PSNC 2017: Working With Departed and Retired Participants

Panelists discussed ways participants can make smart withdrawal decisions, one being with advice from recordkeepers. 

Early in the 2017 PLANSPONSOR National Conference panel, “Working With Departed and Retired Participants,” a live polling question found equal amounts of plan sponsors are maintaining, neglecting or deciding whether to keep terminated and/or retirement participants’ assets in their plan.

Among plan sponsors, 29% are preserving these assets, while an additional 29% are not. Another 29% answered they “don’t know,” while the remaining percent voted it “depends on asset amount.” 

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

William Beardsley, senior vice president of LPL Financial, mentioned that for most terminated and/or retired participants, they choose to stay in the plan. Keeping assets in the plan can help plan sponsors with economies of scale to get lower administrative fees. On the other hand, some employees decide taking their assets to a new employer or an individual retirement account (IRA) is the best decision.

“It really is up to that individual employee,” Beardsley said. “They should get good guidance and assistance from a third-party.”

Jean Roma, director of US Retirement and International Benefits at Citi, agreed with Beardsley, and mentioned how participants who understand their actions won’t face troubles regarding retirement assets. 

“As long as people know what they’re doing, they’ve looked at fees and options with how they’re going to rollover, then that’s fine,” she said.

 NEXT: Plan design resources to implement 

 

To help participants draw down assets, Roma urged plan sponsors to consider incorporating a lifetime income solution, a guaranteed minimum withdrawal benefit (GMWB) or solution for purchasing an annuity at retirement to provide a steady income stream for retirees fearful of running out of assets in retirement. Additionally, Roma mentioned how this plan design option can help plan sponsors with fiduciary responsibilities to those with assets in the plan. 

“Instead of a true guarantee, [a GMWB is] more about managing the account for the participant,” she said. “It’ll change the mix of equities and bonds to make sure that while it’s not a true investment guarantee, it is signed off and participants can trust it.”

While incorporating a lifetime income solution can calm the nerves of some preparing for stable retirement savings, Beardsley recommended calling in professionals. Utilizing recordkeepers, such as a 3(16) fiduciary, he said, adds an extra layer of retirement readiness for participants. “Recordkeepers have the capability to show, this is what a lifetime income can look like,” he said.

However, Beardsley said, saving is always tougher for the lower-income workers—those cashing out less than $100,000 balances. That’s why, the panelists said, the Department of Labor (DOL) introduced the Lifetime Income Disclosure Act. Under this legislation, presented by the Senate and the House of Representatives in April to Congress, employer-sponsored retirement plans would be mandated to provide participants with monthly income estimates during retirement, should workers choose to purchase annuities. If passed, employers may consider implementing this to downsize the risk of running out of retirement income for retirees.   

401(k) Self-Dealing Suit Filed Against Capital Group

Selecting, retaining and failing to remove expensive group-affiliated investment options generated significant revenue for Capital Group and its subsidiaries, the lawsuit says.

D’Ann Patterson, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated participants and beneficiaries of the Capital Retirement Savings Plan, has filed a lawsuit against The Capital Group Companies, Inc., the Board of Directors of Capital Group, the U.S. Retirement Benefits Committee of the plan, Capital Guardian Trust Company (CGTC), Capital Research and Management Company (CRMC) and Capital International, Inc. (CII) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s (ERISA)’s fiduciary duties and prohibited transaction provisions between June 13, 2011, and the present.                  

The lawsuit claims that when selecting and retaining investment options in the plan, the benefits committee did not act prudently and solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries, but put the interest of Capital Group and its subsidiaries first by selecting, retaining and failing to remove expensive group-affiliated investment options managed by CGTC, CRMC, and/or CII.

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

The lawsuit says this generated significant revenue for Capital Group and its subsidiaries.

According to the complaint, during the relevant period, between 94.7% and 97.8% of all investments offered by the plan were “the unduly expensive Capital Group-affiliated investments managed by CGTC, CRMC and/or CII. The lawsuit claims there was access to comparable investment options from unaffiliated companies that cost less and have performed comparably, if not better than, the Capital Group-affiliated investment options.

In addition, it says the benefits committee selected and retained the more expensive R5 share class of the funds despite the availability of the less expensive R6 share class.

“The Committee’s conflicted, disloyal, imprudent, and self-interested decisions—and its failure to properly evaluate and monitor the plan’s investment options for both reasonable costs and performance levels through an impartial or prudent process—resulted in plan participants and beneficiaries paying excessive and prohibited fees that substantially diminished their retirement savings, and resulted in windfall profits for Capital Group and its subsidiaries,” the complaint says.

In addition, it says, the “decisions of CGTC with respect to the plan assets invested in the Capital Guardian Emerging Markets Equity Fund (a Capital Group-affiliated collective investment trust), for which plan assets CGTC was a fiduciary, also resulted in plan participants and beneficiaries paying excessive and prohibited fees that substantially diminished their retirement savings, and resulted in windfall profits for Capital Group and its subsidiaries, including CGTC.”

The lawsuit asks for disgorgement of the “ill-gotten gains” and to provide other appropriate equitable relief for participating in the fiduciary breaches of the board, the committee, and/or CGTC, as well as the prohibited transactions alleged.

«