Crypto in Retirement Plans? Come on…..

  They say that if you follow the history of baseball that it reflects what’s happening in America.  It’s funny, no one ever says anything like that about the retirement plan industry, but then again, most people don’t even know that retirement plans are an industry! I can make a case that retirement plans do, in fact, have a broader tie in to what’s happening in the country at large. Today, we have more women and minorities working in our space and many industry groups have formed to promote equality in our industry. Similarly, just as Environmental and Social change have become forefront, ESG funds have also become topical in retirement plans. So, like baseball, retirement plans can also be used as a mirror reflection of what’s happening in the country around us.

 

If the above is my thesis, the next part is another example which is Cryptocurrency (Crypto) in retirement plans???  So, yes, just as Bitcoin and all the other varieties are becoming more and more mainstream, naturally, people who view these as investable opportunities want them to be available where their money is, which for a lot of people is in retirement plans. Within the last few years, there has been a small number of very noisy providers responding to this demand which has now “forced” the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), an agency inside of the Department of Labor to take a position on Crypto as a potential investment for retirement plans. The result, Compliance Assistance Release 2022-01 in March of this year.

The reader can read all about it in the above link.  If we had to summarize what we see in this C.A.R. it’s basically a cautionary release. There’s not a lot of new ideas in there. EBSA Deputy Assistant Secretary for Program Operations, Tim Hauser has stated publicly that the release is more about the way these types of investments are being marketed, “I mean the thing that that most concerned us was, you know, fairly aggressive marketing...…of these investments to 401K plans at this moment”.

                

Aggressive Marketers Beware!!!!

It is also reminding Plan Sponsors of one of the primary fiduciary duties, the Prudent Person Rule of ERISA. In his interview with Brian Graff, CEO of the American Retirement Association on June 22, 2022, he reiterated that the obligation of Prudence is a Plan Fiduciaries job and that fiduciaries will need to be prepared to justify any decision to include Crypto in a plan saying “I think it is fair to say that as time goes by I would expect telling people that the issue are Prudence in this and this context is very very real and you need to take it very seriously and think hard about what you're doing here. That means, full analysis weighing all risks such as volatility, recordkeeping concerns and more."

This issue of prudence is very real and like in any other investment decision dealing with retirement plan assets, there isn’t an actual specific set of rules on what will pass muster and what won’t. It’s all facts and circumstances based. This is no different than what they’ve said previously with other “newer” investment ideas such as Private Equity. So, the question for plan fiduciaries is whether participant demand will be sufficient to consider using these funds and then, whether a prudent analysis of Crypto as a potential investment will yield a decision to add them to the plan and then, of course which one??

Let’s not forget that the prudent selection is not a one-time decision, the duty to monitor would also hold. Final thought, plan sponsors may choose to “punt” this plan decision by stewarding participants to use a Self-Directed Brokerage Account (SDBA) as the place to buy these instruments. However, a note of caution here as well. EBSA’s Field Assistance Bulletin 2012 - 02r says that SDBAs are still subject to ERISA 402(a)’s Fiduciary Standard’s of care. This means that the SDBA provider needs to be prudently selected and reasonable boundaries need to be built into the provider to restrict access to imprudent investments (ex. Municipal Securities, Level 2 options, etc.).

OUR TAKE: Over time Crypto may prove to be a viable new asset class OR it may prove to be a fad. I’ve even heard notions of Crypto or its’ underlying technology, blockchain technology, becoming a utility. However, it’s got a lot of uncertainty surrounding it and we would have a very difficult time as plan fiduciaries ourselves in advising a client that they’d be prudent to add to a menu of choices offered in a 401(k) Plan. If you have thoughts on this piece or want to discuss the topic further, please reach out to us! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason Grantz is the Managing Director of Institutional Retirement Plans at Integrated Pension Specialists and a Retirement Plan Specialist at Integrated Wealth Concepts.  He can be reached at (978) 847-0140 ext. 820.

