Category Archives: 403(b)

The SECURE Act 2.0: The Most Impactful Provisions #13 — Starter 401(k) Plans and Safe Harbor 403(b) Plans

Key Takeaways

  • Most employees who work for large and mid-sized employers have the opportunity to defer money from their paychecks into a savings-based retirement plan. That is not the case with many small employers, though, where large numbers of employees work for firms that do not offer plans.
  • However, savings-based plans are critical for employees to obtain financial security in retirement. There are studies that show that employees who can defer into retirement plans will save much more for retirement that those who do not have access to plans.
  • Based on surveys, small employers do not offer plans because they are worried about the cost and administrative complexity of setting up and operating plans.
  • To allay that concern, Congress created, in SECURE 2.0, a new type of plan that is simple and low cost: “Starter” 401(k)s and “Safe Harbor” 403(b)s. The purpose of this new plan design is to encourage small employers to set up plans that enable their workers to save for retirement through deductions from their paychecks.

The President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included SECURE Act 2.0, on December 29, 2022.

SECURE Act 2.0 has over 90 provisions, some major and some minor; some mandatory and some optional; some retroactively effective and some that won’t be effective for years to come. One difference between SECURE Act 2.0 and previous retirement plan laws is that many of 2.0’s provisions are optional…that is, plan sponsors are not required to adopt the provisions, but can adopt them if they decide that the change will help their plans and participants. This series discusses the provisions that are likely to be the most impactful, either as options or as required changes.

This article is about an effort by Congress to extend plan coverage for workers at smaller employers by creating a new and straightforward type of low-cost plan:  the Starter 401(k) and Safe Harbor 403(b).

Continue reading The SECURE Act 2.0: The Most Impactful Provisions #13 — Starter 401(k) Plans and Safe Harbor 403(b) Plans

Share

The SECURE Act 2.0: The Most Impactful Provisions #12 — Multiple Employer 403(b) Plans

Key Takeaways

  • The SECURE Act 1.0 gave us Pooled Employer Plans, PEPs, for qualified plans.
  • SECURE Act 2.0—effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2022—extends PEPs and MEPs to 403(b) plans.
  • While the legal effective date is already here, I haven’t yet seen any 403(b) MEPs or PEPs in the marketplace. So, the ”practical effective date” may be the 2024 plan year.

The President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included SECURE Act 2.0, on December 29, 2022.

SECURE Act 2.0 has over 90 provisions, some major and some minor; some mandatory and some optional; some retroactively effective and some that won’t be effective for years to come. One difference between the SECURE Act 2.0 and previous retirement plan laws is that many of 2.0’s provisions are optional…that is, plan sponsors are not required to adopt the provisions, but can adopt them if they decide that the change will help their plans and participants. This series discusses the provisions that are likely to be the most impactful, either as options or as required changes.

This article discusses the continuing extension of 401(k) concepts to 403(b) plans, specifically the SECURE Act 2.0 provisions for 403(b) PEPs and MEPs. This probably reflects the growing awareness of the higher costs in the 403(b) market, especially for smaller and midsized plans.

Continue reading The SECURE Act 2.0: The Most Impactful Provisions #12 — Multiple Employer 403(b) Plans

Share

The SECURE Act 2.0: The Most Impactful Provisions (#1–Automatic Plans)

Key Takeaways

  • “New” 401(k) and 403(b) plans must be automatically enrolled, with automatic deferral increases, no later than the plan year beginning after December 31, 2024 (e.g., 2025 for calendar year plans).
  • Any plan “established” on or after December 29, 2022 is considered a new plan.
  • Defaulting participants must be invested in a QDIA.
  • There are exceptions for government plans, church plans, SIMPLE 401(k) plans, employers with 10 or fewer employees, and employers during their first 3 years of existence.

The President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, which included SECURE Act 2.0, on December 29, 2022—the “enactment date”.

SECURE Act 2.0 has over 90 provisions, some major and some minor. One of the most impactful provisions is the new requirement to automatically enroll and automatically increase deferrals to new 401(k) and 403(b) plans.

New 401(k)s and 403(b)s must be automatically enrolled and the deferrals automatically increased, beginning for plan years after December 31, 2024. At that time, 401(k) and 403(b) plans will be required to automatically enroll eligible employees at 3% (but not more than 10%) and thereafter automatically increase the deferral rates by 1% per year up to at least 10% (and if desired by the employer, up to a maximum of 15%). Defaulting participants must be invested in a QDIA (qualified default investment alternative).

Continue reading The SECURE Act 2.0: The Most Impactful Provisions (#1–Automatic Plans)

Share

Best Practices for Plan Sponsors #12

Lessons Learned from Litigation (#5)—The Johns Hopkins Case

This is the twelfth in a series of articles about Best Practices for Plan Sponsors. To be clear, “best practices” are not the same as legal requirements. Instead, they are about better ways to manage retirement plans. In many cases, though, “best practices” also are good risk management tools because they should exceed legal standards, address areas of concern, or anticipate future developments as retirement plans and expectations evolve.

