct oversight of this growing 

segment of our financial marketplace in order to determine how we 

can make the present regulatory structure stronger. The observations of today’s witnesses about these matters will help me in forming my opinions on these issues. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Paul E. Kanjorski can be found 

on page 45 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Oxley. 

Mr. OXLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Obviously, welcome to our 

panel. I see some familiar faces out there. 

We all know that there are few things in life more essential than 

a good education. Helping parents save and invest for their children’s higher education is a vital public policy initiative, particularly in this environment of runaway tuition costs. 

Success of the 529 tuition savings plans is good news, but it is 

not surprising. These programs offer all families, regardless of income, the opportunity to obtain tax-free growth and distribution on 

money they save and invest for college costs. There is now more 

than $35 billion invested in the 529 plans across the country. And 

some have predicted that total assets will balloon to some $300 billion by the end of this decade. 

Given the increasingly important role that 529 plans play in enabling parents to save for their children’s education, I have become 

concerned about certain aspects of some of these plans. For example, why are there such disparities in fees and the disclosure of 

those fees? Have the fees charged by these State-sponsored plans 

become so exorbitant that they actually outstrip the tax benefit 

that Congress has attempted to provide? Have the States established adequate procedures to monitor the performance and operation of the investment managers they hire to run their plans? Are 

they offering documents clear and concise? 

These are some of the concerns that prompted me to write to 

SEC Chairman Bill Donaldson in February of this year. In his response to me, Chairman Donaldson said that ‘‘the current State of 

affairs with respect to 529 plans is complicated and likely difficult 

for parents to understand,’’ end quote. He also announced the creation of the chairman’s task force on college savings plans. I am 

pleased by the commission’s energetic response, and I understand 

that the task force has made considerable progress, and I look forward to hearing from them in the near future. 

We have assembled an all-star lineup here today. I particularly 

would like to welcome Diana Cantor, the chairman of the College 

Savings Plans Network, and Jacqueline Williams, Executive Director of the Ohio Tuition Trust Authority. I know that they have put 

in long hours over the past few weeks to improve the disclosure regime of 529 plans. And I look forward to their testimony and that 

of the rest panel. 

Mr. Chairman, again we look forward to the hearing, and I yield 

back. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael G. Oxley can be found 

on page 40 in the appendix.] 

5

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman for his participation 

and his statement. 

Are there any members wishing to make additional open statements at this time? 

Mr. Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is indeed 

a very important hearing and has some very important ramifications for my State of Georgia. And I certainly want to thank you 

Mr. Chairman and also Ranking Member Kanjorski for holding this 

hearing today regarding State-sponsored 529 college tuition savings 

plans. I believe that it is very important for this committee to examine the legitimacy and disclosure fees that some 529 plans are 

using. 

And while this hearing will focus on many of the problems that 

have been identified with some State savings plans, my State of 

Georgia has a strong record of managing its plan. Since 2002, the 

Georgia higher education savings plan has offered a wide variety 

of investment options, managed by TIAA-CREF, an industry-recognized leader in providing investment services in the education and 

research communities. In just 2 short years of existence, the Georgia higher education savings plan has over 42,000 participants who 

have invested more than $165 million to pay for college education. 

Contributions to the Georgia higher education savings plan can be made for as little as $25 per beneficiary, per investment option 

or as little as $15 for contributions made through payroll deductions. Up to $2,000 can be deducted per beneficiary for taxpayers 

who meet filing status and income requirements. 

Georgia’s plan has made savings for college more affordable with 

one of the lowest fees among 529 plans across the country. Participants pay no application fee, no sales charge and no annual account maintenance fee. An annual management fee, which is deduced from fund assets, is used to cover the cost of investment 

management fees and expenses as well as administrative services. 

The annual all-inclusive fee is only 0.85 percent of assets. 

While Georgia has a 529 plan that maintains low and reasonable 

fees, other States have not managed their plans quite as well. And 

I look forward to hearing from this distinguished panel of witnesses 

today to discuss efforts to improve the management of 529 plans. 

Among the issues that I will be looking for information on are 

whether the 529 plan administrators exercise sufficient oversight of 

the intermediaries they employ to sell interest in their plans, 

whether the disclosures given to investors are sufficient to permit 

informed investment decisions, and whether greater standardization in fee disclosure to facilitate comparability is achievable and 

whether the fees charged by some 529 plans negate the expected 

tax benefits from the investment. 

Thank you for coming, and this is a very distinguished panel. 

And I look forward to hearing your comments. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman. 

Are there further opening statements? 

If there are no further opening statements, I would like to move 

at this time to our first witness, Ms. Diane Cantor, chairman of the 

Executive Board, College Savings Plans Network. 

6

And I wish to commend you for your good work in this area and 

also, on a personal aside, seeming to be a continuing positive influence in Mr. Eric Cantor’s conduct. So I welcome you here this 

morning. 

STATEMENT OF DIANA CANTOR, CHAIRMAN, EXECUTIVE 

BOARD, COLLEGE SAVINGS PLANS NETWORK 

Ms. CANTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Member 

Kanjorski and distinguished members of the committee. My name 

is Diana Cantor. I am the executive director of the Virginia college 

savings plan and chairman of the College Savings Plans Network, 

an affiliate of the National Association of State Treasurers that has 

represented State 529 college savings and prepaid tuition plans 

since 1991. I thank you Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to address your committee. 

The cost of attending college, whether public or private, continues to rise steadily. In order to send their children to college, 

American families increasingly rely upon debt to meet the rising 

cost of a higher education. Despite the cost, the value of a higher 

education is undeniable. 

The best answer to rising college costs is to encourage families 

to save in advance. The States began creating prepaid tuition and 

savings plans more than a decade ago to help families cope with 

spiraling tuition costs. The theory has worked. Give families a tax 

advantage, disciplined, safe way to save for college expenses, and 

they will use it. 

There are two types of Section 529 plans, prepaid and savings. 

Prepaid plans are similar to a defined benefit pension plan where 

the family is purchasing a defined amount of future tuition years 

of credit. Savings trusts are more analogous to defined contribution 

plans. Families can save in a variety of investment options, including equity and fixed-income mutual funds, actively managed accounts, money market, and stable value funds. 

Families participating in 529 plans are specifically saving for college where otherwise they may not set aside money for that purpose. The programs, through their marketing efforts, draw attention to the need to save for college early and help many families 

across the country take that all-important step of beginning to 

save. 

State college savings programs have achieved phenomenal success. With the enactment of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief 

Reconciliation Act, the number of children participating in our programs has skyrocketed. Every State in the Nation plus the District 

of Columbia now has at least one Section 529 savings option designed to meet the particular circumstances and policy goals of 

their States. States are able to offer their participants an opportunity to invest in funds and actively managed accounts that may 

otherwise be unavailable to them due to high minimum investment 

requirements. Savings plans typically do not have age or residency 

requirements as is common with prepaid tuition plans, so investors 

are free to choose any plan across the country that best meets their 

needs. 

Today, with assets topping $40 billion in savings plans and $10 

billion in prepaid tuition plans nationally, these plans are receiving 

7

increased attention. The Securities and Exchange Commission, in 

response to an inquiry from Chairman Oxley, recently announced 

the creation of a Section 529 task force to review among other 

things disclosure and fee issues. Questions have been raised as to 

why our programs may look different from State to State. 

Our feelings as State administrators are that the unique features 

of our plans provide their prime attraction, the ability of each State 

to craft a program that best suits its citizens’ needs and further 

that State’s higher education policy. 

Over a year ago, the College Savings Plans Network undertook 

an effort to create voluntary disclosure principles. These principles 

were adopted in draft form just last week at our network’s annual 

meeting. The goal of the principles is to provide a framework for 

disclosure so that an investor can easily understand his or her own 

State plan as well as compare Section 529 plans on an apples-toapples basis. They contain recommendations on information that 

should be prominently stated, such as the need to consider State 

tax treatment and other types of benefits and the availability of 

other 529 programs offered by that State. 

The principles also contain tables and charts which provide clear, 

concise and consistent descriptions of fees, expenses and investment performance. Fees will continue to vary among these plans as 

fees differ among all types of non-529 investment options. Consumers do not expect to pay the same fees for a completely passive 

large cap index fund as they do for an actively managed international equity fund. Nor do they expect to pay the same for a direct-sold investment as they would for an advisor-sold product. But 

the intent of our disclosure guidelines is to make comparing the 

same types of plans much easier. 

State oversight of their 529 plans provides an additional layer of 

accountability and protection for participants in these plans. 

States, such as Ohio, Louisiana, and Wisconsin, have already reacted to the current environment by expanding investment options, 

adding low-cost funds, and lowering fees. As creatures of State law, 

Section 529 plans are subject to multiple levels of oversight that 

help protect the programs’ participants. Each State is governed by 

its own administrative procedure laws, procurement laws, ethics 

and conflict-of-interest statutes and freedom of information or Government in the Sunshine acts. 

The plans are all administered by State boards, authorities or 

trusts. By statute or regulation, the operating authorities are required to follow prudent personal standards in selecting and retaining funds or managers. All of the programs are subject to financial 

audit and reporting requirements. 

Promoting greater access to higher education and encouraging 

savings over debt is sound public policy. The existing State college 

savings programs promote these goals and reduce the need for financial aid and student loans. 

Mr. Chairman, these programs are working. These plans have already provided benefits to more than 400,000 students nationwide 

and another 6 million children are waiting to use their accounts. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, Section 529 plans are flourishing, and 

families are using these plans in record numbers to save for their 

children’s future. 

8

Congress’ mission in creating 529 plans is being accomplished. 

We, along with our partners in the financial services industry, will 

work together to continue to improve these plans and to serve 

America’s families and our most important customers, America’s 

children. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kanjorski, 

distinguished Members of the committee, for your support of State 

college savings programs and the millions of families across America who participate in them. We look forward to continuing to work 

with your committee to continue to provide the best college savings 

options available through Section 529 plans. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Diana Cantor can be found on page 

78 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. I thank you for your statement. 

For the purposes of our next introduction I would yield such time 

as the gentleman may consume to the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. 

Tiberi. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is a pleasure to introduce another central Ohioan, Jacqueline 

Williams, who is the executive director of the Ohio Tuition Trust 

Authority. Jackie was appointed executive director of the Ohio Tuition Trust Authority in June of 1999. She has held leadership positions in both the public and private sector. She is president of the 

Columbus Board of Health, serves on the Columbus Cancer Clinic 

Board. She earned both her master’s and her bachelor’s degree at 

Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, one of the alma maters for our 

chairman to the left here. 

On a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I had the opportunity during 

my last term of the General Assembly to work with Ms. Williams, 

and she was respected by members on both sides of the aisle. 

