Earl Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 is it allowed to have a 403b Plan with no Participant investment direction? the contributions would all go into an account managed by an RIA and the TPA would produce individual statements. It is a 403b7 plan and management would be restricted to mutual funds only. Thank you CBW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QDROphile Posted August 12, 2016 Share Posted August 12, 2016 It is an abomination to have participant directed accounts. It is the expectation of ERISA that the investments be managed by a fiduciary (and its advisers). Since 403(b) plans come from the retail insurance rip-off tradition, it may seem strange that some protection and responsibility have emerged into the light. K2retire and MoJo 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted August 12, 2016 Author Share Posted August 12, 2016 So you are saying "yes, it is ok?" I found a couple of things that make me think it is ok but they are not explicit enough for me to understand and be comfortable stating it is so. PLR 200242047 (understand can't rely), Rev Rul 2011-1, RR 2014-24. Thanks (Every week when I go to the grocery store I ask myself, "Which of these shoppers would I want to manage my retirement savings?" But it's great that they have to manage their own.) CBW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carol V. Calhoun Posted August 14, 2016 Share Posted August 14, 2016 A 403(b) plan need not have participant investment direction. You're not finding authority on it only because 403(b) sets forth all the requirements, and doesn't include that one. So you're not going to get cases or authorities on the issue of whether it's required, because there is simply no basis for requiring it. That being said, there are two limitations. First, in a nongovernmental, nonchurch plan, there is an exemption from ERISA that applies only if certain conditions are met. See 29 C.F.R. Ā§2510.3-2(f). Among the conditions for that exemption are that employer involvement in investment decisions must be limited to "limiting the funding media or products available to employees, or the annuity contractors who may approach employees, to a number and selection which is designed to afford employees a reasonable choice in light of all relevant circumstances." So if there is no participant investment direction, the ERISA exemption would not be available to a nongovernmental, nonchurch plan. Second, if the employer makes all the investment decisions, it may have greater potential for fiduciary duty than if participants choose their own investments. Employee benefits legal resource site The opinions of my postingsĀ are my own and do not necessarily represent my law firm's position, strategies, or opinions. The contents of my postingsĀ are offered for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. A visit to this board or an exchange of information through this board does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult directly with an attorney for individual advice regarding your particular situation. I amĀ notĀ your lawyer under any circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted August 14, 2016 Author Share Posted August 14, 2016 Thanks very much. Not afraid of ERISA coverage - there will be company contributions. Your second point is, I believe, one of the great travesties perpetrated on the american worker in the recent times. CBW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QDROphile Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 What part of it is the travesty? I think the travesty is that individuals who are not equipped to make investment decisions for retirement assets are forced into that responsibility by the ignorant fears of their employers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted August 15, 2016 Author Share Posted August 15, 2016 I think that sums it up pretty well. What a country. CBW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Belgarath Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Let me just play Devil's advocate for a moment. Suppose I perform design of solar powered widgets for the destitute. I do it well, and have a few good employees who also do it well. The Board of our non-profit corporation would like to reward them by contributing to a retirement plan on their behalf. I'm not sure I agree that the employer, who doesn't want to be saddled with investment performance responsibility, and lacks investment expertise just like all or most of the employees, is evil just because they make the employees responsible for their own investment choices. Why should I accept the liability, and the responsibility? In the non-403(b) world, do you think any employer who sponsors a SEP or a SIMPLE-IRA is perpetrating an abomination, since the employee selects the IRA? I'd sure rather have investment choice and have a plan than I would to have my employer choose not to sponsor a plan because they don't want investment liability. I realize the original post is re a 403(b) plan, but it seems to me the issues are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Earl Posted August 15, 2016 Author Share Posted August 15, 2016 so there is no plan and the owner keeps the money? what does he do with it? invest it with an advisor maybe? A ha! also, I have trouble accepting the premise that the employer "lacks investment expertise just like all or most of the employees" And there are reasons for separate accounts, but its all just fun and games. CBW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QDROphile Posted August 15, 2016 Share Posted August 15, 2016 Ignorance about investment liability is part of the problem. Employers take the apparent easy way out from a very small potential liability with great adverse consequences to most of the employees. I would use a military word that begins with "chicken" and has four more letters to describe the lack of effort and interest of most employers to properly assess the options and potential liability before making decisions about how plan assets will be managed. And most advisers to the employers are equally culpable. K2retire 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K2retire Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 Ignorance about investment liability is part of the problem. Employers take the apparent easy way out from a very small potential liability with great adverse consequences to most of the employees. I would use a military word that begins with "chicken" and has four more letters to describe the lack of effort and interest of most employers to properly assess the options and potential liability before making decisions about how plan assets will be managed. And most advisers to the employers are equally culpable. I agree with what your saying, but there's more to it. There seems to be an incredibly large number of employees who demand the right to mange their own accounts despite their lack of training and/or ability to do so appropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QDROphile Posted August 16, 2016 Share Posted August 16, 2016 That is a very deep point, worthy of a lot more discussion. But I am not willing to put in the effort beyond a rant toward a lost cause. I will leave it that I applaud a plan (including a 403(b) plan) that is willing to consider doing the right thing by managing the assets. I note that a 403(b) plan is constrained in its choices for investments, so it has fewer tools for optimizing professional management compared to a 401(a) plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now