The Pandemic and Your Pension Plan 

Why Defined Benefit Pension Plans are more valuable then Ever

As entrepreneurs, the pandemic has uniquely impacted every corner of our businesses and our lives.  It has created stress and anxiety, upheaval, loss, new business models, migration from urban centers to suburban and rural locales and in our business, has removed the need for a centralized location.  Just a few weeks back, I had six 'Zoom' calls on the same day in six different states spread out across four separate time zones.  Pre-pandemic, I could never have imagined such efficiency. 
 

While it has been a very difficult environment for many traditional business, the restrictive setting has forced innovation and creativity, and ultimately adaptation. Some business survived, some failed and some have thrived and continue to do so.  Many small business' have experienced record financial outcomes.  With these large increases in revenues, the small business owner is left to figure out how to optimize the utility of their increased revenue.  This brings interesting planning opportunities for us financial professionals and tax planners.

 

One of the biggest questions (and opportunities) right now has to do with business retirement plans, both the popular 401(k) and the fast growing pension design, the Cash Balance plan.  Business owners want to (and in some states are required to, The State of the State Retirement Plans) offer retirement plans to their employees.  It is well known that these benefit plans help incentive and retain staff and provide an excellent setting for tax advantaged saving and investing.  But the question of what the right type of plan is TODAY for these newly thriving business' can feel overwhelming.
 

There is good news.  Back in 2019, when the CARES Act passed, it removed a legacy barrier to plan formation, the December 31st deadline for calendar year plans.  Removing this has solved a major planning problem which is the delay between December 31st and when the business owner and their CPA determined their annual compensation.   The CARES Act extended the deadline to implement and fund a new plan to the employers tax filing deadline, including extensions.  For plan designers like us at Integrated Pension Services, this means we'll be helping our partner advisors, CPAs and their clients to put together 2021 retirement plans potentially until as late as September 15, 2022.  
 

Think about the planning opportunity before us.  Because we'll know the 2021 (and prior) information early in 2022, we can design customized employer contribution arrangements with perfect tax-based hindsight!  The results of these designs may still end up being a common single-plan design, like a 401(k) profit sharing plan, but offers the opportunity to explore more creative formulas and plan types.  

The most common "sophisticated" solution we're implementing are DB/DC Combo plans.  These pair a 401(k) Profit Sharing plan (with an advantaged profit sharing formula) with a second plan in the form of a Cash Balance pension plan.  These are a modern form of a defined benefit plan. When structured properly, these plans create huge tax advantaged savings opportunities. 

 We're commonly structuring plans where the business owners and "favored few" are putting away hundreds of thousands of dollars into these plans.  Over time, this can work out to several million dollars in savings and depending on their state, can save as much as 50% in income taxes.
  
While almost any business could benefit from deferral through a retirement plan, this more sophisticated DB plan, is going to be more interesting to employers who have most of these characteristics:

• Robust and, as or more important, consistently high cash flows
• A strong desire/need to minimize income taxes, even if it means increasing benefits to staff
• As a minimum "rule of thumb", a desire from the business owner to save $100k or more in tax advantaged savings annually for themselves, with an idea that these will be made every year for 7-10 years OR longer
• Understanding that these are long term investments that will not be accessible until retirement
  

If you're a business owner reading this, including financial advisors and CPAs who own their practices, and you meet the above criteria, this can be a very powerful planning tool that needs exploration.  If you're in the latter camp and would like help in this area, we're here for you.  Just reach me at Jason@integrated-pension.com OR at (978) 847-0140 Ext. 820.  

What's the State of State Retirement Initiatives?

