Breaking Into the Tribal Retirement Plan Market

When working with tribal nations, building a solid relationship is the first and most important step.

The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) established that tribal government employee benefit plans would not be treated as governmental plans, unless all the participants in the plan were performing essential governmental and not commercial activities.

So, any tribal employee benefit plans covering any “commercial” employees—for instance, those working in tribal gaming operations—must comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code in the same way as employer-sponsored plans in the private sector.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

An exception occurs under 457 regulations, says Jennifer McCoy, senior plan consultant with Strategic Retirement Partners in Shorewood, Illinois. Those regulations do not recognize tribal governments, so they cannot sponsor a 457 governmental plan. As a result, tribal governments commonly set up 403(b) or 401(k) plans, she explains.

“There are general guidelines and facts and circumstance testing that can be applied to determine what functions fall under the government or the enterprise activities,” she says. Tribal governments can sponsor an ERISA-compliant plan that covers the employees of enterprise as well as government entities, or they can sponsor two separate plans: one that is an ERISA-compliant plan for commercial entities, and a non-ERISA plan for government employees. 

McCoy, who has worked with tribal governments using both approaches, explains that the non-ERISA plan for government employees is not subject to compliance testing, Form 5500 filings and disclosure requirements, and plan oversight is self-regulated.

As sovereign nations, explains Cory Blankenship, associate vice president and relationship manager, retirement services at USI Consulting Group in Knoxville, Tennessee, tribes understand their relationship with the federal government as one of government to government. They are at times subject to federal law, which can occasionally limit the tribe’s degree of sovereignty.

“It is our inherent right to govern ourselves and our affairs,” says Blankenship, who is a member of the Cherokee tribe.

NEXT: Relationship management in tribal nation plans

Blankenship recommends first developing a relationship with the tribe and engaging with the community of the tribe for a lasting relationship. “The relationship is very important,” he says, “it’s more than a name or power behind a well-known firm or a large firm.” While Native American tribes do business with large firms, they want to know the members of a team.

Each tribe does business differently, Blankenship explains, with some only doing business by consensus and others more willing to delegate to decisions to some members.

Whether dealing with an investment management or advisory, Blankenship says many tribes look for an organization that gives back to the community in some way, and most firms will do well if they have professionals on staff that are able to communicate flexibly: with tribal council, or individuals in the organization.

“Relationships can take a long time to develop, Blankenship cautions. “Gain trust, demonstrate an appropriate level concern as well as the stability of your team.” He notes that tribes may be leery of firms with high turnover or where a manager has a high number of accounts, and that low cost may be relatively unimportant in the face of other characteristics. Tribes look for relationship, expertise and a firm that will put in the time to understand all the nuances

“It’s important to understand why a tribal government has made their decision to maintain one plan or separate into two,” McCoy says. “If helping with a vendor or third-party administrator search it’s important to ensure the service providers have an understanding of tribal government plans and are set up to communicate properly on the ERISA plan as opposed to the non-ERISA plan.  Tribal governments may have employees covered under certain treaties that may impact how compensation is calculated and this should be reviewed thoroughly when drafting plan documents and plan compensation definitions for ERSIA compliant plans.”

Blankenship’s tribe, with lands at the southern Gate of Smoky Mountain National Park, has had a tourism economy since the 1940s, with restaurants, gift shops and other retail businesses. He explains that it is the most-visited park in the National Park system, and tribal lands must be crossed to access the park at the southern end in North Carolina.

NEXT: Multiple plans in a tribal nation

Blankenship explains the tribe has rolled up all the entities—including a hospital, a school system, vocational opportunities program—into two 501(c)(3)s. Since the tribe’s gaming operation is a commercial operation, its retirement plans are subject to ERISA—but the tribe’s government plan is not.

Blankenship’s tribe also offers a defined benefit (DB) plan for elected officials. When someone is elected to a tribal council position, he explains, he does not earn Social Security benefits during that period of service. “For many tribes, when members come into leadership positions they’re there for an extended time,” perhaps six or seven terms, Blankenship explains, during which they do not pay into the Social Security system. The DB was created in order for these members to earn retirement benefits while serving their tribal nation.

What tribes want, Blankenship says, is to know that the plan is keeping pace, making sure it’s well funded, that the tribe sponsoring the plan understands actuarial values, where the tribe needs to be, and the future liabilities.

The plan should promote the social and financial well-being of a tribe. Since the tribe provides employment to tribal members, across different tribes situations can vary. For example, some 80 or so tribes across the country have access to gaming. Blankenship explains that because of geography, other tribes may not be as fortunate—perhaps the location makes them less likely to take advantage of tourism, or they cannot enter the gaming space because of some federal acknowledgement that prevents the enterprise.

Some, new to economic development and with almost no previous opportunities for competitive wages, now want to be able to provide benefits and opportunities for growth, and a plan should allow enrolled members to be able to retire with good benefits, Blankenship says.

