Leaderboard

There is some good stuff, but also a lot of crapola. I agree that some of it is absurd from an administrative standpoint. What I hate about this type of thing is that there are always a few clients who insist on one of the useless options, and there are always "advisors" who try to puff up their importance by convincing a client that they simply must have one or more ridiculous provisions, and "Why didn't your TPA advise you to do this?" Etc., etc. - while recognizing that transition is always difficult (remember TRA 86, EGTRRA, et al) there is still an inordinate amount of garbage here. Why doesn't this legislation help ME retire?!!!

I am not an attorney, just a lowly TPA, but when I started reviewing the ACT, I thought I would create a spreadsheet that I could sort by the code section, effective date, etc. This was just my first run through and obviously needs to be updated, but please feel free to take it and make it your own. Secure 2.0 Provisions.xlsx

Austin, let me first say that I typically enjoy and agree with many of your comments. Quite frankly, I am thinking of retiring early given some of the garbage in this law. I would also note that I often find people who are primarily in the sale of assets love this law, while many of us on the operations side hate it. Excluding states that are expected to mandate having a plan, I see many plan terminations will be the result. Do we exaggerate? Time will tell.

Ill retire somewhere around Cycle 10 restatements...

In 2019, I helped an administrator file twenty old years’ Form 5500 reports. EFAST worked. I found it useful to begin with the oldest year, and proceed in chronological order. Doing so set a preceding year’s ending balance as the next year’s presumed opening balance.

Just from a recordkeeper's perspective - the things that bother us most are those that slice and dice plans/participants/retirees based on differentiators that are difficult to implement/track/monitor. For example, we now need special systems support to track the enhanced catch-up for those 62 to 64 years old. We need to track last years income in connection with whether those catch-ups are Roth (some will be, some won't). We need to revamp the whole catch-up protocol - as we currently use the one-bucket approach and adjust at year end if a plan/regulatory limit isn't met (and what happens if you have a Roth catch-up, and the participant doesn't hit a limit? We need to track participant elections on Roth employer contributions (some will, some won't). Same for employers who elect to offer that feature. We need to track start-up to see which need to be auto-feature plans (under 10 employee companies are exempt, but they grow - so is there a "spring requirement"? Same for businesses in existence for less than 3 years. We use Omni - probably the most sophisticated r/k system around - and it will require significant updates to accommodate much of this (and FIS only does that for newer versions - which will require some r/k's on older versions to upgrade (at a cost). And then there are the payroll providers.... They are behind the eight ball as well.... The games has begun and our cost estimate for implementation is well into seven figures....

Listening to a presentation today on SECURE 2.0 and I left with the impression that this is literally impossible to implement. Anyone else? Between Roth as catch-ups, match as Roth, mandatory auto enrollment (with Auto Increase to boot), 37 new distribution options that you can only take once every 3 years. Sure I'm exaggerating but only a little. I just can't see implementing this stuff with a small service business that has 25 employees.

More happily retired every day. Sorry, just woke up from my nap 😁

This has been true for a while. I have been convinced any plan that wasn't designed to be simple is out of compliance if you look hard enough. Part of why I got into ESOPs was they were more interesting than small 401(k) plans which is how I got into this industry. They have gotten so complex the chances of making an error are huge. And I don't know how some of you folks do small 401(k) plans any more. All the silly notices and disclosures that if you miss a simple deadline can put things out of compliance. The volume of them is beyond sustainability. And they add no value as no one reads or understands them. I am becoming a cynic I think.

As a recordkeeper, we do the same thing - dual elections from the start. At the end of the year, if the participant hasn't met the criteria to be catch-up eligible (402(g), plan limit, etc.) we move the money to the regular deferral bucket until they do meet the limit. This will be a huge problem though, when catch-ups for those making too much (in Congress' eyes) are Roth.....

At this point, with my career in the rear-view mirror, I am of the opinion that the retirement plan rules are fundamentally broken and unfixable. We have widespread noncompliance, both due to complexity and willful neglect. I can't say I've given it that much thought but maybe, just maybe, we need to move to some kind of mandatory employer contribution (SS after all is a mandatory employer contribution) that goes into some kind of DC plan...like a SH nonelective. Get rid of the auto-enrollment stuff, or at least make it optional. And increase the 401(k) max but decrease the overall DC 415 limits and get rid of cross-testing (if you want a DB plan then put in a DB plan!) and otherwise simplify. I am literally doing this on the fly so it's not like I gave it any previous thought, and my opinion is no doubt colored by working with small plans and largely taking TH contributions as a given.