Plan sponsors should be aware of the latest trends in fiduciary litigation to help manage the risk of being sued and, if sued, the risk of being liable. In my past four plan sponsor posts, Best Practices for Plan Sponsors #8, #9, #10 and #11, I discussed the lessons learned from the conditions in the settlement agreements for the Anthem, Vanderbilt, BB&T and ABB cases. This article—about the Johns Hopkins settlement agreement—is another example of the importance of using appropriate share classes and the monitoring of compensation of service providers . . . and more.

Continue reading Best Practices for Plan Sponsors #12

Share

3 lessons for advisers from 401(k) and 403(b) class action settlements

Fred Reish writes a quarterly column for Investment News. This quarter’s article points out that retirement plan committees rely on their advisers to keep them informed of new developments related to 401(k) and 403(b) plans, including advice about risk management. To help advisers fulfill those expectations, this article discusses the recent settlements in the Anthem 401(k) and Vanderbilt 403(b) cases.

Continue reading 3 lessons for advisers from 401(k) and 403(b) class action settlements

Share

Best Practices for Plan Sponsors #9

Lessons Learned from Litigation (#2)—the Vanderbilt Case

This is the ninth of the series about Best Practices for Plan Sponsors.

Plan sponsors should be aware of the latest trends in fiduciary litigation in order to manage the risk of being sued and, if sued, of being liable. In my post, Best Practices for Plan Sponsors #8, I discussed the lessons from the settlement of the Anthem case. The Vanderbilt settlement is another example of the importance of using appropriate share classes and of a good process for selecting investments and monitoring service providers. This article discusses the Vanderbilt lawsuit and the conditions in the settlement agreement.

Continue reading Best Practices for Plan Sponsors #9

Share

Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors #8

Senior Clients: The SEC is looking at practices of RIAs

I am writing two series of articles that together are called “The Bests.” One is about Best Practices for plan sponsors, while the other is about the Best Interest Standard of Care for advisors. Each series is numbered separately to make it easier to identify the subject that is most relevant to you.

This is the eighth of the series about Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors.

The SEC has initiated examinations of investment advisers concerning their practices in working with Senior Clients. According to the SEC, a “ ‘Senior Client’ is defined as any retail advisory client who is age 62 or older, retired, or transitioning to retirement, including accounts of deceased clients, and retail clients in joint accounts with at least one individual meeting this definition.”

Continue reading Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors #8

Share

Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors #4

What Does “Best Interest” Mean? (Part 1)

I am writing two series of articles that together are called “The Bests.” One is about Best Practices for plan sponsors, while the other is about the Best Interest Standard of Care for advisors. Each series is numbered separately to make it easier to identify the subject that is most relevant to you.

This is the fourth of the series about the Best Interest Standard of Care.

“Best Interest” has become part of the American lexicon . . . as an aspirational goal or a demanding standard—depending on the point of view. But, what does best interest mean? It may mean different things to different people . . . and perhaps even to different regulators. However, I believe that most people would agree on the definition in this article.

As I read the guidance issued by the Department of Labor (DOL), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and New York State, there are actually two different best interests. The first is a standard of care and the second is a duty of loyalty. Of the two, the duty of loyalty is the easiest to define because, in all of the guidance it boils down to a requirement that an advisor cannot put his interest ahead of the investor’s.

Continue reading Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors #4

Share

Best Practices for Plan Sponsors #5

Fiduciary Training: The Need for Basics

This is the fifth of the series about Best Practices for Plan Sponsors.

In three earlier posts—Best Practices for Plan Sponsors #2, #3, and #4—about the Sacerdote v. New York University decision, I discussed the good and the bad of the NYU plan committee and made several suggestions about best practices for improving committee performance. This article focuses on one of those suggestions—fiduciary education for committee members.

As a starting point, there is not a legal requirement that committee members receive fiduciary training. Instead, it’s a best practice and good risk management.

But, what should the fiduciary education cover? Based on my analysis of court decisions on fiduciary responsibility, I am worried that fiduciaries may not be adequately educated about their basic responsibilities and particularly their administrative oversight duties. If you look at decisions, such as the NYU case, the issues are basic. For example, one of the defendants did not know if he was still a member of the committee. Another committee member didn’t believe that she was a fiduciary or that she had legal responsibility for the decisions made by the committee. Instead, she thought her role was ministerial, in terms of setting up the meetings and distributing information.

Continue reading Best Practices for Plan Sponsors #5

Share

Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors #3

SEC Best Interests . . . When? And What About the DOL

I am writing two series of articles that together are called “The Bests.” One is about Best Practices for plan sponsors, while the other is about the Best Interest Standard of Care for advisors. Each series is numbered separately to make it easier to identify the subject that is most relevant to you.

This is the third of the series about the Best Interest Standard of Care.

The Regulatory Agendas for the SEC and DOL were recently issued. Both have plans for guidance by September of 2019, but the anticipated timing of the guidance has, by and large, been misinterpreted. To understand what I mean, read on.

The SEC’s Agenda said that Final Action on the Regulation Best Interest proposal for broker-dealers and the Interpretation of Standard of Conduct for investment advisers would be “09/00/2019.”

Similarly, the Department of Labor Agenda said that there would be a final rule on the “Fiduciary Rule and Prohibited Transaction Exemptions” with the date of “09/00/2019.”

Continue reading Best Interest Standard of Care for Advisors #3

Share