And it is a real pleasure to work with you and thank you for 

being here to offer your expert testimony, Ms. Williams. 

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE WILLIAMS, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, OHIO TUITION TRUST AUTHORITY 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Thank you very much. Thank you for the wonderful introduction. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kanjorski, and members of the 

committee, this is a real pleasure to speak to you today regarding 

529 plans and to share one State’s history and philosophy regarding these plans. 

My name is Jackie Williams, and I am the executive director of 

the Ohio Tuition Trust Authority and a member of the Executive 

Committee of the College Savings Plans Network. The Ohio Tuition 

Trust Authority is an independent, self-supporting State agency 

which is governed by an 11-member board representing business, 

higher education, and elected officials. 

Ohio was one of the first States to offer a qualified tuition program, and in 1989, the General Assembly in Ohio created the trust 

authority to help with the following objectives: Make higher education more affordable and accessible to Ohio citizens, to assist 

State universities by providing a stable financial base, to protect 

Ohio citizens from rising tuition costs, to encourage savings, and to 

promote secondary and post-secondary academic excellence. 

9

Since 1989, almost 25,000 students have attended college using over $232 million invested in Ohio’s plan. But according to the recently completed report of Ohio’s Governor’s Commission on higher 

education and the economy, only 11 States have smaller portions 

of their populations who have earned baccalaureate degrees. The 

report states that Ohio’s economic growth and prosperity is inextricably linked to increasing participation by Ohioans in higher 

education. 

We offered initially a unit-based prepaid tuition plan called the 

Guaranteed Savings Fund, and our State provided a tax exemption 

on earnings as an incentive for families to save. In 1994, the Ohio 

General Assembly supported and the voters of Ohio approved a 

constitutional amendment to provide the State’s full financial backing for that prepaid plan in the event the fund could not meet future obligations. So clearly, this was a very high priority for our 

State. 

In 1996, when Congress established qualified State tuition programs and added Section 529 to the Internal Revenue Code, Ohio’s 

program fell under the guidelines established for such programs. 

And in 1999, the tuition trust proposed legislative changes to the 

agency’s statute to take advantage of these Federal changes. The 

Ohio General Assembly unanimously supported the decision to 

offer more diverse choices for investments and also expanded the 

tax incentive by providing a $2,000 State tax deduction on contributions to the program. 

We undertook an extensive competitive bid process to select and 

hire a firm to provide investment management, marketing and administrative services. Our due diligence included on-site examinations of bidders by our staff, a review of fees and performance by 

our outside consultants, and oral presentations by finalists. And in 

2000, we hired Putnam Investments to manage the savings program. 

The firm was selected for a variety of reasons, but one of the 

most important things was their commitment to educate and sell 

options to consumers through an extensive network of financial advisers. This was a deliberate choice on the part of our board because they wanted to extend the access of these programs to the 

public. Our staff, while one of the larger ones in the 529 industry 

was never intended to grow large enough to address the more than 

11 million people in the State of Ohio. 

Our plan is sold through financial advisors and directly through 

the tuition trust. The advisor-sold component offers 17 marketbased options, and those same options are available directly 

through the trust authority at a lower cost for Ohio residents. Over 

the past 4 years, we have experienced significant growth in our 

program. In our State alone, over $1.1 billion has been invested 

through CollegeAdvantage on behalf of 186,000 beneficiaries. And 

the average account value, despite the fact that most of these programs will allow people to save significant amounts for private or 

public education, graduate school et cetera, the average account 

value is $7,500. 

However, we continue to refine and enhance our program, and in 

the spring of 2003, we conducted market research of Ohio citizens 

who had relatives under age 18 to whom they felt some obligation 

10

to help save for college. Among respondents who were saving, bank 

accounts were the most popular vehicle. And while 9 percent were 

using CollegeAdvantage to save, 28 percent were using taxable instruments. And fully half of all respondents, despite the fact that 

they had children or grandchildren, were not saving at all. 

The other point that came out was that fully two-thirds of the 

people responding considered themselves to be do-it-yourself investors and wanted very clear, easy-to-understand savings options. To 

meet the needs uncovered through research, we took a two-step approach. And in January of this year, we issued an RFP to index 

fund managers for a low-cost index provider. Through a competitive 

selection process, we hired the Vanguard Group in March. And in 

May we added 15 Vanguard investment options to 

CollegeAdvantage. 

We will soon issue an RFP to Ohio banking institutions for a 529 

savings account and at least one-time deposit product. The goal 

would be to distribute these products through the bank’s distribution channels including branch locations, on-line bank centers, call 

centers, workplace programs and other access points, because our 

job is to make sure that our citizens have full access to these programs. We offer flexible contribution methods through electronic 

funds transfer, payroll deduction, on-line contributions, no enrollment fee, and minimum contributions of $15. We also have made 

college more affordable by having some of the lowest fees in the industry, and while total expense ratios will definitely vary with the 

type of investment option, the lowest all-inclusive fee available 

through our program, is 35 basis points. 

So we have done a considerable amount to standardize the information that is available over the past several months to people in 

our program, and we believe that we are now leading the industry 

in terms of some of the recent enhancements we have made to our 

disclosure materials. We are working to increase access to higher 

education in our State by offering a diverse range of investment 

choices, low fees, affordable minimum contributions, online access, 

easy contribution options, and State tax advantages. These features 

make Ohio’s program unique and tailored to the needs of Ohio families. 

While disclosure information should be standardized across the 

529 industry, each State must be able to shape and define its own 

plan to meet the unique needs of its citizens. Our success is essential if the governor’s goal of increasing participation in post-secondary education by 30 percent or 180,000 students by 2015 is to 

be reached. Each day, we work with families one at a time to support their aspirations to achieve a better future for their children. 

Thank you again for the opportunity, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to working with you and Members of your committee. And we 

would be pleased to answer any questions when it is appropriate. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Jacqueline Williams can be found on 

page 156 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you very much. 

I would like to now welcome Mr. Marc Lackritz, president of the 

Securities Industry Association, back to the committee. 

Welcome, sir. 

11

STATEMENT OF MARC E. LACKRITZ, PRESIDENT, SECURITIES 

INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. LACKRITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today about Section 529 plans, how important they are to financing higher education costs and how we might 

work together to improve them. 

My name is Marc Lackritz. I am president of the Securities Industry Association. Our member firms are deeply committed, Mr. 

Chairman, to reviving a national culture of saving, particularly 

among young people. We have worked very hard to educate and encourage both students and parents to invest regularly in a product 

with marginal risk to help foster a renewed sense of personal responsibility. One such product, the Section 529 plans, offers some 

of the best benefits for savings for college. 

Our members are actively involved in all phases of the management and marketing of 529 plans because these plans have easier 

eligibility and contribution requirements than certain other investment options, thereby making them accessible to far more families 

and people. The enhanced Federal tax benefit provided by Congress 

in the tax legislation of 2001 instantly increased the popularity of 

Section 529 plans: 63 percent of these accounts were open in 2001 

or later, and participation in account balances will continue to rise 

as individuals become more aware of the tax benefits of the plan. Indeed, if a family contributed $2,000 annually to a 529 account 

for 18 straight years and assuming an 8 percent rate of return, 

they would have saved nearly $75,000 for college, enough for most 

4-year public institutions across the country. The favored tax treatment of 529 plans not only enhances returns but also helps to assure that the funds will be there when they are needed for college 

by discouraging withdrawal for other purposes. 

Without the involvement of the States, 529 savings plans would 

not exist. States approve the method of distribution both in-State 

and nationally, and broker dealers that distribute 529 plans must 

work with the States to negotiate selling agreements and produce 

marketing and other program literature. Tax treatment of 529 

plans is subject to both Federal and State law. And the Securities 

and Exchange Commission and the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board oversee the broker dealers and investment advisors 

who distribute the plans. 

Mr. Chairman, we believe there are five different ways to improve on Section 529 plans. First, make the tax-free treatment of 

distributions permanent. The short-term success in expanding 529 

plans from enhanced Federal tax advantages enacted in 2001 could 

be undermined by the uncertainty that the tax incentive will not 

be made permanent. If Congress does not extend the provision for 

tax-free withdrawals on 529 plans, then, after 2010, earnings in 

the account will be taxed at the recipient’s rate as they are withdrawn. We would urge Congress to make the tax-free treatment of 

distributions permanent as soon as possible to ensure certainty to 

participants that the tax benefit will exist when they make their 

withdrawals. 

Secondly, create tax parity among the States. Creating tax parity 

among all 50 States would significantly increase participation and 

lower cost for investors. Currently, more than 50 percent of the 

12

State plans have different tax rates and policies in place. Families 

and their financial advisors face a complex challenge to determine 

the value of particular State’s tax benefit when placed in the proper context of other investment considerations. SIA and our member 

firms are actively working at the State level to achieve tax parity 

across the board. We have had some success, although current 

State fiscal constraints are hampering broader progress. 

Third, we need to improve disclosure. We also believe that clear, 

more complete and more understandable disclosure of fee and investment-related information would help investors make relevant, 

consistent comparisons among different types of plans. Currently, 

marketing material for mutual funds purchased through a broker 

dealer must comply with NASD advertising rules, and since about 

75 percent of 529 plans are sold through brokers, investment-related disclosure in advertising is fairly consistent across 529 plans. 

However, fees are not disclosed in the uniform way in program 

materials with some programs including costs, such as annual 

maintenance fees, while others do not. We believe that all fees 

should be transparent and should be included in investment performance information. We have worked with the States as they develop the draft guidelines that will standardize both the kind of information disclosed as well as its location. 

Similarly, we support improved disclosures of potential homeState tax benefits. Under the MSRB guidelines, broker-dealers 

must provide disclosure to clients of any potential home-State tax 

benefit. However, the location of that notice in the program description is not standard among plans. We believe this information 

should appear on the first page of the program description to help 

both investors and their financial advisors. That statement, however, should also indicate that tax treatment is only one of many 

features that should be weighed by investors in selecting a 529 

plan. 

Fourth, ensure suitability. Under our securities laws, brokerdealers must ensure that products that they sell to their clients are 

suitable for them. The variety of different 529 plans as well as 

other education savings vehicles can make choosing the right one 

a difficult and confusing exercise for investors. Registered representatives and financial advisors help investors make the right 

investment decisions by encouraging their clients to consider a variety of factors when reviewing college savings plan options. 

