A John Hancock 401(k) plan review is a close look at your plan. It checks costs, the fund lineup, fiduciary records, and results against outside marks. Many sponsors with a John Hancock plan have never run one. Without it, fee drag and a stale fund menu can build quietly.
A John Hancock 401(k) plan review is a structured evaluation of your plan’s costs, fund lineup, fiduciary documentation, and participant outcomes against independent benchmarks. Many plan sponsors running a John Hancock plan have never conducted a formal review, which means fee drag, a stale fund menu, and unaddressed fiduciary exposure may be building quietly in the background.
If you sponsor a 401(k) plan administered by John Hancock, the fiduciary responsibility for that plan is yours, not John Hancock’s. A john hancock 401(k) plan review is the mechanism through which you demonstrate you are meeting that obligation. John Hancock is the recordkeeper. It processes contributions, maintains accounts, and provides the technology platform. What it does not do is evaluate whether your plan is competitive, whether your fund lineup is serving participants well, or whether your fee structure can withstand the scrutiny that a participant lawsuit or Department of Labor audit would bring.
That review is a fiduciary obligation that falls on the plan sponsor. Many business owners and HR teams running John Hancock plans are operating without a formal review process, without a written investment policy statement, and without an independent advisor acting in the plan’s interest. This guide walks through what a proper John Hancock 401(k) plan review covers, what the most common gaps look like, and what a plan sponsor can do to address them.
Why a John Hancock 401(k) Plan Review Is a Fiduciary Requirement, Not a Courtesy
ERISA requires plan sponsors to act as prudent experts in managing the plan on behalf of participants. That standard does not allow a plan sponsor to delegate fiduciary responsibility to the recordkeeper and walk away. John Hancock’s role under ERISA is limited. It is a service provider, not a co-fiduciary overseeing the plan’s investment menu or fee reasonableness.
The Department of Labor has made clear through enforcement actions and published guidance that plan sponsors are expected to conduct periodic reviews of plan costs, investment options, and service provider arrangements. “Periodic” in practice means at least annually for investments and fees, and upon any material change in plan structure or service provider terms.
A plan that has been on autopilot for two or three years without a john hancock 401(k) plan review is a plan with undocumented fiduciary risk. If a participant files a lawsuit alleging that fees were unreasonable or that the fund lineup was poorly constructed, the absence of a review process is often more damaging than the underlying issue itself. The question courts ask is not just whether the plan was imperfect. The question is whether the sponsor had a process and followed it.
What Does a John Hancock 401(k) Plan Review Actually Cover?
A John Hancock 401(k) plan review covers four components: fee benchmarking against independent market data, an investment lineup evaluation against peer group benchmarks, an investment policy statement audit, and a participant outcome review. Working through all four is what satisfies the prudent expert standard under ERISA.
When markets get volatile, clarity matters.
Download our educational guide, How to Protect Your Wealth in Challenging Markets.
The Four Components of a Complete Plan Review
A complete plan review has four components. Each one surfaces different categories of risk and opportunity. Working through all four is what distinguishes a real review from a superficial check-in with the recordkeeper.
Fee Benchmarking
Fees on a John Hancock plan can accumulate across several layers, and plan sponsors often see only the most visible ones. The recordkeeping fee is typically disclosed and visible. What tends to be less visible are the expense ratios embedded in the fund lineup, revenue-sharing arrangements where fund companies pay John Hancock a portion of those expenses to remain on the platform, and sub-transfer agent fees layered underneath.
A john hancock 401(k) evaluation on fees requires pulling the 408(b)(2) disclosure John Hancock is required to provide, mapping every fee category, and comparing total plan cost against independent benchmarks for plans of similar size and structure. Fee reasonableness is not determined by whether the fees feel high. It is determined by whether the fees are competitive with what the market offers for comparable services. A plan paying 1.2% in all-in cost when comparable plans are at 0.6% has a documented problem regardless of whether any participant has complained.
Investment Lineup Review
John Hancock offers a fund menu from which plan sponsors select the options available to participants. That menu is not neutral. Like many recordkeeper platforms, John Hancock’s lineup includes funds with revenue-sharing arrangements that benefit the platform. Whether those funds are also the best available options for your participants requires an independent evaluation against peer group performance, expense ratios, manager tenure, and plan design fit.
