|
Retirement Plans Newsletter
March 6, 2023
|
|
6 New Job Opportunities
|
|
[Guidance Overview]
IRS Proposed Regs May Simplify Administration of Plan Forfeitures
"[For defined benefit plans,] reasonable actuarial assumptions are to be used to determine how expected forfeitures will affect the present value of plan liabilities. The difference between expected and actual forfeitures will then increase or decrease the plan's minimum
funding requirement in future years.... [For defined contribution plans, an] operational qualification failure will occur if forfeitures remain unallocated at the end of the 12-month period following the end of the plan year." MORE >>
Holland & Hart LLP
|
[Guidance Overview]
SECURE 2.0: 403(b) Plan Expansion and Enhancement
"While the added contribution cost [for long-term part-time employees] may be relatively modest, this change likely will require changes to administrative procedures (adding procedures for checking whether the hours were met in the prior two years, etc.), which will likely
require change orders and fees." MORE >>
McDonald Hopkins
|
[Guidance Overview]
SECURE 2.0 Provisions Effective in 2024 and Beyond (PDF)
Chart details SECURE 2.0 employer retirement plan changes that become effective for years beginning, or distributions or transactions occurring, after 2023. MORE >>
Warner Norcross + Judd LLP
|
Battle Over ESG Means Balancing Act for Benefits Plans
"Congress recently passed legislation seeking to nix a [DOL] rule meant to help retirement plan managers factor things like climate change and social justice into investment decisions, a move that attorneys say highlights the legal risks for plans that offer funds devoted to
socially conscious investing.... [W]ith the push for ESG coming from all different directions, plans are inevitably putting themselves at risk." MORE >>
Hall Benefits Law
|
401(k) InvestSense: Focus on Fiduciary Process Over Product
"Too many plan sponsors have simply chosen to blindly follow the advice of conflicted third parties, such as mutual funds and insurance/annuity salesmen. The courts have warned plan sponsors that reliance on third parties must be both reasonable and justified. As the courts have
warned plan sponsors, reliance on commissioned sales people is rarely reasonable or justified due to the inherent conflict of interests that exists with such advisers." MORE >>
The Prudent Investment Adviser Rules
|
Traditional Defined Benefit (DB) Plans, Part 2 (PDF)
"[This paper] will discuss the various underlying risks and ways that plan sponsors can manage them so they don't become a significant burden while continuing to provide meaningful retirement income to plan participants." MORE >>
First Actuarial Consulting Team [FACT]
|
Corporate Pension Funds Lobbied for a Rule Change; Now It's Coming Back to Haunt Them.
"Nearly 15 years ago, corporate pension plans lobbied Congress to pass a wonky benchmark rule that provided funding relief in the wake of the global financial crisis. Now, as interest rates have risen rapidly, the rule is coming back to haunt their plan sponsors. The consequences
could be painful. In a bear market, corporations could be forced to make contributions to pension plans that are already fully funded." MORE >>
Institutional Investor
|
Pension Finance Update, February 2023
"Pension finances enjoyed another month of positive experience in February, as higher interest rates offset the impact of falling stock markets. Both model plans ... saw improvement last month: Plan A improved 2% in February and is now up almost 3% for the year, while Plan B
improved a fraction of a percent last month and is up almost 1% through the first two months of 2023." MORE >>
October Three Consulting
|
[Opinion]
Governance and Public Pension Returns
"Contrary to [one] article's conclusions, U.S. public retirement systems governed by members from key stakeholder groups ... are as likely, if not more likely, to be effectively managed than are large, aggregated funds in ... other countries where boards are often
comprised of academics and 'investment professionals' whose proximity to members and stakeholders may be remote." MORE >>
National Conference on Public Employee Retirement Systems [NCPERS]
|
[Opinion]
Why Is the Actuarial Profession Reluctant to Advance Actuarial Solutions to the Decumulation Problem?
