Leaderboard

No discretion is involved. We adhere strictly to predetermined criteria (the "policies") and function in a ministerial manner. Nothing you listed requires "discretion" to complete. Once in a great while, the employer *may* have to get involved - but generally isn't required. The only case I can recall last year involved a hardship for medical expenses where the supporting documentation (the invoices) were all marked "paid." That, under our system causes a reject - and while we worked with the participant to "trace" funds to determine if the "payments" would make the cut (with an uncooperative participant), the employer stepped in and "ruled" it to be a hardship. The participant also was an exec (and an HCE) at the company - so they did so against our advice. But that's the only instance for the entire year where an employer got involved in any of our outsourced services - and we currently have about 5500 plans. Can't say how many of them use our outsourced services (it's an ala carte menu they can select from) I can assure you ALL of them use loan outsourcing (if they have loans) and most for distribution outsourcing (including in-service of all types). Over 500 engage us for QDRO services. About 5200 of them use our volume submitter document(s). Payroll, census collection, all of that is 360 integrated. I hate to tell you this, but I've worked for a number of service providers in my 30+ year career, and even as far back as the early 2000's most of this suite of services have been available - without anyone every saying "3(16)."

Mojo - I'm not speaking of your company specifically, but more than a few companies that claim to do "nonfiduciary administration" (for lack of a better term) are, in fact, performing fiduciary functions notwithstanding what they say in their agreements. In other words, just because they say they're not fiduciaries doesn't mean that they're not fiduciaries. I'm sure that, without trying too hard, I could find a client who had to get rid of a TPA that was doing essentially what PamB describes, but under an agreement that screams "We are not a fiduciary."

We do the same thing. We do the same thing. We do the same thing. We do the same thing. We do the same thing. We do the same thing. We do the same thing. We do the same thing. And when I say the only thing we need from the employer is the "initial authorization" - that is basically the same as the contract your clients sign for you to provide the services. It's a one time, at the beginning of the relationship document that authorizes us to do these things on their behalf pursuant to the various "policies" that often are part of hte plan documents (that we also provide) - i.e. the "loan policy," the "hardship policy", the QDRO policy." The only difference is we call it the standard offerings of a "bundled service provider" and you call it 3(16) services. My question still stands....

IMHO it's only about the DOL. Commissioned business has a different burden than before, and the BDs are driving RKers to provide fiduciary solutions. That's because retirement business, and commissioned business in particular, is very very hard to supervise. So the BD requires outsourced fiduciary or documented fiduciary services to meet the financial institutions' DOL burden of "establishing fiduciary policies".

But they sure can find a way to charge for it...

Pam: In the scenario you describe (abandoned plans or "removed" fiduciaries) I agree with you - but with "routine" admin, can you explain why the 3(16) is more efficient than non-fiduciary outsourcing of that stuff? We do distributions (all kinds) mandatory cash-out processing, DRO review and "Q"DRO-ing, loans, and a whole lot of other stuff without being a fiduciary, and without obtain a plan sponsor/fiduciary signature on anything (except the initial authorization to do so) - unless there is an issue. We try (mostly successfully) to not let those mistakes happen that next year will need correcting. I'm not knocking your business model - but I have yet to see a 3(16) tell me why a "fiduciary" is necessary for the 95% of the stuff we do as a non-fiduciary.

This seems very important, so I'm reprinting it here -- it's a press release that was sent to me about ten minutes ago (Thursday, 3:10 p.m. ET): BALTIMORE – February 22, 2018 Transamerica Expands Commitment to TPAs and Small Retirement Plan Market Transamerica today announced that the services of a third party administrator specializing in retirement plans are required for new retirement plan business with less than $3 million in assets. “Our experience is that smaller companies benefit significantly from the expertise of a third party administrator who can have deep conversations about their client’s business and goals,” said Joe Boan, senior vice president and executive director, individual and workplace distribution for Transamerica. “With this announcement, we are firmly stating that working with a retirement-focused third party administrator is a best practice for small retirement plans.” Transamerica is demonstrating its commitment to third party administrators by raising the underwriting minimums for in-house administrative services. TPAs will have access to Transamerica’s streamlined retirement platform to help their clients. “Transamerica values its alliance with third party administrators. We listen to TPAs’ needs and seek out their feedback about our retirement plan program, and we take action. We agree that small retirement plans benefit greatly from the direct guidance that retirement third party administrators offer,” said Boan. “We believe every company needs to have access to a quality retirement plan, and we are delighted for the opportunity to help more people pursue their financial goals for a secure retirement.” There are many reasons small companies will want to consider using third party administrators for their retirement plans, including: * flexible plan design support customized to meet the specific needs of both the business and their employees * high levels of compliance and technical expertise on issues like loans and distributions * enhanced consultative services * the assumption of time-intensive responsibilities. Transamerica believes that the future of financial wellness is the connection between wealth and health for a better quality of life. For decades, Transamerica has helped people pursue a lifetime of financial security. To learn more about Transamerica’s workplace solutions, please visit www.transamerica.com. About Transamerica Retirement Solutions, LLC Transamerica Retirement Solutions, LLC (Transamerica) is a leading provider of customized retirement plan solutions for mega- large-, mid-, and small-market organizations. Transamerica Retirement Solutions partners with financial advisors, third party administrators, and consultants to cover the entire spectrum of defined benefit and defined contribution plans, including: 401(k) and 403(b) (Traditional and Roth); 457; profit sharing; money purchase; cash balance; Taft-Hartley; multiple employer plans; nonqualified deferred compensation; and rollover and Roth IRAs. Transamerica Retirement Solutions helps more than 5.4 million retirement plan participants save for a lifetime of financial security. For more information, visit www.transamerica.com.

Did company A have a suspension of benefits provision? If it did not, then you cannot add one to those benefits. An SoB can only be added to prospective participants/benefits.

That makes no sense. My thoughts would be to read the notice and the plans.

No resource necessary. He is self-employed with regard to his board of directors income and can clearly have a plan established for his self-employment income.

The only way I see for them to avoid reducing the NHCE allocations is to deposit the additional amount needed to bring the two who were shortchanged up to the same percentage of pay allocation that the others received, adjusted for lost income. That is the EPCRS pre-approved correction for someone who is improperly excluded from the PS contribution and should be equally valid for someone who received less than they should have under the allocation used. They didn't follow the document and that needs to be corrected. Their two options are reallocate the contribution amount or make a corrective deposit.