Data & Research December 29, 2015

Participants Need Nudge to Focus on Finances in 2016

There are actions plan advisers and their sponsor clients can take to help participants focus on budgeting and saving.

 

Reported by

In 2016, other than faith and family, Americans have their sights set on wellness above all else according to the 7th annual New Year’s Resolution Survey from Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America.

Forty-four percent of respondents reported their top focus for 2016 will be on health/wellness, with financial stability trailing at 29% of those surveyed.

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

Allianz Life Vice President of Consumer Insights Katie Libbe tells PLANSPONSOR the survey didn’t ask specifically about retirement savings; however, plan sponsors can tie in their communications with employee’s New Year’s resolutions about achieving financial stability.

When asked which New Year’s resolutions they are most likely to make and actually keep, health and finances ranked almost equally. Forty-three percent of those surveyed said they are most likely to make and keep their resolution of diet/exercise, and 41% resolve to manage money better. Yet, nearly one in three respondents didn’t include financial planning in their resolutions because they “don’t make enough money to worry about it.”

“Regardless of income level, it’s imperative that people build a successful financial plan. Keep in mind that financial stability helps improve wellness overall,” says Libbe.

Aligning with their New Year’s resolutions, respondents are more open to getting help with their financial decisions despite the fact that their top focus is wellness. If given free access to professional guidance, more respondents chose a financial professional (37%) than a nutritionist/dietician (28%) or a personal trainer (23%).

“We think this is because the perceived value of a financial professional is a lot higher than other professionals, but also some people don’t qualify for professional financial advice, so the idea of free access is appealing,” Libbe says. She adds that plan sponsors and advisers need to think about how to give employees access to free or low-cost advice for retirement savings and investing.

NEXT: Addressing bad habits and debt

Respondents believe the top three things that could improve their finances in 2016 are building their savings for emergencies, paying off credit card debt and making a budget.

Respondents in this year’s survey admit to having bad financial habits to overcome, including:

  • Spending too much money on things “I don’t need” (29%);
  • Saving some money, “but not as much as I could” (28%);
  • Not saving any money (26%); and
  • Spending “more than I make” (19%).                  

“Everyone in the [retirement plan] industry is seeing that automatic enrollment really works to get employees to save, and a lot of employers are considering making the default contribution rate higher than 3%,” Libbe says. “The notion of paying yourself first resonates with employees. If employers make it easier for employees to direct part of their paychecks to savings, even if outside of the employer retirement plan, that will help.” She also suggests offering employees a way to automatically increase contributions to savings when they get salary increases.

Libbe also contends that the idea of offering student loan repayment benefits will become more popular as employers try to attract and retain Millennial employees and help them save for retirement. “Student loan debt is a constant theme in our surveys about why employees aren’t saving,” she notes.

Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America conducted the survey in November 2015, through Ipsos, with 1,006 respondents.
Compliance December 29, 2015

Court Refuses to Apply New Test for Top Hat Plans

The court rejected the argument that “bargaining power” of participants is a requirement for a plan to be considered a “top hat” plan.
Reported by

A former employee of a Pennsylvania non-profit cannot rely on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) for benefit protections as the plan in which he participated is a “top hat” plan, a court found.

Noting that a non-qualified deferred compensation plan under Section 457(f) of the Internal Revenue Code must be maintained primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees, U.S. District Judge Mark R. Hornak of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania looked to a 3rd Circuit case which said “the plan must cover relatively few employees . . . [and] the plan must cover only high level employees.” The non-profit UPMC provided evidence that from 2007 through 2011 the number of plan participants ranged from 16 to 68. During that time, the total number of UPMC employees ranged from 37,965 to 48,731, so the absolute highest percentage of employees participating in the plan was .14%. Hornak concluded this was “relatively few.”

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

According to the court opinion, UPMC’s Non-Qualified Supplemental Benefit Plan limits participation to “key executives selected by the Committee,” and the primary factors in selecting those key executives are their influence within the organization and their ability to impact its performance. UPMC provided a comprehensive listing of the job titles of plan participants and they include various presidents, vice presidents, and other chief and senior officials. UPMC also argued that the compensation of these employees makes certain their “high level status.” Eligibility to participate in the plan is limited to those whose incentive levels under the separate management incentive plan are at least 20% of their salary. During the relevant period, the average compensation of plan participants was roughly $500,000 per year. Hornak concluded these employees were “very handsomely compensated by any measure.”

However, the plaintiff in the case, Paul F. Sikora, argued there is another element to determining whether a plan is a top hat plan: bargaining power of participants. Sikora points to the Department of Labor (DOL) Advisory Opinion Letter 90-14A, in which the DOL says, “It is the view of the Department that in providing relief for ‘top hat’ plans from the broad remedial provisions of ERISA, Congress recognized that certain individuals, by virtue of their position or compensation level, have the ability to affect or substantially influence, through negotiation or otherwise, the design and operation of their deferred compensation plan, taking into consideration any risks attendant thereto, and, therefore, would not need the substantive rights and protections of [ERISA].”

NEXT: Bargaining power not an element in determining top hat plan status

Hornak noted there has not been one federal court that has applied “bargaining power” as an element in determining whether a deferred compensation plan is a top hat plan that is exempt from ERISA coverage. He agreed with a 1st Circuit opinion, which said not only is that letter not entitled to deference, it is merely a description of the purposes that the DOL thought Congress likely had in mind when enacting the top hat exemption.

Earlier this year, the DOL reiterated its stance about top hat plans in an amicus brief filed for another lawsuit. In June, another district court judge decided the issue of participants’ influence on the plan should be decided at trial.                            

Hornak said even if the court were to accept that the letter adds bargaining power to the list of elements in determining top hat plan status, the letter itself says top hat plan participants are presumed to be able “to affect or substantially influence, through negotiation or otherwise” the design and operation of their plan. He concluded that the DOL recognized that top hat plan participants have other means besides direct negotiation to affect or influence the plan design. For example, they could threaten to leave the company if they weren’t happy with the terms or operation of the plan.

Sikora, a vice president at UPMC, was a participant in the non-profit’s supplemental benefits plan from 2008 until he voluntarily terminated his employment with UPMC in 2011. Sikora applied for a lump-sum distribution of his account balance and says he never received a written decision from the plan committee.

He kept pursuing the distribution throughout 2012, and eventually received a letter from the committee informing him that all rights and benefits allegedly due to Sikora had been forfeited because Sikora had not entered into a written Post Retirement Service Agreement. The plan committee maintained that the plan is a “top hat” plan for purposes of ERISA and therefore exempt from the vesting and non-forfeiture provisions of that law. Sikora then filed the lawsuit.

«