BCG Blog - Sponsors

When it comes to hardship withdrawals, participants may focus more on what they hear and not what is in your plan. Plan Sponsors may want to pause and consider what participants hear versus what the new laws now permit.

Many Plan Sponsors balance their administrative concerns by approaching their various fiduciary and administrative responsibilities via checklists and project plans. Yet even these planning tools may fall short. Most of those approaches fail to address both administrative and analytical issues. A quarter by quarter approach may help create the right balance.

Over the last few years, employers took note of the role benefits played in recruiting employees. Some employers considered matching payments to student loans. But nearly half of employers have chosen not to adopt matching programs. And now several trends may show that hesitancy is warranted.

Recently, the IRS issued guidance on implementing section 348 (cash balance accounts). This guidance may hint at potential regulatory flexibility towards plan testing. Similarly, section 304 (automatic cash out of small accounts) could lead to flexibility in plan audits for small plans.

In the realm of employee benefits, change is inevitable. Sometimes, however, change comes in the form of cutbacks, which can be unsettling for employees. As a plan sponsor, effectively communicating these changes to your workforce is paramount. In today's landscape, where employees expect transparency and authenticity, navigating benefit cutbacks requires finesse and a departure from traditional corporate speak.

As corporate governance business processes become part of plan litigation, and because benefits may be an area ripe for budget trimming, management of employee benefits policies is attracting more attention. Caution is due in this area as AI systems create their own risks.

2023 ranks among the highest for number of lawsuits against plan administrators in the last decade or so, and 2022 had nearly 100 such suits. One reason for the spike is the 2021 Supreme Court ruling in Hughes v. Northwestern. This summer, the lower court ruled on the Hughes case, and its findings further muddied the waters on recordkeeping fees.

Into the brave new world of post Secure Act 2.0 benefit administration comes new and challenging accommodation requests for things such as mental health and long COVID-related illnesses, which may create confusion over balancing and discrimination testing a plan. So, we can only imagine the dismay some benefits advisors may have over news noting an increased favorability of pensions.

Last Fall, we noted several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court that could impact the power federal agencies have to regulate and prosecute plan sponsors. Many of those cases are now working their way through the Court and may have profound impact on agencies such as FINRA, the SEC and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. They may also impact the Department of Labor and its investigative wing, the EBSA.