Bloomberg BNA's Pension & Benefits Blog is a special resource offered by Bloomberg BNA to provide commentary and insight on news and trends reported in our publications: Pension & Benefits Daily, Pension & Benefits Reporter, and the Benefits Practice Resource Center. The authors of the blog are members of our Pension & Benefits Publications Advisory Board.
The ideas presented here are those of individuals, and Bloomberg BNA bears no responsibility for the appropriateness or accuracy of the communications between group members. We reserve the right not to post comments that are abusive or otherwise objectionable.
Communications regarding the Pension & Benefits Blog may be directed to Dana Domone via e-mail to ddomone@bna.com.
Monday, June 18, 2012
by Stefanie S. Trilling
Practitioners encouraged the Department of Labor June 14 to adopt a safe harbor standard that offers liability protection to plan fiduciaries with respect to beneficiary determinations. Witnesses testified during an ERISA Advisory Council meeting on current challenges and best practices concerning beneficiary designations in retirement and life insurance plans.
Kathy Callaghan, senior manager in MetLife’s Group Life Products unit, suggested DOL adopt a “safe harbor standard that offers fiduciary liability protection to plan sponsors, plan administrators, and plan recordkeepers with respect to beneficiary determinations.” In addition to protecting the plan fiduciaries, she said, a safe harbor “will ensure the intent of the beneficiary is realized.”
Participants who have made a beneficiary designation often do not revisit the designation after a life-changing event, such as divorce, said Robert M. Richter, a vice president at SunGard who also testified at the meeting.
Having an automatic designation on file would eliminate confusion in cases in which participants do not change their beneficiary, said Richter, who also serves as the president of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries.
Currently, between 15 percent and 40 percent of all beneficiary designations fail due to mathematical errors, failure to sign, or failure to date. Requiring “miminum contact information for beneficiary designations” would be “very helpful in identifying a beneficiary or determining whether a beneficiary predeceased the participant,” Callaghan said.
“We also suggest the safe harbor standards provide a life event checklist” to all plan participants, whether requested or not, that would replace previous beneficiary directions if completed properly and returned to the plan, she said.
You must Sign In or Register to post a comment.
IRS Makes Employers’ Internal Controls a Priority in Employee Plan Audits
Voluntary Corrections of Retirement and Section 403(b) Plan Failures, as Described by IRS Officials
Implications of ASU 2011-4 for sponsors of ESOPs
FASB Issues Exposure Draft on ESOP Disclosures; Comment Period Open
Follow-Up Q&A From EBN Webinar