Earlier this spring on June 17th, Maine's House of Representatives and Senate approved legislation that would create a Payroll Deduct IRA plan for Maine-based workers whose companies did not otherwise offer a retirement plan.  Maine is only the latest state to enact such legislation, but almost certainly not the last. Initially, Maine's program will work similarly to other programs of this type in that it will be required to be adopted by any employer with 25 or more eligible employees starting April 1, 2023.  An interesting twist in the Maine program is that it is intended to also go to smaller employers once it is off the ground with 15-24 employee companies mandated in October, 2023 and then 5-14 employee companies that following April.  Of course, these smaller groups can participate ahead of the mandate if they choose.   

This is the most aggressive one's of these state programs that I've seen and is part of a broader overall idea that I agree with, which is that coverage is the primary retirement issue in the U.S. today.  The states and the federal government agree, with many states having enacted state mandates or in the process of doing so.   See this piece put out by Georgetown University with the latest information for each state.   

Georgetown's State Program Brief

The federal government is said to be similarly considering a uniform version of these types of programs (which would be very helpful so we don't all have to learn 50 different sets of rules) as well.  But even in lieu of that, with upwards of 50% of U.S. workers not having access to a workplace retirement plan, the need is there to expand opportunity.  With the recent creation of Pooled Employer Plans and many now up and running, the coverage gap is starting to get smaller and that's a good thing for everyone.  Once we get coverage and equity gaps narrowed or eliminated, new innovation in Retirement Income solutions, more sophisticated investment structures and better technology can start to evolve and make a dent in elderly poverty rates.

In short, I think that these types of state-run programs and new types of retirement plan offerings add complexity to the industries offerings, but more importantly address a real need and a problem that needs to be solved.  The challenge will be to the private sector in stepping up and ensuring that the public options don't become the standard.

- Jason Grantz, QPA, QKC, QKA, AIFA

 

Move to Block State Run Plans - I can hear the cheers from Industry already!

Greetings all and Happy New Year!  Is Feb. 16th too late in the year to still say that?  Well, since this is my first posting in a few months, I feel good about saying it to any of you who feel good about reading my blog! 

It's been a tumultuous time for everyone over the last few months.  Not to rehash daily news, but the election results and subsequent policy making that's transpired since the new regime has taken office have put the 401(k) world into a confusing state where no one really knows what will or what will not actually transpire regulation-wise.  I've intentionally stayed silent publicly about the whole Department of Labor (DOL) Fiduciary Rule mess because it seems like every day the narrative changes.  That will continue to be my position until we have clarity.

Speaking of the DOL, the latest is that Mr. Puzder is out and a new favorite for the position has emerged, Alex Acosta.  Mr. Acosta is a dean at the Law School of Florida International University and has some public policy experience as an assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division under President George W. Bush, is a former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida and previously served on the National Labor Relations Board.  Time will tell where he stands with respect to the 'Conflict of Interest' rule and when/if some version of fiduciary regulations will actually transpire.

In the meantime, something that I was very happy to see just transpired with the other giant threat to the private sector retirement system.  Just yesterday, the House of Representatives (highly Republican tilted) passed TWO separate resolutions that would effectively "roll back" the regulatory Safe Harbor that was put into effect for states in the creation of public sector "mandatory" retirement plans.  You can read about the resolutions here, House Passes Resolutions to Block State-Run Plans.

Not surprisingly, these two resolutions passed with consistent voting along party lines.  The usual suspects of the anti-private sector-401k  movement, Pelosi, Neal and Ghilarducci all had much to say about these resolutions.  My favorite of all of the quotes was from Ms. Ghilarducci (who still thinks that a mandatory 3% contribution to a govt. plan is the answer.....saying this since Carter was president) is this one, “This would be a painful step backwards for the millions who are shut out from the dwindling number of employer-sponsored plans,”

I love that quote.  It just shows how out of touch this person is.  Employer's have free will to create or not create plans and employees have free will to choose to work for or not work for employers who don't offer a workplace retirement plan.  If this system is free and open to all in this regard, how are they being shut out?  Whereas, the safe harbor for state-run plans effectively a.) gives the states a competitive advantage as a sponsor over what can be gotten in the private sector as private sector plans are subject to ERISA and state plans are exempt and b.) create confusion and a prime opportunity for local governmental corruption (I know.....this never happens....).

