Archive

Posts Tagged ‘401(k)’

DOL provides flexibility in timing of annual defined contribution plan disclosures

May 15th, 2015 No comments

Sponsors of 401(k) and other participant-directed defined contribution retirement plans will have more flexibility in the timing of providing annual plan and investment disclosures to participants, under a direct final rule from the Department of Labor (DOL). Instead of disclosing the required information “at least annually” which the agency had interpreted to mean no more than 365 days after the sponsor provided the prior annual disclosure, sponsors will have up to 14 months to do so. The modification will require disclosures to be made “at least once in any 14-month period, without regard to whether the plan operates on a calendar year or fiscal year basis.”

The change to the timing requirement will ease the administrative burdens faced by many plan sponsors and administrators.

The flexibility provided by the direct final rule is slated to be effective June 17, 2015, and will apply to disclosures made on or after that date, unless the DOL withdraws the rule before then due to adverse comments received.

The DOL’s direct final rule also announces an immediate, temporary enforcement policy (until June 17), so that plan sponsors and administrators may take advantage of the two-month grace period before the June 17 effective date, as long as they reasonably determine that doing so will benefit participants and beneficiaries. The relief granted by the enforcement policy is in addition to the one-time, 18-month “re-set” opportunity provided by the DOL’s Field Assistance Bulletin 2013-02.

For more information about the DOL’s direct final rule or a related proposed rule, please contact your Milliman consultant.

Considerations: Is adding after-tax contributions in your 401(k) plan always a good idea?

May 5th, 2015 No comments

Cross-BrandySince the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) loosened the distribution restrictions on after-tax and pretax amounts when rolling over funds from a 401(k) plan, many advisors and consultants are encouraging participants to consider making additional traditional after-tax contributions to their 401(k) plans, and in turn, encouraging plan sponsors to add traditional after-tax back to their plans.

After the IRS Notice (2014-54), a participant can now specifically direct the pretax and after-tax amounts of any distributions or conversions without the limitation of having to take a proration of pretax and after-tax amounts.

Recent articles on the subject point out that a participant could potentially deposit substantial after-tax contributions above the individual deferral limit of $18,000 (for 2015). The after-tax contributions would be limited only by the Section 415 annual addition limit of $53,000 (or $59,000 for those over age 50). This 415 limit includes all contributions to the plan including pretax deferrals, Roth deferrals, after-tax contributions, and all employer contributions.

This could mean significant savings and future tax advantages for the participant. If the plan allows for in-service withdrawals or in-plan Roth distributions, employees could then choose to annually distribute the after-tax contributions to a Roth account, thus sheltering any earnings on the contribution from further taxation, instead of letting the earnings continue to grow inside the pretax account to be later subject to taxation upon withdrawal.

This sounds fantastic for the participant, but it feels too good to be true. What is missing? What isn’t being considered? How do these potentially large contributions affect the plan?

As a compliance manager, I believe that the largest missing component in this discussion is the nondiscrimination testing. Some articles I’ve seen on the topic mention nondiscrimination testing, and some don’t. But even when they do, it’s an afterthought. All 401(k) plans are subject to some form of testing.

Where might large after-tax contributions make testing difficult?

It stands to reason that the participants with the ability to take advantage and be most interested in making additional large after-tax contributions would be highly compensated employees (HCEs). Whether an HCE because of compensation or because of ownership and attribution (such as the spouse of an owner not needing the wages), this is the group most likely to be able to fund these contributions.

Many 401(k) plans need to be tested for nondiscrimination of the average deferral rate (ADR) and average contribution rate (ACR) of HCEs as compared with the ADR and ACR rates of non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). They are referred to as the 401(k) ADP and 401(m) ACP tests. The 401(k) ADP test assesses pretax and Roth contributions, while the 401(m) ACP test looks at the employer matching contributions and employee after-tax contributions.

Let’s work an example. If it is true that the participants who will likely take advantage will be the HCEs, these larger after-tax contributions could negatively affect the results of the ACP test.

Read more…

A major change to correction procedures provides much needed relief for sponsors

April 20th, 2015 No comments

Jakobe-KariOn April 2, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rolled out major changes to the correction methods related to failure to implement automatic enrollment or to having missed participant-elected deferral changes.