And fifth, improve investor education. Investors continue to state 

that they lack the knowledge about investing and that they want 

the securities industry’s help in educating them. We have recently 

updated our free guide to understanding 529 plans to include a list 

of questions a 529 investor should consider before investing in a 

particular plan. In addition, our investor education website, 

pathtoinvesting.org, includes information on 529 plans as well as 

opportunities to invest in a hypothetical account. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, SIA is committed to ensuring that 

529 plans remain among the best possible products available to 

save for higher education. We have met with members of the 529 

task force established by Chairman Donaldson, and we will continue our outreach efforts to promote a greater awareness and understanding of 529 plans. We look forward, Mr. Chairman, to workVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:50 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95061.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
13

ing with you, the regulatory agencies and State officials to make 

permanent the Federal provision for tax-free withdrawals on 529 

plans, achieve tax parity among the States, improve disclosures, 

and provide ongoing education on 529 plans and other appropriate 

investments. Together, we will expand the opportunities for all 

families to save for their children’s education, the most important 

investment in our future. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Marc E. Lackritz can be found on 

page 89 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, sir. 

Our next witness is Mr. Michael A. Olivas, who holds the William B. Bates Distinguished Chair in Law and who appears today 

as the director of the Institute for Higher Education of Law and 

Governance from the University of Houston Law Center. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. OLIVAS, WILLIAM B. BATES DISTINGUISHED CHAIR IN LAW AND DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR 

HIGHER EDUCATION LAW AND GOVERNANCE, UNIVERSITY 

OF HOUSTON LAW CENTER 

Mr. OLIVAS. Thank you Chairman Baker, members of the committee and the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to 

present testimony this morning and to share some of my research 

on prepaid plans and college savings plans which I have been 

studying since they began. I will spare you the details. These are 

available in fine bookstores everywhere and soon to be a major motion picture. 

I would like to draw your attention to a number of the issues 

raised by a colleague, Joseph Hurley, whose annual book, the Best 

Way to Save for College, rates these various State plans. For example, he lists them according to eligibility or who is able to open an 

account, an issue that is not as easy as it seems on the surface: 

The time or age limitation on the beneficiary or the eventual user; 

age-based investment options; static investment options; the underlying investments; fees and expenses on a variety of bases; the 

broker distribution fees; contributions both the maximum and the 

minimum; account changes, such as beneficiary changes, transfers 

in ownership and other kinds of things like this, including the ability to transfer to a sibling or a relative; full faith and credit, whether actual or political full faith and credit; State income-tax deductibility exemptions from creditors; whether or not these are subject 

to involuntary transfer alienation clauses; and reciprocity with a 

variety of other State plans. 

As students and these plans become more portable, these issues 

are going to continue to vex both enrollment managers, higher educators generally as well as parents and the children. Of course, 

these very many options reflect the maturity of investment markets and make the various plans extremely popular with parents 

and other investors, especially those plans that offer enhanced 

portability and the collateral State tax benefits as program choices. 

Of course, these investors have many choices among investment 

funds, especially in the State savings plans. A number of States 

offer multiple plans. It was mentioned this morning that one State 

offers at least 17 at last count. As attractive as these choices are, 

14

an observer cannot help but question whether a State program 

really requires as many investment choices for contract purchasers, 

each with a different and often unclear fee structure, investment 

mix and track record. The marginal advantages may not be evident 

in any annual review while the State’s supervisory role is made 

much more complicated by the extremely complex bid and review 

process, especially in States with intricate procurement and investment regulations. 

This lack of transparency is the clear disadvantage held up to 

the mirror of enhanced investor choice. In my judgment, we may 

be verging on a system where there are too many choices for most 

investors and the system’s complexity renders comparable choice 

shopping too complicated for most investors, particularly for those 

who participate because they are risk-averse in the first place and 

do not feel comfortable simply investing in traditional instruments, 

beating the markets or having bank accounts. 

There is almost too much dynamism in these plans as the various States compete with other State plans to offer more plans and 

more complex options so as to attract more contract purchasers. A 

system can have too many choices and can intimidate or paralyze 

unsophisticated buyers especially in markets that are planned to be 

churning markets. 

This system complexity can be a barrier to market entry for some 

persons. Yet another issue is that the range of investment options 

may have unintended consequences. Diverse plan options may encourage purchasers to place all their eggs in one basket. I have 

been concerned about the rise of single mutual funds as State options both with and without brokers in a number of State plans. 

My concern is that people in traditional marketplaces might 

choose mutual funds due to their broadly based mix of stocks or 

bonds, in some instances, when individual contract purchaser 

needs may be poorly suited to such vehicles. Whenever information, 

such as how to best allocate and invest in State programs, is at a 

premium, the persons least likely to participate or prosper are the 

less well-educated, the very group at whom these programs are 

aimed, the poor, immigrants and minorities, especially linguistic 

minorities. 

Thus, system complexity in State prepaid and saving plans programs, even in States with low barriers to entry and monthly payment options such as those in Georgia, attract and reward the most 

advantaged and knowledgeable participants much like the college 

application process itself, which so clearly serves the interests of 

advantaged and wealthier students. If information and investor 

savvy are needed for these dynamic investments, State prepaid and 

savings plans will widen the gap between the wealthy and the 

poor, majority and minority, street-smart and average persons. 

Finally, I note that my earlier concerns about the viability of 

these programs have largely been met by the emergence of legislation and favorable tax treatment, including legal developments. 

After all, there are a number of us in the 1980s that were wondering how we were going to pay off the funeral of these plans before they received tax treatment favorable by this legislature. 

However, as in any other public program, it is clear that the 

wealthy have more options, and the poor cannot afford to avail 

15

themselves of various tax vehicles or savings programs, although 

they value higher education for their children every bit as much as 

do the wealthy. 

I urge you to facilitate truly comparable disclosure requirements, 

full and open participation data which we do not have at present, 

usable program investment performance and comprehensive eligibility and enrollment information. 

Because of unique State conditions and political considerations, 

each State has fashioned its own plan or plans, and maybe, we 

should just rejoice in the thousand flowers that are blooming. But 

I fear that the program complexity has made this generous and 

useful universe off-putting to many parents and would-be contributors. I urge, at the very least, standardization and uniformity with 

regard to fee disclosures, which we do not have. And it is not clear 

to me that those governed can govern themselves in this regard. 

That is, it is not clear to me that the States are in a position to 

gather this information and report. I believe that this would be 

very troubling, and I think we have a number of categorical precedent’s for this that this committee is aware of as no other. 

I have attached a copy of the various State plans taken from a 

recent article, also available in fine book stores everywhere. I hope 

that this will be a useful starting point and will be useful to readers, and if I may answer any questions or elaborate upon these 

views, I would be certainly pleased to do so. Thank you for this opportunity to share my research and my thoughts with you. 

[The prepared statement of Michael A. Olivas can be found on 

page 133 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your 

attendance. 

Our next witness is Mr. Daniel McNeela, senior analyst, 

Morningstar, Inc. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL MCNEELA, SENIOR ANALYST, 

MORNINGSTAR, INC. 

Mr. MCNEELA. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

this distinguished committee. My name is Dan McNeela, and I am 

a senior analyst with Morningstar, Inc., an independent investment 

research firm that provides data and analysis on mutual funds and 

other investments. 

More than a year ago, we began to cover 529 plans which, as our 

research has shown, have much to offer. Now, I lead a team of four 

analysts that reviews all 529 plans in existence. Our analysis 

shows that a well-chosen 529 plan is an attractive investment vehicle. To inform their decisions, we write commentaries that detail 

the benefits afforded to 529 investors. Such advantages include 

considerable investment flexibility, tax advantages, high contribution limits, and diversification. 

That said, my testimony today focuses on the shortcomings of 

529 plans. Several areas are in need of substantial improvement. 

All too often high costs, poor disclosure and unreasonably complex 

structure greatly diminish their potential value. Some of our greatest concerns relate to the myriad costs investors pay to participate 

in a 529 plan. Investors face enrollment fees, account maintenance 

16

fees, administrative fees, management fees and, in many cases, 

broker fees. Some of those costs are dollar-based while others vary 

depending on the amount invested in the plan. 

Calculating the specific fees associated with a particular investment option can be a major undertaking. Most plans are set up as 

funds of mutual funds whereby a single investment option represents a basket of underlying funds. To arrive at the total expenses of a single investment option, investors must first prorate 

the costs of the underlying funds depending on their weighting in 

the portfolio and add the costs of all those funds together. Any associated administrative fees and broker fees, if applicable, must be 

added to arrive at a total. Even at that point, dollar-based fees are 

left unaccounted. 

That process is frustrating enough for individual investors, but 

most 529 plans exacerbate this problem by burying this important 

cost information in the back of a 100-page-long program disclosure 

document. At its worst, the complexity of the cost structure and the 

reluctance to make the information easily accessible amount to deceit on the part of 529 providers. 

The simplest solution is to require plans to prominently feature 

cost information on websites and in their literature. Costs should 

be presented both at the base level, so investors can see what they 

are paying for, and in aggregate, to summarize the plan’s expenses. 

In situations where costs vary depending on the chosen investment 

option, a total cost for each investment option should be clearly 

outlined. In effect, this summary expense data would serve the 

same purpose as that of expense ratios for mutual funds. 

Finally, 529 plans should heed the call that mutual funds are 

hearing for better cost disclosure by providing cost estimates in dollar terms as well as percentage terms. A projection of a total cost 

based on a $10,000 investment would serve investors by making 

comparisons between competing plans much easier. 

Clear disclosure of costs in both percentage terms should help alleviate the other major problem of 529 plans. In short, too many 

plans are prohibitively expensive. One reason plans are so expensive is that several large groups are in line to collect fees. With 

States, fund companies, brokers, and third-party administrators all 

putting their fingers in the pie, it is no wonder that investors can 

end up with a knuckle sandwich. Anyone who says that costs don’t 

matter is most likely a recipient of those fees. Plan costs come out 

of investors’ pockets on a dollar-for-dollar basis. 

Although the debate between low cost index funds and more expensive actively managed options is worthwhile, overcharging for 

lavish advertising campaigns and bloated administrative expenses 

is reckless and unfair. A recent review of 529 plans turned up several with investment options whose costs approach or exceed 2 percent of assets for Class A shares. This figure does not include frontend sales costs, which can be as much as 5.75 percent of assets, 

or any dollar-based fees. 

Collectively, these expenses significantly diminish potential 

gains. If long-term returns before fees average 6 percent annually, 

expenses could consume more than a third of investors’ potential 

gains. The difference between paying 1 percent or 2 percent in annual asset-based fees may seem minuscule to uninformed investors, 

17

but presenting those costs in dollars and cents and projecting them 

over a multi-year period will shed light on this issue. In the aggregate, we can see how meaningful the potential differences become. 

With $47 billion currently in 529 plans, a 1 percent asset-based fee 

costs 529 investors $470 million annually. At a 2 percent fee level, 

annual costs to 529 investors rise to $940 million. 

