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

 

ESG, What's That and Why is Everyone Talking about it?

 Environmental, Social and Governance (as in Corporate Governance).  This is only the newest acronym in a very acronym heavy industry.  In the context of retirement plans, this is referring to factors that are being deployed within specific investments, such as mutual funds, in order to restrict those investments from putting money towards certain areas that are deemed to be negatively contributing to society in some way.  As with anything new, clear lines as to what constitutes the criteria to be broadly categorized in this way are about as clear as mud.  So, without a clear definition, but WITH a clear demand, what is the best way to incorporate these (or not) into retirement plans?  As with anything retirement, this is actually a complicated subject.  

The industry has been debating this topic for quite some time, I can recall being offered the Calvert Socially Responsible Fund WAY back in the mid 1990's in my own very first 401(k) plan.  However, only recently (mid 2020 DOL Proposes New Rules Regulating ESG Investments) has the Department of Labor (DOL) opined on this topic, and in typical DOL form, they were fairly vague in the language they used and caused everyone to google search what the definition of the word pecuniary means, lol.  

In short, the simplest way I can interpret what was said is that the DOL said that social attitudes should not factor into ERISA-driven decision making, but rather only consider the statistical metrics and follow the fundamental fiduciary rules when choosing funds for a plan.  Namely, the Exclusive Purpose Rule (always acting solely in best interest of participants and their beneficiaries) and Duties of Loyalty, Prudence, Due Care, etc.  Candidly, I agree that these principals should be applied.  However, it's a bit more complex and I will tackle what I mean in a moment.  Quick note; these proposed rules came out in mid-2020 under the Trump administration, and in March of 2021, the Biden administration announced (Biden DOL Announces Non-enforcement Policy on ESG) non-enforcement until the rule could be studied, and presumably changed to be more socially friendly.  None of this is surprising given current partisan politics.  

Here's why this is complicated in my opinion.  

It's Supposed to be about the Participants!

For the sake of this part, lets assume that ESG factors are neutral when it comes to benefiting investment returns OR being detrimental to them.  If this is the case, then the stance of only looking at the normal evaluation metrics based on asset class should be the driving factor and much of what the DOL said is moot.  However, a natural conclusion is that applying any restriction to a money manager would have the impact of reducing return opportunity which can only be viewed as detrimental, and so the DOL opinion has some controversy to it.  

The one area that I keep thinking about is the participant and their perspective on this, of which, I've seen almost nothing written about.  More pointedly, I'm thinking about how individuals who are concerned about ESG tend to invest.  In my 25+ years of experience, it's been my observation that individuals fall into one of three camps regarding ESG;

1.) Those where it's not important 

2.) Those who are blissfully ignorant of the issue altogether AND 

3.) Those where it is extremely important and a moral issue.  

For this third group, the moral aspect of it leads them to think about investing in the same way they think about other decisions, like where to eat and where to buy groceries or clothes.  Where they get these things, and what those companies ideals are is important to them.  And for these people, the decision on investing ESG or not is a binary one, and tends to be All-OR-None.  Because of this, plan fiduciaries, in applying the principal of doing what's in the best interest of the participant should first consider which of the three groups their employees fit into.  If it's solely the first two, then ESG is a non-issue.  However if a modest or even a large amount of participants fall into the third category, there are additional considerations that need factoring in.

What I'm positing is that if having ESG will cause category 3 participants, to go from not participating in to fully saving in their 401(k) plan, then regardless of pecuniary factors, it is better to have the ESG investments in the plan then to not include them.  In other words, it's generally better for participants to save and invest in the plan then to not save at all, even if the investments are potentially slightly worse then they could be.  

If this is a true conclusion, the question becomes how does an investment manager or committee go about choosing ESG funds for a plan in light of the current rules.  Here are my two ideas;

1.) Create a Second line-up that mirrors the first but for ESG.  This is going to be a challenge for a variety of reasons, here are a few;

• Recordkeeper constraints, either on fund availability or quantity of funds system can handle
• Quality of ESG menu OR availability of ESG funds in specific asset classes
• QDIA issue or Target Date fund issue....same issue, are there viable options?
• Enrollment and other Communication materials.....how does playing field become level?  
• ......there are more
  

2.) Incorporate an ESG fund selection process as part of the Investment Policy, identifying that the ESG investment in the plan will be a single investment, that would otherwise qualify as a QDIA.  It would be diversified, incorporating stock and bond investments. Perhaps it is part of a TDF series OR not.  Think Asset Allocation fund OR a specifically designed Asset Allocation Model comprised of multiple ESG funds, that are separate and distinct from the core menu, but screened by the Investment Manager for quality.  

