The Last Rodeo


General

A Country and Western Retirement

I asked ChatGPT to write lyrics for a country and western song about retirement . . . about the uncertainty of moving into a new phase of life. Here is what I got:

(Verse 1)
I’ve spent all my life punchin’ that clock,
Dust on my boots, walkin’ the walk.
Built a name, carved it deep, strong and proud,
But now the quiet’s callin’ out loud.

(Chorus )
It’s the last rodeo, it’s time to ride on,
But I’m scared of the shadows, the dreams that are gone.
Will I still matter, when I lay my tools down,
Or fade like an echo, in a cold empty town?

(Verse 2)
Friends shake my hand, say “You’ve earned some rest,”
But this heart in my chest still pounds at my best.
I’ve lived for the rush, the workin’ man’s pride,
Now I’m fearin’ the silence waitin’ outside.

Continue reading The Last Rodeo →

Share

ERISA Moments Ep. 27: The SEC Staff Speaks Out on Standards for Rollover Recommendations


ERISA

Take a quick dive into the exciting world of ERISA with Faegre Drinker benefits and executive compensation attorneys Fred Reish and Brad Campbell. In this quick-hit series of updates, Fred and Brad offer a high-level view of current trends and recent ERISA developments.

See the newest episode, The SEC Staff Speaks Out on Standards for Rollover Recommendations, on the Spotlight on Benefits blog.

Share

Things I Worry About (3): Automatic Enrollment (3)


401(k), 403(b), SECURE 2.0
, ,

Key Takeaways

    • The SECURE Act 2.0 required that “new” 401(k) and private sector 403(b) plans automatically enroll their eligible employees, but not until plan years beginning after December 31, 2024…just weeks from now.
    • “New” plans include most that were established on or after the enactment date of SECURE 2.0—December 29, 2022.
    • Unfortunately, it is likely that some of the affected plan sponsors will fail to automatically enroll their eligible employees on a timely basis.
    • This article discusses corrections for those failures.

SECURE  2.0 was enacted on December 29, 2022. Among its provisions is a requirement that “new” 401(k) plans and private sector 403(b) plans must automatically enroll their eligible employees, but not until the first plan year beginning after December 31, 2024 (the “applicable date”). Since most participant-funded and participant-directed plans, such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s, operate on a calendar year, this article discusses the effective date as if it were for the 2025 calendar year—just weeks from now.

My last two blog posts, Things I Worry About (1) and Things I Worry About (2), discussed the general requirements and my concerns about which employees must be automatically enrolled.

This one looks at the provisions in SECURE 2.0 about correcting automatic enrollment failures, such as not enrolling the eligible employees when required.

Continue reading Things I Worry About (3): Automatic Enrollment (3) →

Share

Things I Worry About (2): Automatic Enrollment (2)


401(k), 403(b), SECURE 2.0, SECURE Act
,

Key Takeaways

  • The SECURE Act 2.0 requires that “new” 401(k) and private sector 403(b) plans automatically enroll their eligible employees, but not until plan years beginning after December 31, 2024…just weeks from now.
  • Unfortunately, there are unanswered questions about how the automatic enrollment requirement will be applied. This article discusses two of those.

SECURE Act 2.0 was enacted on December 29, 2022. Among its provisions is a requirement that “new” 401(k) plans and private sector 403(b) plans must automatically enroll their eligible employees, but not until the first plan year beginning after December 31, 2024 (the “applicable date”). Since most participant-funded and participant-directed plans, such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s, operate on a calendar year, this article discusses the effective date as if it were for the 2025 calendar year—just weeks from now.

My last blog post, Things I Worry About (1), discussed the general requirements and my concerns about those.

This one looks at two specific issues…automatic enrollment of “which” eligible employes and automatic enrollment of long-term, part-time employees.

Continue reading Things I Worry About (2): Automatic Enrollment (2) →

Share

Things I Worry About: Automatic Enrollment (1)


401(k), 403(b), SECURE 2.0, SECURE Act
, ,

This starts a new series of blog posts…Things I Worry About. I will number these, but they will be more episodic than sequential.