Although fees and their transparency are important issues, 529 

plans also have a responsibility to disclose how fees are used. This 

concern focuses on administrative fees which vary greatly among 

plans. Tennessee’s plan, for example, is cheaper than average overall because it uses low-cost index funds and lacks a broker sold option. Its cost structure is also simple because it charges a flat 95 

basis points regardless of the investment option. But Tennessee’s 

administrative costs are unreasonably high. The plan’s disclosure 

documents do not explain why it costs nearly 50 percent more than 

nearly identical plans offered by Michigan and Missouri. Tennessee 

charges as much as 0.88 percent in administrative fees without accounting for that how that money is being used. 

By comparison, Utah reports that it has been able to cover its operating costs by charging a mere 0.25 percent in administrative 

fees. States that offer 529 plans need to be accountable for fees. 

Citizens have a right to know how their money is used. 

The first step towards achieving that goal is improved disclosure. 

We believe that States should tell investors how much money they 

collect and where that money ends up. Are fees paying for splashy 

advertising campaigns or defraying the costs of other projects? To 

date, States haven’t felt compelled to provide answers. 

In a similar vein, residents receive little information regarding 

how their States’ selected fund company partners. States should be 

forthcoming about the selection process and criteria used. They 

should fully explain the terms of the deal, including any benefits 

the States will receive and how their choice serves citizens. 

The final area in need of improved disclosure is the evaluation 

of performance. Investors currently receive information regarding 

the performance of the various investment options for both shortterm and long-term periods, but to grasp how well their plan is 

performing, investors need to see the performance of relevant 

benchmarks alongside the plan’s returns. These benchmarks should 

reflect the asset classes in which the investment options are invested. 

Because many of the investment options include both stocks and 

bonds, blended benchmarks which combine returns from different 

asset classes are most appropriate. It is important that this comparison relates to the actual performance of investment options net 

of all asset-based fees. If this is done properly, plans saddled with 

poorly performing funds and high cost structures will have few 

places to hide. 

As a supplement to those numbers, plans should provide investors with a written commentary explaining why the investment options did better or worse than their benchmark. This analysis, 

which need not be lengthy or complicated, would markedly demonstrate accountability. Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Daniel McNeela can be found on 

page 129 in the appendix.] 

18

Chairman BAKER. Thank you very much, sir. 

Our next witness is Mr. Mercer Bullard, who appears here today 

as president and founder of Fund Democracy, Inc., also an assistant professor of law at the University of Mississippi. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MERCER E. BULLARD, PRESIDENT AND 

FOUNDER, FUND DEMOCRACY, INC., AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI SCHOOL OF 

LAW 

Mr. BULLARD. Thank you, Chairman Baker and Members of the 

subcommittee. And thank you also for the opportunity to appear 

before you to discuss 529 State tuition savings plans. It is an honor 

and a privilege to appear before the subcommittee today. 

I will focus my remarks on the issue of fee disclosure by 529 

plans—and that is 529 savings plans, not prepaid plans—and begin 

with the aspects where there does not appear to be much disagreement. There seems to be little disagreement, for example, that 529 

fee disclosure is inadequate. 529 plan fees are hard to find. They 

are hard to understand, and they are not standardized so as to permit easy comparison across different plans. 

The transparent disclosure of fees is critical to the efficient operation of any market, and the 529 plan industry is no exception. Unless and until 529 plan fee disclosure is reformed, plan participants 

will pay higher fees than they otherwise would pay. 

It would not be surprising if there were also general agreement 

about general minimum standards for 529 plan fee disclosure. 529 

plans are in many respects similar to mutual funds, and 529 plan 

assets are primarily invested in mutual funds. Therefore, mutual 

fund rules are likely to provide at least a reference point if not a 

baseline for 529 plan fee disclosure. 

This brings us to areas of potential disagreement. For example, 

as the subcommittee is very aware, there is substantial disagreement by the adequacy of mutual fund fee disclosure. The SEC has 

admitted that current mutual fund fee disclosure requirements are 

inadequate and has proposed rules to address some but not all of 

the most glaring deficiencies. I hope that these problems will at 

least be fixed for 529 plans if not for mutual funds, and I have described in my written submission the minimum standards that I 

believe 529 plans should be held to. 

In fact, I believe that fee disclosure requirements for 529 plans 

should exceed those applicable to mutual funds for two primary 

reasons. First, Congress enacted 529 plans for a specific purpose, 

to promote investment in higher education, and Congress is financing this policy with foregone tax dollars. Every additional dollar 

spent on 529 plan fees is $1 less that can be spent on higher education. Congress has a heightened interest in promoting competition and thereby lowering 529 plan fees. 

A second reason 529 plan disclosure rules must go further than 

mutual fund rules is that 529 plans are subject to special constraints that further impede the operation of competitive market 

forces and necessitate more aggressive fee disclosure requirements. 

These additional anticompetitive constraints arise from the exclusive sponsorship of 529 plans by governmental entities. 529 plans 

19

issue municipal securities, which generally exempt the plans and 

their issuers from the rules that apply to similar investment products. 

This means that participants in 529 plans are deprived of the 

benefits not only of fee disclosure rules but also a number of other 

rules that, in the private sector, have the effect of promoting competition or otherwise limiting fees. For example, mutual fund sales 

charges are subject to set limits; 529 plan sales charges are not. 

Mutual fund shareholders generally have the right to have their 

contributions invested and redeemed immediately at the fund’s per 

share net asset value; 529 plan participants do not have these 

rights. Fund share holders have the right to vote on key fee increases; 529 plan participants do not. Fund shareholders can recover excessive fees in court; 529 plan participants cannot. Each of 

these mutual fund rules directly or indirectly limits fund fees, but 

these rules do not apply to 529 plans. 

Furthermore, the State sponsorship of 529 plans creates conflicts 

of interests that generally are not present in the private sector, and 

these conflicts of interest may result in higher fees. States may set 

fees or hire managers based on political considerations rather than 

the effect on participants’ interests. In one case, a State treasurer 

purportedly used 529 plan assets to run ads about the plan that 

prominently featured the treasurer, who was running for reelection. States, as a group, have a monopoly over the Federal tax benefits provided by 529 plans. And each State individually has a monopoly over that State’s tax benefits. These monopolies further reduce price competition and increase costs. 

State sponsorship of 529 plans means that there are 50 different 

sets of rules, thereby increasing costs for providers which they pass 

on to participants in the form of higher fees. Establishing one set 

of rules would reduce costs. 

The absence of nondisclosure rules that promote competition and 

limit fees, States’ conflicts of interest, the State’s monopoly over 

plan tax benefits, the added compliance costs of 50 different sets 

of rules all argue for more aggressive fee disclosure requirements 

than in other contexts. 

This is not to say that, if such rules are not adopted, all 529 

plans would charge excessive fees. There are States that offer lowcost plans with reasonably clear although not standardized fee disclosure such as we have heard Georgia’s plan described as well as 

Virginia’s and Ohio’s in today’s hearing, and they are likely to continue doing so with or without new rules. 

But this is not true of all States, and tailoring fee disclosure to 

the Vanguards of the 529 plan industry makes no more sense in 

the 529 plan context than it would in the private sector. 

529 plan fee disclosure must be designed with a view to the sponsors, the States, for which mutual fund-like disclosure rules will 

not be enough to make them sufficiently accountable to market 

forces and insure that 529 plans serve their congressional purpose. 

Another subject about which there may be some disagreement is 

who should promulgate and enforce rules for 529 plan fee disclosure. I believe that the SEC has unparalleled expertise and experience in developing fee disclosure rules. It also has the objectivity 

and independence, as noted by Professor Olivas, which the States 

20

lack that is necessary to interpret and enforce these rules. I would 

recommend that Congress authorize the Commission to enforce and 

enforce fee disclosure rules for 529 plans. 

Also I want to specifically address the idea that Chairman Baker 

raised about an SRO and note that we just heard, for example, Ms. 

Williams talk about the standardization, and it is important, but 

immediately caveated that with the statement that Ohio must be 

able to shape and define its own plan to meet its own needs. And 

I think that we must wonder, when we hear that statement, 

whether for some States, perhaps not Ohio, that is going to mean 

that they will want to go their own way regardless of what standard arrangements that Ms. Cantor may reach. 

Another thing to think about is in the creation of this SRO you 

have created a brand new regulatory entity that doesn’t currently 

exist. We already have banks and the IRS regulating IRAs. We 

have the Department of Labor regulating employee benefit plans. 

We have got the SEC regulating variable annuities. And query 

whether you want to have a new regulator with a whole new set 

of rules, one that is now answerable to possibly 50 different interpretations of those rules to administer this new securities product. 

And another thing to think about is this issue will not stop with 

the disclosure of fees. It will go on to disclosure of performance and 

performance and standards, as Mr. McNeela just mentioned. It will 

go on to the issue of whether there should be limits on loads, as 

soon as some broker dealer exceeds the NASD loads on the ground 

as permitted under MSRB interpretations that they are providing 

additional services. There will be further debates about what substantive investments are made in 529 plans. What is going to happen the first time that a State decides to invest in companies instate in order to help that State’s economy? What is going to happen when the first state offers an Internet fund, the equivalent of 

an Internet fund in 2006 and somebody sees 40 percent of the investments that they made for their kids’ education go down the 

tubes in 1 year as we know can happen? These are the things that 

are going to have to be dealt with sequentially by a new SRO. And 

the irony of this is of course that we have been here before. With 

the National Securities Markets Improvements Act it was precisely 

the inability of the states to standardize disclosure requirements 

that they were applying to mutual funds that caused Congress to 

enforce that standardization. 

And I believe that that has been a great boon for the industry. 

It is simply inconsistent with the concept of Federalism that we 

would could expect States to get together and rigorously enforce 

standards that would apply to all of them or, in fact, none of you 

would need to be here. The States could simply do that on their 

own. 

So as you can see, I have a bit of skepticism generally about 

State actors and the private sector, and particularly as Professor 

Olivas mentioned, having those State actors in the private sector 

regulate themselves. 

So in conclusion, despite the inadequate state of the 529 plan fee 

disclosure, this product is still relatively in its infancy and regulators have a real opportunity to get it right from the start. We 

know how good fee disclosure promotes competition, reduces fees 

21

and creates wealth. And in this case that additional wealth creation will go to the worthy cause of higher education. I would be 

happy to help with the answers to any questions if you have them. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mercer E. Bullard can be found on 

page 47 in the appendix.] 

Chairman BAKER. Ms. Cantor, I would start with just the obvious, since the product is relatively new, there are still many parents learning about it and the dramatic growth we see over the 

past 3 years, perhaps is just a very modest indicator of what the 

future may hold with regard to national participation. That, in 

itself, would make congressional interest even more sensitive to appropriate management standards of disclosure and transparency. 