In conclusion, this topic is likely to continue to be an open discussion point until clearly defined rules are decided and finalized.  Until then, I like Option 2 above.  It provides a viable, well thought out, higher quality ESG alternative to offer in the plan, with minimal confusion and high consideration to the All-Or-None characteristic of ESG investors while not losing the need for investment diversification.

As always, would love to hear what people think about the above ideas.   Feel free to comment or reach out to me directly.

- Jason Grantz, QPA, QKC, QKA, AIFA

  

ARE YOU FEELING SECURE? SECURE 2.0, PART 2

In my previous post, I mentioned that it was the start of a three-part series discussing SECURE 2.0 highlighting some of my favorite parts.  As a reminder, this is a new piece of proposed bipartisan legislation seeking to improve retirement plans.  While there are more steps to this Act becoming a law, I feel pretty confident that this one has legs, and candidly, that's GREAT news for the retirement plan community and our clients.  I think this will get done in 2021 with implementation of many of the provisions in 2022. 

For a an amazing summary of all of the new provisions contained within the final mark-up, here's a link What's in SECURE 2.0?.

The What:

Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA), along with the Committee’s ranking Republican, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), first introduced the bill, Securing a Strong Retirement Act (SSRA), last October as a sequel to the 2019 SECURE Act. While that version of the bill included some 36 provisions, the new Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2021 (H.R. 2954) now contains about 45 provisions, including new revenue offsets to pay for the bill. 

My Favorite Few Provisions continued:

These next two provisions I think work together as they're adjustments to the existing provisions.  Specifically, we're moving back the ages on certain rules allowing greater savings and potentially delaying when taxes need to be recouped which aligns with trends towards working longer and increases in life expectancy over the last several decades.

New Required Beginning Dates for RMDs: What's an RMD?  RMD's or Required Minimum Distributions are the requirements placed on retirees to codify the oldest age they can attain before they MUST start taking distributions from their tax advantaged accounts and start paying taxes.  For many years, really decades, the age was set to 70 1/2.  In the first SECURE ACT it was moved back to age 72.  In this new rule, it piggy back's on this to expand the age ultimately back to age 75.  My take is that I think it's going to be a bit confusing to implement, but I like what they're trying to do.  Essentially, what the rule says is that for those who want to delay tapping their IRAs or retirement plans for as long as possible, they'll have more time depending on what age bracket they fall in.  While I like this idea, I'm not a fan of the 'how' on this as I think it's going to cause confusion and will need care and attention paid to it instead of making it simple.  Here's how it will work.

The Phase-In: The new rules will require a phase in of the required beginning date from the calendar year in which the employee or IRA owner attains age 72 to the calendar year in which the employee or IRA owner attains age 73.  This is ONLY for individuals who attain age 72 after Dec. 31, 2021, and who attain age 73 before Jan. 1, 2029. But if you're not in that window, there's a second and third tier as follows;

The proposal changes such age from 73 to 74 for individuals who attain age 73 after Dec. 31, 2028, and who attain age 74 before Jan. 1, 2032.  With the third tier further increasing the RMD age to 75 for individuals who attain age 74 after Dec. 31, 2031. T

In short, GREAT idea, but this is going to require some attention to detail for practitioners.

Higher Catch-up Limit to Apply at Age 62, 63 and 64: What's Catch-up?  The current rule stipulates that if you a participant has attained age 50, that they can defer more than the statutory limit to their 401(k) plan (and certain other plans).  The deferral limit in 2021 is $19,500 and those over 50 can do an additional $6500 for a total of $26,000. The idea is to help aid workers in "catching up" for the earlier years in their careers where they weren't able to contribute to the maximum.  

In this new legislation it raises the amount of the catch-up contributions to $10,000 for those who have attained age 62, 63 or 64, but interestingly ONLY for those three ages and NOT for those older than 64.  This would apply to those in employer-sponsored 401(k) and 403(b) plans. Similar provisions with different amounts would apply to SIMPLE IRAs. For those aged 50-61, the provision retains the existing catch-up contribution limits. In addition, these changes would also be indexed for inflation like current limits, starting in calendar year 2023. The provision applies to tax years beginning after Dec. 31, 2022.