Key Takeaways

  • The SECURE Act 2.0 requires that “new” 401(k) and private sector 403(b) plans automatically enroll their eligible employees, but not until plan years beginning after December 31, 2024…just weeks from now.
  • There are some exceptions for small and new companies, but those exceptions expire as the number of employees grows or as time goes by.
  • I am worried that some of those plans may fail to begin automatically enrolling those employees next year, or as the companies grow, or as time goes by. The consequences of a failure can be significant.

SECURE Act 2.0 was enacted on December 29, 2022. Among its provisions is a requirement that “new” 401(k) plans and private sector 403(b) plans must automatically enroll their eligible employees, but not until the first plan year beginning after December 31, 2024. Since most participant-funded and participant-directed plans, such as 401(k)s and 403(b)s, operate on a calendar year, this article discusses the effective date as if it were for the 2025 calendar year—just over two months from now.

SECURE 2.0 defines a “new” plan as one established on or after its enactment date—December 29, 2022.

In effect, the law has two effective dates. The first is that the 401(k) or private sector 403(b) plan must have been established on or after December 29, 2022 and the second is that those plans are not required to begin automatically enrolling until January 1, 2025. (A plan established after December 31, 2024 will need to automatically enroll their eligible employees immediately.)

Continue reading Things I Worry About: Automatic Enrollment (1) →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (52): The Loper Bright Decision and What it Means for DOL Exemptions (2)


2020-02, 84-24, DOL, fiduciary, prohibited transaction, reg BI
, , , , ,

Key Takeaways

  • The lawsuits against the DOL’s new regulation on fiduciary advice and the related exemptions—and the likely appeals—will probably last for years.
  • Two key issues in the lawsuits and appeals are whether the DOL has the authority to amend its existing regulation—the 5-part test—to cover one-time recommendations and whether the DOL has the authority to issue prohibited transaction exemptions that require a standard of care (e.g., prudence and loyalty) where the law does not otherwise.
  • The DOL will argue that circumstances have change since 1975, for example, the enactment of Code section 401(k) and the post-ERISA growth in the importance of those plans. As a part of that, the DOL asserts that rollover recommendations should be fiduciary advice and that the compensation from the rollover IRA (account or annuity) would be a prohibited transaction.
  • My last post, Fiduciary Rule 51, discussed the impact of the Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision on the new fiduciary regulation. This post discusses the impact of Loper Bright on the validity of the amended PTEs, 84-24 and 2020-02.

As I explained in my last post, Fiduciary Rule 51, I have been asked whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce et al. could affect the outcome of the litigation about the validity of the DOL’s fiduciary regulation and related exemptions. The answer is “yes,” but perhaps not in the way you might think. This article discusses the Loper Bright decision in the context of a review of the DOL’s Prohibited Transaction Exemptions (PTEs) 84-24 and 2020-02.

To be fair, I am not an expert on constitutional law and I don’t want to create the impression that this is an authoritative article. Instead, my goal is to highlight the issues for consideration by the courts.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (52): The Loper Bright Decision and What it Means for DOL Exemptions (2) →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (51): The Loper Bright Decision and What it Means for DOL Regulations (1)


DOL, fiduciary, reg BI
, , , , ,

Key Takeaways

  • The lawsuits against the DOL’s new regulation on fiduciary advice and the related exemptions—and the likely appeals—will probably last for years.
  • A key issue in the lawsuits and appeals is the authority of the DOL to amend its existing regulation—the 5-part test—to cover one-time recommendations (subject to specified limits).
  • The DOL will argue that circumstances have change since 1975, for example, the enactment of Code section 401(k) and the post-ERISA growth in the importance of those plans. As a part of that, the DOL asserts that rollover recommendations should be fiduciary advice.
  • On the other hand, some financial industries, and particularly the insurance industry, will argue that a one-time recommendation associated with a rollover is a sales transaction that should not be held to a fiduciary standard.
  • A critical question for the courts is whether the DOL has authority to issue a new fiduciary recommendation that, among other things, says that a rollover recommendation, explicit or implicit, is fiduciary advice. The Supreme Court’s decision in the Loper Bright case establishes the standard for the courts to evaluate an agency’s authority.

