What Happens To My Pension If The Company Goes Bankrupt?

Given the downward spiral that GE has been in over the past year, we have received the same question over and over again from a number of GE employees and retirees: “If GE goes bankrupt, what happens to my pension?”  While it's anyone’s guess what the future holds for GE, this is an important question that any employee with a pension should know the answer to.  While some employees are aware of the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation) which is an organization that exists to step in and provide pension benefits to employees if the employer becomes insolvent, very few are aware that the PBGC itself may face insolvency within the next ten years.  So if the company can’t make the pension payments and the PBGC is out of money, are employees left out in the cold?

Pension shortfall

When a company sponsors a pension plan, they are supposed to make contributions to the plan each year to properly fund the plan to meet the future pension payments that are due to the employees.  However, if the company is unable to make those contributions or the underlying investments that the pension plan is invested in underperform, it can lead to shortfalls in the funding.

We have seen instances where a company files for bankruptcy and the total dollar amount owed to the pension plan is larger than the total assets of the company.   When this happens, the bankruptcy courts may allow the company to terminate the plan and the PBGC is then forced to step in and continue the pension payments to the employees.  While this seems like a great system since up until now that system has worked as an effective safety net for these failed pension plans, the PBGC in its most recent annual report is waiving a red flag that it faces insolvency if Congress does not make changes to the laws that govern the premium payments to the PBGC.

What is the PBGC?

The PBGC is a federal agency that was established in 1974 to protect the pension benefits of employees in the private sector should their employer become insolvent.  The PBGC does not cover state or government sponsored pension plans.  The number of employees that were plan participants in an insolvent pension plan that now receive their pension payments from the PBGC is daunting.  According to the 2017 PBGC annual report, the PBGC “currently provides pension payments to 840,000 participants in 4,845 failed single-employer plans and an additional 63,000 participants across 72 multi-employer plans.”

Wait until you hear the dollar amounts associate with those numbers.  The PBGC paid out $5.7 Billion dollars in pension payments to the 840,000 participants in the single-employer plans and $141 Million to the 63,000 participants in the multi-employer plans in 2017.

Where Does The PBGC Get The Money To Pay Benefits?

So where does the PBGC get all of the money needed to make billions of dollars in pension payments to these plan participants?  You might have guessed “the taxpayers” but for once that’s incorrect.   The PBGC’s operations are financed by premiums payments made by companies in the private sector that sponsor pension plans.  The PBGC receive no taxpayer dollars.  The corporations that sponsor these pension plans pay premiums to the PBGC each year and the premium amounts are set by Congress.

Single-Employer vs Multi-Employer Plans

The PBGC runs two separate insurance programs: “Single-Employer Program” and “Multi-Employer Program”.  It’s important to understand the difference between the two.  While both programs are designed to protect the pension benefits of the employees, they differ greatly in the level of benefits guaranteed.  The assets of the two programs are also kept separate. If one programs starts to fail, the PBGC is not allowed to shift assets over from the other program to save it.

The single-employer program protects plans that are sponsored by single employers.  The PBGC steps in when the employer goes bankrupt or can no longer afford to sponsor the plan.  The Single-Employer Program is the larger of the two programs. About 75% of the annual pension payments from the PBGC come from this program.  Some examples of single-employer companies that the PBGC has had to step into to make pension payments are United Airlines, Lehman Brothers, and Circuit City.

The Multi-Employer program covers pension plans created and funded through collective bargaining agreements between groups of employers, usually in related industries, and a union.  These pension plans are most commonly found in construction, transportation, retail food, manufacturing, and services industries.  When a plan runs out of money, the PBGC does not step in and takeover the plan like it does for single-employer plans.  Instead, it provides “financial assistance” and the guaranteed amounts of that financial assistants are much lower than the guaranteed amounts offered under the single-employer program.  For example, in 2017, the PBGC began providing financial assistance to the United Furniture Workers Pension Fund A (UFW Plan), which covers 10,000 participants.

Maximum Guaranteed Amounts

The million dollar question.  What is the maximum monthly pension amount that the PBGC will guarantee if the company or organization goes bankrupt?  There are maximum dollar amounts for both the single-employer and multi-employer program.  The maximum amounts are indexed for inflation each year and are listed on the PBGC website.  To illustrate the dramatic difference between the guarantees associated with the pension pensions in a single-employer plan versus a multi-employer plan; here is an example from the PBGC website based on the 2018 rates.

“PBGC’s guarantee for a 65-year-old in a failed single-employer plan can be up to $60,136 annually, while a participant with 30 years of service in a failed multi-employer plan caps out at $12,870 per year.  The multi-employer program guarantee for a participant with only 10 years of service caps out at $4,290 per year.”

It’s a dramatic difference.

For the single-employer program the PBGC provides participants with a nice straight forward benefits table based on your age.  Below is a sample of the 2018 chart.  However, the full chart with all  ages can be found on the PBGC website.

PBGC

Unfortunately, the lower guaranteed amounts for the multi-employer plans are not provided by the PBGC in a nice easy to read table. Instead they provide participant with a formula that is a headache for even a financial planner to sort through.  Here is a link to the formula for 2018 on the PBGC website.

PBGC Facing Insolvency In 2025

If the organization guaranteeing your pension plan runs out of money, how much is that guarantee really worth?  Not much.  If you read the 138 page 2017 annual report issued by the PBGC (which was painful), at least 20 times throughout the report you will read the phase:

“The Multi-employer Program faces very serious challenges and is likely to run out of money by the end of fiscal year 2025.”

They have placed a 50% probability that the multi-employer program runs out of money by 2025 and a 99% probability that it runs out of money by 2036.  Not good. The PBGC has urged Congress to take action to fix the problem by raising the premiums charged to sponsors of these multi-employer pension plans.  While it seems like a logical move, it’s a double edged sword. While raising the premiums may fix some of the insolvency issues for the PBGC in the short term, the premium increase could push more of the companies that sponsor these plans into bankruptcy.

There is better news for the Single-Employer Program.  As of 2017, even though the Single-Employer Program ran a cumulative deficit of $10.9 billion dollars, over the next 10 years, the PBGC is expected to erase that deficit and run a surplus.  By comparison the multi-employer program had accumulated a deficit of $65.1 billion dollars by the end of 2017..

