ERISA, among other requirements, establishes the responsibilities of employee benefit plan decision makers (fiduciaries) and the requirements for disclosing and reporting plan fees. ERISA is designed to protect the rights and interests of participants and beneficiaries of employee benefit plans and to outline the responsibilities of the employers and administrators who sponsor and manage these plans. Under Titles I and IV of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), pension and other employee benefit plan administrators are required to file information annually on the financial condition and operations of the plan. The requirements for completing the Form 5500 vary according to the type of plan. If a company sponsors more than one plan, it must file a Form 5500 for each plan. Additionally, ERISA and the IRC provide for the assessment or imposition of penalties by Labor and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for plan sponsors not submitting the required information when due. There are various types of Form 5500 filers. Filers are classified as either single-employer plans, multiemployer plans, multiple-employer plans, or direct filing entities (DFE). In general, a separate Form 5500 must be filed for each plan or DFE. Single-employer plans are maintained by one employer or employee organization. Multiemployer plans are established pursuant to collectively bargained pension agreements negotiated between labor unions representing employees and two or more employers and are generally jointly administered by trustees from both labor and management. Multiple-employer plans are maintained by more than one employer and are typically established without collective bargaining agreements. DFEs are trusts, accounts, and other investment or insurance arrangements in which plans participate and that are required to or allowed to file the Form 5500. The Form 5500 was intended, in part, to measure employers’ compliance with ERISA’s fiduciary and funding provisions, among other requirements. It provides information about the financial condition of the plan, annual amounts contributed by participants, and the plan’s investment income. The form also provides information on plan characteristics, such as plan type (defined benefit or defined contribution), method of funding, and numbers of employees and participants as well as the number of employees who are excluded from the plan for various reasons. The Form 5500 is the principal source of information about employer- sponsored pension and welfare benefit plans that is available to Labor, IRS, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), and is the reporting vehicle for about 730,000 such plans. Accordingly, the Form 5500 constitutes an integral part of each agency’s enforcement, research, and policy formulation programs. It is also a source of information and data for use by other federal agencies, Congress, and the private sector in assessing employee benefit, tax, and economic trends and policies. The form also serves as a primary means by which plan operations can be monitored by participants, beneficiaries, and the general public. Labor, IRS, and PBGC jointly developed the Form 5500 so that employee benefit plans could satisfy (1) the provisions of the IRC that apply to tax- qualified pension plans and (2) the annual reporting requirements under ERISA. Labor enforces ERISA’s reporting and disclosure provisions and fiduciary responsibility standards, which, among other things, concern the type and extent of information provided to the federal government and plan participants and ensure that employee benefit plans are operated solely in the interests of plan participants. IRS enforces standards that relate to such matters as how employees become eligible to participate in benefit plans; how they become eligible to earn rights to benefits; and how much, at a minimum, employers must contribute. PBGC insures the benefits of participants in defined benefit private pension plans. Labor’s regulatory initiatives to expand disclosure requirements cover the following three distinct areas: (1) disclosures by plan sponsors to assist participants in making informed investment decisions; (2) disclosures by service providers to assist plan fiduciaries in assessing the reasonableness of provider compensation and potential conflicts of interest; and (3) more efficient, expanded fee and compensation disclosures to the government and the public through a substantially revised, electronically filed Form 5500 Annual Return/Report. Labor implemented the third initiative on expanding fee and compensation disclosures on the Form 5500—issuing regulations revising the Form 5500 in November 2007—in an effort to facilitate the transition to an electronic filing system; reduce and streamline annual reporting burdens; and update the annual reporting forms to reflect current issues, agency priorities, and new requirements under the Pension Protection Act of 2006. According to officials at Labor, these changes were made to increase transparency regarding the fees and expenses paid by employee benefit plans. Labor also wanted to ensure that plan officials obtain the information they need to assess the compensation paid for services rendered to the plan, taking into consideration revenue-sharing arrangements among plan service providers and potential conflicts of interest. For the 2009 plan year Form 5500, the new Schedule C requires plan sponsors to classify the fees they pay service providers as either “direct” or “indirect” compensation. As shown in table 1, fees are separated into those paid directly by the plan to a service provider and those received by a service provider indirectly from another service provider. Plan sponsors must also determine whether any indirect compensation is reportable (i.e., “ineligible” or “eligible” for exemption from Labor’s reporting requirements, as shown in table 2). Most indirect compensation starts out as having to be reported on the Schedule C. However, indirect compensation can readily