Previously, the prescribed correction in the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) was for the employer to make up 50% of the missed deferrals and 100% of the match, plus earnings on both. This was often a windfall for participants and penalty for sponsors that deterred many from adopting auto-enroll provisions in their plans.

There are now two new safe harbor corrections: one for plans with auto-enroll provisions, another for faulty elective deferrals. The general guideline of the new correction methods are as follows:

For plans with auto-enroll features:
• If the failure is found within nine months of the plan year-end in which the auto-enroll should have begun:
o Start the deferral immediately
o Send a notice of the failure to the participant
o 100% of any missed match is made up and adjusted for earnings

• If the failure is found outside the nine-month window following the plan year-end, the old procedure remains in place.

For other elective deferral changes that are not completed as requested by the participant, if the failure is found within three months:
• Start the deferral immediately
• Send a notice of the failure to the participant
• 100% of any missed match is made up and adjusted for earnings

If found after three months from the date the change was to be effective:
• Start the deferral immediately
• Send a notice of the failure to the participant
• 100% of any missed match is made up and adjusted for earnings and the participant must receive a qualified nonelective contribution (QNEC) in the amount of 25% of the missed deferral, plus earnings

For a more detailed explanation on the new regulations, see the recent Client Action Bulletin published by Milliman.

IRS eases correction methods for common 401(k)/403(b) plan failures

April 14th, 2015 No comments

This Client Action Bulletin discusses recently issued IRS Revenue Procedure 2015-28 that will allow sponsors of 401(k) and 403(b) plans to fix two common administrative errors. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released guidance that will allow sponsors of 401(k) and 403(b) plans to easily correct two common administrative errors without first having to obtain approval from the agency. Revenue Procedure 2015-28 modifies and improves the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) by providing a new safe harbor relating to automatic contribution features (including automatic enrollment and automatic escalation of elective deferrals) and a separate new special safe harbor correction method for faulty elective deferrals that occur over a period of limited duration.

Putting a stop to retirement plan leakage

March 3rd, 2015 No comments

Moen-AlexThe Center for Retirement Research at Boston College recently published a study that found in-service withdrawals (partial withdrawals and hardships) and cash-outs were the main reasons for leakage from 401(k) plans and IRAs. Leakage refers to the erosion of assets in retirement accounts—approximately 1.5% of retirement plan assets “leak” out every year. This can potentially lead to a reduction in total retirement assets of 20% to 25% over an employee’s working years. The phenomenon is the result of the gradual change in retirement funding vehicles over time from predominantly defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans and, in recent years, IRAs.

The impact of this 1.5% leakage is easier to grasp when the total dollar amount involved is known. The Investment Company Institute’s quarterly reports show the following numbers. Consider the total assets affected and the significance of that annual number.

U.S. assets in retirement plans

401(k) plans have three main sources of leakage:

In-service withdrawals: In-service encompasses one of two options: a hardship withdrawal or a withdrawal at age 59½. Hardships can be taken based on proof of an immediate financial need, but they are subject to an early 10% tax penalty (if applicable) on top of the required 20% federal tax and they force a participant to cease deferrals for six months. Hardships also require participants to use up their loan resources first. By the time a participant is eligible for a hardship, the account has been severely depleted. In-service withdrawals allow an active employee who has reached the age of 59½ to remove funds from the account without the 10% penalty. These age 59½ withdrawals are on the rise and the leakage arises when the funds are not rolled over. It is estimated that only about 70% are, in fact, rolled into an IRA.

Loans: Approximately 90% of actively working individuals enrolled in a retirement plan have access to some type of loan. While loans get a bad rap, they are not the leading offender in terms of leakage, but there is still some asset loss. If loans are repaid in a timely manner, the withdrawal is not taxed, but the employee no longer has the ability for gains on those assets during the repayment period. And while the participant has an obligation to repay, that does not always happen. When the loan has defaulted, it is deemed a distribution and is then subject to tax withholding.