Difficult Decision For Employees

While participants in Single-Employer plans may be breathing a little easier after reading this article,  if the next recession results in a number of large companies defaulting on their pension obligations, the financial health of the PBGC could change quickly without help from Congress. Employees are faced with a one-time difficult decision when they retire.  Option one, take the pension payments and hope that the company and PBGC are still around long enough to honor the pension payments.  Or option two, elect the lump sum, and rollover then present value of your pension benefit to your IRA while the company still has the money.  The right answer will vary on a case by case basis but the projected insolvency of the PBGC’s Multi-employer Program makes that decision even more difficult for employees.

Michael Ruger

About Michael……...

Hi, I’m Michael Ruger. I’m the managing partner of Greenbush Financial Group and the creator of the nationally recognized Money Smart Board blog . I created the blog because there are a lot of events in life that require important financial decisions. The goal is to help our readers avoid big financial missteps, discover financial solutions that they were not aware of, and to optimize their financial future.

Volatility, Market Timing, and Long-Term Investing

Volatility, Market Timing, and Long-Term Investing

For many savers, the objective of a retirement account is to accumulate assets while you are working and use those assets to pay for your expenses during retirement.  While you are in the accumulation phase, assets are usually invested and hopefully earn a sufficient rate of return to meet your retirement goal.  For the majority, these accounts are long-term investments and there are certain investing ideas that should be taken into consideration when managing portfolios.  This article will discuss volatility, market timing and their role in long-term retirement accounts.

“Market timing is the act of moving in and out of the market or switching between asset classes based on using predictive methods such as technical indicators or economic data” (Investopedia).  In other words, trying to sell investments when they are near their highest and buy investments when they are near their lowest.  It is difficult, some argue impossible, to time the market successfully enough to generate higher returns.  Especially over longer periods.  That being said, by reallocating portfolios and not experiencing the full loss during market downturns, investors could see higher returns.  When managing portfolios over longer periods, this should be done without the emotion of day to day volatility but by analyzing greater economic trends.

So far, the stock market in 2018 has been volatile; particularly when compared to 2017.  Below are charts of the S&P 500 from 1/1/2018 – 10/21/2018 and the same period for 2017.

Source: Yahoo Finance. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable and are subject to change without notification.

Based on the two charts above, one could conclude the majority of investors would prefer 2017 100% of the time.  In reality, the market averages a correction of over 10% each year and there are years the market goes up and there are years the market goes down.  Currently, the volatility in the market has a lot of investors on edge, but when comparing 2018 to the market historically, one could argue this year is more typical than a year like 2017 where the market had very little to no volatility.

Another note from the charts above are the red and green bars on the bottom of each year.  The red represent down days in the market and the green represent up days.  You can see that even though there is more volatility in 2018 compared to 2017 when the market just kept climbing, both years have a mixture of down days and up days.

A lot of investors become emotional when the market is volatile but even in the midst of volatility and downturns, there are days the market is up.  The chart below shows what happens to long-term portfolio performance if investors miss the best days in the market during that period.

Source: JP Morgan. Information has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable and are subject to change without notification.

Two main takeaways from the illustration above are; 1) missing the best days over a period in the market could have a significant impact on a portfolios performance, and 2) some of the best days in the market over the period analyzed came shortly after the worst days.  This means that if people reacted on the worst days and took their money from the market then they likely missed some of the best days.

Market timing is difficult over long periods of time and making drastic moves in asset allocation because of emotional reactions to volatility isn’t always the best strategy for long-term investing.  Investors should align their portfolios taking both risk tolerance and time horizon into consideration and make sure the portfolio is updated as each of these change multiple times over longer periods.

When risk tolerance or time horizon do not change, most investors should focus on macro-economic trends rather than daily/weekly/monthly volatility of the market.  Not experiencing the full weight of stock market declines could generate higher returns and if data shows the economy may be slowing, it could be a good time to take some “chips off the table”.  That being said, looking at past down markets, some of the best days occur shortly after the worst days and staying invested enough to keep in line with your risk tolerance and time horizon could be the best strategy.

It is difficult to take the emotion out of investing when the money is meant to fund your future needs so speaking with your financial consultant to review your situation may be beneficial.

About Rob……...

Hi, I’m Rob Mangold. I’m the Chief Operating Officer at Greenbush Financial Group and a contributor to the Money Smart Board blog. We created the blog to provide strategies that will help our readers personally, professionally, and financially. Our blog is meant to be a resource. If there are questions that you need answered, please feel free to join in on the discussion or contact me directly.

Target Date Funds: A Public Service Announcement

Target Date Funds:  A Public Service Announcement

Before getting into the main objective of this article, let me briefly explain a Target Date Fund.  Investopedia defines a target date fund as “a fund offered by an investment company that seeks to grow assets over a specified period of time for a targeted goal”.  The specified period of time is typically the period until the date you “target” for retirement or to start withdrawing assets.  For this article, I will refer to the target date as the “retirement date” because that is how Target Date Funds are typically used.

Target Date Funds are continuing to grow in popularity as Defined Contribution Plans (i.e. 401(k)’s) become the primary savings vehicle for retirement.  Per the Investment Company Institute, as of March 31, 2018, there was $1.1 trillion invested in Target Date Mutual Funds.  Defined Contribution Plans made up 67 percent of that total.

Target Date Funds are often coined as the “set it and forget it” of investments for participants in retirement plans.  Target Date Funds that are farther from the retirement date will be invested more aggressively than target date funds closer to the retirement date.  Below is a chart showing the “Glide Path” of the Vanguard Target Date Funds.  The horizontal access shows how far someone is from retirement and the vertical access shows the percentage of stocks in the investment.  In general, more stock means more aggressive.  The “40” in the bottom left indicates someone that is 40 years from their retirement date.  A common investment strategy in retirement accounts is to be more aggressive when you’re younger and become more conservative as you approach your retirement age.  Following this strategy, someone with 40 years until retirement is more aggressive which is why at this point the Glide Path shows an allocation of approximately 90% stocks and 10% fixed income.  When the fund is at “0”, this is the retirement date and the fund is more conservative with an allocation of approximately 50% stocks and 50% fixed income.  Using a Target Date Fund, a person can become more conservative over time without manually making any changes.

Note:  Not every fund family (i.e. Vanguard, American Funds, T. Rowe Price, etc.) has the same strategy on how they manage the investments inside the Target Date Funds, but each of them follows a Glide Path like the one shown below.

