Proposals focus on recalibrating the program’s benefit formulas and exploring new contribution models to secure future solvency. Proponents argue that modernizing these aspects will help the program adapt to longer life spans and changing economic conditions without sacrificing current commitments.
Compliance
If you look at headlines in the retirement industry trade press, rarely does a week go by when you don’t see an article lamenting the low retirement savings numbers. How do we change this?
Ironically, while some see lowering the savings limit as politically palatable because it impacts only a small segment of the population, that same fact reduces the effect of such a policy shift.
As long as the fiduciary ball remains in the Executive Branch’s court, it’s easy to predict what will happen. That doesn’t mean, however, that we won’t see some surprises coming from the Legislative Branch.
The fact Social Security was already collecting this information, albeit not in a database, raises the question of whether this new lost and found database will add any real value.
Making matters worse is the changing regulatory environment once the new SECURE Act 2.0 rules become effective. The good news is the dust settles after that.
A lot may depend on who Trump selects to head up the DOL in his second term. If we start seeing familiar faces, that might indicate the department’s direction.
Here the intent is to make it possible for a plan/IRA to apply the QDIA safe harbor to involuntary rollovers. But how will this impact plan participants?
Not only do pooled plans reduced the administrative burden, but they can also reduce the fiduciary liability for 401k plan sponsors. If you’re not constantly looking over your shoulder, you can spend more time with your nose to the grindstone.
Some costs can’t be negotiated. These relatively fixed costs are the same no matter the size of the plan. Bigger plans can absorb these costs over a larger asset base, meaning the per participant cost is lower.
