Business of Benefits : Employee Benefits Lawyer & Attorney : Law Office of Robert J. Toth, Jr. : 403(b) Plans, Annuity & Insurance Law : Business of Benefits Blog

I sat sown this morning to follow up with Part 2 of my mini-series addressing the fiduciary risks in purchasing DC annuities (link here to Part 1), when a Plan Sponsor magazine article caught my attention. It spoke of a study which linked  the lack of pensions with the risk of poverty among women and minorities. The study, by the National Institute on Retirement Security, claims that it provides hard data on the unique impact of defined benefit type of income on older Americans' economic well-being.

I do not know the Institute or the authors of the study, and the conclusions raise a while host of issues related to whether its the pensions or the type of employment related to the pensions. But the fundamental issue is one which served as a basis of my (now becoming) annual Mother's Day blog, "ERISA and Mom," . If I recall, it was studies like these which were presented to Congressional hearings leading to the passage of Retirement Equity Act of 1984. It also means that the risks may not have changed all that much over the past 25 years.

If the study holds water, it really does help answer the question of "why annuitize from a defined contribution plan?"  If there is indeed a demonstrable impact of maintaining a DB type of  program instead of just a DC type of program, annuitizing from a DC plan may be attractive to employers.

DC annuitization does some things a DB program cannot: it permits an employee to elect what percentage of his or her retirement benefit can be used to provide lifetime guarantees while permitting the choice between a wide variety of carriers with a wide variety of terms.

It may provide further impetus for employers who really do want a DB program but do  not want to deal with the risk exposure, hassle and expense of maintaining one.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Print This
• Email This

 The DOL's release of FAB 2009-2 may well more significant than I took at first glance. Soon after blogging on the release of the FAB and how it sets us up to develop a more permanent solution, Ellie Lowder and my colleagues Evan and Monica let me know of a different view: they believe that the relief only make sense if it applies to all years-as the data collection requirements in future years for those old contracts will only get worse, not better. The NTSAA has taken this position in a notice to their members.

The FAB itself is silent on the specifics of its application to future years, and it is clear that the DOL was focusing on the immediate problems posed by the 2009 Form 5500. But I'm now convinced after to talking to a number of colleagues that there is little reason to believe that this same reasoning will not apply to future years.  Should this position hold sway, and I believe it will, this is a pretty incredible move on the part of the DOL . It  addresses the most troubling of the new generation of 403(b) Title 1 issues.

The DOL's Lisa Alexander and I will be talking about those other pressing 403(b) Title 1 issues at ASPPA's  "DOL Speaks" in Washington on September 14 and 15. Come join us!

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Print This
• Email This

The DOL released to Field Assistance Bulletin 2009-2 on July 20th, which provides much needed Title 1 reporting relief for 403(b) plans. 

So, first of all, our hats off to Ass't Sec'y Borzi, for what looks to be one of her first public acts, and to the Good Bob Doyle, for showing true leadership in assisting a critical sector of our society which has been unduly burdened at a time their scarce resources are most needed elsewhere.   

Here's what the relief does:

 The 2009 Plan Year for 403(b) Plans has been recognized as a "Transitional Year."  This means that if an annuity contract or custodial account  to EITHER a former employee or current employee:

1. was issued before January 1, 2009;
2. had all contributions, or rights to contributions,  to it cease prior to 1/1/09;
3. has all of the rights enforceable against the insurer without involvement by the employer; and
4. holds only fully vested amounts,

assets in that contract will be excludible from the 2009 Form 5500 and 5500-SF.  Even better, those former employees owning those contracts will not need to be counted as participants toward that 100 participant threshold for large plans. (As an aside, there is a technical question about current employees: though they may be excludable by virtue of a pre-2009 contract, they may then be includable because of operation of the universal coverage rule, even if not owning a post 2008 contract).

Pretty incredible. Simple, clear and adminsterable.  Just for kicks, you may want to try to re-read Rev. Proc. 2007-71 again, just to appreciate how valuable the DOL's guidance really is.

It is not Nirvana by any stretch of the imagination. First of all it is all only transitional, but granted when it is needed the most and in a very timely fashion. We now have time to discuss the nature of permanent relief. Secondly, it is only for reporting purposes, not other Title 1 purposes such as spousal consent and others.

Next, though is a practical problem.  The third requirement mandates that all rights are enforceable without involvement of the employer. In the current environment, with vendors demanding employers' approval of all distributions from all contracts- even of those deselected vendors with no contributions after 12/31/2008 which employers have otherwise excluded from their plans- employer approval may make those contracts ineligible for exclusion from the 5500 and participant counts.

This is a bit sad, as often employers will sign these vendor imposed forms as a matter of convenience just as a way to help employees who need the money- lending truth to the axiom that no good deed will go unpunished.

Who knows. Perhaps Andy Zuckerman's fine staff (and they truly are a good bunch) is penning tax relief right now which would mirror that granted by the DOL......

