Tag Archives: safe harbor

Things I Worry About (26): Pooled Employer Plans and DOL RFI (7)


DOL, fiduciary
, , , , , , , , , ,

Key Takeaways

  • The DOL has issued guidance about PEPs—pooled employer plans—that includes questions designed to assist the DOL in developing future guidance about PEPs.
  • Some of those questions suggest a possible fiduciary safe harbor for small employers who adopt PEPs.
  • This article continues a discussion of the questions asked by the DOL and my comments on those questions and issues. In particular, this article covers some of the “safe harbor” questions raised by the DOL.
  • While the DOL questions are for future guidance, advisors and providers should be paying attention because, among other reasons, some current practices may be disfavored by the DOL.

This series of articles examines the DOL’s July 29, 2025, release that includes interpretative guidance on PEPs, solicits information about PEP practices, includes tips for selecting PEPs, and discusses a possible fiduciary safe harbor for adopting PEPs. 2025-14281.pdf (SECURED).

The first two articles in this series,  Things I Worry About (20) and Things I Worry About (21), discussed some of the DOL’s findings when it reviewed the 2023 Forms 5500 filed by PEPs.

The third, fourth and fifth articles, Things I Worry About (22), Things I Worry About (23), and Things I Worry About (24), reviewed issues identified by the DOL for employers who may be deciding whether to join a PEP.

Continue reading Things I Worry About (26): Pooled Employer Plans and DOL RFI (7) →

Share

Things I Worry About (25): Pooled Employer Plans and DOL RFI (6)


DOL, fiduciary
, , , , , , , , ,

Key Takeaways

  • The DOL has issued guidance about PEPs—pooled employer plans—that includes questions designed to assist the DOL in developing future guidance about PEPs.
  • Some of those questions suggest a possible fiduciary safe harbor for small employers who adopt PEPs.
  • This article begins a discussion of the questions asked by the DOL and my comments on those questions and issues. In particular, this article covers some of the “safe harbor” inquiries. The remaining DOL safe harbor questions will be discussed in my next article.
  • While the DOL inquiries are for future guidance, advisors and providers should be paying attention because, among other reasons, some current practices appear to be disfavored by the DOL.

This series of articles examines the DOL’s July 29, 2025, release that includes interpretative guidance on PEPs, solicits information about PEP practices, includes tips for selecting PEPs, and discusses a possible fiduciary safe harbor for adopting PEPs. 2025-14281.pdf (SECURED).

The first two articles in this series,  Things I Worry About (20) and Things I Worry About (21), discussed some of the DOL’s findings when it reviewed the 2023 Forms 5500 filed by PEPs.

The third, fourth and fifth articles, Things I Worry About (22), Things I Worry About (23), and Things I Worry About 24, reviewed issues identified by the DOL for deciding whether to join a PEP.

This article begins a series about the part of the guidance that was an RFI, where the DOL is soliciting information that would be helpful for future guidance. I quote and then discuss the questions that are the most interesting and relevant to employers and service providers.

Continue reading Things I Worry About (25): Pooled Employer Plans and DOL RFI (6) →

Share

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


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

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