I have been asked whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce et al. could affect the outcome of the litigation about the validity of the DOL’s fiduciary regulation and related exemptions. The answer is “yes”, but perhaps not in the way you might think. This article discusses the Loper Bright decision in the context of a review of the DOL’s fiduciary regulation.

To be fair, I am not an expert on constitutional law and I don’t want to create the impression that this is an authoritative article. Instead, my goal is to highlight the issues for consideration by the courts.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (51): The Loper Bright Decision and What it Means for DOL Regulations (1) →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (50): What is a Best Interest Process?


best interest, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, investment adviser, IRA, reg BI, rollovers, SEC
, , ,

Key Takeaways

  • The DOL’s new regulation defining fiduciary advice to include one-time recommendations has been stayed, but advisers who make ongoing individualized recommendations to ERISA-governed retirement plans, participants in those plans, and IRA owners continue to be fiduciaries subject to fiduciary standards. Those standards—prudence and loyalty—can be called a best interest standard.
  • However, the SEC’s fiduciary standard for one-time recommendations by investment advisers continues to apply. The SEC position is most recently documented in its Commission Interpretation Regarding Standard of Conduct for Investment Advisers. The SEC said that the investment adviser duties of care and loyalty—taken together–are a best interest standard.
  • The best interest standard for both broker-dealers and investment advisers has been further defined by the SEC Staff in its Bulletin entitled Standards of Conduct for Broker-Dealers and Investment Advisers Account Recommendations for Retail Investors.
  • In addition, one-time recommendations of insurance products are regulated by state insurance departments and almost all of the states have adopted NAIC Model Regulation #275, “Suitability in Annuity Transactions”, either verbatim or in large part, for recommendations of annuities. The NAIC has referred to this as a best interest standard.
  • This post discusses the basic requirements for a best interest process for making recommendations to ERISA-governed retirement plans, participants in those plans, and IRA owners.
  • Note that Reg BI and the NAIC model rule do not apply to recommendations to retirement plans, but do apply to participants and IRA owners, including rollover recommendations and recommendations to transfer IRAs.

If you study the rules of the various standard-setters, a pattern emerges about their expectations for the process for developing a best interest recommendation. The DOL and SEC are consistent in that regard, while the NAIC model rule is less demanding, as explained later in this article.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (50): What is a Best Interest Process? →

Share

The New Fiduciary Rule (49): Recommendations to Transfer IRAs (NAIC)


best interest, broker-dealers, DOL, fiduciary, investment adviser, IRA, reg BI, SEC
, , , , ,

Key Takeaways

  • Two Texas Federal District Courts have “stayed” the effective dates of the DOL’s new fiduciary regulation and related exemptions, meaning that the private sector will not have to comply with those rules until the cases are resolved and if the guidance is vacated, those rules will never be effective.
  • As a result, one-time recommendations to plans, participants and IRA owners will not be fiduciary advice for purposes of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code.
  • However, one-time recommendations of securities (and insurance products that are securities) are regulated by the SEC for broker-dealers and investment advisers.
  • In addition, one-time recommendations of insurance products are regulated by state insurance departments and almost all of the states have adopted NAIC Model Regulation #275, either verbatim or in large part.
  • This post covers NAIC Model Regulation #275’s provisions for recommending exchanges of individual retirement annuities (also referred to as qualified annuities).

The stay of the effective dates of the amended fiduciary regulation and amended exemptions means that the “old” DOL fiduciary regulation (the 5-part test) and the existing exemptions continue in effect indefinitely.

My last post, Fiduciary Rule 48, discussed the DOL’s “old” and continuing definition of fiduciary advice—the 5-part test—and how it might apply to recommendations to transfer IRAs—individual retirement accounts and individual retirement annuities. The post before that, Fiduciary Rule 47, discussed SEC and SEC staff guidance on recommendations to transfer IRAs. This post is about the application of the conduct standards in NAIC Model Regulation #275 to the recommendation of annuities. The Model Regulation has been adopted by substantially all of the states, either verbatim or in large part.

Continue reading The New Fiduciary Rule (49): Recommendations to Transfer IRAs (NAIC) →

Share