The other part about that quote I like is just a fundamental disconnect on basic facts.  She says "dwindling number of employer-sponsored plans".  That is plainly incorrect.  The number of employer sponsored plans in the U.S. increases daily, weekly, monthly and annually and has done so for three decades.  What's dwindling are the number of traditional Defined Benefit Pension plans.....which by the way have been replaced by and large by Defined Contribution Plans because DB Plans are financially unsustainable for most employers, including.....eh hem.....by almost ALL of the states, cities and municipalities who have them!!!!

Hope this gets done and we get rid of this lopsided opportunity for the states.  Sorry for the rant (not sorry). 

- Jason Grantz, QPA, AIFA

Scary Times (not an October pun)

First, I'd like to apologize to those who regularly read this blog for delays between my last and this blog post.  It's been an extremely busy summer and often the first thing that gets pushed to the side when time is short are passion projects.  That said, while this is not a political blog and I'm not a political person, no post in mid-October of this particular election year couldn't ignore the scariness of our current presidential race and the potential ramifications.  

Earlier today, I read a blog post from 401(k)specialist.com, linked here called How a Hillary Win Means Government Run 401ks.  That's a pretty scary title!!  I'm not giving a presidential opinion, but rather opining on the....aghast.....thought of the government taking over and running (er...eliminating) the 401(k).  The ramifications of this are scary as well, complete elimination of an entire industry that's been helping people for over 30 years and despite what they tell you, an even WORSE result.  Despite the negative noise around the private sector system, the 401(k) helps more people financially then ANY other program out there with the exception of Social Security, and everyone acknowledges that Social Security falls far short for most and when supplemented with 401(k) can give people a financial chance.

In the article, it describes how Hillary Clinton is considering Tony James for Secretary of the Treasury.  Tony James is a co-promoter of Guaranteed Retirement Accounts, an idea that's been put forth by Teresa Ghilarducci, the professor of economic policy analysis at the New School for Social Research and a well known enemy of the 401(k) and the 401(k) industry.  She often makes glib disparaging commentary about the 401(k) referring to it as an 'immature child' and the like. 

Her  idea is to mandate a 3% of compensation contribution into a new retirement system run by the government.  This would be in addition to what folks already put into Social Security.  This "new" idea has been around since Carter was president!!!!  If anyone thought that 3% was enough to make retirement inadequacy a thing of the past, they would have passed it through already!!!  We're talking almost 40 years and 6 Presidents!  Don't get me wrong, I think we can all acknowledge that their are problems, coverage is certainly an issue and costs, while already compressing, still have room to go down.  But, most professionals in this space will tell you that a minimum of 10% of compensation is what people need to be saving to ensure financial security in retirement.  That's the FLOOR, so 3%.....REALLY???!!! 

It is alarming that this type of socialist reform is the main idea of the folks advising this future potential president.  However, if Hillary wins the presidency, there's no guarantee that she'll be re-elected and scrapping an entire retirement system in favor of this sort of reform is going to be highly resisted, four years won't be enough time, not to mention, Secretary's of Treasury don't make laws.  So, in my opinion, this won't be what actually occurs, but it is something that we should all be keeping an eye on as these types of ideas from powerful and influential people have a way of sticking around. 

- Jason Grantz

Mailbag: Q&A with The 401(k) Study Group

The 401(k) Study Group has created a new segment with their Blogtalk radio podcast called 'Mailbag' which is an 'Ask the Expert' style radio interview.  I was fortunate enough to be tapped by Chuck Hammond to be their first "Expert" tapped to answer questions.  Below is the link.  Enjoy!

Ask the Expert' with Chuck Hammond

- Jason

The DOL's Conflict of Interest Rules - Summarized and lots of links!

