One of the biggest risks inherent in MEPs/PEPs is coordinating all of the many moving pieces. Here’s why people might be wrong to think they know enough about assembling a 401k MEP/PEP and regulatory compliance only heightens the potential liability.
Tag "liability"
Plan sponsors – or, more specifically, the companies plan participants work for – may be placing employees in a far greater cyber-vulnerable position than they realize.
401k plan sponsors can’t afford to fall victim to the lure of heuristics. Index funds can generate just as much fiduciary headaches as actively managed funds.
There are many different types of plans, particularly when plan sponsors pick a 3(21) or 3(38) adviser. Which service provider arrangement a plan sponsor chooses impacts how the IPS will be constructed – and how the relevant parties contribute to that draft.
“As far as adopting employers, I would recommend an ERISA attorney because an MEP isn’t the right fit and fiduciary solution for every plan sponsor.”
Including these will make 401k plans safer for plan sponsors and more successful for plan participants.
Unlike a generic vendor agreement, the IPS is a formal plan policy document that defines the parameters between the plan and relevant vendors. This is why it can also be a terrible trap.
Although we’ve seen a broader acceptance of using an IPS, their use is by no means universal and particularly lacking among smaller employers. Perhaps there’s a realization that, if you don’t get the IPS right, you’ll only increase your liability.
When you’re not an expert in an important job that you need done, what do you do?
It appears all but certain the floodgates will soon open wide, unleashing a torrent of trade association sponsored 401k MEPs. If you’re looking for the trigger that will open those floodgates, here’s what you should be paying attention to.
