Home » Archives by category » Defined Contribution Plans
DOL Proposes Rule to Remove Barriers to ESG Funds in Retirement Plans

DOL Proposes Rule to Remove Barriers to ESG Funds in Retirement Plans

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed removing barriers put in place by the prior administration that would have limited plan fiduciaries’ ability to consider climate change and other environmental, social and governance (ESG) issues as risk factors affecting workers’ financial security when fiduciaries select retirement plan investments and exercise shareholder proxy voting rights.The proposed rule, Prudence and Loyalty in Selecting Plan Investments and Exercising Shareholder Rights, would apply to investments included in 401(k) and other defined contribution plans, as well as to defined benefit pension plans. The proposal, published in the Federal Register on Oct. 14, follows an executive order signed in May by President Joe Biden directing the federal government to treat climate change as a threat to workers’ retirement savings.In 2020, the administration of former President Donald Trump had issued a final rule, subsequently blocked by the Biden administration, that would have required sponsors of investment-based employee plans to strictly apply the fiduciary duties of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when considering plan investments that promote nonfinancial objectives, such as reducing carbon emissions. A separate Trump administration final rule would have barred retirement plan fiduciaries from casting corporate-shareholder proxy votes in favor of social or political positions that don’t advance the financial interests of retirement plan participants.Duties of Prudence and LoyaltyUnder the Biden administration, the DOL takes the position that ESG factors, and climate change issues in particular, pose financial risks that plan sponsors should consider as prudent fiduciaries.According to a DOL fact sheet, the proposed rule “retains the core principle that the duties of prudence and loyalty require ERISA plan fiduciaries to focus on material risk-return factors and not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries (such as by sacrificing investment returns or taking on additional investment risk) to objectives unrelated to the provision of benefits under the plan,” a position similar to the prior guidance.The proposed rule, however, also “addresses the [DOL’s] concern that the 2020 [Trump administration] rules have created uncertainty and are having the undesirable effect of discouraging ERISA fiduciaries’ consideration of climate change and other ESG factors in investment decisions, even in cases when it is in the financial interest of plans to take such considerations into account.”Acting Assistant Secretary for the Employee Benefits Security Administration Ali Khawar said the new proposal “will bolster the resilience of workers’ retirement savings and pensions by removing the artificial impediments—and chilling effect on environmental, social and governance investments—caused by the prior administration’s rules.” He added, “A principal idea underlying the proposal is that climate change and other ESG factors can be financially material and when they are, considering them will inevitably lead to better long-term risk-adjusted returns, protecting the retirement savings of America’s workers.”ESG Default InvestmentsThe proposal also reverses the prior rule’s prohibition on using ESG funds as qualified default investment alternatives (QDIAs), which are types of mutual funds that plan sponsors can select as the default option in automatic enrollment 401(k)-type defined contribution plans.QDIAs can be target-date retirement funds, which …

Who Is Liable for Retirement Plan Mistakes?

Comments Off on Who Is Liable for Retirement Plan Mistakes?
Who Is Liable for Retirement Plan Mistakes?

When a 401(k) or similar defined contribution plan fails to apply the correct definition of compensation in determining benefits, fails to calculate vesting service correctly, or doesn’t make distributions to participants who need to get required minimum distributions, who is responsible? Plan sponsors are often surprised to learn that they are.Why Your Recordkeeper Is Not ResponsiblePlan sponsors may find out that they are still responsible when their plans are selected for audit by the IRS or they are targeted in a lawsuit for miscalculating benefits. More frequently, the recordkeeper may find the mistake when reviewing operations and IRS procedures require that a costly correction be made.Because they rely on their vendors to operate their plans, plan sponsors may mistakenly think that their recordkeeper is the legal plan administrator responsible to fix these mistakes. To understand why administrative responsibility has not been legally delegated to their recordkeepers, plan sponsors need to review their service agreements.Typical Services Agreement LanguagePlan recordkeeping agreements contain disclaimers that the recordkeeper is not performing services as a fiduciary, which means that they are not assuming the legal responsibilities of a plan administrator as defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Admittedly, vendors could and many should do a better job of explaining their limited legal role to plan sponsors. Some years ago, I wrote a post called “What Your Prototype Provider Doesn’t Tell You,” highlighting this problem, but unfortunately too little has changed.ERISA requires that every plan have a legal administrator and designates the plan sponsor as the default administrator when no other person has been appointed. This means that if the agreement doesn’t make the recordkeeper the fiduciary plan administrator, plan sponsors remain responsible for the recordkeeper’s mistakes found on audit or by a court, even if they just did what the recordkeeper told them to do or were unaware of the recordkeeper’s actions. Further, the costs of correcting mistakes are not allowed to be paid from plan assets, so this understanding of the recordkeeper’s real role may coincide with an obligation to pay substantial correction costs to keep the plan qualified. Some recordkeeping agreements do provide that the recordkeepers will indemnify the plan sponsor for errors caused by their gross negligence or willful misconduct, but that is a threshold not reached by most ordinary mistakes. Today the indemnification obligation is also often subject to a dollar cap, which may be a multiple of fees paid to the recordkeeper. While plan sponsors can try to negotiate more favorable indemnification provisions, they will always provide limited protection.There Are AlternativesThere are options available to busy company fiduciaries who want to make sure that their plans are run correctly. Just as they can pass fiduciary responsibility for day-to-day investments on to professional fiduciaries, plan sponsors can hire professional administrators to take over many of the legal responsibilities of plan administration. Professional administrators are referred to as 3(16) administrators after the section of ERISA that defines plan administrator and more busy company fiduciaries should consider hiring them. Professional administration …

Continue reading …

Addressing Racial Inequities in Retirement Savings

Comments Off on Addressing Racial Inequities in Retirement Savings
Addressing Racial Inequities in Retirement Savings

