Getting Correct Information from Plan Sponsor Clients

Retirement plan advisers and third-party administrators (TPAs) are likely to find information gaps when performing assessments of retirement plan census data or client ownership data, according to Natalie Wyatt at Innovest.

In addition to plan sponsor oversights and lack of knowledge, information gaps can happen when there has been an acquisition, sale, or divesting of a plan sponsor’s business, says Wyatt, senior sales representative with Innovest, which provides technology services to trust, wealth management and retirement professionals. Information integrity can also be compromised during a change in officers or ownership of the business, or during a partial plan termination.

Wyatt addressed the topic during a session at the 2014 American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (ASPPA) Annual Conference. She reminded attendees that recent changes to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) require plan sponsors to revisit employee data. 

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

Plan advisers may be responsible for coordinating the submission of employee census data to retirement plan advisers. Common errors to watch for include:

  • Date of hire – Was the employee hired for a part-time or full-time position? Is the employee a rehire with prior dates of service?
  • Date of termination – Did the employee go from full-time to part-time, transfer to another division, or really terminate?
  • Contract labor – The Department of Labor (DOL) keeps an eye out for employees that are misclassified as contractors.
  • Hours worked – Does the plan sponsor know how to properly calculate hours worked for eligibility and participation?
  • Compensation – Is the plan sponsor submitting the correct compensation per the definition in the plan? There could be a different definition of compensation in the plan for different things, such as allocating contributions or forfeitures and key employee or highly compensated employee for top heavy and nondiscrimination testing purposes.

Wyatt suggested plan advisers establish a checklist for information they need and errors to look out for, and have a process in place for all staff to use when coordinating data from plan sponsors to plan providers.

One of the best ways to motivate plan sponsors to ensure data is correct is the fear factor, she says. “Let them know what happens if regulators find an error due to incorrect information.”

Advisers and third-party administrators (TPAs) are not required to educate plan sponsors about how to determine the correct information, but if they have good communications with and can educate plan sponsors, they can ensure they receive good information, Wyatt noted.

To educate and remind plan sponsors about providing good census and ownership information, Wyatt suggested using the seven learning styles. Advisers and TPAs can’t always figure out a plan sponsor’s learning style, so apply several styles to communications.

Learning styles and strategies include:

  • Visual learning style uses pictures, images, spatial understanding – Advisers and TPAs can use power point demonstrations, web demonstrations, or activities in which plan sponsors can test a process for submitting information;
  • Auditory learning style uses sound and music – Adviser and TPAs can use lectures, information sessions, and plan sponsor discussions and meetings to educate and remind plan sponsors about submitting information;
  • Linguistic learning styles use words in speech and writing – Articles, alerts, emails and memos can educate and remind plan sponsors;
  • Physical learning styles use your body, hands, and sense of touch – Advisers and TPAs can use hands-on interactions to demonstrate processes and methods that require plan sponsors to take action;
  • Logical learning styles use logic, reasoning and systems – Let plan sponsors know why providing the correct information is important;
  • Social learning styles use groups and other people – Advisers and TPAs can hold meetings with a group of plan sponsors to demonstrate how to calculate and provide correct information; and
  • Solitary learning styles include working alone and self-study – Videos and training modules can give plan sponsors a sense of control.

To get correct information, advisers and TPAs will need to communicate with each other; the human resources staff at the plan sponsor; the plan sponsor’s payroll provider, certified public accountant (CPA) or attorney; and the plan sponsors themselves.

Wyatt noted that if plan sponsors outsource the HR or payroll functions, it can be a challenge to get correct census information because outsourced providers typically provide a standard set of information and only provide gross income for participants. It could cause extra work for advisers and TPAs, and this should be documented in service agreements.

When working with payroll departments or providers, advisers and TPAs can help set up processes to make sure they will get correct information.  In addition, Wyatt said, there are software providers that offer online solutions to help plan sponsors gather census data.

In addition, setting up a calendar of reminders to send plan sponsors can help, such as a reminder at the beginning of December about what the plan definition of compensation is, or asking plan sponsors in January whether they had any rehires in the past year.  

A conference attendee from Unified Trust said the company spends a good amount of time onboarding clients, determining the proper definition of compensation, looking at what the payroll vendor is providing in its files, making sure plan sponsors check and update information with each payroll file.

Wyatt suggested plan advisers and TPAs get employers to sign a statement that data they provided is accurate. In addition, she said advisers and TPAs may sometimes need to harass non-responsive employers to provide data. If clients continue to be non-responsive, it may be time to discontinue the relationship, she added.

Ideas to Think About After 40 Years of ERISA

Between some reminiscing about what it was like to be part of shaping and enforcing the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) when it was constructed and afterwards, a group of industry veterans discussed what good came out of the law and what is still disappointing.

Alvin Lurie, president of Alvin D. Lurie, P.C., who served as assistant commissioner of Internal Revenue (Employee Plans & Exempt Organizations) from 1974 to 1978, noted that with ERISA, for the first time, two regulators—that did not always like each other—had to work together to establish rules and enforce the law. It was not without its bumps in the road, but the Department of Labor (DOL) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) paired well on this singular focus.

According to Harry Conaway, head of Mercer’s Washington Resource Group, and former associate tax legislative counsel in the Office of Tax Policy at the U.S. Treasury Department, the best thing about ERISA is its pre-emption of state laws. “The ERISA pre-emption—setting up a federal framework for the provision of benefits to employees was the best thing,” he told attendees at the 2014 American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (ASPPA) Annual Conference.

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

Dallas Salisbury, president and CEO of the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), who joined EBRI as the chief staff executive at its founding in 1978, said ERISA’s funding standards and fiduciary standards—which protect employees’ benefits security and make sure those responsible for plans and investments are working in the best interest of employees—are the best things about ERISA.

However, Mark Iwry, senior advisor and deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Treasury, said there is a single disappointment with ERISA: the continued lack of retirement plan coverage of American workers. “The employer retirement system has done great things, but we need to do more to cover the 20 million Americans making $30,000 to $40,000 per year who do not have an employer-sponsored retirement plan,” he stated.

Lurie pointed out that, at the time ERISA was passed, legislators and regulators had no idea the retirement industry would shift to a mostly defined benefit (DB) plan landscape to a defined contribution (DC) plan landscape.

Ann Combs, principal and head of Vanguard Government Relations, and former assistant secretary of labor for the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), noted this is one reason why the Social Security system and its continued solvency are so important.

On the subject of combining systems to ensure a financially healthy retirement for Americans, Lurie noted that health care and retirement are now competing “at the same trough” for employee savings. “There’s not enough money for both; America needs something that will cover both,” he said.

Salisbury agreed that the combining of resources will be the best thing for Americans. “Having a 401(k) or IRA can disqualify a person for food stamps, for example,” he said. “All groups need to work together to come up with a way to help Americans have security in retirement without sacrificing their needs today.”

«