Last week, the Department of Labor (DOL) unveiled its long awaited Conflict of Interest rules (regulation, not law).  Here is a link to the DOL's fact sheet,  http://www.dol.gov/protectyoursavings/FactSheetCOI.pdf.  The regulation itself is hundreds of pages.

So, at first blush I think that the proposal is slightly less onerous than I thought it would be, but it does some things that are going to be a big deal.

1   1.)    It broadens the definition of who is and who is not a fiduciary and takes away the loophole on what is and isn’t advice.  Essentially, my read is that if you are a financial advisor/adviser, agent, registered rep, broker, Investment Consultant, etc. who recommends anything to a retirement plan, plan sponsor or participant, you will be considered a fiduciary, even if it is singular advice.  My take is that it will be virtually impossible to be a rep on a 401(k) plan and not be a fiduciary.

 

2.) IRAs are pulled in as part of the jurisdiction here.  That includes recommendations about IRA rollovers and in advising IRA holders on underlying investments, holding IRA advice givers accountable to similar standards more/less as they would be on ERISA plans.
 

      3.) There will be a Best Interest Contract Prohibited Transaction Exemption (BIC PTE) – This is going to get a TON of comments during the comment period as it seems pretty significant in the amount of required detail and submission including sending a copy to the DOL, thus requiring an investment consultant to be highly visible to the DOL for regulation purposes.  This is the way the DOL is saying an advice giver can be conflicted, I (along w. others in the industry I've spoken to) are highly skeptical of this process.

      

      4.) Enforcement of the new rules seems to be an issue since while the DOL has the power to write the rules, only the IRS has the power to enforce and, as of this writing, they aren’t staffed to enforce ERISA-like standards on IRAs.

For this proposal to become rule, these are the next steps:

1. Comment Period – 75 days, ending on/about 07/6
2. Public Hearing – within 30 days after Comment Period 
3.  Preparation of Final Rule – This will take some time as DOL will need to absorb the public comments and make changes.  Then sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review. 
4. Effective Date – The rule becomes effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register once back from OMB 
5. Applicability Date – 8 months later

Assuming this goes through with no further opposition (Congressional, SEC, industry, etc.), the industry will need to be ready to function under these new rules sometime in late 2016, figure Q3.

My thoughts, I’m still of the opinion that this can get derailed.  I believe that even written as is, that if any delay in efficiency of the above process from here were to occur that causes it to push into Q4 of 2016 or later will effectively kill it, or will at least be likely to because of the Presidential election.  

It is common for incoming president's to halt any unfinished business from the previous administration, this is often what occurs even when the new President is in the same party as the previous president.  So, while the DOL did a good job in getting this out with enough time to actually get it through, they really did wait until the last minute.  They should have put this out last year. 

That said, the DOL and the industry knows about this timeline concern.  On April 21st, a letter (The letter) was sent to the DOL from an association of 20 industry trade groups  asking for the Comment Period to be extended from 75 to 120 days.  On April 23, Labor Secretary, Thomas Perez indicated that the DOL has no intentions of delaying this indicating that they want this 'fast-tracked' and not impacted by the next presidential election, 'DOL Not Budging'.  

Also, of interest, according to Bloomberg several democratic Senators have actually pushed back against the DOL's proposal despite presidential backing, see article Dems Pushback

citing significant problems with the bill potentially leading to reductions in consumer services.  Seemingly, the fight here is still ongoing and, more opposition is expected. 

UPDATE: As an update to this delay strategy, a group of democratic congressman, 18 of them, have also joined the voices asking for more time, attached here;  Democratic Reps Want Longer Comment Period.

UPDATE 2: More requests for delay, this time from three dozen republican senators, pressure is mounting!  The senate letter here; Senate Letter asking for delay

A number of groups have put out summaries of the regulations, estimates on impact and some general thoughts as to where the problems are initial visible.  I'm sure more will come on this issue.  Below for links to the summaries.