Given the fact that the network recently adopted a draft of principles, what would be your expectation as to a final accord being 

formally adopted that would be able to be reviewed by the public 

and Members of Congress as well? Is there a time line? Or what 

is your expectation? 

Ms. CANTOR. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. Regarding the process that we would like to continue with the guidelines that we promulgated and adopted last week, which, by the 

way, were a joint partnership effort between the public and the private sectors, our next step, as we promised the SEC task force, is 

to sit down with them under Chairman Oxley’s direction to have 

them review with us the guidelines, get their input, work with your 

staff here on financial services who have a copy of the guidelines. 

It is a work in progress. 

There are still States and their counsels who are making comments and making suggestions. We welcome all opportunities for 

input. We are hopeful that in the next several weeks over the summer months we will be able to work with our partners and with 

the regulators to provide a comprehensive set of guidelines that we 

look to provide to the members of Congress. 

Chairman BAKER. With regard to similar efforts in other related 

matters, in the insurance world, we have 50-plus different regulatory structures, with varying degrees of enforcement authorities 

within the various States. And we have been working with the 

NAIC and others to try to reach some national standard to allow 

for more uniform sales practices and enforcement capabilities. And 

that has gone on for some number of years. And we are really, although having made some modest progress, we are not very close 

to the goal which many members of the committee would support. 

And that is the reason for suggesting that if you reached accord 

on a model standard of disclosure, as for example, and had perhaps 

a product or two in response to Mr. Olivas’ concerns about having 

too many choices for the confused average consumer, if you had a 

standard national product that all States would offer that could be 

compared A to B to C, and if the State complied with all of the 

model requirements which your network would adopt in consultation with the SEC, that could then lead the State to earn a nationally recognized standard of conduct, for example. 

I really view that almost as the minimal sort of step that could 

be taken to avert where we don’t want to go, and that is ultimately 

some Federal intervention to set a model up. I really like the idea 

22

that innovative people come up with products that meet consumer 

needs. In some States, there are much higher per capita income 

than others. Smart people are going to go wherever they can to 

make money for their children. And we can’t keep people from investing where they think best for their own future. 

So merely the fact you offer more products is not a bad thing. 

But having some measure of comparability so people understand 

what they are buying when they are not the sophisticated investor, 

I think, is the general concern. Because this is the roadway out for 

many young people to become those sophisticated investors, and we 

certainly want to make sure that average working families can 

make clear choices based on comparability. Given the fact we don’t 

really have a firm time line, could we expect something within a 

year or two as to a final product? Without boxing yourself in unreasonably, how long a clock would one expect the Congress to wait 

while the self-regulatory process works? 

Ms. CANTOR. I would be hopeful that by the end of this calendar 

year we would be able to have something well within—by the end 

of 2004 should not be an issue to present something to Congress. 

And again, you know, asking the support of your staff to work with 

us along the way would be most helpful in moving forward some 

ideas that would be, you know, optimal in your opinion. 

The one thing that I always do want to mention, and I always 

use especially the example of your own plan in the State of Louisiana, where your State has crafted a program specifically for Louisiana residents that they feel, you know, best suits the citizens 

there, which is an amazing type of matching program into the 529 

plans where certain States that have put in incredible benefits for 

their own citizens based upon their own needs. We have to make 

sure that we encompass the individuality of some of those plans 

into a structure that would be a model guide line. 

And so that is what we are working to do. We will seek the input 

of every single State administrator in the country to make sure 

that we understand the complexities of their programs. We have 

been able to get the guidelines put together in a relatively short 

amount of time. So I am hopeful with the support of the SEC task 

force, and again with your staff, we will be able to move pretty 

quickly. 

Chairman BAKER. I think the last piece of that and my time’s expired, is the idea of a single product that could be offered everywhere so you could have clear concise comparability on a very limited—a very safe, an S&P index kind of not actively managed fund, 

so someone could pick that up and look at Mississippi or Louisiana 

or Texas and say, well, my State’s doing pretty well or I am okay 

with this little extra charge because of—I think it is a little 

daunting when you sit down and try to go through 12, 13 plans and 

really figure out what that means to you 15 years hence. Particularly, when, if it is a basket of underlying mutual funds where you 

really don’t know the managerial costs associated with that mutual 

fund nor how to calculate it for those 12 or 15 funds. But I appreciate that. And let me move on. 

Mr. Baca, did you have questions? 

Mr. BACA. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank 

you panelists for being here and discussing the 529 plans. My parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:50 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95061.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
23

ticular question is who knows about the 529 plans. This is part of 

the problem that we have right now I know that there are 22 

States and the District of Columbia that provide State tax deductions to residents who invest in 529s. What are the 22 States and 

why aren’t other States participating? 

Ms. CANTOR. Is that question for me, sir? 

Mr. BACA. Any one of you can answer that. 

Ms. CANTOR. I think the issue of who is providing a State tax advantage goes back to the creation of these plans at every State legislature, and so there are several States, as you know, around the 

country who don’t have a State income tax structure, which is why 

you don’t see, you know, Florida and Texas for example offering 

any State tax advantage. That is where you start to see some of 

the disparity in 529 plans which, if you go back to the beginning, 

are mutual fund securities. So at the base level, these are like municipal securities that the States are issuing with their partners in 

the financial services industry. And that is where you find some of 

the different State tax treatment. As far as who knows about these 

plans, you know, it is a huge effort on behalf of the States to work 

with their partners to perhaps make marketing decisions that may 

not be made just in the private sector. 

It is a goal I know of the States of Ohio and Virginia, in particular, to reach those middle income and lower income families 

who get lost in the shuffle, not, you know, poor enough for financial 

aid, if you will, but nowhere near being able to meet the cost of 

higher education. We conduct marketing campaigns that maybe 

traditionally would not be a great marketing decision. They are 

questions that Ms. Williams and I face every day from our State 

legislators when we testify during our legislative session some of 

the first questions we get are how are you reaching all Virginia 

families and all Ohio families. 

So we make extreme efforts to make sure that we are reaching 

all families in our States, and I know the other States around the 

country are doing the same in these partnerships that are truly 

unique. But the differences between the State tax legislations typically come from the creations of these plans and the amendments 

that legislatures are able to do. And as was mentioned, I think, by 

one of the panelists that sometimes State budget issues, today is 

truly the reason why you are finding, you know, hesitancies or the 

lack of any type of State tax additional benefit added on to these 

plans. I believe in the future you will see more and more of that 

as our economy continues to recover. 

Mr. BACA. So what you are saying is that each State has to create its own plan. As we look at standardization, there are certain 

States that are not participating and in order for them to do that 

they have to develop their own plans, correct? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, every State——

Mr. BACA. Or approval from the State legislators. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. These are statutorily based typically because 

they need to be sponsored by States. They can also be sponsored 

by higher education institutions, but they generally have been created by statute and every State now offers 529 plans. Only 22 

states choose to offer a tax deduction in combination with their 

plan. So that is the difference. Some States choose to offer a tax 

24

deduction and others do not. And I think it is very seriously connected with what the particular goals of that State are. 

In Ohio, we have a goal to significantly increase the number of 

people who are actually attending colleges in our State. We have 

traditionally been a manufacturing economy and now we have a 

significant need to increase the number of people who are going to 

attend college in our State. And our State has felt that it was important to associate tax benefits with these kinds of savings, so I 

think that is the variability that does occur between different 

States. 

Mr. BACA. I see that as very important, especially as I see the 

State of California increasing its tuition fees. Many of these students cannot even go to a State college or university. They will be 

going to our community colleges, so I see the need for these kind 

of plans and others. But what percentage of those in the plans are 

Hispanics? What kind of marketing tools do we have reaching out 

to Hispanics? We represent 16 percent of the total population of the 

United States, 42 million people right now, 700 billion in purchasing power. 

So when you look at having access to community and to State 

colleges and universities, what is currently in plan in terms of marketing? Do you have any statistics or data that shows what percentage of people participating in the plan are Hispanics, Blacks, 

or Native Americans? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I can try to answer that. Although we try to collect those kinds of statistics, typically that information is discretionary, as is income. So what we typically find out is that people 

don’t generally report that kind of information to us since it is voluntary. In the case of Ohio, we have a staff of 35 people and we 

have five marketing reps who are—who actually work out of their 

homes and live in various regions of the State. And their job, despite the fact that our product is sold through financial advisors, 

is to market the product through public events such as baby festivals and ethnic fairs. We also send a newsletter out to every elementary school student in our entire State which they take home 

to their families. We——

Mr. BACA. So are you saying then that in reality, maybe we are 

not even targeting Hispanics since that information isn’t even provided? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I don’t think that is true. I know that we target 

every——

Mr. BACA. It is up to the plans to target Hispanics, to make them 

aware that this is even available for them. I would have loved to 

have participated in these plans. I have a child that is going to go 

to a university next year. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, I can only speak for our State, and I know 

that we have an extensive effort to target every single ethnic group 

in our entire State. We work through churches and——

Mr. BACA. But you don’t have a percentage so we don’t really 

know what percentage are actually targeted. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Unfortunately I don’t have a statistic. 

Mr. BACA. So then we need to make sure that as we look at the 

work in progress and the model that is going to be used that we 

develop a good marketing plan that reaches out to our commuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:50 Aug 23, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 G:\DOCS\95061.TXT FIN1 PsN: MICAH
25

nities, to make sure that they are also eligible to participate or 

want to participate. 

Ms. CANTOR. Congressman Baca also, California for instance has 

a Spanish Web site that contains the information. 

Mr. BACA. Yeah. But not everybody has a computer in California. 

That is nice. 

Ms. CANTOR. Right. I do know also that several States, I know 

in our home State here in Virginia, we issue our materials that go 

to every student in the State is available in Spanish. If anyone 

calls our lines at the State agency, we have Spanish speaking employees who deal with the Hispanic population. We have targeted 

marketing campaigns every year to reach the Hispanic minority 

community and the African American community and the Asian 

community. So it is a big push on behalf of the States that contain, 

you know, ethnic populations that—I know it is a huge push in 

Texas. The commercials are in Spanish. And I think that there has 

been greater and greater success in reaching communities by 

speaking a language that everybody can understand. I know the 

National Association of State Treasurers has Spanish educational 

Web sites also available that you can access at the public libraries, 

and I do know about the——

Mr. BACA. But you have got to be aware that these plans exist, 

because if not, then they can’t access them. Miguel, it seems like 

you wanted to say something. 

Mr. OLIVAS. Well, only that I am a native Spanish speaker and 

let me just tell you my confusion is not ameliorated by reading 

these things in Spanish, nor would it be if I were a Vietnamese 

speaker. Let me tell you the problem is not necessarily translating 

these materials into Spanish or other languages. Native English 

speakers cannot make sense of many of these materials, let me just 

say. If you try, if you ever bought for your daughter a telephone 

plan, a portable telephone and then multiply that times 10 and try 

and find out how she is going to use it for 18 years, and put down 

a lump sum or try and invest; are approximating that kind of complexity. 