Here's a 20-page chart from Seyfarth Shaw that includes effective dates and whether a plan amendment is required. And a 10-page "Pocket Guide", organized by effective date, from Proskauer.

Bill Presson et al are correct. This package is easily accessed as unbundled. We (TPA) used to call it "Vanguard Newport" because Newport Group ran the investment admin that Vanguard did not (smaller plans than Vanguard will bundle). Ascensus bought Newport Group in 2022, hence the use of "Ascensus" to reference this package. Ascensus also has a bundled package (so more confusion) and a large (by acquisition) TPA organization named "FuturePlan." I work for FuturePlan as a 403(b) SME and Documents person. The firm I worked for (before Ascensus bought us) lost a very nice 403(b) plan to Ascensus bundled (nothing to do with Vanguard or Newport). We complained to the advisor who organized this and he responded that "it is all Ascensus anyway." This is not, of course, the way this actually works and I suspect he thought he brought a lower cost alternative to his client's attention. The plan sponsor/ client has been back to us several times for advice and help with their 457(b) plan, but has not thought "unbundling" would be worth entertaining at this point in time. I am not sure this helps "thepensionmaven," but information is often useful. If you have other clients with Vanguard (Newport, etc), it would be a good idea to discuss this and pre-empt a change which, I agree will focus mostly on cost and not service. Patricia

It is going to help you retire by aging you prematurely.

And yet, at least some of the lobbyists were people who say they speak for retirement-services providers.

If an ERISA-governed retirement plan provides participant-directed investment, the 404a-5 rule specifies three kinds of information changes that call for 30 days’ notice “unless the inability to provide such advance notice is due to events that were unforeseeable or circumstances beyond the control of the plan administrator[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 2550.404a-5 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/subtitle-B/chapter-XXV/subchapter-F/part-2550/section-2550.404a-5#p-2550.404a-5(b) Often, recordkeepers trot out this rule—even when it doesn’t apply. An unadvised plan administrator just falls in with what its recordkeeper says. Further, many service providers’ agreements require notice (often, 60 days) to the service provider before it has an obligation to provide a service regarding an investment-related change. A plan sponsor or consultant with purchasing power can negotiate the notice period and which circumstances invoke it; others are stuck with a rack provision.

Agreed Austin. I was against most of it from the first time I heard about it.

This list from NAPA https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/key-secure-20-act-provisions-and-effective-dates

I only deal with DBP termination submissions. The last three were: Submitted 9/30/2021 - D-Letter 4/13/2022, so 6 1/2 months with some questions/responses in between. Submitted 4/25/2022 - confirmation of receipt then nothing but crickets. Submitted 10/18/2022 - confirmation of receipt but still too early to expect anything. All were individually designed, long frozen, timely restated last applicable cycle, timely interim amendments, excess assets - so no differentiating factor to highlight timing, maybe just the (un)luck of the draw or one time of year is more favorable? ESOPs can be complex animals with their own issue, especially if not a publicly traded security, so I can see those taking longer especially if individually designed. I usually tell clients that 12-18 months is not unheard of and that anything less than 12 is a blessing. We'll see if the new House is able to strip IRS funding and if so, if it has any impact on employee plans - not one of the positives for a resource-constrained IRS. You (if POA) or employer can call IRS and check the status. The first key is whether it's been assigned as sometimes these sit for months before they get assigned to an agent. Good luck.

Disability benefits are ancillary, not part of the accrued benefit and may be amended (and eliminated, if desired) without issue. The only potential issue is if you have an existing disability claim or current disability stream of payments (like under a DBP). If your only concern in determination/definition of disability, no problem.

You need to look at IRC 402A(b)(1) as amended by S2.0 sec. 604. This is what IRC 402A(b)(1) said pre-S2.0: And as amended: With the amended language it is clear that the Roth employer contributions are made at the employee's election.

The Senate Finance Committee’s EARN Act would have prohibited recharacterization. That prohibition was not in the final law. With the ability to have in-plan Roth rollovers, seems like a pre-tax excess contribution could be converted to a Roth catch-up. Then the question is which year is it taxable. I’d say the year of the conversion just as though there had been a distribution of the excess. Of course this is just an interpretation and we’ll hopefully have IRS guidance before this goes into effect.