Happy Reading!

http://napa-net.org/Portals/1/Game-Changer.pdf

http://wagnerlawgroup.com/DOLFiduciaryRuleAlert.htm

http://www.fi360.com/news/detail/executive-summary-of-the-dol-fiduciary-rule-proposal

http://www.ballardspahr.com/alertspublications/legalalerts/2015-04-15-department-of-labor-proposes-new-regulations-on-fiduciary-advice.aspx

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/dol-proposes-sweeping-expansion-of-fiduc-87619/

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/dol-reproposes-expanded-erisa-fiduciary-98660/
http://www.sutherland.com/NewsCommentary/Legal-Alerts/172823/Legal-Alert-DOL-Reproposes-Expanded-ERISA-Fiduciary-Definition-and-Revised-Complex-of-Exemptions

- Jason Grantz

 

Fiduciary, as easy as 1., 2., 3.,

A solid reminder piece was written and published today on NAPA-net.org.  The article was titled '3 Things Every Plan Committee Member should know'.  Here is the link.
 
3 Things Every Plan Committee Member Should Know

Here are the three things:
  

1. You are an ERISA fiduciary. Even as a small and relatively silent member of the committee, you’ll direct and influence retirement plan money — and it’s that influence over the plan’s assets that makes you an ERISA fiduciary. 

2. As an ERISA fiduciary, your liability is personal. How personal? Well, you may be required to restore any losses to the plan or to restore any profits gained through improper use of plan assets. You can obtain insurance to protect against that personal liability — but that’s probably not the fiduciary liability insurance you may already have in place, or the fidelity bond that is often carried to protect the plan against loss resulting from fraudulent or dishonest acts of those covered by the bond. If you’re not sure what you have, find out. Today. 

3. You are responsible for the actions of other plan fiduciaries. All fiduciaries have potential liability for the actions of their co-fiduciaries. For example, the Department of Labor notes that if a fiduciary knowingly participates in another fiduciary’s breach of responsibility, conceals the breach, or does not act to correct it, that fiduciary is liable as well. So, it’s a good idea to know who your co-fiduciaries are—and to keep an eye on what they do, and are permitted to do.

Besides the three basic's, which essentially say, being a fiduciary is serious, potentially hazardous and requires responsible caution, the article also raises a few very good points, namely:

- Many plan committee members come from staff of the employer and are frequently put on the committee for no other reason than that someone has to do it.  Background may not be part of the decision and expertise may be absent altogether.


- Fiduciaries are required to act solely (re: exclusively, i.e. ONLY) in the best interests of the plan participants and beneficiaries, and that they MUST act prudently, usually means they have process' in place for making important decisions.  It goes on to iterate the importance of investment diversification and ensuring that the plan pays only reasonable expenses for services.


Finally, the best point that the article makes, in my opinion, is that it's hard  to be a plan fiduciary.  This is especially true if the committee hasn't read plan documents, doesn't have any policies or procedures to follow or doesn't understand how much they are being charged, and for what or how the fees are being charged. 

Unfortunately, in my professional experience, often it is the case that the expert standard of care fiduciaries are bound to under ERISA is not realistic to expect of the plan committee.  Most plan committees are well intentioned, but not experts.   A wise person once told me that in the absence of expertise when expertise is needed, a prudent person will hire it.  Good advice for the majority of well intentioned, inexpert fiduciaries.

- Jason Grantz

Hatch's remarks on Pension Reform - Financial Services Roundtable:

Really interesting read on where the thinking in this area is, the whole speech can be found in this article -->

http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2014/12/15/hatch-outlines-pension-reform-retirement-savings/#.VI9NpHuEzaV

Here are the parts on private Pension Reform:

"....The good news is that the private employer-based retirement savings system in the United States – particularly 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts, or IRAs – has become the greatest wealth creator for the middle class in history and represents truly shared prosperity.