"[This post discusses:] [1] Mission and vision statements of the two major actuarial bodies in the U.S. (and how advancing an actuarial approach can be considered entirely consistent with these statements). [2] Fundamental concepts of actuarial science that the actuarial bodies
appear to ignore when providing planning advice to retired households ... and [3] Possible reasons why the actuarial profession in the U.S. is reluctant to advance actuarial solutions" MORE >>
Ken Steiner, FSA Retired
|
Employee Benefits Jobs |
|
|
|
Account Manager
U.S. Retirement & Benefits Partners
New Braunfels TX / Hybrid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Selected New Discussions |
Employees in Excluded Classification Received Contributions, and Were Allowed to Defer
"RP 2021-30, Appendix B, .07(4) provides a correction for early inclusion of an 'otherwise eligible' employee. What about an employee (NHCE) in an excluded classification who was mistakenly allowed to defer, and received employer safe harbor nonelective contributions?
Since EPCRS provides certain pre-approved fixes, but those fixes are not the exclusive methods of correction, do you think this fix (retroactive amendment) would be acceptable, to allow this person to participate? Or, must the deferrals plus interest be refunded to the participant, with the employer contributions being forfeited as an excess allocation, and used accordingly? Other thoughts? Have not ever seen this particular situation that I
recall. It seems 'reasonable' to me to permit the amendment to remove this person from the excluded classification, but might be risky. Wouldn't even consider if it was a HCE."
BenefitsLink Message Boards
|
Reclassify Deferrals as Catch-up to Correct ADP Failure
"Question regarding and ADP Test Failure. We have a failed ADP Test for a client with 4 HCE: 2 HCE are under 50, and not eligible for a Catch-up 1 HCE maxed out his contributions ($27k), so therefore we are already ignoring the $6,500 catch-up in the ADP Testing 1 HCE, who is
over 50, contributed $13,000 for 2022 Can we 're-classify' $6,500 of the HCEs 401(k) to a catch-up, thus excluded them from the test? If we test this HCE with $6,500, we will pass the testing so I just wanted to confirm. Thanks in advance!"
BenefitsLink Message Boards
|
|
Press Releases |
Transamerica Elevates Employee Benefits Experience Through Automation and Predictive Analytics
Transamerica
|
Roberts Disability Law Sues Lincoln National Life Insurance Company for Father of Murdered Sacramento Police Officer For Allegedly Denying Disability Benefit Claim
Roberts Disability Law
|
|
Webcasts and Conferences (Retirement Plans / Executive Compensation) |
DOL Official Sheds New Light on ESG Reg
RECORDED
American Retirement Association [ARA]
|
Start-Up Compensation Designs: Focus on the Key Employees
March 9, 2023 WEBINAR
Hunton Andrews Kurth
|
Implications of Employee Tenure on Benefit Design Webinar
March 22, 2023 WEBINAR
EBRI [Employee Benefit Research Institute]
|
|
Last Issue's Most Popular Items |
IRS Proposed Regulation Addresses Rules Relating to Plan Forfeitures
Groom Law Group
|
Before Slashing Social Security, Cut 401(k)s
Politico
|
The Plaintiff Law Firm That Cried Wolf Eleven Times: First BlackRock LifePath Case Dismissals with Prejudice
Euclid Specialty Managers
|
Unsubscribe |
Change Email Address
Search Past Issues |
Privacy Policy
Submit an Article |
Contact Us |
Advertise Here
Copyright 2023 BenefitsLink.com, Inc. All materials contained in this newsletter are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of BenefitsLink.com, Inc., or in the case of third party materials, the owner of those materials. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notices from copies of the content.
BenefitsLink® Retirement Plans Newsletter, ISSN no. 1536-9587.
Links to web sites other than BenefitsLink.com and EmployeeBenefitsJobs.com are offered as a service to our readers. We are not involved in their production and are not responsible for their content.
|