Cash-outs: Cash-outs are the act of automatically paying out terminated participants below a certain threshold; for balances of $1,000 or less, checks are cut, whereas balances between $1,000 and $5,000 require a rollover to an IRA. And while plan sponsors do have a say in the dollar threshold and the timetable for cash-outs, virtually every 401(k) plan has this rule.

Looking at defined contribution plans only, withdrawal activity has increased slightly over the last three years, while hardships have remained steady. These numbers may seem small, but they do not include IRAs, which are considerably harder to track. And because IRAs lack the same rules as defined contribution plans, estimates suggest the percentages are much higher.

Source: Investment Company Institute

Source: Investment Company Institute

The Federal Reserve’s 2013 Survey of Consumer Finance presented some scary results—workers between the ages of 55 and 64 had average assets of only $111,000. What’s more, assets in IRAs have surpassed assets in defined contribution plans. Looking at the numbers above for third quarter 2013 and 2014, IRAs consistently have 2.5% more in assets than defined contribution plans. IRAs can be risky for long-term retirement funding, if not used correctly, which is due to the lower levels of regulations and the lack of education and promotion to “keep assets in.” A recent Department of Labor report expands on this concern that rolling funds to IRAs puts the worker at the mercy of the investment advisor and asks whether all investment advisors take their fiduciary duties seriously or not. The report discusses what they call “conflicting advice” and estimates the leakage due to this is as high as 12% of an account balance.

There is hope. Some proposals that have been suggested include:

• Raise the age requirement for early withdrawal from 59½ to 62 to match the earliest Social Security retirement age
• Limit balances for in-service withdrawals to only employee contributions
• Tighten hardship rules even more and only allow hardships in case of “unpredictable events,” for both 401(k) plans and IRAs
• Remove cash-outs altogether (this will mostly likely be met with resistance from plan sponsors because small balances can be expensive and burdensome to administer)

Plan sponsors can make many of these adjustments to their individual plans, but these proposals are working to ensure that the goal of preparing workers for retirement stays in sight.

New Year’s resolutions for retirement plan sponsors

January 8th, 2015 No comments

For many, a new year usually means a fresh start. With that thought in mind, Milliman’s Jinnie Olson provides 401(k) plan sponsors 10 ideas that can help them administer their plans more effectively in 2015. Below are her 10 ideas.

1. Create administrative procedures and internal controls—and follow them.
2. Make sure changes to your operating procedures are well documented.
3. Audit your data.
4. Transmit contributions in a timely manner.
5. Establish a retirement committee.
6. Understand plan fees.
7. Audit your service providers.
8. Conduct an annual plan review.
9. Establish success measures.
10. Establish a strategy for the upcoming year.

Read Jinnie’s article “Top 10 New Year’s resolutions for plan sponsors of retirement plans” for more perspective.

How to avoid running out of money in retirement: Final in a series

December 17th, 2014 No comments

McCune-JanetEarlier, we described three things 401(k) plan sponsors can do to help participants avoid running out of money in retirement. Offering managed risk equity funds as investment options, and incorporating them into the asset allocation glide path for the plan’s auto-investing tools, addresses two of three fundamental risks for retirement income: market risk and inflation risk. By continuing to service retirees as ongoing participants in the plan, the plan sponsor helps retirees maintain continuity between their pre-retirement and post-retirement investment strategies with lower, institutional investment expenses. But we haven’t addressed the issue of longevity risk—how can participants know how long their retirement savings have to last?

One powerful solution is to use a deferred annuity contract, which transfers longevity risk to an insurance company by starting payouts to the policyholder at an advanced age. On July 1, 2014, final Treasury regulations were issued regarding “qualified longevity annuity contracts” (QLACs) held within qualified defined contribution plans, i.e., 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, IRAs. The regulations provide an exception to the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules of Internal Revenue Code section 401(a)(9), which require certain distributions to be made from qualified plans starting at age 70½. Without this exception, a deferred income annuity could cause the plan to violate the RMD rules, because the annuity does not begin payments until much later (usually age 80 but at least 85). The regulations state that a QLAC is not subject to RMDs until payments begin under the terms of the annuity, thus expanding retirement income options as an increasing number of Americans reach retirement age.

