Some Optional SECURE 2.0 Provisions Seeing Minimal Traction

A majority of plan sponsors are not planning to add options such as emergency sidecar accounts or employer matching to Roth contributions, according to a new Alight survey.

As 2025 begins, employers appear to be carefully incorporating some of the optional provisions made available by the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 and simultaneously shying away from other benefits that were anticipated to gain more traction.

According to Alight’s “2025 Hot Topics in Retirement and Financial  ,” based on data from a survey of 122 employers in September 2024, plan sponsors have shown interest in adding features like hardship self-certification, but less interest in emergency sidecar savings.

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

Currently, about 30% of employers have incorporated hardship self-certification, and 15% of employers said they have definite plans to add this feature. Of those who said they will definitely or likely add the feature, more than half said they plan to add it in 2025. Hardship self-certification allows plan sponsors to rely on employees’ written self-certification that their hardship withdrawals fulfill one of the approved safe harbor hardship reasons and that the distribution does not exceed the amount required to satisfy the financial need.

The option for employees to take out up to $10,000 due to domestic abuse demonstrated particular interest: 15% of employers said they will definitely add this option, and 19% said they are likely to add it.

Many employers have also increased the individual retirement account force-out limit for vested balances up to $7,000, with 14% saying they are definitely adding this feature in 2025. Significantly fewer employers said they will be adding an employer match to Roth contributions and nonelective employer contributions to Roth.

Limited Pickup for Several 2025 Provisions

The optional provision to include a $2,500 emergency savings sidecar account has gained minimal traction, with merely 1% of employers adopting it so far. No employers reported to Alight that they are committed to adding it in 2025, and 33% said they are definitely not adding it.

Rob Austin, head of thought leadership at Alight Solutions, says one of the biggest barriers to adoption is the administrative hurdle faced when participant accounts near the $2,500 threshold. The savings account contributions are made on a Roth basis, and the sidecar account is capped at $2,500, which means additional contributions must go to a different account—most likely the before-tax 401(k) plan, Austin said via email. As a result, payroll departments often need time to change between Roth and before-tax contributions.

Some employers have expressed disinterest in connecting an emergency savings account to the retirement plan, fearing that employees will treat their 401(k) accounts as sources for short-term liquidity needs, rather than as long-term savings vehicles.

However, employers in Alight’s survey expressed some interest in adding the annual $1,000 emergency withdrawal option to their plans, with 12% saying they will definitely add this feature at some point.

Another optional provision struggling for employer take-up is the option to make matching contributions for student loan repayments. Almost 75% of workers say they want help from their employer to reduce their student loan debt or refinance at lower rates, Alight found. But only a handful of employers are offering tools to help, and only 5% of employers are currently offering the student loan 401(k) matching benefit authorized by SECURE 2.0.

With more recordkeepers developing the infrastructure to offer student loan matching, Alight’s report predicted that the prevalence of this benefit will increase in 2025.

Lastly, the recordkeeper found very low interest in pooled employer plans, as 93% of employers said they are not at all interested, and none said they were very interested in joining one in 2025. According to Austin, one possible explanation is that many large employers feel they already receive institutional pricing on funds, a primary benefit of a PEP.

More Sharing to Come

In planning for longer-term changes, legal uncertainty and a lack of clarity from the Department of Labor and IRS are causing some hesitation from plan sponsors, according to the survey results. Nearly half of employers said they need more legal clarity before adding the Saver’s Match contribution, which aims to help low- and moderate-income workers save for retirement by providing a nonrefundable tax credit. Only 1% of employers said they will definitely add the Saver’s Match feature, which does not take effect until 2027.

Austin says the Saver’s Match will require a new level of sharing between plans and the federal government. For example, the government will need to know who participates in each plan and will also need a mechanism to securely deposit funds into participants’ accounts.

“Several nuances and details are yet to be ironed out, such as how the Saver’s Match will work for married couples,” he says. “We are hopeful that the infrastructure and clarity is established before the Saver’s Match is effective in 2027.”

Biden Signs Social Security Fairness Act

The law will boost Social Security benefits for nearly 3 million public workers.

President Joe Biden

President Joe Biden signed into law on Sunday the Social Security Fairness Act, which will boost Social Security benefits for almost 3 million public workers.

The bipartisan legislation, just passed by Congress in December, repealed two provisions that reduced Social Security benefits for certain public workers who also receive pensions, including teachers, police officers and firefighters.

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

“The law that existed denied million of Americans access to the full Social Security benefits they earned by thousands of dollars a year,” Biden said during a televised event at the White House. “That denial of benefits also applied to surviving spouses of public service employees.”

The law repeals the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset provision of Social Security, which reduced Social Security benefits for more than four decades for public workers who receive pensions from state and federal jobs.

The reduced benefits were “particularly salient given county workforce shortages, potentially deterring talent from serving in the public sector,” according to a post by the National Association of Counties, which advocates for county governments. Restoring full benefits will result in some retired public servants seeing an increase of up to $587 in monthly benefits, according to the International Association of Fire Fighters.

“After 40 years of being treated like second-class citizens, a wrong has finally been righted, and millions of retirees can afford to retire with dignity—and with the Social Security benefits they earned and paid into,” IAFF General President Edward Kelly said in a statement. “Repealing the WEP/GPO has been one of my top priorities as General President.”

The U.S. Senate voted 76 to 20 to pass the act, H.R. 82, on December 21, 2024. The U.S. House of Representatives had passed H.R. 82 on November 12, 2024, by a vote of 327 to 75.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there were about 745,679 people—about 1% of Social Security beneficiaries—who had their benefits reduced by the Government Pension Offset. Meanwhile, about 2.1 million people—about 3% of beneficiaries—were affected by the Windfall Elimination Provision, according to the IAFF. About 71.6 million people receive Social Security, according to the Office of Retirement and Disability Policy.

The bill will result in increased payments to affected workers from the Social Security Administration, the future management of which will likely be discussed after President-elect Donald Trump takes office later this month. The benefit’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and Disability Insurance Trust Fund are projected to become insolvent in 2035, resulting in a reduction of benefits, unless legislators take action.

«