(b)lines Ask the Experts – Employee Concerns About Eliminating the 15-Year Catch-Up

As discussed in your recent Ask the Experts columns ‘Can the 15-year Catch-up be Phased Out?’ and ‘Should the 15-year Catch-up be Eliminated?’ we have decided to eliminate the 15-year catch-up election from our 403(b) plan, effective 1/1/2016.

“However, we have received some resistance from employees, even though very few employees actually utilize the election! Can the Experts make some suggestions as to how to address employee concerns?”

Michael A. Webb, vice president, Cammack Retirement Group, answers:      

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The Experts are not surprised that you have encountered some resistance, as unlike other types of plan changes that may serve to enhance the plan, this change is a clear takeaway, albeit an extremely minor one for what is often an extremely small fraction of plan participants.

And indeed, there are many possible concepts that you can communicate to affected employees to address the situation. Assuming such concepts are properly communicated, the affected employees may still not feel overwhelmingly positive about the plan change, but proper communication may help them to understand why the change was made.

Such concepts that could be communicated to employees include the following:

  • The use of the election increases the risk of audit, both on a plan level and an individual participant level;
  • Though frozen for 2016, elective deferral limits, are at historic highs; $18,000 for most employees and $24,000 for employees who are age 50 or older;
  • If you maintain a 457(b) plan, at least some employees might have the opportunity to offset the “missed” 403(b) catch-up election by deferring up to an additional $18,000 ($24,000 for age 50 and older employees in governmental plans). This is particularly true for public entities and 414(e) religious organizations (so-called nonqualified church-controlled organizations), since 457(b) plans can be made available to all employees (457(b) plans of private, non-church related tax-exempts are limited to a group of select management/highly compensated employees);
  • Even if you do not maintain a 457(b) plan or affected employees are not eligible, employees may be able to save in tax-qualified retirement vehicles outside of your retirement program (such as an IRA) or other investment vehicles that provide for favorable tax treatment; and
  • Make certain that employees understand how the 15-year catch-up works and how difficult it is to utilize as a practical matter, such as requiring records of all years’ prior contributions, and that if they contributed the maximum amount every year, it could not be utilized anyway.

Hopefully, some or all of these concepts will resonate with your employees. Thank you for your question, and best of luck with the transition!

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.

Another Challenge to the DOL Fiduciary Rule

Congressional representatives seek to protect retirement investors and stall DOL fiduciary rule.

In the wake of approval of a House bill opposing the fiduciary proposal of the Department of Labor (DOL), four Republican and Democratic lawmakers outlined a series of seven legislative principles they believe must govern retirement advice and retirement advisers.  

The congressional effort is the latest shot against the DOL’s measure, and the stated bipartisan concern is that the rule will make it difficult for low- and middle-income families to access financial advice so they can adequately plan for retirement. “We are concerned that the Department of Labor’s current fiduciary proposal may have unintended negative consequences that could harm individuals and families saving for retirement,” the House members—Peter Roskam (R-Illinois), Richard Neal (D-Massachusetts), Phil Roe (R-Tennessee), and Michelle Lujan Grisham (D-New Mexico)—said in a release.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

At the same time, the legislators said in their statement that individuals seeking investment advice must have strong protections. The four are working together to introduce a bipartisan legislative solution that reflects several investor-friendly principles, such as the requirement that retirement advisers work in the best interests of the investor, and the need for clear, plain-English disclosure of conflicts of interest in compensation or fees.

Another principle states that investor choice and consumer access to all investment services, such as proprietary products, commission-based sales and guaranteed lifetime income, should be preserved in a way that does not pick winners and losers.

The legislators cited the need for the retirement savings industry to make immediate changes upon the rule’s release. In the event the final rule has flaws, they said, there is a strong likelihood those changes could limit access to services and education for those saving for retirement.

The Financial Services Institute (FSI), which has previously registered its general dislike of the fiduciary rule, issued a response to the bipartisan effort. “We have said all along the DOL needs to get this rule done right, not done fast,” said David Bellaire, FSI’s executive vice president and general counsel.

Without specifying any details of the bipartisan legislative solution to come, the legislators said it would ensure that all Americans have access to financial advice for retirement planning, protect individuals from conflicted advice and require advisers to act in the best interests of retirement investors.

«