Search the Community

Hi all, Wanted to start a discussion on what future interest crediting rates would be considered reasonable assumptions for funding valuations for Market Based Cash Balance Plans. These plans are designed to reduce risks of underfunding but if the assets are aggressively invested and, depending on the method of determining a future return assumption, the assumed future interest crediting rate could be higher than the relief funding rates resulting in minimum required contributions greater than the pay credits. Is anyone aware of any regs or approved methods for determining a reasonable future interest crediting rate that would not result in unreasonable underfunding results and minimums greater than actual pay credits? It seems applying a 6% cap on the projected ICR would be reasonable considering the new legislation in Secure 2.0 but this is still high. Curious if anyone ties the projected ICR to a segment rate similar to how the future ICR would be determined at plan termination for market based rates? Goal is to avoid underfunding results when the plan sponsor is funding the annual pay credits and the plan has a more aggressive asset mix.

We have a small k/cb plan that was once administered by a small local TPA/actuary that was bought by a very large TPA/RK. The new TPA did fine the first year (2017) however we started having problems in 2018 when they kept failing to respond to inquiries or making promises to deliver requests but not getting the work done. The client, a sole owner firm with just a couple EEs, had the k/cb plan in place since 2015 and most of the CB contributions go to him (well over 90%). The client found out in early 2018 that his key EE (NOT "key" by ERISA definition, but key to business revenues) was planning to set up shop across town since he had no non-compete, and by Sept he was off the payroll but much of his revenue contributions had long since dried up, so the business saw a profitability shift downwards between by well over 60% through 2018, this after many years of consecutive growth. We were trying to get a plan amendment in place for 2018 but the TPA kept dragging feet. Shortly thereafter we were notified the TPA did not file the 2017 5500 in time, no excuse offered. They offered to pay the DFVCP amount and kept promising to complete work in the next couples of weeks. This went on for several months until we terminated the old TPA and hired a new one. After having the new TPA/actuary working on incompleted valuations going back to 2017, we finally got the contribution requirements which would have been fine when the company was more profitable but it cannot afford it now. Despite our efforts to get the old TPA's act in gear, they never got us those amendments because they never completed the previous work to make the necessary calculations. Now the client has a funding requirement he can't afford and is facing a 10% excise tax of whatever he can't contribute. We have frozen the plan in 2019, but is there any recourse, or any action that can be taken in lieu of the fact that the previous TPA failed to complete work in time preventing us from amending the plan to get his 2018 funding requirement down based on the fundamental change in his business by the loss of the only non-owner key EE? I know it's a stretch, but I'm just wondering if anyone has any specific experience like this and found some option that worked without creating more headache for the business owner? Thanks

A large doctors group carved out >100 employees who were sold to a hospital group. These employees continue to work in the same capacity for the doctors group, and the hospital pays the doctors group to manage them. The hospital group offers full benefits, including a 403b plan - we don't have knowledge yet of whether or not the hospital group matches deferrals at this point. The doctors group has @ 80 remaining employees - all upper level management and doctors. They would like to max out the plan between Safe Harbor NEC and cross-tested profit sharing allocation (entity is a partnership). If the hospital does not offer an employer contribution, will the doctors group have to fund safe harbor and profit sharing for the group that is being leased back?