become “eligible” indirect compensation (EIC). For indirect compensation to be EIC, and thus not reported on the Schedule C, the plan sponsor must receive written materials from the service provider that describe and disclose the following information: 1. the existence of indirect compensation, 2. services provided for this compensation, 3. formulas used to calculate the value of this compensation, 4. who received the compensation, and 5. who paid the compensation. When indirect compensation does qualify as “eligible,” sponsors have the option of using an alternative reporting format that, according to Labor, is simpler than the format that must be used to report ineligible indirect compensation. With the alternative reporting format, plan sponsors only have to disclose the name, address, and employer identification number of these service providers. Whether a plan sponsor receives the required written disclosures is the key to whether indirect compensation is reportable on the Schedule C. According to Labor, reporting indirect compensation as EIC is an option that the sponsor may choose instead of reporting under the rules applicable to other indirect compensation. Indirect compensation does not qualify as EIC if a service provider does not provide the required disclosures to the plan sponsor. In this case, the plan sponsor is required to report the available information from the service provider on the Schedule C, such as the identity of the service provider and nature of the services provided. The plan sponsor is also required to list the service provider for failing to or refusing to provide necessary information. However, if the plan sponsor does receive information from the service provider upon request, the plan sponsor has the option of reporting the indirect compensation as EIC (i.e., reporting only that indirect compensation was paid and who provided the disclosure). Many of the fees and expenses associated with mutual fund investments are not explicitly reported on the Form 5500. According to a 2004 report by Labor’s ERISA Advisory Council Working Group on Plan Fees and Reporting on Form 5500, many 401(k) and 403(b) plans have moved toward using mutual funds as an investment option. With mutual funds, the plan service provider takes the investment management fees and expenses of managing the mutual fund directly from the mutual fund earnings, and these fees are not explicitly reported to plan sponsors. Without data on mutual funds, the largest component of most 401(k) retirement plans, Labor is unable to fully assess the impact of service provider fees on investment returns. In our November 2006 report, we recommended that Congress consider a statutory change with explicit disclosure requirements for service providers. Without such a change, we concluded, Labor will continue to lack comprehensive information on all fees being charged directly or indirectly to 401(k) plans. Figure 1 illustrates the disclosure of plan fee information from service providers to plan sponsors, which then report the fees to the federal government. The figure also shows that some fees are reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), not to Labor. Additionally, many plan fiduciaries enter into bundled arrangements with other plan service providers for recordkeeping or other administrative services that typically do not entail explicit charges to the plan. In a “bundled arrangement” plan, service providers such as recordkeepers and trustees are often compensated for their services to the plan (1) through either subtransfer agent fees, 12b-1 fees, or other administrative fees or (2) through what are called “revenue-sharing arrangements.” As a result, fees and expenses are not paid from plan assets, but rather from the expenses of one of the plan’s investments (e.g., a mutual fund’s operating expense, which is shared with the plan’s service provider). Even though Labor has provided guidance on their recent changes to the Form 5500 Schedule C, plan sponsors and service providers reported that they were unclear about Labor’s new reporting requirements. Specifically, plan sponsors and experts told us that they have questions regarding the distinction between eligible and ineligible indirect compensation, and several said that they were unclear about what types of compensation qualified as EIC. A recent survey of service providers also reports confusion regarding compliance. An industry association representing service providers surveyed its membership, asking if sponsors and service providers understand Labor’s new Schedule C requirements enough to effectively comply. Although only a small number of members (19) responded to the survey, 74 percent of the respondents (14) reported that Labor has not provided sufficient guidance for providers to accurately determine what elements of compensation qualify as EIC. Plan sponsors and experts were also concerned about how much compensation should be disclosed. Figure 2 illustrates the potential difficulty. For example, a plan pays a recordkeeper direct compensation to administer the plan, which includes sending new participants a welcome packet about the plan. Part of the compensation that the recordkeeper receives goes toward paying a fulfillment vendor to make the welcome packets and send them to participants. The fulfillment vendor, in turn, pays a printer to print and collate the packets. As a result, there are multiple layers of payments involved, and sponsors and experts were unsure of how much of the indirect compensation they should be required to disclose. They were also concerned that the compensation would be reported multiple times on the Schedule C. For example, amounts paid by the recordkeeper to vendors would already be included in the overall amount paid by the plan sponsor to the recordkeeper. Concerns have also been raised about how to report noncash compensation. Sponsors and service providers said that they were uncertain about the new Schedule C requirement to report noncash compensation, which is also a type of