Search the Community

In some volunteer work for a charity designing a new retirement plan, here’s a question I’m thinking about. Assumptions The plan’s investment alternatives are Vanguard and other managers’ mutual funds, with superior share classes obtained through the (independent) recordkeeper’s and its custodian’s omnibus purchasing power. None of the funds pays over any revenue-sharing or other indirect compensation. The employer pays nothing toward plan-administration expenses. (The charity’s executive director and board chairperson both tell me they can’t get grants or fundraise for any contribution to, or expense of, a retirement plan, and can’t budget for either.) So, all expenses are charged to individuals’ accounts. The absence of an involuntary cash-out provision won’t risk putting the participant count near the number that would invoke a CPA’s audit of the plan’s financial statements. That’s so for at least the next few years. Beyond maintaining former employees’ goodwill (which the charity cares about), does such an employer have its own economic stake about whether low-balance participants involuntarily exit the plan, or may, by choice, remain in the plan? Are there factors I’m not thinking about? For a participant who has only her $3,000 account, which is better: Staying in the former employer’s plan, or choosing a rollover into an IRA? (To simplify the comparison, assume the individual has no next employer, or the next employer has no retirement plan.) Is the individual’s choice as simple (mostly) as comparing the account charge under the former employer’s plan to the account charge of the IRA the individual could or would buy? Or are there more factors to consider? Your thoughts?