And I am not certain that the answer is simply publishing it in 

more languages, although I think that the States, to their credit, 

have actually marketed these things very well. To me the question 

isn’t that we are not marketing these things well enough. The 

question is how much information all users have, whether bilingual 

or whether native English speakers or native Spanish speakers or 

Hmong speakers. The question isn’t whether one can go to a Web 

site that is bilingual. 

The question, in my view, is whether or not you can make sense 

of that and whether or not you have confidence that the program 

is still going to be there. And I would have expected some convergence of these plans. Because some of these plans are actually 

being enacted at various States by national players who draft these 

plans and simply in some instances have turn keys in some of 

these States. 

In an article I wrote on my native State of New Mexico, it is 

pretty clear to me that there is not much New Mexican-ness to that 

plan, which is done by a program that doesn’t exist in New Mexico, 

except in this form. It is headquartered outside of New Mexico and 

26

it simply rents space in New Mexico to enable its plan to be enacted there. 

[speaking Spanish.] 

Chairman BAKER. Mr. Baca, I need to move on to Mr. Tiberi, if 

I may. We will come back with another round. 

Mr. Tiberi. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was hoping we could 

maybe get an Italian plan in Ohio. Ms. Williams, the Ohio plan 

which was established in 1989 before I went to the legislature is 

a fabulous plan. As a participant now, as a father, I want to compliment the leadership that you have provided. I wish that we 

would have had a plan sooner, so I could have taken advantage of 

it as a college student. In your written testimony, you mention that 

in Ohio, we have recently gone through an overhaul of materials, 

since we are talking about marketing, that is put in place to try 

to simplify fee disclosure. Can you describe to us what fees are disclosed and where the fees are disclosed in this marketing material. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Sure, I will be glad to, Congressman. We completely overhauled our entire offering materials and we have a onepage document now in our offering statement which shows all the 

over 30 options that we offer, exactly what the program fees and 

expenses are. It shows the fee that our agency collects in order to 

help administer the funds. It also shows the underlying fund fee 

and the total annual expense ratio. So we have laid it out on one 

page. We have also taken great pains to create a new document 

that is a risk tolerance questionnaire that we have made available 

to an individual who is walking through the product. 

And it is a series of a few questions that help that individual to 

identify what kind of saver they are, what kind of risk tolerance 

they take. And then consequently, they can look at the list of our 

products and determine what products might be in their own best 

interest. 

So this is the start of a process to be much more clear and consumer friendly, in order to enable people to be able to make the 

best possible decisions for their families. 

Mr. TIBERI. For participants in Ohio, in addition to the tax benefits that you spoke of in your testimony, what other benefits are 

there for participants from an Ohio perspective? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, we work with Ohio employers, for example. 

We work with almost 2000 Ohio employers to allow people to contribute through the workplace. We actually go on-site. We market, 

we talk to people at their place of employment. We have no annual 

fee for Ohio residents for this plan. There is no enrollment fee for 

this program at all. We try to make this program available and accessible everywhere. We do targeted radio advertising. We do print 

advertising because we want every single child in our State who 

aspires to go to college to have some ability to save through this 

program. And while we know it won’t cover the cost for most people, we think it is important that there are some resources available since the cost of college has at our public universities in Ohio 

has gone up 50 percent in 4 years. 

Mr. TIBERI. From your perspective, since 1999, when you became 

the administrator of the Ohio program, what has been the most 

common complaint from participants/investors? 

27

Ms. WILLIAMS. It varies as our program has changed. You know, 

we have heard complaints about fees, we have heard complaints 

about accessibility. The biggest complaint was we had a 1-year 

moratorium on new contributions to our prepaid plan, which ends 

the end of this year. And the biggest complaint has been that that 

program is no longer available. And the reason being we simply 

could not keep up with the costs of rising tuition at our State universities. So it was a very difficult decision for us to make. 

But that has been the biggest complaint in the entire time that 

I have been there. But we listen very carefully to our customers. 

We offer an 800 number. We communicate with them by the Web. 

And we really take into consideration their needs and desires and 

try to craft our plan in order to meet those. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. One last question for Ms. Cantor. What 

do you think from where you sit nationally, of dollar cost disclosures percentage cost disclosures and how does the college savings 

plan work draft deal with those two issues? 

Ms. CANTOR. I think those are part of the guidelines that you 

will see. I think they are important. It enables, you know, families 

to sit down at their kitchen table and understand the types of dollars that will be coming out of whatever they are earning. So those 

are definitely a part of what we are looking at in the tables that 

will be disclosed in the future, and so I am hopeful that that will 

aid the transparency and the disclosure across the country of what 

will be taking place. 

Mr. TIBERI. And most administrators agree with that, from your 

knowledge? 

Ms. CANTOR. I think that the commitment of our industry and 

all the stakeholders to participate in the process has been unanimous. Nobody wants to be the one plan that stands out and is covered in the financial press as the worst program because the beauty about the plans is not only do the States have the sensitivity politically and otherwise to react quickly to the concerns of our constituencies, but we are also very sensitive to the attention that is 

paid to this and the reputation. The last thing you want is your 

State legislature or your governor to ask you why you are the only 

State that doesn’t suit a model or doesn’t have a qualification status or you know a gold standard or something. So I think we are 

very sensitive to that. It is not probably in the terms of private 

competition but more of our ability as State administrators to hold 

up our plans as models across the country so that we make our 

constituents happy. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Meeks. 

Mr. MEEKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me just—I will 

just throw out a couple of questions and just anyone can answer. 

Hopefully, and I apologize if they were asked already. But you 

know, having a 4-year old daughter myself, I am doing some of this 

college planning and so I want to make sure, and let me just ask, 

are there 529 plans whose fees are so high that they would negate 

the tax benefits of investing in the plan? That will be my first 

question. 

28

Mr. LACKRITZ. Congressman Meeks, maybe I can address that. I 

know in the letter that Chairman Donaldson sent back to Chairman Oxley in response to the concerns about 529 plans, he raised 

the possibility that there could be fees that would be so high that 

they would, in fact, eliminate the tax benefit that would inure as 

a result of the plan. In reality, I think that is highly unlikely for 

a number of different reasons. But it is important from the standpoint that the fee structure—the different fees that advisors charge 

or that broker dealers charge when they sell these plans provide 

for a number of different services, levels of services that the plans 

provide. The key, I think, is to make sure that the disclosure is 

clear, that we increase competition by getting State tax parity 

across the board and encouraging more competition here and make 

sure the disclosure is fair open and let the marketplace and competition drive fees down so that they are as low as possible for everybody involved. 

Mr. MEEKS. Okay. Well, and I know the plans, you know you 

talk about the fees, and you are shaking your head no. No, I 

thought you were shaking your head no. 

Mr. OLIVAS. It was an inadvertent twitch. 

Mr. MEEKS. Oh, okay. Since 529 plans became law in 1996, do 

we have affirmative evidence I would say that they have truly been 

effective in helping parents save money for their children’s college 

education, or is it still too early, we don’t have enough of a test. 

Mr. OLIVAS. Well, there is some scholarship, and I recommend it 

as a cure to insomnia for the most part. Economists have begun to 

turn their attention to this, and I think that there is no evidence 

yet that there has been substantial diversion into these plans by 

people who would not have otherwise done so. This is the hard part 

to measure. Many of the people who participate in my estimation 

are people who already had the proclivity to do so and are seeking 

instead of putting money into a coupon bond or some other investment vehicle, are trying these particularly whether there used to 

be full faith and credit for the prepaid plans that would guarantee 

no matter how much the cost went up it would be covered. But 

that, of course, is just a small number of States. 

And as was suggested earlier, as indicated earlier, Ohio and others have put those on hold. Of course, they will still pay off to the 

participants, but they aren’t taking any newcomers. And so you 

had to be first there. Well, I simply ask who was always going to 

be first? It was going to be the most advantaged, the wealthiest 

and, in many cases, people who instead of putting money into other 

investments simply took this route. And so while I think that there 

is not definitive scholarship, I believe that this is intuitively obvious in the participation rates. 

Mr. BULLARD. If I could add to that. To answer both your questions, it really goes to the way to think about 529 plans. If you 

think about them as an alternative to investing in a taxable account, then the question of whether the fees could erode the tax 

benefits is really a question of whether you would pay more in the 

529 plan than you would otherwise pay in a taxable account. 

And in my testimony, I have suggested some reasons why that 

might be the case. But more importantly, I think that is the way 

to look at it. And simply the fact that there are high cost 529 plans 

29

doesn’t mean that they are destroying the tax benefit. They are 

simply reflecting the fact that we have high cost taxable account 

options. And we are also reflecting the fact that there are people 

who live in that marketing channel, and whether they buy the 529 

plan or buy in the taxable account, they are going to pay high expenses. And that is not so much a 529 plan issue as an issue generally about the fees that people pay and decisions they make 

about using intermediaries for the most part. 

Mr. MEEKS. So I guess the word is still out then, or the decision 

is still out as to whether or not—but obviously people who are 

lower income, whether they benefit from the these 529s because 

they don’t have the disposable income to invest in these 529s in the 

first place, and then whether or not there are benefits to them, you 

know, as it results to the deductions in the respective States. Yes, 

ma’am. 

Ms. CANTOR. Congressman Meeks, I would invite all the panelists and anyone else to listen in on some of our phone calls that 

we get back at the State agency and the visits that we have from 

police officers and teachers and first time students who are attending college as the first member of their generation to go to college 

about the family by family contacts that we have of who we are 

reaching and helping. And what we really like to stress, and what 

we have seen across our State, and I am sure is replicated across 

the country is the powerful message that these plans are sending 

to American families, that a higher education is not only worth 

saving for, but in many instances for families it is worth budgeting 

for and worth sacrificing for. 

We get dozens and dozens of requests to send certificates from 

grandparents who are putting in $20 a month so that their grandchildren know that they have a future ahead of them to go to community college, to work as hard as they can on their grades because their parents are putting away some money every month. So 

although some of the focus today has been on the fee structures 

and disclosures and mutual fund investors, we really work with the 

families on a day-to-day basis and those families who may not have 

seen investing as something they wanted to do, and possibly having 

the State involved gives the family some extra security, that they 

can call up the State office, they can call their State legislator, they 

can call the Governor’s Office if they have a problem if they are not 

getting service that they should demand and require from our programs. 

So I am hopeful that you know more and moreover time, I know 

we are reaching them you know today. I am hopeful and our goal 

is in our States to continue to reach more of the population that 

would not necessarily be saving today. And you will find much are 

our marketing materials directed to that end. 