A proper john hancock plan investment review measures each fund against a benchmark and peer group over trailing one-year, three-year, five-year, and ten-year periods where available. Funds that underperform their benchmark consistently over three or more years, or that carry expense ratios materially higher than comparable alternatives, are candidates for replacement. That replacement decision, and the documentation supporting it, belongs in the plan’s investment policy statement.
Investment Policy Statement Review
An investment policy statement, or IPS, is the written document that governs how the plan’s investment menu is selected, monitored, and updated. It establishes the criteria for keeping or replacing funds, the review schedule, and the fiduciary decision-making process. An IPS is not legally required under ERISA. It is, however, the most important piece of documentation a plan sponsor can have if the plan’s investment decisions are ever challenged.
Plans on John Hancock that do not have a current IPS, or that have an IPS that was written years ago and never updated, are operating without a documented fiduciary framework. The IPS review as part of a john hancock 401(k) due diligence process should confirm that the criteria in the document match current practice, that the review schedule is being followed, and that any fund changes made since the last IPS update are properly documented against the criteria.
Participant Outcome Review
A plan that passes a fee and fund review but has low participation rates, low average deferral rates, or a significant portion of participants sitting in the default investment option may be technically compliant but still failing its participants. The plan sponsor has a fiduciary obligation to the plan’s purpose: helping employees save adequately for retirement.
A john hancock plan sponsor review on participant outcomes examines participation rates, average deferral percentages, distribution of assets across the fund menu, and whether participants who have been in the default investment for years have any mechanism to receive guidance on whether that option is appropriate for their situation.
What the Most Common Gaps Look Like in John Hancock Plans
After working with plan sponsors across a range of recordkeeper platforms, certain gaps appear repeatedly in John Hancock plans. None of them are unique to John Hancock, but the platform’s structure makes several of them particularly common.
Revenue Sharing Obscures the True Cost of the Plan
John Hancock’s fund menu includes many options with revenue-sharing arrangements, where the fund company pays John Hancock a portion of the expense ratio in exchange for platform access. This practice is disclosed in the 408(b)(2) report, but that disclosure is dense and not always reviewed carefully by plan sponsors. The effect is that the plan may appear to have low or zero explicit recordkeeping fees while the real cost is embedded invisibly in the fund expense ratios.
A plan with a stated recordkeeping fee of zero is not a low-cost plan if the funds on the menu carry expense ratios of 0.80% or higher. The all-in cost of a plan, meaning total fees paid from plan assets regardless of how they are labeled, is the number that matters for john hancock plan benchmarking purposes. Many plan sponsors are surprised when they see this number calculated for the first time.
The Fund Lineup Has Not Been Reviewed in Years
John Hancock provides plan sponsors with a menu of available funds, and plan sponsors select from that menu when the plan is established. Many of those lineups are never meaningfully revisited. The fund that looked reasonable five years ago may now have three consecutive years of underperformance against its benchmark, a management change, or an expense ratio that is materially higher than comparable alternatives now available.
A john hancock 401(k) fund lineup review is not a comfortable conversation when it reveals that several funds on the menu would not survive a rigorous evaluation. But the discomfort of the conversation is considerably smaller than the exposure that comes from ignoring it.
No Independent Advisor Is Involved
Some John Hancock plans were set up with a broker or advisor attached, but that advisor may be captive to John Hancock’s distribution channel, compensated through revenue sharing rather than a transparent advisory fee, or simply inactive. Others have no advisor at all. In either case, the plan sponsor is effectively running the fiduciary review process without independent support.
An independent john hancock 401(k) advisor relationship, where the advisor is compensated transparently and has no financial incentive tied to which funds remain on the menu, is a structural safeguard. The advisor’s job is to run the review process, document the decisions, and flag issues before they become liabilities. That function is different from what a recordkeeper-affiliated advisor provides.
What Fixing the Gaps Actually Looks Like
The remediation path from a john hancock 401(k) plan review depends on what the review surfaces. Fee problems and fund lineup problems are addressable without switching recordkeepers. Structural problems, where the plan design itself needs to change, may require a more significant intervention. Here is how each category typically resolves.
Fee Remediation Without Switching Platforms
If the review reveals that the all-in cost is above market but the recordkeeper relationship is otherwise working, the first step is renegotiating the recordkeeping fee directly with John Hancock. Recordkeepers negotiate. A plan sponsor with a documented benchmark showing that comparable plans are paying less is in a stronger position than a sponsor who has never asked. In many cases, fee reductions are available without changing a single fund or triggering a plan conversion.
