Plan Sponsors That Like Saving Money Get Good News on Variable-Rate Premiums

If SECURE 2.0 passes, PBGC would stop increasing the rate.

A provision in the SECURE 2.0 legislation would cap the variable premiums paid by plan sponsors to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation at 5.2% and end the policy of indexing them to inflation.

The PBGC insurance premium calculation has two parts, confirmed Bruce Cadenhead, partner and global chief actuary in wealth at Mercer.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The premium that would be changed by SECURE 2.0 is the variable-rate premium, which is calculated as a percent of a plan’s unfunded vested benefits (the difference between the present value of what a plan owes to participants and what it actually has the funds to cover). This is the amount the PBGC is “on the hook for” if a plan fails.

The percent of unfunded liabilities has historically been indexed to inflation. This means that the percent of unfunded liabilities owed as insurance would increase in perpetuity if left unchanged. Section 349 of the SECURE 2.0 bill would cap it at the 2023 level, which is 5.2% of unfunded liabilities, up from 4.8% in 2022.

The other part of the calculation is a flat rate charged per person in the plan, which is indexed to inflation and changes each year. This premium would not be changed by SECURE 2.0.

Cadenhead notes that the PBGC has a budget surplus that is projected to grow and could well afford to drop premiums. However, it is difficult to cut insurance premiums, because the revenue they generate counts as general federal revenue for the purposes of Congressional budget scoring, even though the money is not, in fact, general revenue and is set aside for the PBGC. Congress, according to Cadenhead, has used premiums to offset spending for things such as highways for accounting purposes, even though the funds are not actually used for that purpose. This scoring rule has not changed.

Since charging higher premiums to struggling plans can cause those plans to struggle even more, the PBGC caps the variable rate at $652 per participant in 2023. This cap helps plans that are poorly funded to not pay high fees to PBGC that otherwise could be used to fund the plan.

Cadenhead notes, however, that the proposed cap comes with perverse incentives. Plan sponsors could decide to remove participants from their plans through lump sum payments or other pension risk transfers and therefore change the number of participants on whom they calculate their PBGC fees, thereby lowering their premiums without actually changing the underlying structure and risk of the plan.

SECURE 2.0 provides for no changes to this element either.

Xerox Reaches $4.1 Million Preliminary Settlement in Excessive Fee Lawsuit

The settlement in principle is pending court approval.

Xerox Holdings Corporation has agreed, in principle, to settle a 401(k) lawsuit with plaintiffs who alleged plan fiduciaries mismanaged the retirement plan by passing on to participants excessive fees for recordkeeping services.

Xerox will pay the $4.1 million gross settlement amount into a common fund established for the benefit of the settlement class and agree to intended provisions for prospective relief to plan participants, the court filing shows.

“Xerox maintains the company acted prudently and loyally at all times when acting in any fiduciary capacity with respect to the plan,” a spokesperson wrote in an email regarding the litigation. “The settlement avoids the risk and uncertainty of further litigation for both parties.”

Per the settlement, no later than five years from the effective date of the agreement, defendants will use an independent consultant to assist with a request for proposal, fee benchmarking study or other comparative analysis to ensure that the plan’s recordkeeping fees remain competitive, according to the plaintiffs’ memorandum of law in support of motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

The settlement and motion for approval follow a full day of in-person mediation with mediator David Geronemus on October 11, the filing shows.

The plaintiffs, represented by firms Nichols Kaster and Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald, Pirrotti, asked in their filing that the court approve the proposed settlement, calling the relief it grants “meaningful.”

“This relief directly addresses the core issue that plaintiffs raised in the lawsuit and is designed to ensure that the plan’s expenses are reasonable going forward,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote in the filing.

“This is a significant recovery for the class compared to the claims that were alleged, and it falls well within the range of negotiated settlements in similar ERISA cases,” the attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote. “The settlement also provides for meaningful prospective relief, as defendants have agreed to retain an independent consultant to assist them in ensuring that the plan’s recordkeeping fees remain competitive in the future by means of a request for proposal, fee benchmarking study or other comparative analysis.”

The plaintiffs’ motion asks the court enter an order:

  • Preliminarily approving the settlement;
  • Approving the proposed notices and authorizing distribution of the settlement notices to the settlement class;
  • Certifying the proposed settlement class;
  • Scheduling a final approval hearing; and
  • Granting any other relief described in the proposed preliminary approval order.


“Although defendants dispute the allegations and deny liability for any alleged violations of ERISA or any other law, they do not oppose relief sought in this motion,” the defense attorneys wrote.

The original complaint was brought before the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Xerox filed with the court a motion to dismiss the complaint, and it was heard and denied by Judge Sarala V. Nagala earlier this year.  

The proposed settlement applies to all participants and beneficiaries of the Xerox Corporation Savings Plan at any time from August 11, 2015, until January 1, 2021—excluding anyone responsible for the plan’s administrative functions or expenses—according to the plaintiffs’ attorneys motion for preliminary approval.

Based on the information provided by the defendants, there are approximately 36,000 settlement class members, according to the document.

Although not published with the memo, a copy of the class action settlement agreement was attached as Exhibit A to “an accompanying declaration of [plaintiffs’ attorney] Brock Specht,” with the Nichols Kaster firm, the court filing shows.

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

«