Chairman BAKER. The gentleman’s time has expired. Thank the 

gentleman. 

Ms. Biggert. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you Mr. Chairman. This has been a very 

interesting hearing. I wish that I had known about this when I had 

three children in college at once, but it was before the time of this, 

so maybe my grandchildren will benefit from this. 

30

Mr. Lackritz, you mentioned in your written testimony something about the Coverdell Education Savings Accounts. Are those 

competing at all with these 529s? 

Mr. LACKRITZ. Well, Congresswoman Biggert, in a way they are 

competitive because they are a savings vehicle for higher education. But the restrictions, the income limitations and the restriction on contributions is such that they, you know they are limited 

in contribution and deduction to $2,000 a year, and there are income limitations on eligibility as well so they are far more restricted and as a result participation is not nearly as wide. 529 

plans really, going back to Congressman Meeks’ question, 529 

plans are a terrific for federalism here. 

The innovation, experimentation and pioneering work of the 

States, coupled with the active effort at the Federal level have produced a remarkably successful plan. I mean in 3 years, the penetration rate in 529 plans has gone up to, I think it is 8 percent now 

over 4 million households and over $40 billion invested in these 

plans. I would suggest, the awareness of saving for education has 

increased significantly because of these plans. So all of that is to 

say, I think the 529 plan, the Coverdell Savings Accounts, educational savings accounts are another vehicle but they are much 

more restricted. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. So they probably are not used as much or is that 

just because they—of the education. Which leads me to my next 

question. Could you just discuss in more detail the investor education programs? This is one of your brochures, I think that——

Mr. LACKRITZ. Well, I am glad you got it. I was going to hold it 

up for people in case they were interested. We have an extensive 

investor education Web site. It is called www.pathtoinvesting.org, 

and it has sort of best of class investment advice. There is no selling of products or services specifically on the site. It is designed to 

help people understand the basics of saving and investing for the 

future. 

It also provides a site for individuals that are getting into the 

market for the first time to participate in a hypothetical investment exercise where they can take a hypothetical $100,000 and invest that and sort of see what happens before they actually risk 

any of their own money. In addition, we have a number of different 

publications. Your guide to understanding investing is our sort of 

flagship publication which is put out by the same people and authored by the same people as using your guide to understanding 

529 plans. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. What feedback have you gotten from investors 

about the programs or about the education program? 

Mr. LACKRITZ. It is interesting. They seem to like the information 

we are providing and they want more. It is almost like a public 

good. I mean, whatever we produce, they like it and they want 

more. So we are continuing to put out more guides, more help in 

different areas for investors to help educate them as much as possible. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Do you think that the States should adopt their 

own investor education programs or just rely on yours? 

Mr. LACKRITZ. I would defer to the States on that. I think that 

we have terrific material and I think given the fact that our firms 

31

are expert and have great expertise in the capital markets and in 

helping individual investors invest for the future I think these are 

terrific program materials. We would make them available to 

States if States wanted to use them. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Do many of the States use them or is it just——

Mr. LACKRITZ. Not yet. What we try do is to link our investor 

education Web site as broadly as possible and as widely as possible, 

and we have got a number of links to other—for example, the 

Treasury now has an investor education financial literacy office 

specifically devoted to this. We are getting linked to that. We are 

getting linked to the SECs investor education Web site. We get 

linked to other Web sites as well. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Maybe this would be to Ms. Williams 

or to Ms. Cantor. Mr. McNeela proposed in his written testimony 

that only States that don’t discriminate against out-of-State plans, 

in other words, States that don’t penalize for withdrawals from outof-State plans deserve to have their plans defined as a qualified 

tuition tax savings plan and only those plans then would presumably receive all of the Federal tax benefits. What do you think of 

this proposal? 

Ms. CANTOR. I think we go back to the beginning as we usually 

do, to get a good answer. These, again, Congresswoman Biggert are 

municipal fund securities. They are no different from a taxation 

basis in general from municipal bonds that are issued by a State. 

If somebody lives in the Commonwealth of Virginia and owns an 

Illinois general obligation bond, they are going to pay Virginia 

taxes on the earnings of that security. 

There may be some States that give an additional benefit and 

maybe conform to the Federal tax exemption, but I think it is the 

prerogative of the States. I think that the focus of our industry 

really needs to be on the permanency of our Federal tax exemption. 

I think that is the one chilling effect that we are seeing out there 

for families, because in the interest of full disclosure, which it 

seems we do on every page, we are constantly reminding our investors that our Federal tax exemption does expire unless it is extended or put into permanency by 2010. And before we blink, as 

we all know as parents, 2010 will be here. And so that is something that we hope to work very hard with all of you on to help 

that chilling effect that is going on. 

We even hear some financial advisors that have national showcases to communicate saying, well, maybe you shouldn’t put your 

money in a 529 plan because the Federal tax exemption will disappear and people think the program is going to disappear. Just 

to reiterate about our education initiatives, all the States have extensive, you know education initiatives. Not only do we partner internally with the State higher education authorities, the State 

Treasury Departments on all their financial literacy awareness activities, we also partner with the securities industry association 

and other member associations to offer those materials. 

We have them available to us. SIA has made those books available to all the States. We bring them to the PTA meetings. We 

bring them to our church meetings and so we make sure that families who want general information use the best materials out there. 

We also are able to model a lot of our own materials on good ideas 

32

to communicate more effectively. So I am hopeful again as time 

goes on, this is still a new industry at some level. We may not be 

newborn, but we are certainly toddlers, you know, toddling around 

and trying to grow to the next step. We are going to do the best 

we can to there in a strong and a consistent way. 

Mrs. BIGGERT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank the gentlelady. Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Yes, Mr. Chairman I am going to take up so much 

of the committees’ time tomorrow that I am going to keep my comments to just 1 minute. 

Chairman BAKER. Oh, thank you. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And that is to echo what Ms. Cantor said and that 

is we ought to call on the Ways and Means committee to either 

make this a permanent program, or not. But the phony tax budgeting where they put in a program that they intend to have permanent, but then they put in the law that it is going to expire, and 

then they wait a couple of years then they extend it creates a circumstance where it costs the Federal Treasury every bit as much 

as if the program was permanent, but the effect on encouraging 

people, whether it is these 529s, or whether it is the research and 

development credit which I realize is outside this hearing, but they 

come up with things they want to encourage that are long term 

plans, then they provide a tax credit that is going to expire in a 

few years and then they extend it with the effect that they get all 

the costs and only some of the encouragement. And I will yield 

back. 

Chairman BAKER. Do you want to yield to Mr. Baca or to yield 

back? 

Mr. SHERMAN. Actually I will yield to Mr. Baca. I thought he 

would be next. 

Mr. BACA. Thank you very much for yielding to me. And I want 

to continue with the questioning that I addressed before. And I do 

appreciate the fact that we are addressing this issue because I 

think it is very important. This administration is actually cutting 

back additional funding for education, especially higher ed, the 

PALS Program and other programs. The States are also cutting 

back funding for our higher education institutions, our State colleges and universities. Is there a disparity in terms of the returns 

between a moderate-income person who pays X amount of dollars, 

who buys into the 529, plan versus those with low incomes? 

Mr. BULLARD. The return on the investments will be the same. 

It will be on a pro rata basis based on the amount of the account 

as I understand virtually all of the plans. But another way of looking at that question is with respect to fees and one of the interesting aspects of these plans is that when you have an asset based 

fee, what you really have is a structure whereby the larger accounts are in fact subsidizing the smaller accounts. 

So with respect to mutual funds and other aspects of the plans 

where there is an asset based fee, for example, one percent of assets a $100,000 account is paying $1,000 a year. The $1,000 account is paying only $10 a year and the $100,000 account is in effect subsidizing the smaller account. So this has always been a 

characteristic of the mutual fund industry but is essentially a kind 

of progressive pricing structure. 

33

Mr. BACA. Right. That is why Chairman Oxley, in his opening 

statement, was concerned with the disparity of the fees and I was 

just asking why. Mr. Olivas? 

Mr. OLIVAS. Well, I think that he was actually talking about a 

different matter, and I think that was the extent to which fees 

erode either the corpus or the return. I do think that people who 

have prepaid options or who pay a small amount per month, which 

I encourage, and the reason that I have encouraged these plans 

over the years is because I do think that the psychological encouragement of people to invest in their children and their grandchildren’s education is paramount, and I have been willing, in 

many instances, to let the wealthy be advantaged even more because I think that it pulled along smaller investors as well, and I 

think that that is extremely important. 

But I think that your question is do poor people get back as 

much as wealthy people, and that is always going to depend upon 

their tax situation. These are structured frankly for wealthy people. Poor people don’t have as much to put in and don’t have as 

much to shelter. And they participate accordingly in higher education. I think that these are largely a refuge of the wealthy. I 

think that the data, no matter how they are cut and no matter how 

many picnics these are sold at, essentially the wealthy participate. 

I think that that is simply a cost—we are always going to have the 

poor among us. I mean, to some extent, we are always going to 

have that disparity. 

Mr. BACA. That is why I am very much concerned with the outreach that is going on. We talked about the Internet and you mentioned earlier that even bi-lingual information doesn’t increase access. So we need to continue to develop further outreach in terms 

of our communities. You mention, the PTA and the churches, but 

there are a lot of other organizations as well. Are we tapping those 

organizations in terms of availability of information of the 529 

plans, so that people within our communities can invest? 

But we want to make sure that people have access and opportunity to go on and not be denied because they can’t afford to go 

to a State college or university. That is why I also agree with you 

in reference to standardization. Disclosure needs to be increased as 

well. And I do agree with my colleagues. So we must market to 

Hispanics and other groups who want to go to college. 

Hopefully we come up with some form of a plan that can standardize the 529 plans and provide more of an opportunity to reach 

out to our communities. 

Chairman BAKER. The gentleman’s time has expired. And I want 

to get the other two gentlemen in. I am informed we are going to 

have a series of votes here shortly afternoon. Mr. Clay, I think you 

wanted to——

Mr. CLAY. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I am not 

sure which witness can answer it. But President Bush has proposed an alternative savings option, the Lifetime Savings Account. 

There are concerns that LSAs would be in competition with 529 

college tuition plans because the LSAs could be used penalty free 

for uses other than education. Can LSAs be designed in a manner 

that could coexist with 529 plans without siphoning off their investors? We do not have enough investment dollars in this country 

34

and we need more programs to induce savings. Why make them 

competitive? And can this be done? And if somebody could attempt 

to answer. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Representative, in my view, they would be difficult to coexist. I do think that if LSAs were created that they 

would siphon off savings that have accrued to 529 plans. And I 

think specifically of States like Ohio, which have added tax benefits 

to these plans, and I think that it would be a critical issue, which 

we would have some difficulty with because if we are going to provide some kind of Federal and other State tax advantage, it needs 

to accrue to a higher purpose than allowing people potentially to 

use savings accounts potentially for higher purposes, but maybe to 

buy a new wardrobe or for other such purposes. So I think it would 

be detrimental to 529s. 

