Conceptual Issues in 403(b) Documentation

With the upcoming final regulations due under 403(b), there is a definite need to re-think how 403(b) documentation is structured. For a variety of reasons, mostly historical and marketplace driven, there is no generally agreed set of practices for how to get documents in place that actually meet the requirements of 403(b) and are consistent with the complex of plan structures that has evolved over time.

The marketplace is likely to evolve in these directions over time, so this post is something of a roadmap for the future. At least, it should provide a template of issues you can raise with your provider when the final regulations come out. (And, of course, how we will be working with our clients.)

THE THREE PLAN TYPES

There are three distinct program types in the 403(b) world, as opposed to just two in the 401(k) environment. Each of these types has different documentation needs, so let's look at each separately.

ERISA Plan

A 403(b) that seeks to be or admits it is a plan subject to ERISA is, in many ways, the simplest type to figure out. These plans almost always limit investments to a single array, within the setting of a single group annuity contract or a single TPA administration structure. This means that, like an ERISA 401(k) plan, they need (1) a plan document, and (2) a funding vehicle. Group annuity contracts regularly provide both where they are the selected investment medium (subject to my concerns about whether they are amended on a timely basis). Otherwise, the plan needs a plan document and a pooled custodial account agreement that comply with 403(b)(7) (all in mutual funds, plan document controls over custodial account agreement, etc.). Given the possibility that there will be prior annuities in place with distribution restrictions, and the possibility that an employer would allow an opener to individual annuities, the plan document probably ought to permit the plan administrator to designate more than one investment vehicle or at least to grandfather existing funding arrangements.

Non-ERISA Plan

There are also 403(b) programs that are plans, but not subject to ERISA, because the employer itself is not an ERISA employer (technically, the exemption is for governmental and church plans under a bizarre and complex set of definitions). These are going to require either (1) a separate plan document that excludes ERISA rules, or (2) a master document that has provisions for ERISA and non-ERISA plans. There is no particular technical reason to pick one of these over the other. The single document is easier to draft and to draft from, but has provisions that do not apply to non-ERISA plans, while the two-document choice has less extraneous materials for non-ERISA plans. Given the implications of not having a remedial amendment period, and the better quality control inherent in a single document, we have opted for a single, combined master plan.

Oh, and don't forget church plan retirement income accounts as a third investment medium.

Non-Plan Programs

Mostly for cultural reasons, there is a genuine fear of plan status in 403(b) culture. There is good reason to attribute this mostly to fear-mongering in a marketplace where a lot of small insurance agencies make money from individual 403(b) annuities, but it is real. Setting aside all the negative effects on employees of not having any assistance from employers with, hopefully, better expertise, there it is an there it will remain for some time.

This creates an entirely new type of 403(b) program, the non-plan program or arrangement. Even ERISA-exempt employers try to maintain this status, and one of the central marketplaces, school districts, normally have to do so by state law. Otherwise, the structure tends to be fixed by the requirement of the DOL's definition of "pension plan".

Normally folks want to see these programs as simpler. For starters, they are all salary reduction-only, so there is no need to cover things like matching contributions or vesting. For another, there is no need to comply with ERISA requirements, except to the extent that analogous rules are placed in the final 403(b) regulations. However, the investment side, and the effects of the market structure, create offsetting complexities.

In this marketplace, and program type, there are multiple, unrelated investment providers, most of whom are offering single annuities. Each of these single annuities purports to comply with 403(b), although they are rarely amended on a timely basis to reflect changes in the law. However, none of them provides any of the aggregate limitations resulting from the fact that 403(b)(5) says, and has always said, that multiple contracts are treated as a single contract. Nor do they have to have common provisions about such essentially employer issues as withholding and timing of contributions.

After some hemming and hawing, we came to the conclusion that this program type needs a separate document type. Essentially, the need is for a program document that (1) says it is not a plan (ours calls itself a personnel policy), (2) includes overall limitations to be applied under all funding vehicles, in the aggregate, on contributions, loans and distributions, (3) contemplates the addition and removal of specific annuities, custodial account arrangements and retirement income accounts as funding vehicles, and (4) includes the definition of a non-plan under the DOL regulations, where applicable. Procedures under such a program would also be required, along with cooperation from investment providers, to ensure compliance with the aggregate limitations, but that should become a standard part of the "common remitter" function, as we are prepared to do.

So there we are. Reasonable minds can differ, but it is clear that the decisions we have made will keep our clients in compliance.

This is going to be an important subject, but it is unlikely that anybody will write much about it when the final regulations come out. Accordingly, I am going to pst this on my blog (403b-457plansblog.blogspot.com) for regular readers and at the 403bWise and BenefitsLink bulletin boards. My hope is that the bulletin board postings will generate discussion, and point out the flaws in this posting. At least, they will create forums where I can clarify the underlying reasons and how our system will work.

Tom Geer

A Summary of Fees from The Standard

Courtesy of the BenefitsLink Newsletter, here is a good summary of fee types and effects from The Standard.

http://www.standard.com/pensions/publications/rp-13438_fees_guide.pdf

And a reminder. If you are interested in technical issues for retirement plans, subscribe to BenefitsLink. Their newsletter is definitive.

Then, when you see a BenefitsLink source with consistent quality coverage in your area, see if you can subscribe to it.

I am particularly looking forward to the deluge of coverage when the final 403(b) regulations come out. The best way to come to an understanding of them will be (1) download and read the regulations front to back, including the preamble, before you read anything else, (2) read everything you can get, remembering that everybody has an axe to grind, (2) keep doing that for two to four weeks, (3) keep notes of open issues or ones you don't understand yet (e.g., Dewey, Cheatham & Howe law firm says you can do this, but doesn't say how), and (4) resolve your open issues by looking back and formulating your best answer. Last, feel free to send me your questions at any time, to geertom@gmail.com.