SECURE 2.0 Allows More Pension Funds to Transfer Money to Health Plans

But the transfers are small and to a rarely offered account type, which means not many plans are taking advantage.



Though the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 was focused on improving defined contribution plans, it also contained several provisions related to defined benefit plans.

One such provision, Section 606, eased the requirements for overfunded pensions that make transfers to a 401(h) plan for retiree medical benefits, known as 420 transfers (for Section 420 of the Internal Revenue Code that permits them).

SECURE 2.0 extended Section 420, set to expire at the end of 2025, through the end of 2032. It also lowered the threshold at which plans may use surplus pension assets to pay retiree health and life insurance benefits for newly created de minimis transfers.

Before SECURE 2.0, plans that were at least 125% funded could make these transfers. Under SECURE 2.0, that option is extended to plans that are at least 110% funded, if certain conditions are met.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

For a plan that is 110% funded to make a 420 transfer, the transfer total must be “de minimis,” meaning it involves no more than 1.75% of plan assets, and the transfers cannot result in the plan falling below 110% funded. Furthermore, the plan must have been at least 110% funded at the end of each of the last two plan years to be eligible. 

John Lowell, a partner with October Three, an actuarial consulting firm, says that despite the potential for overfunded plans to offer more comprehensive benefits, he is “not aware of many companies that have taken advantage of this.”

“In order for a sponsor to want to do this, they need to be offering the benefits that it covers,” Lowell says. He explains that retiree medical benefits are far less common among retiree pension benefits than they were in decades past, and this decline “cuts the universe of companies that might be interested in a transfer of this sort.”

In other words, defined benefit plans that lack a 401(h) medical component have nothing to transfer to. And the requirement that the contribution be limited to 1.75% of plan assets limits the value that 401(h) would have if it were newly created and funded primarily from transfers.

Section 420 transfers have to be renewed from time to time because the legislation enabling their use has traditionally contained a sunset clause, Lowell explains. Section 606 authorizes these transfers through 2032.

This 10-year window from the passage of SECURE 2.0 is intended to make the legislation score better on Congressional Budget Office scoring, which uses a 10-year window to measure the cost of a bill.

Lowell explains that if a plan sponsor wanted to set up a 401(h) plan, the employer could do so by making new contributions, which would result in a tax deduction for the sponsor. However, if the company funds the 401(h) from excess pension assets, it does not result in a tax deduction. As a result, the legislation can count that funding as additional federal tax revenue for the purposes of scoring, because from the government’s point of view, it “fails to cost money that it would otherwise cost.”

While the adjustments may be useful for accounting purposes, it appears they add up to an opportunity few will exploit.

Tags: , , , ,

Private Equity Firm to Pay $20.5M to Settle SEC Charges of Inadequate Fee Disclosure

Prime Group allegedly did not disclose that $18 million in fund fees went to a firm wholly owned by its CEO.



A private equity firm that specializes in alternative real estate investments has settled, for $20.5 million, charges by the Securities and Exchange Commission that it failed to properly disclose $18 million in real estate brokerage fees paid to another company that was owned by its CEO.

“Funds, including those that invest in alternative asset classes, must ensure that their offering materials contain clear, accurate, and adequate disclosures,” Osman Nawaz, chief of the SEC Enforcement Division’s complex financial instruments unit, said in a release. “In particular, information related to payments made to affiliates, and the potential conflicts of interest embedded in such arrangements, is critical to investors’ decisions.”

According to the SEC’s cease-and desist order, Saratoga Springs, New York-based Prime Group Holdings LLC launched an investment fund in 2017 to purchase self-storage real estate properties. The fund mostly relied on deal teams made up of the company’s employees and independent contractors to find and acquire so-called “off-market” properties.

The SEC order states that, instead of pursuing self-storage properties offered through the auction process used by national brokers, the fund relied on its deal teams to cold-call “mom-and-pop” owners of targeted properties to inquire about their interest in selling their properties and to cultivate relationships with the owners with the hope that they would eventually sell to the fund.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

The regulator alleged that the deal teams’ costs and compensation, along with other Prime Group operational expenses, were paid in part from a 3% brokerage fee the fund paid on the acquisitions. According to the order, the fund paid these brokerage fees to a real estate brokerage firm wholly owned by Prime Group’s CEO, Robert Moser, making the brokerage firm an affiliate of Prime Group.

Because the firm did not disclose that an affiliate would be receiving the real estate brokerage fees, the SEC assessed that Prime Group provided misleading statements in the fund’s offering materials, including its limited partnership agreement, private placement memorandum and due diligence questionnaires.

The fund’s “offering and marketing materials contained misleading statements and omissions concerning fees and conflicts of interest,” the SEC order stated. “This information was material to investors and prospective investors as reasonable investors would have wanted to know about fees paid by [the fund] to respondent’s affiliates, including potential conflicts created by such payments.”

Without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations, Prime Group has agreed to pay a $6.5 million civil penalty and more than $14 million in disgorgement and prejudgment interest to settle the charges.

Prime Group could not immediately be reached for comment.

 

Related Stories:

SEC Settles With Eight Firms Over Inadequate Cybersecurity Measures

Florida Fund Administrator Settles SEC Charges Over Missing ‘Red Flags’

Bloomberg Settles SEC Charges of Misleading Pricing Disclosures

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

«