Maximum Benefit and Contributions Limits 2008-09

As published by the Internal Revenue Service:

2009

2008

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

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003
2002
2001
2000
Elective Deferrals (401k & 403b plans)$16,500$15,500$15,500$15,000$14,000$13,000$12,000$11,000$10,500$10,500
Annual Benefit Limit$195,000$185,000$180,000$175,000$170,000$165,000$160,000$160,000$140,000$135,000
Annual Contribution Limit$49,000$46,000$45,000$44,000$42,000$41,000$40,000$40,000$35,000$30,000
Annual Compensation Limit$245,000$230,000$225,000$220,000$210,000$205,000$200,000$200,000$170,000$170,000
457 Deferral Limit$16,500$15,500$15,500$15,000$14,000$13,000$12,000$11,000$8,500$8,000
Highly Compensated Threshold$110,000$105,000$100,000$100,000$95,000$90,000$90,000$90,000$85,000$85,000
SIMPLE Contribution Limit$11,500$10,500$10,500$10,000$10,000$9,000$8,000$7,000$6,500$6,000
SEP Coverage$550$500$500$450$450$450$450$450$450$450
SEP Compensation Limit$245,000$230,000$225,000$220,000$210,000$205,000$200,000$200,000$170,000$170,000
Income Subject to Social Security$106,800$102,000$97,500$94,200$90,000$87,900$87,000$84,900$80,400$76,200
Top-Heavy Plan Key Employee Comp$160,000$150,000$145,000$140,000$135,000$130,000$130,000$130,000n/an/a
Catch-Up Contributions$5,500$5,000$5,000$5,000$4,000$3,000$2,000$1,000n/an/a
SIMPLE Catch-Up Contributions$2,500$2,500$2,500$2,500$2,000$1,500$1,000$500n/an/a

The Elective Deferral Limit is the maximum contribution that can be made on a pre-tax basis to a 401(k) or 403(b) plan (Internal Revenue Code section 402(g)(1)). Some still refer to this as the $7,000 limit (its original setting in 1987).

The 457 Deferral Limit is a similar restriction, applied to certain government plans (457 plans).

The Annual Benefit Limit is the maximum annual benefit that can be paid to a participant (IRC section 415). The limit applied is actually the lessor of the dollar limit above or 100% of the participant’s average compensation (generally the high three consecutive years of service). The participant compensation level is also subjected to the Annual Compensation Limit noted above.

The Annual Contribution Limit is the maximum annual contribution amount that can be made to a participant’s account (IRC section 415). This limit is actually expressed as the lessor of the dollar limit or 100% of the participant’s compensation, applied to the combination of employee contributions, employer contributions and forfeitures allocated to a participant’s account. This limit was increased for the first time since its inception last year.

In calculating contribution allocations, a plan cannot consider any employee compensation in excess of the Annual Compensation Limit (401(a)(17)). This limit is also imposed in determining the Annual Benefit Limit (above). In calculating certain nondiscrimination tests (such as the Actual Deferral Percentage), all participant compensation is limited to this amount, for purposes of the calculation.

The Highly Compensated Threshold (section 414(q)(1)(B)) is the minimum compensation level established to determine highly compensated employees for purposes of nondiscrimination testing.

The SIMPLE Contribution Limit is the maximum annual contribution that can be made to a SIMPLE (Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees) plan. SIMPLE plans are simplified retirement plans for small businesses that allow employees to make elective contributions, while requiring employers to make matching or nonelective contributions.

SEP Coverage Limit is the minimum earnings level for a self-employed individual to qualify for coverage by a Simplified Employee Pension plan (a special individual retirement account to which the employer makes direct tax-deductible contributions).

The SEP Compensation Limit is applied in determining the maximum contributions made to the plan.

Catch up Contributions, SIMPLE “Catch up” Deferral: Under the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Act of 2001 (EGTRRA), certain individuals aged 50 or over can make so-called ‘catch up’ contributions, in addition to the above limits.

EGTRRA also added the Top-Heavy Plan Key Employee Compensation Limit.

A Surge Ahead for Retail Wealth Management

Retail wealth management, particularly in the fee-based arena, could come out of the financial crisis much stronger, according to a recent TowerGroup report.

The report says the current credit crisis might re-engerize recruitment efforts at registered investment advisory (RIA) firms. The firm expects significant short-term growth, as the industry responds to both regulation and restructuring. Advisers who can catch younger clients will be able to make the most of future business opportunties.

TowerGroup notes that the repercussions of September 2008 market events are “reshaping the playing field.” As advisers from one firm are absorbed into another firm, many will be left as free agents. And where will they go? TowerGroup predicts they will go to the independent channel.

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

The firm says banks and their affiliated bank broker/dealers are well-positioned to capitalize on the shift to fee-based advisory as well as the demand for more holistic advisory services—a migration the firm has long anticipated (see Affluent Most In-Demand for Retirement Income Services).

At first, leading independent RIA platform providers were bringing on many new advisers every month, but that pace slowed. According to TowerGroup, at the height of the RIA conversion in 2003, leading independent RIA platform providers brought on more than 40 RIAs per month, many of whom came from “established regional and bulge-bracket firms.” In the first half of 2008, TowerGroup says some of the same providers brought on less than a third of those 2003 numbers.

TowerGroup also suggests that many of the assets entering the fee-based model were already captive assets and therefore do not represent true organic growth for the industry. The firms sees a trend of advisers with 10 or more years of experience and mature books of business converting to the RIA model—a sign of a more stable business. “A large portion of these assets were already at the firm in non-fee-based accounts, so some of this growth amounts to little more than a journal entry.”

But, as noted above, the firm predicts that the future will see a new growth out of all of this destruction, similar to the growth at the beginning of the decade. “Breakaway” brokers will look to the RIA model and broker/dealers look to move to fees. Today’s environment might accelerate the conversion to a fee-based advisory model for many advisers who might otherwise have been undecided, the firm says.

 

Windows of Opportunity

 

Currently, TowerGroup data show that the five leading financial firms (Merrill Lynch, UBS Wealth Management US, Smith Barney, Morgan Stanley, and Wachovia) have 20% to 40% of assets under revenue in fee-based accounts. Merrill Lynch has the highest percent in fee-based (39%), and Wachovia has the lowest (20%). Several of them receive more than half of the percentage of their total revenue from fee-based accounts (UBS, Smith Barney, and Wachovia). Merrill receives almost half of its total revenue from fee-based accounts (49%), and Morgan Stanley receives the lowest, at 27%.

TowerGroup sees banks and affiliated broker/dealers as well-positioned to capitalize on the fee-based advisory shift and capture future clients. Among the many reasons why, TowerGroup says they are able to provide consumers with complex financial needs, centered on retirement, health care, legacy planning, philanthropy, and wealth transfer.

There’s no doubt all types of advisers and firms will benefit from what TowerGroup calls a “renaissance in wealth management.” TowerGroup emphasizes that to capture the clients of the future, advisers should look to young clients. The window of opportunity is when there is little competition and low cost of acquisition of the clients, around the ages of 25 to 40. After 40, there is increased competition and increasing cost of acquiring clients (see Y Not?).


«