A QLAC can be purchased with up to 25% (maximum $125,000) of the account balance. If a participant at age 65 were to use 18% to 20% of their portfolio to purchase a QLAC that commences benefit payments at age 80, the remaining 401(k) account need only provide retirement income for 15 years, when the annuity payments would begin. Removing the uncertainty around how long the 401(k) account needs to last allows for a significant increase in retirement income. By adding a QLAC and applying the investment strategies suggested earlier in this series, we have achieved significant improvement in the sustainable withdrawal rate for the participant, while maintaining an equal probability of success!

In order to maintain simplicity and portability of the 401(k) plan, as well as to minimize fiduciary exposure for the plan sponsor, the best practice may be to encourage participants to hold the QLAC within an IRA. The participant may initiate a rollover distribution from the 401(k) to an IRA in order to pay the premium. The retiree takes installment payments from the 401(k) from age 65 to 80, then the annuity benefits provide retirement income from age 80 until death.1

This is Step 4 in helping 401(k) participants create sustainable retirement income from their 401(k) accounts (see the first three steps here). Undoubtedly, creative strategies will continue to emerge as the industry tackles this issue.


1This statement is not a recommendation to buy investment or insurance products. An individual should consult their personal adviser to determine the suitability of any investment or insurance product.

How to avoid running out of money in retirement: Third of a series

December 3rd, 2014 No comments

McCune-JanetA 401(k) plan sponsor or a financial advisor who has been following our blog series, understands these best practices: 1) offering managed risk equities within the investment fund options, and 2) providing a lifelong asset allocation tool with explicit, age-appropriate risk management. In addition, the plan sponsor as fiduciary must monitor fund performance and expenses on behalf of the participants. With all of this in place, why would you encourage retirees to exit the 401(k) plan right when they need these services the most? Isn’t the point of all of this to provide a sustainable income stream for participants embarking on their retirement journey?

As a third best practice, we would suggest that plan sponsors include an installment payment provision in their plan documents that allows retirees to use their account balance as a source of retirement income. Generally, participants are encouraged to roll their account balances into retail IRAs, or perhaps to purchase some form of annuity to guarantee a minimum income level needed to support their living expenses. However, the employer sponsored retirement plan offers significant benefits some other options cannot. First, it provides a seamless approach for their preretirement and postretirement investment strategy. The retiree continues to access a familiar website and call center and there are no new, complex insurance contracts to understand or purchase. The retiree retains flexibility and the control of his or her own assets, and does so with institutional investment expenses, which are generally lower. Finally, the entire account balance passes to the designated beneficiary upon the death of the retiree.

This solution offers benefits to the plan sponsor as well. Additional assets remaining in the plan provide economies of scale for investment and administration costs, and any additional costs may be borne by the retiree accounts. And, in a way, this feature facilitates an experience similar to defined benefit (DB) retirees, which may be especially meaningful when a plan sponsor freezes and/or terminates a pension plan in favor of an enhanced 401(k) or defined contribution (DC) program.

We cannot forget about the 401(k) providers, like the recordkeeper and the investment advisor. Servicing retirees through the plan can be a win for them as well, since the relationship with the participants continues, as do the economies of scale that keep plan expenses down. This opens the opportunity to expand the services specifically aimed at retirees, such as:

• Targeted education and communications focused on retiree needs
• Direct interaction with retirees for change of name, address, benefit amount, and status
• Expanded website tools and call center services to provide broader services
• Assistance with projections of sustainable withdrawal rates and probability of success
• Final account settlement services upon the passing of the retiree

Offering an installment payment provision in the 401(k) plan and continuing to fully service the retirees through the plan offers a win-win-win solution for participants, plan sponsors, and providers. That is Step 3 for a winning retirement solution.

How to avoid running out of money in retirement: Second of a series

November 24th, 2014 No comments

McCune-JanetOur first blog focused on the need to address the fundamental risks to sustainable income during retirement: market risk, inflation risk, and longevity risk. We identified “managed risk equities,” such as those offered by Milliman Financial Risk Management, LLC, as an important tool for managing those risks.

