Description: 2021 ImpACT Conference - Session 1D: Reserved Roles for Actuaries in Defined Contribution Plans 10.25.21 Recording

Description: This webcast provides an overview of the key provisions of the recently enacted SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, which significantly changed the rules that apply to qualified retirement plans and IRAs. The presenters will examine a history of the legislation and focus on some of the key provisions of the Act. In particular, we will discuss provisions that give individuals more flexibility on how they will contribute to their retirement accounts and provisions that provide new ways for individuals to save. Explore certain significant structural changes to the rules such as the automatic enrollment for new plans and the elimination of lifetime RMDs for designated Roth accounts. The panel will also focus on the provisions that provide greater access to retirement funds through new distribution exceptions and how this might affect a company’s reporting obligations. Come learn about some of the relief provisions included in SECURE 2.0, including an expanded EPCRS program to cover errors relating to IRAs.

Description: This webcast provides an overview of the key provisions of the recently enacted SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, which significantly changed the rules that apply to qualified retirement plans and IRAs. The presenters will examine a history of the legislation and focus on some of the key provisions of the Act. In particular, we will discuss provisions that give individuals more flexibility on how they will contribute to their retirement accounts and provisions that provide new ways for individuals to save. Explore certain significant structural changes to the rules such as the automatic enrollment for new plans and the elimination of lifetime RMDs for designated Roth accounts. The panel will also focus on the provisions that provide greater access to retirement funds through new distribution exceptions and how this might affect a company’s reporting obligations. Come learn about some of the relief provisions included in SECURE 2.0, including an expanded EPCRS program to cover errors relating to IRAs. In addition to a discussion about the key provisions, the panel will review steps companies should be taking to implement the SECURE 2.0 provisions, including timelines for amending documents and systems. Identify certain issues for which guidance or technical corrections is likely needed, such as clarification on the required beginning date age.

Description: This article provides a basic introduction to the taxation of qualified annuities held in qualified retirement plans and IRAs. The article has been updated for the SECURE Act and the SECURE 2.0 Act. The article describes the basic types of employer-based plans, provides of overview of the taxation of contributions and benefits when annuities are held in connection with plans and IRAs, explains the required minimum distribution rules, and offers a brief introduction to recent legislation impacting qualified annuities.

Description: Required Minimum Distributions are the minimum amounts that a retiree must withdraw from their qualified pensions. The Secure Act made major changes to the rules surrounding RMDs, updating the Life Expectancy and Distribution Period Tables. In this joint-sponsored session of the Retirement and Taxation sections, the changes in these rules will be discussed. Focus on their impact to the retirees, the amount and timing of their distributions, and the retiree's potential tax ramifications.

Description: The Special Financial Assistance (SFA) program included in the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) will provide grants to some of the more troubled multiemployer plans. While this is a welcomed relief for many multiemployer plans facing insolvency, plenty of challenges remain in the implementation of the funds and ability to maintain solvency after the SFA funds are fully utilized. Explore the challenges and opportunities from the pension relief provisions.

Description: There is no silver bullet to improving retirement income outcomes for retirees. However, a combination of changes can be of significant value in addressing this overlooked issue. Although QLACs on the surface have potential value, they are not nearly as efficient as they could be. So far, employer plans have provided limited options for retirement income solutions. IRAs may not cost effectively serve the best interest of retirees. Employer plans should be encouraged to become retirement income providers and alternative approaches should be considered. The current prohibition on allowing plans to modify benefit payouts based on mortality experience should be reconsidered to allow for innovative plan income designs. Improvements to the deaccumulation stage of the retiree nest egg are challenging yet necessary.

Description: This session discussion will review rulings, regulations and announcements which have been issued in the last year. This is intended to be an overview and not a detailed analysis. Focus is on pension plans.

Description: Collective Defined Contribution Plans offer an option in plan design that lies somewhere between defined benefit and defined contribution plans. This is achieved by fixing the contributions to the plan, but allowing benefits to fluctuate based on experience. This article provides a basic summary of how they can be structured. There are limitations to their use in the US, but are gaining in popularity elsewhere around the globe.

Description: A pension plan uses Actuarial Equivalence to determine a 'fair' adjustment to pension benefits for form and timing of payment. The definition of Actuarial Equivalence is set in the Plan Document which may not have been reviewed for decades. With a wave of recent pension litigation in the U.S., plan sponsors, attorneys and actuaries now pay more attention to how pension plans define Actuarial Equivalence. How does a change in mortality table or interest rate affect the ultimate benefit? What are the requirements under ERISA and pertinent regulations? Are there court cases that have examined this question before? What are the issues behind the recent lawsuits and what can a plan sponsor do now to reduce their legal exposure? What alternative strategies are available for changing or not changing the definition in the plan document?