​Marlo J. Gaal, SHRM-SCP, is chief talent officer at Chicago-based Ariel Investments, a Black-owned mutual fund investment firm. As businesses began prioritizing diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) strategies over the past 18 months, Gaal received inquiries from HR colleagues about “all things DE&I,” save one at the heart of Ariel’s business.”To be honest, I have not gotten a direct request” on increasing Black investors’ savings rates, Gaal said, although Ariel publishes an annual survey with Charles Schwab detailing Black investors’ statistics and sentiments. The latest survey, conducted in December 2020 among 2,104 U.S. adults with $50,000 or more in household income, found that historical disparities remain pronounced, even when excluding low-paid workers. For instance: Dollar contributions. White 401(k) plan participants, on average, invested 26 percent more per month toward their retirement accounts than Black 401(k) plan participants ($291 versus $231). Loan-taking. More than twice as many Black 401(k) plan participants than white participants (12 percent versus 5 percent) borrowed money from their retirement accounts.The findings reflect long-standing wealth disparities in the U.S. According to Federal Reserve Board statistics compiled in 2019, the median net worth for Black families was $24,100, for Hispanic families $36,050, and for white families $189,000. Racial Inequities in 401(k) Savings: Another ViewT. Rowe Price’s Retirement Savings and Spending Study highlights racial disparities in 401(k) plan participation and savings-deferral rates, based on 3,420 participants who responded to a June 2020 survey.Among employees with access to a 401(k) or similar defined contribution plan at work, the survey showed: Source: T. Rowe Price, Retirement Savings and Spending Study (2021).”Better understanding the challenges underrepresented groups face can help employers and financial professionals develop strategies to help ensure participants of all races and ethnicities thrive financially and retire successfully,” said Dee Sawyer, head of individual investors and retirement plan services at T. Rowe Price.Taking a Broad ApproachGaal advised HR leaders to take a broad look at what they can do to help employees save, bearing in mind the challenges faced by members of communities that have been historically disadvantaged. Ariel, for instance, completely funds employees’ health insurance premiums, freeing up more of the workers’ paychecks for other allocations. Emergency savings accounts are also becoming more common as an employee benefit.”There’s no magic bullet,” Gaal said. “HR executives, along with their [C-suite] peers, need to assess [workforce] demographics, your industry, what you can afford, and put a plan in place that makes sense for your organization.”Kezia Charles, director of retirement at consulting firm Willis Towers Watson, sees a new emphasis on DE&I efforts in retirement counseling planning. In a recent post on the Willis Towers Watson blog, Charles outlined steps employers can take to ensure DE&I in retirement planning is adequately addressed, such as: Measuring plan data and analyzing metrics by diverse cohorts. Look for low deferral rates, missed employer-match opportunities, loans, withdrawals and wage garnishments to highlight segments of the population that are more likely to have long-term financial insecurity. Reviewing plan design and access to it. According to Willis Towers …

Continue reading …

Agencies Seek Input on Form 5500 Revisions

Comments Off on Agencies Seek Input on Form 5500 Revisions
Agencies Seek Input on Form 5500 Revisions

Federal agencies are seeking public comments on proposed revisions to the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report filed by private-sector employee benefit plans to comply with statutory changes under the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act, which became law in 2019.”The proposed form changes and related regulatory amendments address [SECURE] Act changes, especially for multiple employer plans, and improve [Form 5500 as a] critical enforcement, research and public disclosure tool,” said Ali Khawar, Department of Labor (DOL) acting assistant secretary for employee benefits security.On Sept. 15, the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), the IRS and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) published two proposed rules in the Federal Register: Annual Reporting and Disclosure, to conform Form 5500 reporting regulations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) with the proposed Form 5500 revisions.The agencies also released a fact sheet summarizing the proposed changes.SECURE Act ChangesWhile employers in the same industry had previously been allowed to form multiple employer plans, known as MEPs, the SECURE Act permits unaffiliated employers, as of January 2021, to join together in a single 401(k) pooled employer plan (PEP).”A PEP has a single plan document, a single Form 5500 filing and a single independent plan audit,” noted Craig P. Hoffman, an attorney with San Francisco-based Trucker Huss, when the SECURE Act became law. A pooled plan provider, whether a financial services firm, insurance company, third-party administrator or similar entity, “must serve as the ERISA section 3(16) plan administrator, as well as the named fiduciary for the plan,” he explained.Defined Contribution Group PlansThe SECURE Act also established another new type of plan arrangement, often referred to as a group of plans (GoP) but which the proposed rules now call a defined contribution group (DCG).A DCG allows employers, whether unrelated or related, to file a single Form 5500 for multiple defined contribution plans if the plans have the same trustee, administrator, fiduciaries, investments and plan year. However, unlike PEPs, plans in a DCG remain distinct entities. While they can file a single consolidated Form 5500, individual plans participating in a DCG arrangement with a consolidated Form 5500 filing remain subject to audit requirements, the proposed revisions clarify.After considering multiple issues, “the departments decided to propose that a large plan that elects to participate in a DCG must continue to be subject to an IQPA [independent qualified plan accountant] audit and that the audit report for the plan would have to be filed with the consolidated Form 5500 of the DCG reporting arrangement,” the Proposed Revision of Annual Information Return/Reports states.Pete Swisher, president of Waypoint Fiduciary, a consultancy in Versailles, Ky., focused on group retirement plans, wrote that “as part of the package of guidance, the Departments addressed the audit requirement in GoPs by killing the hopes of those who expected a GoP to have a single consolidated audit like that of multiple employer plans.”MEWAs Also AffectedAs an ancillary matter, some of the proposed Form 5500 revisions would apply to multiple employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs) that offer …

Continue reading …