The ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) submitted comments in response to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation’s (PBGC) proposed rule regarding missing participants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 4050.
ERIC
notes that the legislative authority to create the PBGC’s missing
participants program was limited to terminated defined contribution (DC)
plans, but, it says, it would be beneficial to work toward extending
the program to all DC plans. “A system of multiple missing participant
programs at multiple agencies would be inefficient and lead to confusion
for plan sponsors and participants. If the PBGC missing participant
program for terminated defined contribution plans is successful, it
would be more efficient to extend it to all defined contribution plans,
rather than wait for another federal agency to create a separate missing
participant program for all other retirement plans,” Will Hansen, vice
president of Retirement Policy at ERIC, wrote in the comment letter.
ERIC
also suggests that the PBGC lower the fee waiver threshold from a $250
or less account balance to a $1,000 or less account balance. Hansen
notes that if an account balance is $251, the $35 fee represents 14% of
the account balance. The letter argues this is cost-prohibitive for plan
sponsors.
If the PBGC doesn’t lower the fee waiver threshold,
ERIC suggests a tiered fee structure—for example, $15 for account
balances between $251 and $500; $25 for account balances between $501
and $1,000, and $35 for account balances greater than $1,000.
In
addition, ERIC encourages the PBGC to always maintain the voluntary
nature of the program. “Mandates on plan sponsors does not yield
additional retirement savings or overall support for the employer-based
system,” Hansen wrote.
Finally, ERIC encouraged the PBGC to
incorporate a system that will allow the agency to electronically roll
over a claimed account balance from the participant to a qualified
retirement plan of the participant. “An electronic rollover instead of a
paper check may provide a greater likelihood that the funds distributed
will be maintained for the purpose of retirement,” Hansen wrote.
ERIC’s comment letter may be viewed here.