My take, I very much like the idea here, people are woefully behind on saving for retirement, so anything that allows more money to get put away I'm in favor of.  However, just like the RMD provision, this one is going to require someone to pay attention to ensure that the increase happens precisely in the three-year age window.  I'd like this one to be fixed to basically increase it starting at 62 and not stopping it at 64.  

On our final installment of SECURE 2.0, we're going to address two of the provisions that are categorized as Revenue Generators to help pay for this and keep it as Revenue Neutral as possible. 

- Jason Grantz, QPA, QKC, QKA, AIFA

 

FEELING SECURE? I know I am a little more with SECURE 2.0! Part 1

Greetings all!  Hopefully this new entry into the blog will be the start of a renewed interest in blogging AND, candidly in response to the overwhelmingly positive response I received from many of my clients and colleagues to "blog, blog, blog".  

For my first attempt, I thought I'd tackle the new SECURE 2.0 legislation that went to and came out of committee (House Ways & Means) this week as a multi part series. While there are more steps to this Act becoming a law, I feel pretty confident that this one has legs, and candidly, that's GREAT news for the retirement plan community and our clients.  I think this will get done in 2021 with implementation of many of the provisions in 2022. 

For a an amazing summary of all of the new provisions contained within the final mark-up, here's a link What's in SECURE 2.0?.

The What:

Committee Chairman Richard Neal (D-MA), along with the Committee’s ranking Republican, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX), first introduced the bill, Securing a Strong Retirement Act (SSRA), last October as a sequel to the 2019 SECURE Act. While that version of the bill included some 36 provisions, the new Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2021 (H.R. 2954) now contains about 45 provisions, including new revenue offsets to pay for the bill. 

My Favorite Few Provisions:

As mentioned, while this has 45 provisions, I thought I'd cherry pick out a few of my favorites. These will be discussed one part at a time as part of a series of posts.

Student Loan Payments: In the original version submitted in October it contained a provision that would use the retirement plan ecosystem to encourage younger workers to pay off student loans, a novel and candidly, very good idea.  The original bill however didn't account for a potential negative impact on compliance testing (ADP test).  This new version addresses this problem, clearing the path for employers to adopt this provision effective for 2022. 

So what is this?  Simply, it's a matching program where the employer could create a formula where they would match some/all of what the employee pays off of their student loan. This allows employees with student loan debt to not have to fully choose between saving for retirement OR paying down debt, both important for their short and long term financial well being.  Personally, I love this idea.  Savings rate is by far the most important factor in a successful retirement (Quantifying the Drivers of Retirement Success), and the earlier years are the most important.  One big inhibitor to younger workers participating in plans is the skyrocketing costs of higher education that has occurred over the past few decades leaving many with a huge loan to deal with right at the beginning of their careers.  This new provision can allow many of these employees who are new to the workforce to pay down debt whilst simultaneously not missing out on the employer match and thus being able to get some money saved for retirement. 

The big question, which we'll learn the answer to soon, is whether employers will want to altruistically adopt this OR if they will take the position that participants personal finances are not 'their problem'.  Frankly, the more astute employers will grab this idea and tout it loudly because this is the exact type of benefit that breeds employee loyalty.  I'd be curious as to what others think about this.

Stay tuned for Part 2 of this Series.

- 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

Is the Time at Hand for 'Open Meps' - repost from Unified Trust Blog

Time and timing are funny things.  A good idea may be a good idea, but the timing of that idea can be everything.  Back in 2010 and 2011, it seemed like I couldn’t have a conversation with an advisor or go to an industry conference without hearing about so-called ‘Open Multiple Employer Plans’ or ‘Open MEPs’.  At first, they almost sounded fake to me, as we in the industry have a tendency to create marketing or sales terms.  Of course, I was aware of MEPs, but only in the context of what we’re now calling ‘closed’ or ‘traditional’ MEPs.  The concept behind a MEP was always that the related business’ sharing some kind of a nexus or commonality could essentially join into the same retirement plan.  By banding together, economies of scale had the potential to provide better investments, lower fees and less fiduciary risk-all good benefits.  The nexus was important as it kept this exclusive to related or very similar entities.