Mr. CLAY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LACKRITZ. Yes, Congressman, I would just—I would respectfully differ a bit from Ms. Williams’ response. We think it is really 

important to increase the level of savings in this country overall. 

And we favor any kind of measures that would help to increase 

overall savings. We think that the Lifetime Savings Accounts are 

more of a fundamental tax reform frankly than they are a specific 

account designed specifically for a particular purpose. 

They also would not enjoy State tax benefits in the same way 

that 529s are, so we would favor the creation of lifetime savings 

accounts. I think that would be a complement in many respects to 

what is being provided now by the 529s. 

Mr. CLAY. So you think that the two plans could coexist? 

Mr. LACKRITZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you. How do we evaluate 529 plans when there 

is not sufficient information because of lack of disclosures to compare plans? What do you suggest we do to get the proper transparency needed for investors to make the best choice of investment 

plans, or do we need more enforcement? Or are sufficient resources 

in place already? 

Ms. Williams. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I think that the voluntary disclosure principles 

which the college savings plans network developed is a huge and 

important step to take us in this direction. I think the States have 

a vested interest in ensuring that their State plan represents them 

favorably in terms of the information that is provided. It is, in no 

State’s best interest, to provide information regarding a program 

that is confusing and difficult to understand. 

So I think—and knowing from our perspective we are expending 

significant resources, time, money and attention, to talk to the public in order to make sure that we are disclosing everything that we 

need to legally, that we are making it very, very clear, very easy 

to understand, and I know from talking to my colleagues, that that 

is their goal as well. It is to help people make these important decisions, not to create confusion. 

Mr. BULLARD. Congressman, just to—I would have to disagree. 

History tells us that voluntary standards will not work. These programs have been offered for more than a decade, and what Ms. 

Williams has to say about the States not, you know, being in their 

interest to provide good disclosure has been true for that entire 10, 

35

12-year period, yet they have not provided that disclosure. Without 

a strong enforcement mechanism, without an experienced regulator 

who can independently establish those standards, I think it is simply unrealistic to believe that this program will work when we 

have seen this kind of approach fail in the context of State regulation year after year after year with respect to securities products. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you for your response. I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Chairman BAKER. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Emanuel. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Thank you, Chairman Baker, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. As you know, college costs went up 11 percent 

last year and 14 percent this year alone. And the truth is the most 

important thing you can get in life besides the love of your parents 

is a college education, and none of us would be in this room if it 

wasn’t for either one or both of those. 

But the fact is, there is the deduction of college tuition that 

hasn’t really gone up. It is 4,000. It expires in 2005 for tax deductions. The Hope Credit, which was originally for community colleges, is stuck at 1,500 with the average cost of community colleges 

are around $2,000, and the 529—well, community college is still on 

average around the country is around $2,000, and the Hope Credit 

needs to go up. It is the vehicle of keeping people involved in the 

changing economy and giving them a ticket to upward mobility. 

On the issue here, in the 529, and I obviously apologize for having left and I had to go to another hearing. Some members talked 

about bringing uniformity, conformity and standardization to both 

the fee structures as well as the—some of the plans, and I want 

to associate myself with those words and those ideas because I 

think they are important to give people. I mean, just as a parent, 

you know, whether you are comparing mutual funds, health saving 

plans, insurance policies, college savings plan for your kids. I 

mean, there is—we all know this. There is X amount of hours in 

the day and you can say whatever you want. And giving people 

choice, but when you have all that choice, as we are now witnessing some of our seniors, who have plenty of time to look at savings plans on discount cards that, choice leads often to confusion, 

chaos and it is manufactured. It is not intentional. 

And I do agree that if those who wanted to, the States wanted 

to bring that kind of access and conformity they would have done 

it already. The market would have demanded it. And so they need 

sometimes adult supervision to help bring that process about. And 

let me ask you one thing. On the $4,000 tuition deduction for college, 3,000 this year, next year and the next 2 years goes up to 4. 

According to a Harvard study, only 4 percent, only a third of the 

folks who are eligible take it. Two-thirds do not take the college 

tuition deduction. It is right on the 1040 form. It is available. It 

is one line. And that is about as accessible as it can be. 

What is the eligibility universe for the 529 plans? And what is 

the world, and the percentage that take it? So what is use versus 

eligibility on 529s? Anybody can take a shot. 

Mr. LACKRITZ. At least the numbers that I was given indicate 

that first of all, anybody can invest in these things. I think the 

good news about the 529 plans is there are no income restrictions. 

There are no limitations. And as a result, they are universal—it is 

36

about the closest thing to a universal program I think that there 

is. And the numbers I was given indicate that about 8 percent of 

families have taken advantage of this. 

So there are over 4 million accounts, 529 accounts so far. But 

that is in literally the last 3 years, since the 2001 tax legislation 

which I think clarified it considerably and created the tax free 

withdrawal provision. So from the standpoint of how quickly it has 

increased, it has increased dramatically in only 3 years and on that 

growth rate it is going to continue to increase substantially. 

Mr. OLIVAS. That speaks to the numerator. The denominator is 

that these are kids not yet in school. I mean, some of these are 6 

months old and we won’t be able to know until 18 years. And so 

the denominator is increasing exponentially as well. And so speaking about the participation rates in the numerator is only a very 

small part of this. 8 percent would astound me if that were somehow close to the denominator. I think that you have to understand 

that given all the grandparents out there and so forth, to get your 

arms around the universe of potential participants is simply impossible. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Of the 8 percent is that—was there a big growth 

right after the 2001 Tax Code, and then it has tapered off, or do 

you see another spike coming? And is there anything more in the 

details of who is participating. Is it people with much younger kids, 

people with kids in their teens as they start to focus on this? 

Ms. CANTOR. The average age of a beneficiary in these plans 

across the country is about 8 years old, if that gives you some 

sense. Also attached to some of the testimony you will see charts 

on the growth in these plans. One thing I also want to clarify that 

one of the other panelists said is that for the most part, prepaid 

tuition plans were the only plans that were around 10, 12 years 

ago. Savings plans did not really exist and start to come into creation until the beginning of the year 2000. 

So if you really look at you know the ability of an industry to 

take hold of itself and to manage the growth that it is experiencing 

these are still relatively brand new plans. The savings plans have 

not been around for 10 years. And I would say that the States are 

doing a fantastic job of overseeing their plans and making sure 

that we move forward. 

Mr. OLIVAS. These are plans that the State shut down as soon 

as it got too expensive to maintain them. That is not a record to 

emulate in the savings side. 

Mr. EMANUEL. Did you want to add——

Mr. BULLARD. I agree with Professor Olivas. I mean, if the States 

want to stand on their record of performance, then that is the best 

argument for why we need SEC regulation. 

Mr. EMANUEL. I have no further questions Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman BAKER. Thank you Mr. Emanuel. I want to express my 

appreciation to each of you. As you can tell, members had to come 

and go, but there is significant and considerable interest in this 

matter and I suspect as the plans grow in size, congressional interest will only go in one direction. To that end, I am very optimistic 

and appreciative for the work done by the network and hope that 

leads us to some consensus set of standards that perhaps by early 

37

next year the committee can return to this subject and evaluate the 

progress made. 

I would also say to our scholastic academic studious analysts 

from the right, represented in various fine book stores, that if there 

is a way to assemble data from 2001, 2002, 2003, years closed from 

a handful of States, with a $10,000 typical or let’s go $2,000 a year 

for each of 3 years, make your point. 

As to the lack of equality in fees, whatever concerns that you 

elicited this morning in your testimony to the committee, give us 

more substance as to past performance. Now, this is not an indication, as I realize past performance is not an indication of future 

earnings. But it will give us—I probably have some of those pieces 

of mail in my box waiting on me. But the point is, is it gives us 

a snapshot of where the problems may really be and that would 

help the committee in its evaluation of the model reforms which 

the network now has under consideration, and perhaps over a continued discourse in this matter we can come to some conclusion 

that is in everyone’s best interest. 

Clearly facilitating opportunity for educational college is something every American should support, and I believe they do. But 

making sure the system is working in a fair manner and that individual average investors are understanding what their rates of return are is something that is very, very important if that program 

is to maintain long term viability. 

So I appreciate all of your various perspectives. We look forward 

to working with you in the future. Our meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(39)

A P P E N D I X

June 2, 2004

40


95061.001
41


95061.002
42


95061.003
43


95061.004
44


95061.005
45


95061.006
46


95061.007
47


95061.008
48


95061.009
49


95061.010
50


95061.011
51


95061.012
52


95061.013
53


95061.014
54


95061.015
55


95061.016
56


95061.017
57


95061.018
58


95061.019
59


95061.020
60


95061.021
61


95061.022
62


95061.023
63


95061.024
64


95061.025
65


95061.026
66


95061.027
67


95061.028
68


95061.029
69


95061.030
70


95061.031
71


95061.032
72


95061.033
73


95061.034
74


95061.035
75


95061.036
76


95061.037
77


95061.038
78


95061.039
79


95061.040
80


95061.041
81


95061.042
82


95061.043
83


95061.044
84


95061.045
85


95061.046
86


95061.047
87


95061.048
88


95061.049
89


95061.050
90


95061.051
91


95061.052
92


95061.053
93


95061.054
94


95061.055
95


95061.056
96


95061.057
97


95061.058
98


95061.059
99


95061.060
100


95061.061
101


95061.062
102


95061.063
103


95061.064
104


95061.065
105


95061.066
106


95061.067
107


95061.068
108


95061.069
109


95061.070
110


95061.071
111


95061.072
112


95061.073
113


95061.074
114


95061.075
115


95061.076
116


95061.077
117


95061.078
118


95061.079
119


95061.080
120


95061.081
121


95061.082
122


95061.083
123


95061.084
124


95061.085
125


95061.086
126


95061.087
127


95061.088
128


95061.089
129


95061.090
130


95061.091
131


95061.092
132


95061.093
133


95061.094
134


95061.095
135


95061.096
136


95061.097
137


95061.098
138


95061.099
139


95061.100
140


95061.101
141


95061.102
142


95061.103
143


95061.104
144


95061.105
145


95061.106
146


95061.107
147


95061.108
148


95061.109
149


95061.110
150


95061.111
151


95061.112
152


95061.113
153


95061.114
154


95061.115
155


95061.116
156


95061.117
157


95061.118
158


95061.119
159


95061.120
160


95061.121
161


95061.122
162


95061.123
163


95061.124
164


95061.125