Many tribes are concerned about Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, Blankenship says, with some taking the position they are not subject to these regulations because they are sovereign nations, but any practitioner of Indian law knows that this would be the case only when a federal law has explicit language that excludes Indian tribes. Each tribe does business differently, Blankenship explains, with some only doing business by consensus and others more willing to delegate decisions to some members.

An Indian tribe is not just any other government, Blankenship says. “Its functions are unique and complex. You really need a team that understands federal law, state law and tribal law.”

ICI Questions Analysis Behind California Secure Choice Plan

Supporters say the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program will provide a voluntary, low-risk, auto-enrollment retirement savings plan for many uncovered workers in the state. 

The California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program was approved by Governor Jerry Brown back in 2012, but it has yet to receive the blessing of some of the major defined contribution (DC) plan industry groups operating in the state.

Among the opposition stands the Investment Company Institute (ICI), which represents the interests of nearly 40 member companies located in California, with about 16,000 employees in the state and $3.5 trillion in assets under management. ICI says these California-based companies, as well as mutual fund companies based outside of California, provide affordable and highly performing investments and other services to large numbers of retirement plans and individual retirement savers in California.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

It’s not hard to predict where the ICI’s opposition to the Secure Choice Program is rooted, given its national footprint and the desire of its members to remain key players in the delivery of affordable and effective retirement plans to the large and productive private U.S. workforce. While ICI says it wholeheartedly supports the goal of the Secure Choice Program—i.e., getting more people saving for and engaged in their own retirement—it feels the new program will only create more complexity for providers and consumers while doing little to help peoples’ actual financial health. People need more money to save and more education about how to save, ICI says, not another type of account. 

Beyond the concerns about an increasing lack of consistency among the states’ individual approaches to public DC programs for private sector workers, ICI members are “concerned that the program participants or California taxpayers—or most likely both—will find themselves bearing unanticipated costs as a result of the program.” They suggest program raises important and open legal questions as well, which could lead to litigation and other unforeseen hurdles.

“In particular, [the law that established the Secure Choice Program] requires that prior to implementation, the board must find that the program accounts will qualify for the favorable federal income tax treatment accorded to IRAs under the Internal Revenue Code, and that the program is not an employee benefit plan under ERISA,” the ICI explains. “As we all know, the ERISA status of state-based programs is the subject of a pending rulemaking project at the U.S. Department of Labor.”

The ICI further cites the fiduciary rulemaking as another reason to slow the implementation of the Secure Choice Program, until it’s clearer how individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and any other accounts or products touching workplace retirement accounts are to be treated from the fiduciary perspective.

NEXT: California confident in its plan 

For its part, the state says it is confident that it has a good understanding of how the program will be rolled out and how much it will cost whom. To explain as much, the state published an extensive feasibility study submitted to the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Investment Board (SCIB) by Overture Financial LLC, clocking in at a cool 524 pages.

ICI says the detailed report, while including copious amounts of statistics and data, still is far from comprehensive. The report’s writers, unsurprisingly, disagree, noting the final report “represents the culmination of many months of collaboration between Overture Financial and its sub-contractors, the board, California Secure Choice personnel and contractors, stakeholders in the public and private sectors, service providers, employers and employer associations, worker organizations, and community groups.”

According to the report, the Secure Choice Program could immediately benefit about 6.8 million workers who are potentially eligible. According to Overture’s analysis, likely participation rates are around 70% to 90%, based on polling data. This is “sufficiently high to enable the program to achieve broad coverage well above the minimum threshold for financial sustainability,” they argue.

Further, the report cites polling data to the effect that “eligible participants in California are equally comfortable with a 3% or 5% contribution rate.” Setting a 5% auto-enrollment figure will be a strong start towards retirement readiness for lower- and middle-income workers, the report argues, especially considering the vast majority of likely participants surveyed are also comfortable with auto-escalation in 1% increments up to 10%.

“To start, the program should offer a default investment option consisting of a diversified portfolio with long-term growth potential and the choice to opt into a low-risk investment,” the report recommends. “Given its inherent portability, the program should have a lower incidence of rollovers and cash-outs than employer-sponsored 401(k) plans, which often force workers with low balances to close their accounts. At the same time, pre-retirement withdrawals are likely to be higher for the program given eligible workers’ income profile.“

Overture concludes that the program launch “should include a concerted public education campaign focused on workers and small businesses.”

The ICI contends this is all overly optimistic, and further warns that it is “seriously concerned that initiatives like that under consideration in California will ultimately lead to the creation of a fragmented, state-by-state system of retirement savings for private sector workers. A patchwork of state-run programs, each with its own unique rules, has the potential to harm the voluntary system for retirement savings that is helping millions of American private-sector workers achieve retirement security.”

«