indirect compensation. Sixty-three percent (12 of 19) of members who responded to the industry survey reported insufficient guidance on this issue. For example, one plan sponsor explained that he was not sure how he would handle, or whether he would even report, the noncash compensation benefit (food, entertainment, and making contacts) of attending a marketing event designed to facilitate future sales of ERISA plans. Respondents (service providers) in the industry survey were asked to imagine that their organization sponsored a similar event for customers and potential customers. Respondents were evenly split on how they would communicate the value of the benefit to attendees for purposes of Schedule C reporting. Some respondents believed the event would not be reportable, while others said they would provide its full value to all attendees and leave it to them to decide whether the event is reportable. Because service providers may have difficulty determining what elements of compensation qualify as EIC, different interpretations and reporting practices may ensue and could result in inconsistent and incomplete data being reported to Labor. For example, some sponsors may interpret certain compensation as reportable, while others may not, leaving Labor with incomplete information from some plans. In addition, since amounts categorized as EIC will not be reported, Labor will have no way of using these data to determine whether the amounts being paid by plans are reasonable and will be unable to compare these types of compensation across plans. According to Labor, not having to report amounts categorized as EIC is intended to simplify the annual reporting process and reduce the burden for plans and service providers for the types of indirect compensation that commenters said would be difficult and potentially expensive to allocate to individual plans. Industry experts and plan sponsors with whom we spoke said additional guidance on reporting indirect compensation may make it easier for plan sponsors to comply. Labor has posted a set of FAQs on its Web site regarding the changes that are specific to Schedule C reporting. However, industry officials with whom we spoke said that although these FAQs answered many questions, additional questions have stemmed from reading the FAQs that have not yet been addressed. Labor officials told us that they were reviewing and prioritizing the additional questions they have received to develop further guidance. As filing deadlines for the 2009 plan year draw closer, sponsors and service providers have told us that they still have questions about the new Schedule C requirements, and may need more time to comply. Labor has already noted on its Web site that there is flexibility regarding reporting for the 2009 plan year, stating that as long as sponsors receive a statement from their service providers that, despite a good-faith effort, they were unable to provide the newly required information to them, sponsors will not be required to report those service providers on the Schedule C. According to industry experts and plan sponsors with whom we spoke, the coordination of one of Labor’s other initiatives on fee disclosure with the current Form 5500 requirements could make it easier for plan sponsors to comply. Specifically, sponsors and service providers stressed the importance of Labor coordinating the new Form 5500 requirements, which govern reporting at the end of a plan year, with the finalization of its proposed rule on “up-front” service provider disclosure to plan sponsors. Labor has requirements that govern the entering of a service agreement between a sponsor and service provider, referred to as the 408(b)(2) requirements, and has proposed changes to them that have not yet been finalized. Consequently, the new Schedule C requirements, or “after-the- fact” disclosures,” were finalized before the 408(b)(2) regulation, which governs “up-front” disclosures. Since plan sponsors report on the Schedule C an after-the-fact summary of the fees and expenses paid by their plans during the plan year, the information provided on this form is directly related to information about fees and expenses that service providers will be required to disclose to plan sponsors by the 408(b)(2) requirements “up front,” at the beginning of a service relationship. In our discussions with Labor officials, they noted that the better scenario would have been publishing the finalized 408(b)(2) regulation before the new Form 5500 requirements and acknowledged the importance of coordinating the finalization of the proposed regulation with the Form 5500 requirements. The officials told us that the move to require electronic filing for the 2009 plan year led them to finalize the Schedule C requirements first. However, it is unclear when the 408(b)(2) regulation will be finalized, which is important given that the first Form 5500s will be filed under the new requirements in July 2010. If the Schedule C requirements are not coordinated with the finalization of the proposed rule to change up-front disclosure, there could be competing sets of disclosure requirements for sponsors and service providers. Service providers had anticipated that the 408(b)(2) regulations would have already been finalized to coordinate with the changes to the Form 5500 to ensure they comply with both sets of rules at once. Without the coordination, service providers are in the position of potentially having to make expensive investments to update their data systems two separate times. In addition, coordinating the 408(b)(2) requirements with the Form 5500 requirements could help ensure that plan sponsors are meeting their fiduciary responsibilities when selecting or renewing a contract with a service provider. Labor officials told us that they do not have specific plans for using the data received as a result of the new requirements, and we found that even with the changes, the Form 5500 may not be useful to Labor, sponsors, or others. Labor officials told us that they will wait to see how the