The Public Service Announcement

The public service announcement is to remind investors they should take both time horizon and risk tolerance into consideration when creating a portfolio for themselves.  The Target Date Fund solution focuses on time horizon but how does it factor in risk tolerance?Target Date Funds combine time horizon and risk tolerance as if they are the same for each investor with the same amount of time before retirement.  In other words, each person 30 years from retirement that is using the Target Date strategy as it was intended will have the same stock to bond allocation.This is one of the ways the Target Date Fund solution can fall short as it is likely not possible to truly know somebody’s risk tolerance without knowing them.  In my experience, not every investor 30 years from retirement is comfortable with their biggest retirement asset being allocated to 90% stock.  For various reasons, some people are more conservative, and the Target Date Fund solution may not be appropriate for their risk tolerance.The “set it and forget it” phrase is often used because Target Date Funds automatically become more conservative for investors as they approach their Target Date.  This is a strategy that does work and is appropriate for a lot of investors which is why the strategy is continuing to increase in popularity.  The takeaway from this article is to think about your risk tolerance and to be educated on the way Target Date Funds work as it is important to make sure both are in line with each other.For a more information on Target Date Funds please visit https://www.greenbushfinancial.com/target-date-funds-and-their-role-in-the-401k-space/

About Rob……...

Hi, I’m Rob Mangold. I’m the Chief Operating Officer at Greenbush Financial Group and a contributor to the Money Smart Board blog. We created the blog to provide strategies that will help our readers personally, professionally, and financially. Our blog is meant to be a resource. If there are questions that you need answered, please feel free to join in on the discussion or contact me directly.

Big Changes For 401(k) Hardship Distributions

While it probably seems odd that there is a connection between the government passing a budget and your 401(k) plan, this year there was. On February 9, 2018, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 was passed into law which ended the government shutdown by raising the debt ceiling for the next two years. However, also buried in the new law were changes to rules that govern hardship distributions in 401(k) plans.

What Is A Hardship Distribution?

A hardship distribution is an optional distribution feature within a 401(k) plan. In other words, your 401(k) plan may or may not allow them. To answer that question, you will have to reference the plan’s Summary Plan Description (SPD) which should be readily available to plan participants.

If your plan allows hardship distributions, they are one of the few in-service distribution options available to employees that are still working for the company. There are traditional in-service distributions which allow employees to take all or a portion of their account balance after reaching the age 59½. By contrast, hardship distributions are for employees that have experienced a “financial hardship”, are still employed by the company, and they are typically under the age of 59½.

Meeting The "Hardship" Requirement

First, you have to determine if your financial need qualifies as a "hardship". They typically include:

• Unreimbursed medical expenses for you, your spouse, or dependents

• Purchase of an employee's principal residence

• Payment of college tuition and relative education costs such as room and board for the next 12 months for you, your spouse, dependents, or children who are no longer dependents.

• Payment necessary to prevent eviction of you from your home, or foreclosure on the mortgage of your primary residence

• For funeral expenses

• Certain expenses for the repair of damage to the employee's principal residence

Second, there are rules that govern how much you can take out of the plan in the form of a hardship distribution and restrictions that are put in place after the hardship distribution is taken. Below is a list of the rules under the current law:

• The withdrawal must not exceed the amount needed by you

• You must first obtain all other distribution and loan options available in the plan

• You cannot contribute to the 401(k) plan for six months following the withdrawal

• Growth and investment gains are not eligible for distribution from specific sources

Changes To The Rules Starting In 2019

Plan sponsors need to be aware that starting in 2019 some of the rules surrounding hardship distributions are going to change in conjunction with the passing of the Budget Act of 2018. The reasons for taking a hardship distribution did not change. However, there were changes made to the rules associated with taking a hardship distribution starting in 2019. More specifically, of the four rules listed above, only one will remain.

No More "6 Month Rule"

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 eliminated the rule that prevents employees from making 401(k) contributions until 6 months after the date the hardship distribution was issued. The purpose of the 6 month wait was to deter employees from taking a hardship distribution. In addition, for employees that had to take a hardship it was a silent way of implying that “if things are bad enough financially that you have to take a distribution from your retirement account, you probably should not be making contributions to your 401(k) plan for the next few months.”

However, for employees that are covered by a 401(k) plan that offers an employer matching contribution, not being able to defer in the plan for 6 months also meant no employer matching contribution during that 6 month probationary period. Starting in 2019, employees will no longer have to worry about that limitation.

Loan First Rule Eliminated

Under the current 401(k) rules, if loans are available in the 401(k) plan, the plan participant was required to take the maximum loan amount before qualifying for a hardship distribution. That is no longer a requirement under the new law.

We are actually happy to see this requirement go away. It never really made sense to us. If you have an employee, who’s primary residence is going into foreclosure, why would you make them take a loan which then requires loan payments to be made via deductions from their paycheck? Doesn’t that put them in a worse financial position? Most of the time when a plan participant qualifies for a hardship, they need the money as soon as possible and having to go through the loan process first can delay the receipt of the money needed to remedy their financial hardship.

Earnings Are Now On The Table

Under the current 401(k) rules, if an employee requests a hardship distribution, the portion of their elective deferral source attributed to investment earnings was not eligible for withdrawal. Effective 2019, that rule has also changed. Both contributions and earnings will be eligible for a hardship withdrawal.

Still A Last Resort

We often refer to hardship distributions as the “option of last resort”. This is due to the taxes and penalties that are incurred in conjunction with hardship distributions. Unlike a 401(k) loan which does not trigger immediate taxation, hardship distributions are a taxable event. To make matters worse, if you are under the age of 59½, you are also subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty.

For example, if you are under the age of 59½ and you take a $20,000 hardship distribution to make the down payment on a house, you will incur taxes and the 10% penalty on the $20,000 withdrawal. Let’s assume you are in the 24% federal tax bracket and 7% state tax bracket. That $20,000 distribution just cost you $8,200 in taxes.

Gross Distribution: $20,000

Fed Tax (24%): ($4,800)

State Tax (7%): ($1,400)

10% Penalty: ($2,000)

Net Amount: $11,800

There is also an opportunity cost for taking that money out of your retirement account. For example, let’s assume you are 30 years old and plan to retire at age 65. If you assume an 8% annual rate of return on your 401(K) investment that $20,000 really cost you $295,707. That’s what the $20,000 would have been worth, 35 years from now, compounded at 8% per year.

