As part of the DOL’s efforts under Executive Order 14192, titled Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation (90 FR 9065, Feb. 6, 2025), the Department undertook to withdraw two seemingly innocuous annuity regulations which, by any cursory review, appeared to have outlived their usefulness. I would suspect that most of us didn’t give those withdrawals a second
![IMG_2337[73]](https://www.businessofbenefits.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/832/2025/04/IMG_233773.jpg)
Executive’s Life’s 1991 collapse made a mockery of the insurance company rating system. Just months prior to its demise, S&P had given that insurer its highest rating (AAA, “Extremely strong capacity to meet financial commitments”) and Moody’s was awarding it one of their highest ratings at a1. An excellent review of this debacle was published
The ongoing Pension Risk Transfer (PRT) litigation poignantly demonstrates the growing importance of the SECURE Act’s “Annuity Safe Harbor” provision to the continuing efforts to design and develop responsive DC Lifetime Income programs.
The PRT plaintiffs claim fiduciary violations of the DOL’s “safest available annuity” (or “SAU”) requirements under DOL Reg 29 CFR 2550.404a–4 by
A title like this one was bound to happen; and I was tempted to publish it on April Fool’s Day-except that its really not a joke.
Where it comes from is the simple fact that any DC Lifetime Income Program (ok, why not, lets use the acronym “DCLIP” while we’re at it) that guarantees lifetime
You may’ve noticed that the SECURE Act introduced yet another new twist to the 403(b) world: the Qualified Plan Distribution Annuity Contract (“QPDAC”-you may want to look at my prior blog related to these lifetime income acronyms). Its not that Congress was singly out 403(b) plans, as 401(a) and 457(b) plansnow also have the ability to distribute QPDAC. But, as in all other things 403(b)s, there are a number of unique twists to the rules which exist solely in the 403(b) world.
Continue Reading The 403(b) “Qualified Plan Distribution Annuity Contract” Under SECURE Section 109
This is a pretty exciting time in the DC marketplace. Years of work from a number of different quarters seem to be finally beginning to coalesce on the notion of sanely “decumulating” assets from DC plans. I wonder if a measure of this all may not be the growing catalog of acronyms associated with annuities,
Common PEP problems are barely addressed by the SECURE Act’s fix to the “one bad apple” rule (called the “unified plan rule” by the IRS, under which a participating employer’s disqualification error will disqualify the entire plan), though there seems to be a common misunderstanding in the industry to the contrary. That new “bad apple” fix actually has very little operational impact on a MEP /PEP whose operations has been affected by that bad actor. It provides only a narrow remedy to a narrow issue by which a P3 or lead sponsor can get rid of an employer who causes an operational/qualification error in the plan-though it may take up to a year to do so if one is to follow the IRS’s pre-SECURE Act proposed regs.
Continue Reading The Limited Utility of the “One Bad Apple” Rule Fix
The new PEP rules do not add any new services to the marketplace. Rather, PEPs merely reorganize existing services to be provided in a different format, with the one exception is that it now permits unrelated employers to be able to file a consolidated Form 5500. The Department’s issuance of guidance as to the allocation of these different authorities (consistent with in ERISA Section 3(44)(C) which requires the Department to ‘‘(i) to identify the administrative duties and other actions required to be performed by a pooled plan provider…”) is a required condition precedent to the determination of whether any prohibited transaction exemptive relief is necessary in the operation of a PEP.
Continue Reading PEP Comment to DOL Outlines the Structure of PEPs
Normally, all of the players in any ERISA plan’s life cycle operates under any number of these well-established PTEs. However, in that the PEP is a new sort of arrangement, it is not entirely clear that these existing PTEs will be sufficient to pay all of the PEP players. To address this crucial issue, the DOL has issued a Request for Information on June 18 to gather information on what further, if any, PTE relief will be needed to make the PEP work.There are two noteworthy developments related to these efforts, s the ARA/ASPPA letter to EBSA requesting PTE relief for PEP operatives and, is the letter Congressman Neal wrote to the EBSA.
Continue Reading Rep. Neal and ARA/ASPPA Differently Address Fundamental Issues Underlying the DOL’s Pooled Employer Plan “Request For Information”
There is in the SECURE Act a volume of small, odd, technical details which need to which attention needs to be paid. This statute is a technocrat’s dream. So much in there actually raises fundamental infrastructure issues of the sort we rarely see. We are all familiar with the 80/20 rule, with the caution of not letting perfection become the enemy of good. Well, these “oddities” raise the exact inverse of the 80/20 rule: through my long years in retirement product development, the highest risk of failure arise from the lack of understanding of how the smallest of details can tank a multi-million dollar project. The “80” may sound good conceptually and structurally, but it is in the implementation of the detail in the 20 which will determine the success of the project.
Continue Reading Tontines and PEP Late Deferrals Are Among the SECURE Act’s Impactful, Infrastructure Oddities