newly required information is reported before determining its use. In addition, because plan sponsors will be required to list any service provider who fails to or refuses to provide the necessary information on the Schedule C, Labor could potentially pursue listed service providers for enforcement action. However, it is unclear whether Labor has any plans to devote additional resources to follow up on service providers. In fact, for the 2009 plan year, plan sponsors will not be required to list service providers who fail to provide information if the service provider provides a statement that they made a good-faith effort to make any necessary recordkeeping and information system changes in a timely fashion. It is also unclear whether Labor has a plan to follow up with plan sponsors to ensure that they have received the newly required disclosures. Labor officials told us that the new requirements are meant to reinforce a fiduciary’s obligation of monitoring service providers and plan fees and also are intended as an “exercise in discipline” for the sponsor, since the sponsor will have to create a financial record to submit it to Labor. According to these officials, this will ensure that sponsors receive the information they need about indirect compensation paid to service providers. Labor’s efforts are also meant to effect a behavioral change in plan sponsors and service providers. According to Labor officials, the intent is for plan sponsors to understand and then obtain the information they need to determine the reasonableness of the fees they are paying. Since service providers often prepare the Form 5500 on behalf of plan sponsors, the regulatory changes are also designed to notify service providers that compensation information should be provided to sponsors. Still, Labor and others are concerned that some service providers, who may not feel bound by Labor’s reporting requirements, may neglect to list the indirect compensation they may have received. Finally, the Form 5500 continues to have limited use for Labor, sponsors, and participants. Labor. Despite Labor’s efforts with the new Form 5500 requirements, information on asset-based fees is still not explicitly required to be reported on the form. As we have previously reported, the form does not explicitly list all of the fees paid from plan assets. For example, plan sponsors were not required to report mutual fund investment fees to Labor, even though they received this information for each of the mutual funds they offered in the 401(k) plan in the form of a prospectus. While prospectuses are provided to SEC, on a fund-by-fund basis, neither SEC nor Labor have readily available information to be able to link individual fund information to the various 401(k) plans to which the funds may be offered as investment options. Furthermore, prospectuses provide fees as expense ratios, which are used as an intermediate step in calculating net rates of return, and, as such, the dollar amount of deductions from plan assets are not explicitly stated. Labor officials told us that asset-based fees are now required to be reported on the Schedule C. However, even with the changes made to the reporting of indirect compensation, plan sponsors may wind up only reporting the presence of such fees on the Schedule C along with the identity of the service provider. Because these fees are already reported to SEC, the service provider must either (1) provide the plan sponsor with a document that discloses the documents already sent to SEC, with references to the pages or sections of the documents that contain the required information, or (2) determine whether the amount of the fund’s investment management fee that is allocable to the specific 401(k) plan is enough to be reportable, and then provide the dollar amount or a description of the formula used to calculate the amount of the compensation to the plan sponsor. The plan sponsor can then treat the asset-based fee or compensation as EIC and only report the identity of the service provider. Without information on all of the fees charged directly or indirectly to 401(k) plans, Labor is limited in its ability to identify fees that may be questionable. Labor officials told us that the changes to the Form 5500 were not meant to result in a comprehensive database of plan fees, because Labor did not want to put an undue burden on plan sponsors to comply with the new Form 5500 requirements. Labor asserts the expansion of the Schedule C is already significant. In addition, Labor officials told us that because the Schedule C is only filled out by larger plans with more than 100 participants, the schedule is not a complete picture of the universe of plan fees. Sponsors. The Form 5500 may also not be the best vehicle for sponsors to assess service provider fee reasonableness or to understand business arrangements between service providers, since the form is filed long after the plan sponsor has already engaged the provider and selected the investment options. For the most part, the form is filled out for plan sponsors by service providers, who know the compensation arrangements and how to calculate the fees charged. According to industry experts, determining the dollar amounts to attach to ineligible indirect compensation is a source of confusion, because although some indirect compensation is straightforward, the calculation of other compensation is left to the best judgment of the service provider. Also, service providers may also choose to disclose only the formulas they use to determine ineligible indirect compensation, making it difficult for sponsors to assess fees or understand business arrangements. Participants. Participant groups told us that plan sponsors who use the Form 5500 to inform participants are likely to overwhelm participants with the volume and detail required as a result of Labor’s new regulations. Both Labor and industry experts told us that the Schedule C is not designed to be used by participants because it does not provide them with an easy comparison of available investment