[Guidance Overview]
"By focusing on non-pecuniary factors, the DOL is able to more broadly address its concerns over subordinating financial interests for other motives, and it avoids having to define ESG. Nevertheless, given current industry trends and increased interest in ESG investing, the Final Rule should be understood to directly impact ESG investing. The DOL makes it clear in the preamble to the Final Rule that ESG investing was a primary motive behind the new regulatory framework, and it will continue to be an area of ongoing focus and review."
Trucker Huss
|
"[T]he final rule will change the subject of the ESG conversation from ESG-themed funds to the more holistic approach of ESG integration. The final rule is likely to create barriers to the further implementation and use of ESG-themed funds, particularly those with short track records, low assets under management, specific and narrow objectives or relatively higher fees compared to other non-ESG-related investment alternatives."
MFS Institutional Advisors, Inc.
|
"After the pair of Eighth Circuit decisions this summer, fiduciaries took some comfort that, in most jurisdictions, such claims are still unlikely to survive a motion to dismiss. Now that the Supreme Court has decided not to reconsider the case, plan sponsors and fiduciaries are again left wondering whether other courts will join the Second Circuit or whether a new bright-line rule based on the arguments raised by the Committee, but not considered by the Second Circuit, will emerge." [Jander v. Ret. Plans Comm. of IBM, No. 17-3518 (2d Cir. Jun. 22, 2020; cert.
denied Nov. 9, 2020)]
Vorys
|
"79% of [consultants] expect retirement income solution services to be the highest investment service growth area in the coming year. 59% of [consultants] expect financial wellness programs to be the highest non-investment service growth area in the coming year.... The majority of both plan sponsors and consultants rank longevity risk as either the #1 or #2 source of concern for participants in retirement planning."
T. Rowe Price
|
"Employees whose pensions provide less income are more likely to participate in a supplemental DC plan, but the effect is small. Members of poorly funded pension plans are not more likely to participate in supplemental plans than members of well-funded plans. Employees without Social Security coverage are not compensating with greater participation in supplemental plans."
Center for Retirement Research at Boston College
|
[Opinion]
"The ARA suggests that the IRS clarify: [1] that the LTPT rules do not apply when the terms of the plan document allow employees to defer immediately; [2] how the LTPT rules are applied if a plan is amended from immediate eligibility to a year of service (with a 1,000 hours); [3] the application of the vesting rules for employees who move from part-time to full-time or vice versa; and [4] that plans may exclude LTPT employees as part of an excludable classification that is not based on service."
American Retirement Association [ARA]
|
Benefits in General
|
"PEPs ... Lifetime income demonstrations ... Expanded access to 401(k) plans for part-time workers ... Optional distributions for qualified birth or adoption expenses ... Determination letters and opinion letter 'cycles'... Fiduciary duties of retirement plan investments ... COBRA penalties."
Holland & Hart LLP, via Tax Executive
|
"[T]he court noted that the plan set forth a procedure for delegating discretionary authority, and provided that when the plan and SPD conflict, the plan controls. Because the committee was 'bound to follow the plan's procedures,' and failed to do so, the court concluded there was no effective delegation of authority. Therefore, the court held that the adverse benefit determination was subject to the nondeferential (de novo) standard of review." [Hampton v. Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 18-6725 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 7, 2020)]
Thomson Reuters / EBIA
|
"Here are five key changes: [1] A new name and new type of audit opinion! ... [2] Maintaining a current plan instrument.... [3] Properly administering the Plan and verifying that the ERISA financial statements are in accordance with the Plan's provisions, including maintaining sufficient participant records.... [4] The plan sponsor is required to determine whether an ERISA Section 103(a)(3)(c) audit is permissible, if the certification is appropriate, and if the certified information is correctly measured, presented, and disclosed in accordance with the applicable financial reporting framework.... [5] Providing the auditor with a substantially complete draft of the Form 5500 prior to the date of the auditor's report."
Bradley J. Bartells, CPA, via LinkedIn
|
Selected Discussions on the BenefitsLink Message Boards
|
► It's easy to sign up and participate in discussions! Post answers, ask questions, create custom feeds and views. Join your peers (and potential referral sources or customers)—there is no charge.
|
"A foreign company sponsors a 401(k) plan for some of its employees who are US citizens living in a separate foreign country. 415 limit deadlines are based on when a company's US tax return is due, correct? So how does one determine the deadline for non-safe harbor contributions if the company sponsoring the 401(k) doesn't have a US business tax return to file? I'm hoping to avoid looking through treaties. But it is 2020..."
BenefitsLink Message Boards
|
"Plan calls for mandatory distributions under $5,000. It says it will be done without participant consent. Do they have to send out distribution forms to those they want to force out first? If so, what is the cite?"
BenefitsLink Message Boards
|
"Suppose an employer has a plan with 100 otherwise eligible employees, including 10 H-2A employees. Can the employer exclude the H-2A employees as a class (will easily pass coverage testing). I'm seeing conflicting information on this -- some indicating that under IRCA you cannot exclude them as a class, other information indicating you can."
BenefitsLink Message Boards
|
|
|
|
|
Most Popular Items in the Previous Issue
|
|
|
|