The second step, if fee renegotiation alone does not close the gap, is replacing high-revenue-sharing funds with lower-cost alternatives on the same platform. John Hancock’s menu typically includes institutional share class options or index alternatives that carry lower expense ratios. Replacing revenue-sharing funds with lower-cost equivalents reduces participant cost without requiring a recordkeeper change.
Fund Lineup Remediation
Funds that underperform their benchmark over a trailing three-year period should go on a watch list. Watch-listed funds trigger a documented review: what is the cause of underperformance, is it a temporary factor or a structural problem, and is there a comparable alternative? If the answer leads to replacement, the replacement decision and the rationale for it are filed in the plan’s documentation. This is how the IPS framework is supposed to operate in practice. A john hancock 401(k) plan review that surfaces two or three watch-list candidates in year one typically results in a cleaner, lower-cost lineup within twelve months.
A fund lineup that has not been touched in several years often has two or three candidates for replacement visible at first glance. The remediation is not complicated. The documentation discipline that makes it defensible takes more attention than the fund swap itself.
IPS Remediation
If the plan has no IPS, one needs to be created. If the plan has an outdated IPS, it needs to be updated and signed by the plan sponsor. The IPS is a short document by institutional standards, typically five to ten pages, but it carries significant fiduciary weight. It is the first thing a plaintiff’s attorney or a DOL auditor asks for when reviewing a plan.
Creating an IPS after a fund or fee problem has already been identified is not ideal. Creating one before a problem is identified, and then following it consistently, is the correct sequence. The IPS does not prevent all fiduciary problems. It does demonstrate that the plan sponsor had a process, followed it, and made decisions based on documented criteria.
What Plan Sponsors Should Ask When Conducting a John Hancock 401(k) Plan Review
The review process is more productive when the questions driving it are specific. General questions about whether the plan is “good” do not produce actionable answers. Specific ones do.
On fees: what is the all-in cost of this plan expressed as a percentage of plan assets, and how does that compare to independent benchmarks for plans of your size and structure? What portion of that cost is driven by revenue sharing in the fund lineup?
On investments: how many funds on your current lineup have underperformed their benchmark over the trailing three years? What was the basis for selecting each of those funds, and does that basis still hold?
On documentation: do you have a current, signed IPS? When was it last reviewed? If any fund changes have been made since the last IPS review, is the rationale for those changes documented?
On the advisor relationship: who is the plan’s advisor of record, how is that advisor compensated, and what services have been delivered to the plan in the past twelve months? If the answer to any of those three is unclear, the advisor relationship needs evaluation.
These questions are also useful for evaluating whether the current service arrangement is working. A plan that cannot answer them cleanly has identifiable gaps in its fiduciary process. Completing a john hancock 401(k) plan review on a documented schedule is how those gaps get identified before they become liabilities.
For plan sponsors who want a broader picture of how plan design fits into the firm’s retirement strategy, the workplace retirement plan optimization framework covers the full scope of decisions plan sponsors face beyond the annual review cycle. For participants considering how their plan assets connect to a broader rollover strategy, the 401(k) rollover strategy guide addresses the decision points that arise at separation.
Plan sponsors who want to understand how individual portfolio construction applies to the participants managing high-balance accounts within the plan may find the investment portfolio construction resource useful as a parallel reference. For the tax planning dimension that intersects with plan design decisions, the tax-efficient investing guide covers the strategies most relevant to participants in accumulation mode.
The broader 401(k) and workplace plans resource library covers the full range of decisions plan sponsors and participants face at every stage of the plan lifecycle.
Holland Capital Management operates as an independent, fiduciary registered investment advisor working in the interest of plan sponsors and their participants, not in the interest of any recordkeeper or fund company. The investment philosophy applied across all engagements, Preserve. Strengthen. Grow.™, reflects a process that prioritizes long-term participant outcomes over product-driven recommendations.
Getting Started with Holland Capital Management
If you’re evaluating financial decisions in today’s market environment, request a Clarity Call to discuss our planning and investment approach.
Frequently Asked Questions
How Often Should a John Hancock 401(k) Plan Review Be Conducted?