Plan Amendment Required

These changes to the hardship distribution rule will not be automatic. The plan sponsor of the 401(k) will need to amend the plan document to adopt these new rules otherwise the old hardship distribution rules will still apply. We recommend that companies reach out to their 401(k) providers to determine whether or not amending the plan to adopt the new hardship distribution rules makes sense for the company and your employees.

About Michael.........

Hi, I’m Michael Ruger. I’m the managing partner of Greenbush Financial Group and the creator of the nationally recognized Money Smart Board blog . I created the blog because there are a lot of events in life that require important financial decisions. The goal is to help our readers avoid big financial missteps, discover financial solutions that they were not aware of, and to optimize their financial future.

403(b) Lawsuits Continue To Spread To More Colleges

In the last 3 years, the number of lawsuits filed against colleges for excessive fees and compliance issues related to their 403(b) plans has increased exponentially.  Here is a list of just some of the colleges that have had lawsuit brought against them by their 403(b) plan participants: 

• Yale

• NYU

• Duke

• John Hopkins

• MIT

• Columbia

• Emory

• Cornell

• Vanderbilt

• Northeastern

• USC

The fiduciary landscape has completely changed for organizations, like colleges, that sponsor ERISA 403(b) plans.  In 2009, new regulations were passed that brought 403(b) plans up to the compliance standards historically found in the 401(k) market.   Instead of slowly phasing in the new regulations, the 403(b) market basically went from zero to 60 mph in a blink of an eye.  While some of the basic elements of the new rules were taken care of by the current service providers such as the required written plan documents, contract exchange provisions, and new participant disclosures, we have found that colleges, due to a lack of understanding of what is required to fulfill their fiduciary role to the plan, have fallen very short of putting the policies and procedures in place to protect the college from liabilities that can arise from the 403(b) plan. 

Top Violations

Based on the lawsuits that have been filled against the various colleges, here is a list of the most common claims that have been included in these lawsuits: 

• Excessive fees

• Fees associated with multiple recordkeepers

• Too many investment options

• Improper mutual fund share class

• Variable annuity products

Excessive Fees

This is by far number one on the list.  As you look at these lawsuits, most of them include a claim that the university breached their fiduciary duty under ERISA by allowing excessive fees to be charged to plan participants.

Here is the most common situation that we see when consulting with colleges that leads to this issue.  A college had been with the same 403(b) provider for 60 years.   Without naming names, they assume that their 403(b) plan has reasonable fees because all of the other colleges that they know of also use this same provider.   So their fees must be reasonable right?  Wrong!!

If you are member of the committee that oversees that 403(b) plan at your college, how do you answer this question?  How do you know that the fees for your plan are reasonable?  Can you show documented proof that you made a reasonable effort to determine whether or not the plan fees are reasonable versus other 403(b) providers?

The only way to answer this question is by going through an RFP process.  For colleges that we consult with we typically recommend that they put an RFP out every 3 to 5 years. That is really the only way to be able to adequately answer the question: “Are the plan fees reasonable?”   Now if you go through the RFP process and you find that another reputable provider is less expensive than your current provider, you are not required to change to that less expensive provider.  However, from a fiduciary standpoint, you should acknowledge at the end of the RFP process that there were lower fee alternatives but the current provider was selected because of reasons X, Y, and Z.  Document, document, document!!

Investment Fees / Underperformance / Investment Options

Liability is arising in these 403(b) plans due to 

• Revenue sharing fees buried in the mutual fund expense rations

• Underperformance of the plan investments versus the benchmark / peer group

• Too many investment options

• Investment options concentrated all in one fund family

• Restrictions associate with the plan investment

• Investment Policy Statement violations or No IPS

• Failure to document quarterly and annual investment reviews

Here is the issue.  Typically members of these committees that oversee the 403(b) plan are not investment experts and you need to basically be an investment expert to understand mutual fund share classes, investment revenue sharing, peer group comparisons, asset classes represented within the fund menu, etc.   To fill the void, colleges are beginning to hire investment firms to serve as third party consultants to the 403(b) committee.  In most cases these firms charge a flat dollar fee to: 

• Prepare quarterly investment reports

• Investment benchmarking

• Draft a custom Investment Policy Statement

• Coordinate the RFP process

• Negotiation plan fees with the current provider

• Conduct quarterly and annual reviews with the 403(b) committee

• Compliance guidance

Multiple Recordkeepers

While multiple recordkeepers is becoming more common for college 403(b) plans, it requires additional due diligence on the part of the college to verify that it’s in the best interest of the plan participants.   Multiple recordkeepers means that your 403(b) plan assets are split between two or more custodians.  For example, a college may use both TIAA CREF and Principal for their 403(b) platform.  Why two recordkeepers?  Most of the older 403(b) accounts are setup as individual annuity contracts.  As such, if the college decides to charge their 403(b) provider, unlike the 401(k) industry where all of the plan assets automatically move over to the new platform, each plan participant is required to voluntarily sign forms to move their account balance from the old 403(b) provider to the new 403(b) provider.  It’s almost impossible to get all of the employee to make the switch so you end up with two separate recordkeepers.

Why does this create additional liability for the college?  Even through the limitation set forth by these individual annuity contracts is out of the control of the college, by splitting the plan assets into two pieces you may be limiting the economies of scale of the total plan assets.  In most cases the asset based fees for a 403(b) plan decreases as the plan assets become larger with that 403(b) provider.  By splitting the assets between two 403(b) platforms, you are now creating two smaller plans which could result in larger all-in fees for the plan participants.

Now, it may very well be in the best interest of the plan participants to have two separate platforms but the college has to make sure that they have the appropriate documentation to verify that this due diligence is being conducts.  This usually happens as a result of an RFP process.  Here is an example.  A college has been using the same 403(b) provider for the last 50 years but to satisfy their fiduciary obligation to the plan they going through the RFP process to verify that their plan fees are reasonable.  Going into the RFP process they had no intention of change provides but as a result of the RFP process they realize that there are other 403(b) providers that offer better technology, more support for the plan sponsor, and lower fees than their current platform.  While they are handcuffed by the individual contracts in the current 403(b) plan, they still have control over where the future contributions of the plan will be allocated so they decide that it’s in both the plan participants and the college’s best interest to direct the future contributions to the new 403(b) platform.