The bad news is that the retirement of the baby boom generation is putting enormous pressure on public programs like Social Security and Medicare.

And, as part of the unending effort on Capitol Hill to find more revenue to pay for increased spending, some have proposed reducing the allowed contributions to 401(k) plans and IRAs.

That, in my view, would be both short-sighted and foolish. - GREAT LINE!!!

Some in Congress seem to have forgotten that this is well-covered territory.  Indeed, Congress has already examined this issue and made the policy call decidedly against contribution reductions.
In 2001, Congress increased the limits for contributions to 401(k) plans and IRAs.
Congress also added a catch-up contribution feature that allows workers to contribute several thousand dollars more per year beginning in their 50s, an age when many workers finally get serious about saving.



One thing we have learned over the years is that the key to successful retirement savings is participation by employees in a plan at work, and the key to convincing employers to sponsor a plan at work is a healthy contribution limit.


Since 2000, the year before Congress raised the contribution limits, retirement assets in defined contribution plans have grown from around $3 trillion to nearly $6 trillion, despite the market downturn in 2008.  Assets in IRAs have grown from $2.6 trillion to $6.5 trillion.

In fact, increased contribution limits worked so well that, in 2006, Congress made those provisions permanent, and the vote to make them permanent was overwhelming:  in the Senate, the vote was 93 to 5.

We have spent a lot of time in recent years defending the gains we have achieved in the 401(k) system.  But in 2015 we can, and in my opinion should, go on offense. Toward that end, we must encourage employers who don’t sponsor plans to set them up.  That’s why last year I introduced legislation to create the Starter 401(k), a plan designed for small or start-up businesses that are not in a position to contribute to a plan but still want to help their employees save.

A Starter 401(k) is a new kind of plan that does not come with all the administrative burdens or expenses of a traditional 401(k) plan.  The plan allows employees to contribute between $8,000 and $10,000 per year, which is a little bit less than what would be allowed under a traditional 401(k), but much more than an IRA.



I believe the Starter 401(k) plan in my legislation could help to revolutionize retirement savings for employees of small businesses throughout the country.  My bill also allows unrelated small employers to pool their assets in a single 401(k) plan to achieve better investment outcomes, lower costs, and easier administration.  This idea, which is called an “Open MEP” is one that many on both sides of the aisle in Congress support.  It’s an idea whose time has come.


Of course, we cannot talk about retirement savings without discussing the importance of lifetime income.  We have fought for years to enact policies that will encourage greater savings and investment.  But, I don’t think our efforts will provide much to comfort those whose retirement assets run out before the end of their lives.

That’s why the legislation I introduced last year encourages the purchase of fixed annuity contracts for retirement.  In fact, the bill is called the Secure Annuities for Employee Retirement Act, or the SAFE Retirement Act.

Why life insurance annuity contracts?  Well, lifetime income is a form of life insurance.  Most people tend to think of life insurance as insurance against the risk of living an unexpectedly short life.  And that is certainly true.  But life insurance also includes insurance for the possibility that someone might live an unexpectedly long life.

We call that form of life insurance a life annuity and it only makes sense to encourage the use of annuities to provide retirement security.

My legislation encourages the use of annuities in 401(k) plans.  First, we remove obstacles to adding annuity-purchase options to 401(k) plans and, second, we provide employers a liability safe-harbor.  That way, employers are encouraged to add annuity options to their plans and employees are encouraged to use them......"

Senator Hatch goes on a bit about public pension reform as well, but key takeaways from this.  There's a strong advocate for the proliferation of the 401(k) and future versions of it in Congress now, who's thinking smartly and creatively about ways to expand coverage, reduce barriers to usage and protect participants.  That's leadership that I can get behind.  Let's hope that these measures make it through and become law.

- Jason Grantz

I'm on the Radio! Hear a 30 minute interview discussing Cash Balance Plans from 'The 401(k) Study Group'!