The Department of Labor’s prudent expert standard is generally interpreted to require at least an annual review of plan investments and fees. Investment performance should be measured quarterly or semi-annually against established benchmarks, even if the formal review cycle is annual. Any material change to the plan, such as a change in recordkeeper terms, a significant fund merger, or a change in plan size, typically warrants an off-cycle review. The plan’s investment policy statement should specify the review schedule and govern when off-cycle reviews are triggered.
What Is the 408(b)(2) Disclosure and Why Does It Matter for a John Hancock Plan Review?
The 408(b)(2) disclosure is a fee transparency document that ERISA requires service providers, including John Hancock, to deliver to plan sponsors before or shortly after the service arrangement begins and whenever material changes occur. It itemizes every form of compensation the service provider receives in connection with the plan, including direct fees, indirect fees, and revenue sharing from fund companies. For plan review purposes, the 408(b)(2) is the starting point for calculating the plan’s all-in cost. Many plan sponsors have received this document without reviewing it carefully, which means the true cost of the plan may be higher than they realize.
Is John Hancock My Plan’s Fiduciary?
John Hancock is typically the recordkeeper for your plan, not a fiduciary over the plan’s investment menu or fee decisions. Recordkeepers process transactions and maintain accounts. Fiduciary responsibility for selecting and monitoring the investment lineup, ensuring fees are reasonable, and operating the plan in participants’ best interest rests with the plan sponsor. Some advisory arrangements can designate a third-party fiduciary, either a 3(21) co-fiduciary who provides recommendations or a 3(38) fiduciary who takes discretion over investment decisions, but that arrangement requires an explicit agreement. Without it, the fiduciary obligation stays with you as plan sponsor.
What Happens If My John Hancock Plan Fails a Fee Benchmarking Review?
Failing a fee benchmarking review means that your plan’s all-in cost is materially above what comparable plans of similar size and structure are paying in the market. This creates fiduciary exposure because ERISA requires that fees paid from plan assets be reasonable. When a john hancock 401(k) plan review surfaces a fee problem, the next step is addressing it directly: negotiating with John Hancock on the recordkeeping fee, or replacing high-revenue-sharing funds with lower-cost alternatives on the same platform. If neither closes the gap, the next question is whether a different recordkeeping arrangement would better serve participants. The remediation matters, but documenting the process and the decisions made is equally important from a fiduciary standpoint.
Do I Need an Investment Policy Statement for My John Hancock Plan?
An investment policy statement is not legally required under ERISA, but operating without one is a significant fiduciary risk. The IPS documents the criteria the plan uses to select, monitor, and replace investments, the review schedule, and the decision-making process. During a john hancock 401(k) plan review, the IPS is the first document an independent advisor will request. If a fund decision is ever challenged, either in litigation or during a DOL audit, the IPS is the primary evidence that the plan sponsor acted as a prudent expert with a defined process. Plans without an IPS, or with one that is outdated and not followed, are left to defend investment decisions without a documented framework, which is a much harder position. Creating or updating an IPS is typically one of the first remediation steps after a plan review. The workplace retirement plan optimization resource covers IPS standards in broader context.
Can I Conduct a John Hancock 401(k) Plan Review Without Switching Recordkeepers?
Yes. Many plan review findings are addressable within the existing recordkeeper relationship. Fee issues can often be resolved by renegotiating the recordkeeping fee or replacing high-revenue-sharing funds with lower-cost options available on the John Hancock platform. Fund lineup issues are addressed through the watch list and replacement process governed by the IPS. Documentation and advisor relationship gaps are resolved by creating or updating the IPS and establishing an independent advisory arrangement. Switching recordkeepers is a significant undertaking with administrative, participant communication, and blackout period implications. It is appropriate when the platform itself is not able to serve the plan’s needs, not as a first response to issues that can be remediated within the existing arrangement.
What Is a John Hancock 401(k) Plan Health Check Compared to a Full Plan Review?
A plan health check is a lighter-touch evaluation, typically covering fees and investment performance at a high level, without the full depth of IPS review, participant outcome analysis, and documentation audit that a comprehensive review includes. A health check is useful as a quick diagnostic to identify whether a full review is warranted. It is not a substitute for the fiduciary review process itself. If a health check reveals that fees are above market or that multiple funds are underperforming, the appropriate next step is a full review that produces documented findings and a remediation plan. Using only a health check as the annual review cycle does not satisfy the prudent expert standard under ERISA. Our 401(k) Plan Review & Benchmarking guide covers related considerations in more depth.
