Missed our recent webinar on SECURE 2.0? Watch the recording of Matt Petersen’s conversation with Kelly Hiers, Defined Contribution Plans Administrator for the Virginia Retirement System, as they discuss the challenges and decision-making process around implementing both mandatory and optional provisions of SECURE 2.0. Kelly shares insights on plan design, participant needs, and administrative considerations that may help inform your approach.
Key Takeaways for Plan Sponsors:
- Plan Design Philosophy Drives Decisions – The Virginia Retirement System (VRS) prioritizes retirement readiness, which influenced its approach to SECURE 2.0 provisions. Optional provisions, such as emergency savings accounts, were carefully evaluated to maintain the plan’s primary purpose of long-term savings.
- Administrative Complexity Matters – Provisions like the student loan matching contribution and emergency withdrawals were assessed based on their impact on employer administration. Challenges in wage aggregation and data reporting played a key role in determining whether VRS could implement certain features.
- Monitoring and Adjusting Over Time – VRS implemented self-certification for emergency withdrawals with guardrails (e.g., $2,500 limit every two years) and is closely monitoring usage. The plan remains open to revisiting provisions based on participant demand and operational feasibility.
- Early Preparation is Key for Mandatory Changes – With the Roth catch-up requirement taking effect at the end of 2025, VRS has been actively working with employers and its record keeper to develop a reporting process that ensures compliance while minimizing administrative burden.
Click here to download the results from our SECURE 2.0 implementation survey.
Correction Notice
During the webinar, a question was asked about whether all catch-up contributions could be changed to Roth to simplify the salary determination process. In response, Matt Petersen stated that this was possible. However, after further review, we’d like to clarify that the most recent IRS Proposed Regulation¹ indicates that this approach does not meet the intent of the legislation. We apologize for the error and appreciate your understanding.