Too Many Investment Options

More is not always better in the retirement plan world.  The 403(b) oversite committee, as a fiduciary, is responsible for selecting the investments that will be offered in accordance with the plan’s investment menu.  Some colleges unfortunately take that approach that if we offer 80+ different mutual funds for the investment that should “cover all of their bases” since plan participants have access to every asset class, mutual fund family, and ten different small cap funds.    The plaintiffs in these 403(b) lawsuits alleged that many of the plan’s investment options were duplicates, performed poorly, and featured high fees that are inappropriate for large 403(b) plans.

To make matters worse, if you have 80+ mutual funds on your 403(b) investment menu, you have to conduct regular and on-going due diligence on all 80+ mutual funds in your plan to make sure that they still meet the investment criteria set out in the plan’s IPS.  If you have mutual funds in your plan that fall outside of the IPS criteria and those issues have not been addressed and/or documented, if a lawsuit is brought against the college it will be very difficult to defend that the college was fulfilling its fiduciary obligation to the investment menu. 

Improper Mutual Fund Share Classes

To piggyback on this issue, what many plan sponsors don’t realize is that by selecting a more limited menu of mutual funds it can lower the overall plan fees.  Mutual funds have different share classes and some share classes require a minimum initial investment to gain asset to that share class.  For example you may have Mutual Fund A retail share class with a 0.80% internal expense ratio but there is also a Mutual Fund A institutional share class with a 0.30% internal expense ratio.  However,  the institutional share class requires an initial investment of $100,000 to gain access.  If Mutual Fund A is a U.S. Large Cap Stock Fund and your plan offers 10 other U.S. Large Cap Stock Funds, your plan may not meet the institutional share requirement because the assets are spread between 10 different mutual funds within the same asset class.  If instead, the committee decided that it was prudent to offer just Mutual Fund A to represent the U.S. Large Cap Stock holding on the investment menu, the plan may be able to meet that $100,000 minimum initial investment and gain access to the lower cost institutional share class. 

Variable Annuity Products

While variable annuity products have historically been a common investment option for 403(b) plans, they typically charge fees that are higher than the fees that are charged by most standard mutual funds.  In addition, variable annuities can place distribution restrictions on select investment investments which may not be in the plan participants best interest.

The most common issue we come across is with the TIAA Traditional investment.  While TIAA touts the investment for its 3% guarantee, we have found that very few plan participants are aware that there is a 10 year distribution restriction associated with that investment.  When you go to remove money from the TIAA Traditional fund, TIAA will inform you that you can only move 1/10th of your balance out of that investment each year over the course of the next ten years.  You can see how this could be a problem for a plan participant that may have 100% of their balance in the TIAA Traditional investment as they approach retirement.   Their intention may have been to retire at age 65 and rollover the balance to their own personal IRA.  If they have money in the TIAA Traditional investment that is no longer an option.  They would be limited to process a rollover equal  to 1/10th of their balance in the TIAA Tradition investment between the age of 65 and 74.  Only after age 74 would they completely free from this TIAA withdrawal restriction.

Consider Hiring A Consultant

While this may sound self-serving, colleges are really going to need help with the initial and on-going due diligence associate with keeping their 403(b) plan in compliance.  For a reasonable cost, colleges should be able to engage an investment firm that specialized in this type of work to serve as a third party consultant for the 403(b) investment committee.  Just make sure the fee is reasonable.  The consulting fee should be expressed as a flat dollar amount fee, not an asset based fee, because they are fulfilling that role as a “consultant”, not the “investment advisor” to the 403(b) plan assets. 

About Michael……...

Hi, I’m Michael Ruger. I’m the managing partner of Greenbush Financial Group and the creator of the nationally recognized Money Smart Board blog . I created the blog because there are a lot of events in life that require important financial decisions. The goal is to help our readers avoid big financial missteps, discover financial solutions that they were not aware of, and to optimize their financial future.

How Does A Simple IRA Plan Work?

Not every company with employees should have a 401(k) plan. In many cases, a Simple IRA plan may be the best fit for a small business. These plans carry the following benefits

• No TPA fees

• Easy to setup & operate

• Employee attraction and retention tool

• Pre-tax contributions for the owners to lower their tax liability

Your company

To be eligible to sponsor a Simple IRA, your company must have less than 100 employees. The contribution limits to these plans are about half that of a 401(k) plan but it still may be the right fit for you company. Here are some of the most common statements that we hear from the owners of the business that would lead you to considering a Simple IRA plan over a 401(k) plan:

"I want to put a retirement plans in place for my employees that has very low fees and is easy to operate."

"We are a start-up, we don't have a lot of money to contribute to the plan as the owners, but we want to put a plan in place to attract and retain employees."

"I plan on contributing $15,000 per year to the plan, even if I sponsored a plan that allowed me to contribute more I wouldn't because I'm socking all of the profits back into the business"

"I have a SEP IRA now but I just hired my first employee. I need to setup a different type of plan since SEP IRA's are 100% employer funded"

Establishment Deadline

The deadline to establish a Simple IRA plan is October 1st. Once you have cross over that date, you would have to wait until the following calendar year to set the plan.

Eligibility

The eligibility requirements for a Simple IRA are different than a SEP IRA or 401(k) plans. Unlike these other plan "1 Year of Service" = $5,000 of compensation earned in a calendar year. If you want to only cover "full-time" employees with your retirement plan, you may need to consider a 401(k) plan which has the 1 year and 1000 hours requirement to obtain a year of service. The most restrictive "wait time" that you can put into place is 2 years. Meaning an employee must obtain 2 years of service before they are eligible to start contributing to the plan. You can also be more lenient that 2 years, such as immediate entry or a 1-year wait, but 2 years is the most restrictive it can be.

Types of Contributions

Like a 401(k) plan, Simple IRA have both employee deferral contributions and employer contributions.

Employee Deferrals

Eligible employees are allowed to make pre-tax contributions to their Simple IRA accounts. The contribution limits are less than a traditional 401(k). Below is a tale comparing the 2021 contribution limits of a Simple IRA vs a 401(k) Plan:

There are not Roth deferrals allows in Simple IRA plans.

