Leaderboard

1. A change in the policy does not mean that existing loans are somehow invalid because they don't fit the new policy. The existing loans are contracts between the plan and participant. 2 &3. I agree with ESOP Guy. If the amendment or new policy does not specify how to handle those issues, PA should use discretion and apply the new policy uniformly. On the other hand, it might be better to take care of that in the amendment or write it in to the new policy (not part of the amendment) to eliminate any confusion.

I am assuming the amendment was not written to answer these questions which it should have been done. If the amendment doesn't answer this question then all plans give the Plan Administrator the power to make reasonable interpretations of the plan that don't discriminate. The PA needs to use that power to answer these questions. To me I don't see how you don't grandfather the existing loans. It might even be a protected benefit since it exists. The next two I can make a case for either one and the PA would seem reasonable. What I mostly see is you can't refinance in either case. You might have 2 loans but any change needs to result in 1 loan after the change. Likewise in 3 any change needs to result in zero loans.

My understanding (not based on either active involvement with servicing 401(k) plans or collective bargaining matters) is that if they do unionize, every aspect of the conditions of employment (such as anything to do with the 401(k) plan) becomes subject to collective bargaining. That is to say, any changes to the 401(k) plan with respect to them (and maybe even whether to stay or to go to a new plan) must be the result of collective bargaining. The employer essentially loses the ability to make unilateral decisions with respect to the employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement.

If the plan allows for catch-up contributions and the participant elects 7%, and 7% is within the allowable limits for the participant, can you justify not doing 7%? Are the instructions/forms clear on the issue when the participant elects what to defer? If you vendor cannot do what your plan permits, you need a different vendor...

That's just lazy on the payroll provider's part. I've never considered a catchup is anything other than an increase in the deferral limit for those who are age 50 and over. If you are, then your limit is $24,000 (and if you're not, then your limit is $18,000). So, my issue would be that the notion of a separate election being required because they arbitrarily decided to curtail someone's deferrals before they met their statutory limit is unacceptable. At the end of the day, this is a reflection of free market forces at work. If you can do this and retain your clients, then good for you. I won't try it :-) Good Luck!