Plan sponsors seeking to provide a retirement income solution in their 401(k) plans are well advised to include managed risk equity funds in the 401(k) investment fund lineup. Because participants may need help with the investment decisions in their personal accounts, it’s wise to take it a step further and incorporate these funds into the plan’s automatic investing features. For example, Milliman offers a portfolio service called InvestMap that creates an asset allocation glide path for each participant, based on each one’s current age. Using the underlying core funds offered in the 401(k) plan, InvestMap adjusts the allocation each year on the participant’s birthday, and automatically rebalances to that allocation each quarter. Rather than selecting a “model,” participants elect to be enrolled in InvestMap, and their entire account balances are then invested according to the glide path. InvestMap is easy to understand, it meets the Qualified Default Investment Alternative (QDIA) requirements, and is easily integrated into the plan’s investment policy statement. In addition, it takes advantage of the best-in-class managers and funds selected by the plan sponsor and the advisor, particularly with regard to monitoring performance and transparency of fees. InvestMap is an ideal vehicle for delivering explicitly integrated, age-appropriate risk management for the individual participant.

Other recordkeepers and advisors offer similar solutions, and some provide custom model portfolios or proprietary collective funds, most of which include appropriate asset allocations for young investors, investors nearing retirement, and everyone in between. Any of these “do it for me” tools can be helpful in delivering professional help to participants. What is important is that the glide path continues to adjust for the participant, even in retirement, and includes larger allocations to managed risk equities, rather than to cash or bonds, as the time horizon shrinks. As discussed earlier, this may reduce the volatility and improve the risk-adjusted return of the portfolio. The desired outcome is an increase in sustainable retirement income.

For many years, recordkeepers and advisors have tried to educate participants into becoming good investors – with varying levels of success. A better approach would be to create good investors by providing the right tools. An automatic investment alternative, which provides a lifelong asset allocation strategy and incorporates managed risk equities at increasing amounts over time, may be the most effective way for participants to be good investors and become successful retirees in a 401(k) plan. That is Step 2.

How to avoid running out of money in retirement: First of a series

November 18th, 2014 No comments

McCune-JanetThe Schwab IMPACT 2014 conference, held this month in Denver, Colorado, was attended by independent financial advisors from around the country. Much discussion centered on how to help clients achieve financial security during their retirement years. So how can potential retirees protect themselves from the volatile markets that can quickly erode a lifetime of savings? Milliman presented some new ideas for achieving sustainable retirement income for 401(k) participants, and with applications far beyond.

First, a strategy should address the risks. We believe the key to success centers around the effective management of three fundamental risks: market risk, inflation risk, and longevity risk. Downturns in the market can erode a portfolio, and the timing of those downturns can make a significant difference. Market declines early in retirement can combine with portfolio withdrawals in a toxic way, because money withdrawn is not available to rebound when the market recovers. Conventional wisdom tries to alleviate the volatility by diversifying into bonds, but bonds generally have limited inflation protection, and the portfolio can experience a loss of purchasing power over time. Retirees must withdraw less during the early years of their retirement in order to “pre-fund” the damaging effects of inflation in the future.

Milliman Financial Risk Management, LLC offers a financial risk management strategy that seeks to reduce downside equity exposure during volatile bear markets, while minimizing drag during stable rising markets. The compelling track record of this pioneering technique for some of the world’s largest financial institutions has set the stage for application to personal retirement accounts. Available in the form of mutual funds, collective funds, and separate accounts, this simple, transparent futures-based risk management approach provides volatility management with a capital protection strategy. Any of these products are suitable fund selections for a company’s 401(k) plan.

Generally, managed-risk equities are a more effective tool to control market and inflation risk relative to bonds. We are not suggesting moving completely out of bonds or shifting all assets into managed-risk equities, but rather an incremental change that develops over time. For example, diverting 50% to 75% of the equity allocation into a managed-risk strategy, instead of increasing the bond allocation as the time horizon shrinks, can significantly improve the Sharpe ratio (the amount of return per unit of risk) for a retiree’s account. The result is an increase in the amount of retirement income that can reliably be withdrawn from the account over the life of the participant.

Including managed-risk equities as fund selection in a company’s 401(k) plan delivers professional risk management techniques previously available only to large financial institutions to the individual 401(k) plan participant. This is Step 1.