Employer Contributions

Unlike other employer sponsored retirement plans, employer contributions are mandatory each year to a Simple IRA plan. The company must choose between two pre-set employer contribution formulas:

• 2% Non-elective

• 3$ Matching contribution

With the 2% non-elective contribution, the company must contribute 2% of each eligible employee’s compensation to the plan whether they contribute to the plan or not.

For the 3% matching contribution, it’s a dollar for dollar match up to 3% of compensation that they employee contributes to the plan. The match formula is more popular than the 2% non-elective contribution because the company only must contribute if the employee contributes.

Special 1% Rule

With the employer matching contribution there is also a special rule. In 2 out of any 5 consecutive years, the company can lower the employer match to as low as 1% of pay. We will often see start-up company's take advantage of this rule by putting a 1% employer match in place for the first 2 years of the plan to minimize costs and then they are committed to making the 3% match for years 3, 4, and 5.

100% Vesting

All employer contributions to Simple IRA plans are 100% vested. The company is not allowed to attach a "vesting schedule" to the contributions.

Important Compliance Requirements

Make sure you have a 5304 Simple Form in your files for each year you sponsor the Simple IRA plan. If you are audited by the IRS or DOL, they will ask for these forms. You need to distribute this form to all of your employee each year between Nov 1st and Dec 1st for the upcoming plan year. The documents notifies your employees that:

• A retirement plan exists

• Plan eligibility requirement

• Employer contribution formula

• Who they submit their deferral elections to within the company

If you do not have this form on file, the IRS will assume that you have immediate eligibility for your Simple IRA plan, meaning that all of your employees are due employer contributions since day one of employment. Even employee that used to work for you and have since terminated employment. It’s an ugly situation.

Make sure the company is timely when submitting the employee deferrals to the Simple IRA plan. Since you are withholding money from employees pay for the salary deferrals the IRS want you to send that money to their Simple IRA accounts “as soon as administratively feasible”. The suggested time phrase is within a week of the deduction in payroll. But you must be consistent with the timing of your remittances to your Simple IRA plan. If you typically submit contributions to your Simple IRA provider 5 days after a payroll run but one week you randomly submit it 2 days after the payroll run, 2 days just became the rule and all of the other deferral remittances are “late”. The company will be assessed penalties for all of the late deferral remittances. So be consistent.

Cannot Terminate Mid-Year

Unlike other retirement plans, you cannot terminate a Simple IRA plan mid-year. Simple IRA plan termination are most common when a company started with a Simple IRA, has grown in employee head count, and now wishes to put a 401(k) plan in place. You must wait until after December 31st to terminate the Simple IRA plan and implement the new 401(k) plan.

Special 2 Year Rule

If you replace your Simple IRA with a 401(k) plan, the balances in the Simple IRA can usually be rolled over into the new 401(k) if the employee elects to do so. However, be very careful of the special Simple IRA 2 Year Distribution Rule. If you process any type of distribution from a Simple IRA, within a two-year period of the employee depositing their first dollar to the account, and the employee is under 59½, they are hit with a 25% IRS penalty. THIS ALSO APPLIES TO DIRECT ROLLOVERS. Normally when you process a direct rollover from one retirement plan to another, no taxes or penalties are assessed. That is not the case in Simple IRA plan so be care of this rule. If you decide to switch from a Simple IRA to a 401(k), make sure you run a list of all the employees that maintain a balance in the Simple IRA plan to determine which employees are subject to the 2-year withdrawal restriction.

About Michael.........

Hi, I’m Michael Ruger. I’m the managing partner of Greenbush Financial Group and the creator of the nationally recognized Money Smart Board blog . I created the blog because there are a lot of events in life that require important financial decisions. The goal is to help our readers avoid big financial missteps, discover financial solutions that they were not aware of, and to optimize their financial future.

How Does A SEP IRA Work?

 What is a SEP?

SEP stands for “Simplified Employee Pension”.  The SEP IRA is one of the most common employer sponsored retirement plans used by sole proprietors and small businesses.

Special Establishment Deadline

SEP are one of the few retirement plans that can be established after December 31st which make them a powerful tax tool.  For example, it’s March, you are meeting with your accountant and they deliver the bad news that you have a big tax bill that is due.  You can setup the SEP IRA any time to your tax filing date PLUS extension, fund it, and capture the tax deduction.

Easy to Setup & Low Plan Fees

The other advantage of SEP IRA’s is they are easy to setup and you do not have a third-party administrator to run the plan, so the costs are a lot lower than a traditional 401(k) plans.  These plans can typically be setup with 24 hours.

Contributions limits

SEP IRA contributions are expressed as a percentage of compensation.  The maximum contribution is either 20% of the owners “net earned income” or 25% of the owners W2 wages.  It all depends on how your business is incorporated.  You have the option to contribution any amount less than the maximum contribution.

100% Employer Funded

SEP IRA plans are 100% employer funded meaning there is no employee deferral piece.  Which makes them expense plans to sponsor for a company that eligible employees because the employer contribution is uniform for all employees.  Meaning if the owner contributes 20% of their compensation to the plan for themselves they must also make a contribution equal to 20% of compensation for each eligible employee.  Typically, once employees begin becoming eligible for the plan, a company will terminate the SEP IRA and replace it with either a Simple IRA or 401(k) plans.

Employee Eligibility Requirements

An employee earns a “year of service” for each calendar year that they earn $500 in compensation.  You can see how easy it is to earn a “year of service” in these types of plans.  This is where a lot of companies make an error because they only look at their “full time employees” as eligible.  The good news for business owners is you can keep employees out of the plan for 3 years and then they become eligible in the 4th year of employment.  For example, I am a sole proprietor and I hire my first employee, if my plan document is written correctly, I can keep that employee out of the SEP IRA for 3 years and then they will not be eligible for the employer contribution until the 4th year of employment.

Read This……..Very Important…..

There is a plan document called a 5305 SEP form that is required to sponsor a SEP IRA plan.  This form can be printed off the IRS website or is sometimes provide by the investment platform for your plan.   Remember, SEP IRA plans are “self-administered” meaning that you as the business owner are responsible for keeping the plan in compliance.  Do cannot always rely on your investment advisor or accountant to help you with your SEP IRA plan. You should have a 5305 SEP for in your employer files for each year you have sponsored the plan.   This form does not get filed with the IRS or DOL but rather is just kept in your employer files in the case of an audit. You are required to give this form to all employees of the company each year.  It’s a way of notifying your employees that the plan exists and it lists the eligibility requirements.