Last week I was lucky enough to be interviewed on the radio by Chuck Hammond of The 401(k) Study Group and we discussed Cash Balance plans.  It is a continuation from the previous posting on this blog about Cash Balance plans.  Hope you enjoy listening to it.  Linked Here.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/the401kstudygroup/2014/10/10/cashing-in-on-cash-balance

Best - Jason

Cash Balance Plans - Simplified

So, what's all of this noise about this "new" kind of Retirement Plan that's all the rave, called a Cash Balance Plan and how do I 'Cash In'? 

The following information is meant to be informative, while not necessarily all encompassing.

What is a Cash Balance Pension Plan?
A cash balance plan is a type of Defined Benefit (DB) plan that looks and feels like a Defined Contribution Plan (DC) such as a 401(k) or Profit Sharing Plan.  However, just because it looks like a DC plan doesn't mean that it is one, in fact it has more similarities to its' brother the traditional DB pension than it does to its' cousin the 401(k) Plan.  Like traditional DB plans, Cash Balance plans are backwards-looking in that that they guarantee a determinable benefit to eligible participants and use annual contributions plus investment earnings to get to that end benefit at some later date. 

What do you mean it looks/feels like a DC plan?
The allocation formula and the promised benefit are stated as a hypothetical account balance.  They are hypothetical because they do not reflect the actual contributions to and gains/loses allocatable to the account.  Rather they are attempting to give the participant a fair estimate of what their "balance" is in the plan.  Realistically, the benefit they receive is the predetermined balance defined by the plan that won't be achieved until that participant reaches retirement age.

How does it work?
Like all DB plans, the investments are pooled and set up in a trust, allowing for economies of scale to be gained on investment expenses and eliminated the need for "daily valued" record keeping.  Also like other DB plans, these plans are tax-qualified under the IRC and governed under ERISA .  They are required to have fiduciaries in charge, namely the Plan Sponsor, Trustee and Plan Administrator and require the use of an Actuary.  Many of these functions can be outsourced as well.

In a typical cash balance plan, each participant's hypothetical account is comprised of two parts; the pay credit and the interest credit.  The pay credit is typically a fixed amount (such as $25k/year) or a fixed percentage of compensation, like 5% for example.  The interest credit is either a fixed or variable rate linked to an index, such as the 30-Year Treasury. 

These contributions are made annually and invested.  The earnings on investments ought to be engineered to achieve the Interest Credit as a return, no more no less.  The goal most often associated with Cash Balance plans is to maximize tax deductible contributions for the owners, key personnel and highly paid group.  Unlike DC plans, however, contribution amounts from year to year can be theoretically unlimited since the contributions over time must equal what is needed to finance (fund) the promised benefit.  This allows contributions to often go well north of the DC Plan 415 limit of $52,000.  Often these contribution amounts could near $200,000/year for an individual person.

Who would use a Cash Balance Plan and why?
Cash Balance plans are popular among companies that are very rich in revenue while maintaining a fairly low number of employees.  Employers such as law firms, professional groups, CPA firms and medical practices come to mind.  These business' often have strong cash flows historically and prospectively, large budgets, relatively low numbers of employees where most of them are making substantial wages (north of $125k for example), have multiple owners or partners, max out on DC contributions and have mostly an older highly paid workforce.

What about costs and other barriers?
The main costs associated with Cash Balance plans are the contributions themselves since they tend to be much higher and are employer funded plans.  Administrative costs are typically not more burdensome than other plan administrative expenses and sometimes less.  Investment expenses are typically low due to the need to pool investments in a trust and the conservative nature of the investing.  Cash Balance plans can be for any type of employer, however, note that they must be contributed to for a minimum of three years.

Hopefully, this was helpful in explaining some of the main points about Cash Balance plans.  Obviously, this was an overview.  If anyone has questions, they can comment on this post or reach me directly at jason.grantz@unifiedtrust.com.