There had been  a lot of noise in the market that Open MEPs, where this commonality didn’t exist, were also okay.  This struck me as odd.  Did the rules change when I wasn’t paying attention? I don’t think so.  I’ve come to the conclusion that what did change was that the market decided that the existing rules weren’t clear enough. There was a disconnect between what was written into ERISA on MEPs and what was absent in the Internal Revenue Code about MEPs.  Because of this lack of continuity, some aggressive players in the market went ahead with the Open MEP idea, taking the position that if it isn’t explicitly prohibited, it was therefore permitted.  I remained skeptical and even wrote about it on my personal blog (MEP’s EBSA Speaks and More Opinions).  Then in May of 2012, the Department of Labor issued the TOTH Letter, DOL Advisory Opinion 2012-04A.  With this stroke of the pen (or keyboard), all of the noise in the market quieted down.

Flash forward four years and this concept is again at the forefront of the conversation.  In fact, a version of Open MEPs, now being called Pooled Employer Plans (PEPs) is close to becoming a legal structure.  Prior to the election, I was interviewed on this subject (Multiple Employer Plans Have a Bright Future) and discussed whether or not this idea would have its day.  The creation of these new PEP plans is part of a bill that was marked up by the Senate Finance Committee in September called The Retirement Enhancement Savings Act of 2016.  This bill supports the notion of an Open MEP, now being called a PEP, effectively removing the nexus requirement if certain conditions are met.  Timing is everything and now the question really is, when will this bill get passed?  It has made it through Senate Finance unanimously (a very rare occurrence) and has bipartisan support.  At this point, it seems that the only decisions left to be made are regarding  what broader piece of legislation will this Act be attached to and which president will get the credit for it, Obama or Trump.

Professionally, I find this exciting.  As readers know, Unified Trust Company is a professional ‘named fiduciary’ in our role as Discretionary Corporate Trustee over retirement plans.  Within these new PEP requirements are the appointments of a “pooled plan provider”, a ‘named fiduciary’ to act as the plan administrator and one or more named trustees who “must be  a bank or other financial institution” that would be responsible for contributions and assets.  Unified Trust would be a great fit potentially for some of these roles.  Whether these come to fruition sometime soon or not, the future is looking very bright.

- Jason Grantz

Will he or won't he....put the Kibosh on the DOL Fiduciary Rule - Trump I mean

Of all of the words in the English language that I never thought would appear on my blog, the name; Donald Trump would be at the top of that list.  Yet, here it is!!!   The following is a post where I will discuss my initial thoughts of a republican congress and a Donald Trump presidency as related to the retirement plan industry and retirement policy.  This falls into two categories.  First, will this now party-aligned legislative body pass retirement legislation (almost certainly, yes) AND will this new regime seek to unwind any of the previous regime's legislation and regulation.....again, almost certainly yes. 

Regarding the first part, tax reform is almost a veritable certainty to occur in the first couple of years of the Trump presidency.  With that will occur other tax policy initiatives and some of the one's related to retirement and pension reform have been kicking around for a while.  Will it be the most recent one, The Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act of 2016  or something similar?  My guess is yes.  This calls for a re-imagining of the rules around Multiple Employer Plans (MEPs) into something new called Pooled Employer Plans or PEPs.  This concept is similar to what the industry has been tauting for years as Open MEPs.  Here is a link to the full mark-up from the Senate Finance Committee. RESA 2016 Full Description.

Regarding the new Department of Labor (DOL) Fiduciary Rules.  I've seen/read a lot in the last few days about how this regime is going to squash these rules since they aren't friendly to the financial services industry which is largely aligned with the republican side of the debate.  However, killing a regulation once it's enacted is very difficult to do, it's not like the DOL (assuming new leadership) could just pull it, nor could they subject it to changes without a review and comment period.  This would take us well beyond the upcoming implementation date of April 10. 

So if they were to do this, it would have to be done with an overriding interim regulation or some longer term solution where it gets scrapped as an add-on to a future piece of legislation or just simply delaying implementation of it past April 10th as something to deal with later on.  One thing I find  interesting, is that Trump himself has never spoken about it publicly and his website is silent on the matter altogether.  So whether it is a high priority of the new administration or not remains to be seen, but even if it is a high priority, my expectation is that April will come and go and this new DOL rule will be enforceable at that time BY the private sector. 

For how long after.......time will tell.

- 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

The Real Threat - State Run Plans

Now that the OMB has released the final version of the DOL's Conflict of Interest rule, it is a perfect time to look at the other major event looming on the horizon in the 401(k) world.  Arguably, as far as threats to industry are concerned, this one is the bigger threat. This is the issue of State offered and State-Run retirement plans.

