IRS Considering Changes to Interest Crediting Rules for Certain PEPs

The agency is considering amendments to hybrid plan rules to address implicit interest pension equity plans.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued Notice 2016-67 describing the applicability of the market rate of return limitation rules to a defined benefit plan that expresses a participant’s accumulated benefit as the current value of an accumulated percentage of the participant’s final average compensation, highest average compensation, or highest average compensation during a limited period of years (a type of plan often referred to as a pension equity plan or PEP). 

In particular, this notice addresses the applicability of the market rate of return limitation rules to a type of PEP that applies a deferred annuity factor to the participant’s accumulated benefit in order to determine deferred benefits (a type of PEP often referred to as an implicit interest PEP). The IRS explains that such a PEP is often referred to as an implicit interest PEP because preretirement interest is implicitly reflected in the deferred annuity factor.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Under an explicit interest PEP, because the accumulated benefit is adjusted with interest credits to determine the benefit payable at annuity starting dates after principal credits cease, those interest credits are subject to the market rate of return limitation rules under hybrid plan regulations issued in 2015. Thus, any amendments necessary to bring the interest crediting rate into compliance with the market rate of return limitation rules under the hybrid plan regulations must be made by the applicable deadline of the transition regulations (generally before the beginning of the first plan year that begins on or after January 1, 2017) in order for the amendments to be eligible for the exception from rules against reducing benefit accruals provided by the transition regulations.

NEXT: Implicit interest PEPs not subject to interest crediting rules

By contrast, under an implicit interest PEP, the preretirement interest that is implicit in applying a deferred annuity factor to the accumulated benefit is not included in the definition of an interest credit under rules because the accumulated benefit remains a constant percentage of average compensation and is not adjusted with interest credits after principal credits cease, the IRS explains. Thus, under the hybrid plan regulations, no amendment is required to the deferred annuity factors under an implicit interest PEP in order to reduce the preretirement interest that is implicit in those factors to a rate that does not exceed a market rate of return and the exception from rules against reducing benefit accruals under the transition regulations does not apply to such an amendment.

The IRS says stakeholders have expressed uncertainty as to whether the market rate of return limitation rules under the final hybrid plan regulations apply to implicit interest PEPs. Due to this uncertainty, some plan sponsors of implicit interest PEPs might have believed that the preretirement interest that is implicit in a deferred annuity factor was subject to the market rate of return limitation rules and, as a result, might have already adopted plan amendments to reduce that interest in accordance with the rules under the transition regulations that apply to amendments reducing interest crediting rates that exceed a market rate of return. 

Even though the preretirement interest that is implicit in a deferred annuity factor under an implicit interest PEP is not subject to the market rate of return limitation rules in the final hybrid plan regulations, the Treasury Department and the IRS are considering whether to propose amendments to those regulations that would subject implicit preretirement interest to the market rate of return limitation. The IRS is requesting comments about adopting amendments.

Investing Matters Differ Across Genders

A new study by Scottrade offers some surprising insight into the different investment decisions and market outlooks based on gender.

A 2016 Financial Behavior Study by Scottrade reveals that men and women differ dramatically when it comes to investing practices and trading styles.

Men, for example, report higher degrees of confidence in their investment decisions. The study found that men are nearly twice as likely as women to believe that they are beating the current market (44% of men versus 24% of women).

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

In addition, men exude more confidence than women that their investments will do well in the current economy (74% of men compared to 59% of women), and most men (67%) envision further growth in 2016. Women, on the other hand, tend to be more reserved about their future returns, with about half expecting further growth in 2016.

When reflecting on their current financial situation, women and men report similar financial performance and seem to experience about the same amount of stress,” says Mary Koomar, Scottrade’s senior vice president of client services. “However, with respect to the actual performance on their investments, men generally express a much higher degree of confidence whether or not it’s actually warranted.”

Men were also found to make decisions and changes far more frequently (often in either six-month or even one-month intervals). Forty-one percent of men change their strategy every six months compared to only 27% of women and 21% % of men change their strategy as frequently as every month versus only 11% of women.

“Frequent portfolio changes can certainly be an effective part of a strategy, but it’s also important to remember that emotions can betray you when it comes to trading,” Koomar says. “Establishing and following a plan with clear rules is critical no matter your strategy.”

Men and women are equally likely to rely on a professional adviser for investment support (65% of men and 66% of women), but that appears to be where many of the similarities end. In fact, the nature and frequency of the relationship each gender has with an adviser differs substantially.

Women have a great proportion of their portfolio (63%) handled through their broker or adviser (compared with men who handle about half of their portfolio through an adviser). This may be due to the fact that women report feeling more overwhelmed by the available investment choices (64% of women versus 46% of men), and express less confidence in their own ability to navigate any impact from the economy (60% of women compared to 43% of men).

“On the surface the survey results seem to confirm some stereotypical ideas that women are overwhelmed by investing, but it’s worth noting that the women surveyed are also taking proactive steps to take control of their finances,” Koomar adds. “Many of the women surveyed are seeking advice and building trusting relationships with advisers. While they may take a more moderate approach to investing, they are certainly not standing on the sidelines.”

Scottrade commissioned a survey of investors to explore their attitudes and behaviors regarding investing, the economy, finance and retirement. The survey, undertaken by Harris Poll, was conducted among a nationally representative sample of 1,015 adults in the U.S. aged 18 and older who are involved in investment decisions for their household and have $2,500 or more in investments with a full-service brokerage company, online brokerage company or independent financial adviser. By looking at their responses collectively, Scottrade is able to identify trends among investors.

«