options. Labor has recently made some effort to improve the Form 5500, specifically the Schedule C. However, the changes made seem unlikely to resolve the issues surrounding service provider disclosure to plan sponsors. Absent detailed guidance aimed at clarifying the indirect compensation reporting requirements, Labor is at risk of receiving inconsistent and incomparable information on the Schedule C. In addition, the new requirements currently give plan sponsors the option of not disclosing EIC on the Schedule C. If Labor allows certain indirect compensation to be deemed EIC, and therefore not to be reported, Labor will continue to have incomplete information on compensation received by service providers, and will be no better informed. Similarly, as long as asset-based fees netted from an investment fund’s performance are not required to be reported on the Form 5500, sponsors, participants, and Labor will not know the true costs of a plan. Requiring plan sponsors or administrators to report more complete information to Labor on fees—that is, those paid out of plan assets or by participants— puts the agency in a better position to effectively oversee defined contribution plans. Despite Labor’s intentions in changing the Form 5500 Schedule C, the way the regulations are currently written may not result in an increase in the amount of meaningful service provider compensation information reported to Labor. In addition, it is unclear whether plan sponsors will actually receive the information on service provider compensation that Labor believes is important for them to have. Because of the option to distinguish indirect compensation as either eligible or ineligible, service providers may choose to qualify their compensation as EIC and not provide their disclosures to plan sponsors. Meanwhile, Labor has also proposed regulatory changes that could eliminate some of the confusion surrounding 408(b)(2) disclosure requirements. However, it is unclear whether the final regulations will be coordinated with the existing changes to the Form 5500 reporting requirements. Coordinating these initiatives may reduce the burden and the cost to service providers and clarify for plan sponsors the information they need for the service provider selection and renewal processes. Finally, as we suggested in our November 2006 report, absent a statutory change with explicit requirements for service providers, Labor will continue to lack comprehensive information on all fees being charged directly or indirectly to 401(k) plans. To minimize the possibility that inconsistent and incomparable information will be reported on the Schedule C and to ensure that the data collected results in meaningful information for Labor, sponsors, and participants, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take the following action: Provide additional guidance regarding the reporting of indirect compensation and require that all indirect compensation be disclosed on the Schedule C. Furthermore, consistent with our previous recommendation, to ensure comparable disclosure among all types of service providers and ensure that all investment products’ fees are fairly disclosed, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take the following action: Require asset-based fees that are netted from an investment fund’s performance (and, as such, are not paid with plan assets) be explicitly reported on the Form 5500. To reduce the potential for additional costs and burden being placed on service providers, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor take the following action: Coordinate the implementation of the Form 5500 revisions with the publication of its final 408(b)(2) regulations, since the two initiatives are closely related. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor (Labor). We received written comments from the Assistant Secretary for Employee Benefits Security Administration, which we reproduced in appendix I. Labor generally agreed with our recommendations. Labor also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated in this report where appropriate. Labor stated that it is committed to making the shift to the expanded Schedule C reporting requirements as smooth as possible, and that it has already engaged in substantial outreach on the new reporting requirements. Specifically, regarding our recommendation that Labor provide additional guidance on the reporting of indirect compensation, Labor stated that it has plans to continue its outreach efforts, including publishing additional Schedule C guidance. Regarding our recommendation that all indirect compensation be disclosed on the Schedule C and that asset-based fees be explicitly reported on the Form 5500, Labor explained that it had originally proposed that all indirect compensation charged against a plan’s investments be required to be reported on the Schedule C, without providing an alternative reporting option. However, Labor provided an alternative reporting option for eligible indirect compensation to plan fiduciaries on the basis of comments received on the proposed rule. Labor stated that the alternative reporting option would provide the department with enough information to engage in effective oversight activities. Labor also stated that once Schedule C reporting begins (for most plans, July 2010 and later), it will be able to evaluate the data it receives, taking into consideration our recommendation. Although Labor stated in its comments that its eligible indirect compensation reporting requirements are intended to help ensure fiduciaries are collecting information and evaluating service provider indirect compensation, we believe that it is also important for the indirect compensation information to be reported to Labor. As we stated in our report, we continue to believe that Labor will not receive enough information to engage in effective oversight activities. Finally, Labor stated that it agreed with our recommendation to coordinate the implementation of the Form 5500 regulations with the publication of its final 408(b)(2) regulation, and that it will continue to coordinate the two initiatives. As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or bovbjergb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix II. The following team members made key contributions to this report: Tamara Cross, Assistant Director; Monika Gomez, Analyst-in-Charge; Christopher Langford; James Bennett; Jessica Orr; Walter Vance; and Roger Thomas. Private Pensions: Conflicts of Interest Can Affect Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Plans. GAO-09-503T. Washington, D.C.: March 24, 2009. Private Pensions: Fulfilling Fiduciary Obligations Can Present Challenges for 401(k) Plan Sponsors. GAO-08-774. Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2008. Private Pensions: GAO Survey of 401(k) Plan Sponsor Practices (GAO-08-870SP, July 2008), an E-supplement to GAO-08-774. GAO-08-870SP. Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2008. Private Pensions: Information That Sponsors and Participants Need to Understand 401(k) Plan Fees. GAO-08-222T. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 2007. Private Pensions: 401(k) Plan Participants and Sponsors Need Better Information on Fees. GAO-08-95T. Washington, D.C.: October 24, 2007. Defined Benefit Pensions: Conflicts of Interest Involving High Risk or Terminated Plans Pose Enforcement Challenges. GAO-07-703. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007. Private Pensions: Increased Reliance on 401(k) Plans Calls for Better Information on Fees. GAO-07-530T. Washington, D.C.: March 6, 2007. Private Pensions: Changes Needed to Provide 401(k) Plan Participants and the Department of Labor Better Information on Fees. GAO-07-21. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2006. Private Pensions: Government Actions Could Improve the Timeliness and Content of Form 5500 Pension Information. GAO-05-491. Washington, D.C.: June 3, 2005.

Summary: The Department of Labor (Labor) collects information on fees charged to 401(k) plans primarily through its Form 5500. Labor issued final regulations in November 2007, making changes to, among other things, Schedule C of the Form 5500. Labor put emphasis on reporting the indirect compensation paid to service providers and between service providers, in an effort to capture all of the costs that plan sponsors incur. Congress and others are concerned that Labor's rules could result in duplicative and confusing reporting. Given these concerns, Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to examine the new requirements and determine whether Labor's new requirements will provide (1) clear and understandable guidance to plan sponsors and (2) useful information to Labor and others. GAO analyzed Labor's regulations and interviewed Labor and other officials about disclosure and reporting practices. Sponsors and service providers report confusion over Labor's new reporting requirements for the Form 5500 Schedule C and over how plan expenses are defined. Specifically, they have questions regarding the distinction between eligible and ineligible indirect compensation, that is, which types of indirect compensation must be reported on the Form 5500 (compensation that qualifies as "eligible" does not have to be reported). Labor's guidance on its Web site thus far has been limited, and, according to sponsors and service providers GAO spoke with, has raised additional questions that remain unanswered. Specifically, Labor has not provided sufficient guidance for sponsors and providers to accurately determine what elements of compensation qualify as eligible indirect compensation (fees or expense reimbursements charged to investment funds and reflected in the value of the investment). Therefore, interpretations have been left up to sponsors and providers and may result in a range of reporting practices, causing Labor to receive inconsistent and incomplete data. In addition to the new Form 5500 requirements, Labor has proposed another regulation on service provider fee disclosure (its 408(b)(2) regulation), but it has not yet been finalized. Sponsors and service providers GAO talked with stressed the importance of coordinating this initiative with the new Form 5500 requirements. Doing so may reduce the burden and the cost to service providers of making changes to their data gathering and reporting systems and clarify for plan sponsors the information they need to understand and compare the fees charged by various service providers. In GAO's discussions with Labor officials, they agreed that there was a need to coordinate the two regulations, and said that although they are working to finalize the proposed 408(b)(2) regulation, it is uncertain when it will be published. Labor officials told GAO that they do not have specific plans for using the data received as a result of the new Form 5500 requirements and will wait to see what information is reported before deciding what to do with the data. Although Labor's new requirements are meant to ensure that plan sponsors obtain the information they need to assess the compensation paid to service providers for services rendered to the plan, the Form 5500 may not provide useful information to Labor and others. Because plan sponsors are likely to report indirect compensation in varying formats, it is unclear how Labor will be able to compare such data across plans. In addition, GAO previously reported that the information provided to Labor on the Form 5500 has limited use for effectively overseeing fees paid by 401(k) plans because it does not explicitly list all of the fees paid from plan assets, yet these types of fees comprise the majority of fees in 401(k) plans. For example, plan sponsors are not required to explicitly report asset-based fees that are netted from an investment fund's performance, even though they receive this information for each of the mutual funds they offer in the 401(k) plan. Thus, despite the changes to the Form 5500, the new information provided may not be very useful to Labor, plan sponsors, and others.