Compliance Issues

The main compliance issues to watch out for with these plan is not having that 5305 SEP Form for each year the plan has been sponsored, not accurately identifying eligible employees, and miscalculating your “net earned income” for the max SEP IRA contribution. 

About Michael……...

Hi, I’m Michael Ruger. I’m the managing partner of Greenbush Financial Group and the creator of the nationally recognized Money Smart Board blog . I created the blog because there are a lot of events in life that require important financial decisions. The goal is to help our readers avoid big financial missteps, discover financial solutions that they were not aware of, and to optimize their financial future.

How Do Single(k) Plans Work?

What is a Single(k) Plan?

A Single(k) plan is an employer sponsored retirement plan for owner only entities, meaning you have no full-time employees. These owner only entities get the benefits of having a full fledge 401(k) plan without the large administrative costs associated with traditional 401(k) plans.

What is the definition of a “full-time” employee?

Often times a small company will have some part-time staff. It does not matter whether you consider them “part-time”, the definition of full-time employee is defined by the IRS as working 1000 hours in a 12 month period. If you have a “full-time” employee you would not be eligible to sponsor a Single(k) plan.

Types of Contributions

There are two types of contributions to these plans. Employee deferral contributions and employer profit sharing contributions. The employee deferral piece works like a 401(k) plan. If you are under the age of 50 you can contribute $19,500, in 2021, in employee deferrals. If you are 50 or older, you get the $6,500 catch up contribution so you can contribute $24,000 in employee deferrals.

The reason why these plans are a little different than other employer sponsored plans is the employee deferral piece allows you to put 100% of your compensation into these plans up to those dollar thresholds.

In addition to the employee deferrals, you can also contribute 20% of your net earned income in the form of a profit-sharing contribution. For example, if you make $100,000 in net earned income from self-employment and you are over 50, you could contribute $24,000 in employee deferrals and then you could contribute an additional $20,000 in form of a profit sharing contribution. Making your total pre-tax contribution $44,000.

Establishment Deadline

You have to establish these plans by December 31st. In most cases that plan does not have to be funded by 12/31 but you have to have the plan document signed by 12/31. You normally have until tax filing deadline plus extension to fund the plan.

Loans & Roth Deferrals

Single(k) plans provide all of the benefits to the owner of a full 401(k) plan at a fraction of the cost. You can set up the plan to allow 401(k) loan and Roth deferral contributions.

SEP IRA vs Single(k) Plans

A lot of small business owners find themselves in a position where they are trying to decide between setting up a SEP IRA or a Single(k) plan. One of the big factors, that is often times the deciding factor, is how much the owner intends to contribute to the plan. The SEP IRA limits the business owner to just the 20% of net earned income. Whereas the Single(k) plan allows the 20% of net earned income plus the employee deferral contribution amount. However, if 20% of your net earned income would satisfy your target amount then the SEP IRA may be the right choice.

Advanced Strategy Using A Single(k) Plan

Here is a great tax strategy if you have one spouse that is the primary breadwinner bringing in most of the income and the other has self-employment income for a side business. If the spouse with the self-employment income is over the age of 50 and makes $20,000 in net earned income, they could set up a Single(k) Plan and defer the full $20,000 into their Single(k) plan as employee deferrals. If they had a SEP IRA, the max contribution would have been $4,000.

A huge tax savings for a married couple that is looking to lower their tax liability.

About Rob……...

Hi, I’m Rob Mangold. I’m the Chief Operating Officer at Greenbush Financial Group and a contributor to the Money Smart Board blog. We created the blog to provide strategies that will help our readers personally , professionally, and financially. Our blog is meant to be a resource. If there are questions that you need answered, pleas feel free to join in on the discussion or contact me directly.

The Fiduciary Rule: Exposing Your 401(K) Advisor’s Secrets

It’s here.  On June 9, 2017, the long awaited Fiduciary Rule for 401(k) plans will arrive.  The wirehouse and broker-dealer community within the investment industry has fought this new rule every step of the way.  Why? Because their secrets are about to be exposed.  Fee gouging in these 401(k) plans has spiraled out of control and it has gone on for way too long.  While the Fiduciary Rule was designed to better protect plan participants within these employer sponsored retirement plans, the response from the broker-dealer community, in an effort to protect themselves, may actually drive the fees in 401(k) plans higher than they are now.

If your company sponsors an employer sponsored retirement plan and your investment advisor is a broker with one of the main stream wirehouse or broker dealers then they may be approaching you within the next few months regarding a “platform change” for your 401(k) plan.  Best advice, start asking questions before you sign anything!!  The brokerage community is going to try to gift wrap this change and present this as a value added service to their current 401(k) clients when the reality is this change is being forced onto the brokerage community and they are at great risk at losing their 401(k) clients to independent registered investment advisory firms that have served as co-fiduciaries to their plans along.

The Fiduciary Rule requires all investment advisors that handle 401(k) plans to act in the best interest of their clients.  Up until now may brokers were not held to this standard. As long as they delivered the appropriate disclosure documents to the client, the regulations did not require them to act in their client’s best interest. Crazy right?  Well that’s all about to change and the response of the brokerage community will shock you.

I will preface this article by stating that there have been a variety of responses by the broker-dealer community to this new regulation.  While we cannot reasonably gather information on every broker-dealers response to the Fiduciary Rule, this article will provide information on how many of the brokerage firms are responding to the new legislation given our independent research.

SECRET #1:

Many of the brokerage dealers are restricting what 401(k) platforms their brokers can use.  If the broker currently has 401(k) clients that maintain a plan with a 401(k) platform outside of their new “approved list”, they are forcing them to move the plan to a pre-approved platform or the broker will be required to resign as the advisor to the plan.  Even though your current 401(k) platform may be better than the new proposed platform, the broker may attempt to move your plan so they can keep the plan assets.  How is this remotely in your employee’s best interest? But it’s happening.  We have been told that some of these 401(k) providers end up on the “pre-approve list” because they are willing to share fees with the broker dealer. If you don’t share fees, you don’t make the list.  Really ugly stuff!!