I have updated this with a further blog with the following:

• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Print This
• Email This

 Annuity companies have been innovative in addressing marketplace concerns in the sale of guaranteed income annuities to individuals outside of 401(k) and 403(b) plans. The recession has spurred even more interest in these products, with insurers  telling us they are seeing an increased interest in both annuitization and in other  guaranteed insurance products. A number of these annuity products for the "non-pension" markets are beginning to show up in some defined contribution plans, though awkwardly so. Those product  designs don't typically fit well with ERISA's rules, and are often administered on computer platforms which don't support ERISA compliance.

The nut that is proving the hardest to crack is finding a way make these products available to 401(k) participants in a simple, compliant and seamless way, either as a form of distribution or as a way for participants to otherwise protect their investments within the plan-and many vendors have designed products attempting to meet these criteria.

Plan Sponsor co-hosted a webinar a few weeks ago with MetLife, in which the use of annuities as distributions from defined contributions were discussed. Kent Mason, an old friend and a fine lawyer with Davis and Harman, commented that he believed that one of the key reasons annuities and other longevity products were not being used by DC plans is because of the way the RMD rules apply to them. Though I hold Kent's opinions in the highest regard, I have to disagree with him on this point. I think instead the fiduciaries' concerns lie with the fear of locking up funds for a lifetime with a single company. I would go with the view of another longtime friend, Dan Herr of Lincoln Financial Group.  Dan's experience tells him that the key obstacle to the purchase of annuities for individuals  is something he calls the "4 I's": Irrevocability, Inflexibility, Inaccessibility and Invisibility. 

In applying Dan's theory to the 401(k) marketplace, it seems to me that addressing those "4 I's" would also serve to address the concerns of fiduciaries, to which I would add a fifth "I": Immobility (or, to be more precise, portability).

Lets take a look at each one of those "I's" separately, from a fiduciary's view. In this Part 1, I'll discuss Irrevocability. The other "I's" will be covered in blogs soon to come.

 Irrevocability

The traditional annuity, one in which a set price is paid for a set amount of lifetime income, is typically irrevocable. I call this "your grandpa's annuity."  Once a participant commits a substantial payment to the insurance company, it is gone for good.  This gives both fiduciaries and participants a great deal of heart burn. It locks a participant up for a lifetime, raising some very difficult fiduciary concerns about the predictability of an insurers' solvency. It is not a new concern, as  Individuals live with that same fear when they buy any life or annuity product-a concern about what I call the "30 year risk" (my apologies to the actuaries). 

It sees to me that the first element in an adequate fiduciary review is to get at least a layman's  grasp on the nature of insurance and insurance regulation. Pooling risks with others is an uncomfortable concept that is foreign to a fiduciary with a defined contribution mindset. The pooling of risk and the undertaking of this "30 year risk" are critical societal functions, but they pose significant risks to a state's citizens whose policyholders are unable to address individually. Because of this, states have uniformly stepped in to protect their citizenry by regulating insurance in ways of no other industry:

1. Reserves are required for the risks taken (one of the big AIG failures was that large levels of risk were taken on without any reserving by a non-insurance subsidiary which was not governed by an insurance regulatory authority);
2. The manner in which the reserves are  invested are heavily regulated for investment risk and type;
3. Insurance companies are regularly and comprehensively examined by state insurance authorities and must do substantial regular reporting on their assets and the nature of them.
4. Insurance companies are required to participate in their state guarantee associations to protect the policyholders of all companies within the state. (See the NOLHGA site for further information). This is an imperfect system, and insurance companies are severally restricted by law from discussing this guarantee with their policyholders. The best solution for the future is the proposal for a sort of FDIC program for plan annuities, as described by the David John,  Bill Gale of the Retirement Security Project and Mark Iwry, Ass't Treasury Sec'y.
5. Review of marketing material of all insurance products is required.

I would think that an adequate fiduciary review would have the fiduciaries acknowledging that the task they undertake is different from the mere investment of account balances; the standard against which they will be judged has necessarily a stronger insolvency risk; and that they have addressed that risk adequately-in part-by understanding and relying upon the state's regulatory role in managing the risk.

Fiduciaries can then further manage the risks by looking closely to the terms of the annuities being purchased. They can look for products that offer terms which address their concerns. For example, they can look  well-priced "outs" in the form of cash surrender options;  for products which are funded in part with separate accounts which are protected from the insurer's creditors; or for funds and guarantees which are partially re-insured by an unrelated insurance company-thus spreading the risk.

This should then be balanced and integrated into looking at how the other 4 "I's" are addressed- a topic of soon to be published blogs.

NOTE: I have moved offices (though still with Evan and Monica), moving back downtown (yes, Fort Wayne has a very nice downtown!).  I needed to change telephone numbers in the process.

My new contact information is:

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Print This
• Email This