In Brief:

Right now approximately ½ of the states are considering some type of public sector retirement offering.  In general the types the states are considering fall into one of three categories:

     1.)    Mandatory Plan using a State-Run Automatic Contribution IRA

a.       Typically for Employers over a certain size not currently offering a 401(k), Pension, Simple IRA, SEP or other type of plan, minimum # of employees will vary from state to state

b.      This grants them safe harbor from being covered under ERISA per the DOL

c.       Generally what the “blue” states are considering

     2.)    Voluntary Marketplace Model – For companies with less than 100 employees

a.       IRA Type products, includes the OBAMA MIRA program

b.      Both Blue and Red states considering this

     3.)    Voluntary State Run plan – Akin to the state entering as a competitor to the private sector

a.       Mainly the “red” states that are thinking about these

DOL/FED Stance:  In December, 2015, the DOL provided an opinion letter regarding state offered plans.

1.)    That the states could be granted Safe Harbor from ERISA if the state program was 

     a.) Mandatory and 

     b.) Auto-IRA based

2.)   It allows for creation of State-Run OPEN MEPs – No states have yet to pursue this b/c this would NOT be exempt from ERISA.  This potentially gives an unfair advantage to a state offering since Open-MEPs are not yet available within the private sector

3.)    Now the DOL is done with the Fiduciary Rule – State Run plan rules/regs. is the main priority.  The DOL will be trying to get rules to OMB by July to get them through under Obama’s term

State by State: California, Maryland and Connecticut are closest to passing something in 2016

Website: http://cri.georgetown.edu/ houses all of the state-by-state details.  Here is a summary.

California - Mandatory State-run auto IRA program. – Looks likely for 2016, applies to companies with 5 employees or more not yet offering a retirement plan

Connecticut – Their study was completed in 2014, looks likely to pass in 2016.  There is a potential hold back to passage which is that in 2017 CT will be having major budget cutbacks, and this new bill will cost CT $10m to implement.  There may not be $$ for this at this time.

Some wrinkles here.  

1.)    There was some interest within the state to add certain coverage requirements, specifically that if you were a CT resident who was employed but wasn’t offered a workplace retirement plan and your employer has 5 or more employees, that the employer would be required to offer you the state option.  The wrinkle was that this would be for ALL employees, so for example, a CT based employee of a company out of Kentucky that didn’t offer a workplace retirement plan.  That KY employer would now be required to offer the CT based employee the state auto-IRA plan.  This would also go for CT employees that were excluded for some reason, such as part-time employees.  This was wrinkle was removed.

2.)    50% of Accumulated funds will be mandatorily converted into a lifetime annuity at retirement.  This is still in play.

Georgia – Just at the beginning.  Have commissioned a cost/benefit study

Hawaii – Just at the beginning.  Have commissioned a cost/benefit study

Illinois -  Illinois is the first state to actually enact a state run retirement program.  It is a state run auto-IRA required (mandatory) for employers of 25 or more employees not offering a workplace plan. 

-          The mandate won’t kick in until the program becomes operational.  They have not yet issued RFP’s for recordkeeping.

Indiana – This is a VOLUNTARY state-run program.  Because it is voluntary, it is subject to ERISA.  This is basically Indiana entering as a competitor in the space. 

Maryland- very close to becoming law.  Mandatory State Run Auto IRA for employers with 10 or more ees.  One twist here is a $300 filing fee being waived as an incentive for employers.  This has unanimous support in Maryland

New Jersey – NJ is adopting the Voluntary Marketplace model.  It is early stages, so details are fuzzy right now.  They aim to have it up and running by 2018.  This is b/c it is a partisan issue, Christie is out in 2018, and wants this in effect in case Democrats take over as governor.  Auto-IRA was originally presented, but got vetoed by Christie.

Oregon – One of most liberal states in U.S.  In 2015 passed their law.  It will be a mandatory Auto-IRA program, NO minimum employee threshold.  Board is working through schematics on it now.

Utah – Voluntary State-run Auto IRA program.  Thus, it is subject to ERISA>

Washington – Similar to NJ, opting for Voluntary Marketplace model.  They have just issued an RFP for a website and for product specs.

Again, more detail within the website link (http://cri.georgetown.edu/) about what every state is doing.  I think this is important b/c, as an industry we potentially will have a new public option competitor in every state, but every  state may be different.  Interesting times. 

- Jason Grantz