Search the Community

Consider this not-entirely-imaginary work setting: The employer has no retirement plan, and no payroll practice for retirement contributions. The employer wants to allow its employees to save for retirement, but will provide no nonelective or matching contribution. None of the employees, including the deemed-employee business owner, wants to save (and none can afford to save) more than an amount within the IRA contribution limit. The business owner is the only worker who would be treated as a highly-compensated employee. This small-business employer and its startup plan would have no purchasing power in negotiating fees for a retirement plan’s investments or services. So, assume a recordkeeper’s and other service providers’ rack rates. The employer is unwilling to pay any of the plan’s expenses; everything must be charged to participants’ accounts. The employer will not consider an employer-sponsored retirement plan unless the employer can arrange the maximum delegation of fiduciary responsibilities—a pooled-employer plan or, for a single-employer plan, using a § 3(16) administrator, a § 3(38) investment manager (to select the plan’s investment alternatives), and a trustee, with all those services paid from participants’ accounts. All employees live and work in a State that offers a State-run payroll-deduction program for IRA contributions. The program allows Roth and non-Roth contributions. The State’s arrangements cap the expenses of the State-run IRA program at 100 basis points (expressed yearly) of accounts’ assets. This employer asks for your unbiased advice about whether it should arrange a 401(k) plan, or join the State-run IRA program. Which do you advise, and what reasoning do you explain to support your advice?