SECRET #2:

Because these wirehouses and broker-dealers know that their brokers are not “experts” in 401(k) plans, many of the brokerage firms are requiring their 401(k) plans to add a third-party fiduciary service which usually results in higher plan fees.  The question to ask is “if you were so concerned about our fiduciary liability why did you wait until now to present this third party fiduciary service?”  They are doing this to protect themselves, not the client.   Also, many of these third party fiduciary services could standardize the investment menu and take the control of the investment menu away from the broker.  Which begs the question, what are you paying the broker for?

SECRET #3:

Some broker-dealers are responding to the Fiduciary Rule by forcing their brokers to move all their 401(k) plans to a “fee based platform” versus a commission based platform.  The plan participants may have paid commissions on investments when they were purchased within their 401(k) account and now could be forced out of those investments and locked into a fee based fee structure after they already paid a commission on their balance.  This situation will be common for 401(k) plans that are comprised primarily of self-directed brokerage accounts.  Make sure you ask the advisor about the impact of the fee structure change and any deferred sales charges that may be imposed due to the platform change.

SECRET #4:

The plan fees are often times buried.  The 401(k) industry has gotten very good at hiding fees.  They talk in percentages and basis points but rarely talk in hard dollars.  One percent does not sound like a lot but if you have a $2 million dollar 401(k) plan that equals $20,000 in fees coming out of the plans assets every year.  Most of the fees are buried in the mutual fund expense ratios and you basically have to be an investment expert to figure out how much you are paying.  This has continued to go on because very rarely do companies write a check for their 401(k) fees. Most plans debit plan assets for their plan fees but the fees are real.

With all of these changes taking place, now is the perfect time to take a good hard look at your company’s employer sponsored retirement plan.  If your current investment advisor approaches you with a recommended “platform change” that is a red flag.  Start asking a lot of questions and it may be a good time to put your plan out to bid to see if you can negotiate a better overall solution for you and your employees.

About Michael……...

Hi, I’m Michael Ruger. I’m the managing partner of Greenbush Financial Group and the creator of the nationally recognized Money Smart Board blog . I created the blog because there are a lot of events in life that require important financial decisions. The goal is to help our readers avoid big financial missteps, discover financial solutions that they were not aware of, and to optimize their financial future.

Strategies to Save for Retirement with No Company Retirement Plan

The question, “How much do I need to retire?” has become a concern across generations rather than something that only those approaching retirement focus on.  We wrote the article, How Much Money Do I Need To Save To Retire?, to help individuals answer this question.  This article is meant to help create a strategy to reach that number.  More specifically, for those who work at a company that does not offer a company sponsored plan.

Over the past 20 years, 401(k) plans have become the most well-known investment vehicle for individuals saving for retirement.  This type of plan, along with other company sponsored plans, are excellent ways to save for people who are offered them.  Company sponsored plans are set up by the company and money comes directly from the employees paycheck to fund their retirement.  This means less effort on the side of the individual.  It is up to the employee to be educated on how the plan operates and use the resources available to them to help in their savings strategy and goals but the vehicle is there for them to take advantage of.

We also wrote the article, Comparing Different Types of Employer Sponsored Retirement Plans, to help business owners choose a retirement plan that is most beneficial to them in their retirement savings.

Now back to our main focus on savings strategies for people that do not have access to an employer sponsored plan.  We will discuss options based on a few different scenarios because matters such as marital status and how much you’d like to save may impact which strategy makes the most sense for you.

Married Filing Jointly - One Spouse Covered by Employer Sponsored Plan and is Not Maxing Out

A common strategy we use for clients when a covered spouse is not maxing out their deferrals is to increase the deferrals in the retirement plan and supplement income with the non-covered spouse’s salary.  The limits for 401(k) deferrals in 2021 is $19,500 for individuals under 50 and $26,000 for individuals 50+.  For example, if I am covered and only contribute $8,000 per year to my account and my spouse is not covered but has additional money to save for retirement, I could increase my deferrals up to the plan limits using the amount of additional money we have to save.  This strategy is helpful as it allows for easier tracking of retirement accounts and the money is automatically deducted from payroll.  Also, if you are contributing pre-tax dollars, this will decrease your tax liability.

Note:  Payroll deferrals must be withheld from payroll by 12/31.  If you owe money when you file your taxes in April, you would not be able to go back and increase your deferrals in your company plan for that tax year.

Married Filing Jointly - One Spouse Covered by Employer Sponsored Plan and is Maxing Out

If the covered spouse is maxing out at the high limits already, you may be able to save additional pre-tax dollars depending on your Adjusted Gross Income (AGI).

Below is the Traditional IRA Deductibility Table for 2021.  This table shows how much individuals or married couples can earn and still deduct IRA contributions from their taxable income.

As shown in the chart, if you are married filing jointly and one spouse is covered, the couple can fully deduct IRA contributions to an account in the covered spouses name if AGI is less than $99,000 and can fully deduct IRA contributions to an account in the non-covered spouses name if AGI is less than $184,000.  The Traditional IRA limits for 2017 are $5,500 if under 50 and $6,500 if 50+.  These lower limits and income thresholds make contributing to company sponsor plans more attractive in most cases.

Single or Married Filing Jointly and Neither Spouse is Covered

If you (and your spouse if married filing joint) are not covered by an employer sponsored plan, you do not have an income threshold for contributing pre-tax dollars to a Traditional IRA.  The only limitations you have relate to the amount you can contribute.  These contribution limits for both Traditional and Roth IRA’s are $5,500 if under 50 and $6,500 if 50+.  If married filing joint, each spouse can contribute up to these limits.

Unlike employer sponsored plans, your contributions to IRA’s can be made after 12/31 of that tax year as long as the contributions are in before you file your tax return.

Please feel free to e-mail or call with any questions on this article or any other financial planning questions you may have.

Below are related articles that may help answer additional questions you have after reading this.

Traditional vs. Roth IRA’s: Differences, Pros, and Cons

A New Year: Should I Make Changes To My Retirement Account?

Backdoor Roth IRA Contribution Strategy

About Rob……...

Hi, I’m Rob Mangold. I’m the Chief Operating Officer at Greenbush Financial Group and a contributor to the Money Smart Board blog. We created the blog to provide strategies that will help our readers personally , professionally, and financially. Our blog is meant to be a resource. If there are questions that you need answered, pleas feel free to join in on the discussion or contact me directly.