Forfeitures are one of those things in a 401(k) plan that everyone thinks they understand\u2014until they don\u2019t. It\u2019s a small line item, often buried in reports, but it has a way of creating outsized problems when it\u2019s ignored.<\/p>\n
Most providers treat forfeitures like an administrative afterthought. They sit there, they accumulate, and eventually someone decides what to do with them. Reduce employer contributions, pay plan expenses, maybe allocate them. Simple enough, right? Except it isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n
The issue isn\u2019t what forfeitures are\u2014it\u2019s how they\u2019re used and when. I\u2019ve seen plans carry large forfeiture balances for years with no clear policy. I\u2019ve seen inconsistent application from year to year. I\u2019ve seen providers who don\u2019t raise the issue at all unless the auditor does. That\u2019s not administration\u2014that\u2019s negligence dressed up as routine.<\/p>\n
From a fiduciary standpoint, inconsistency is where the trouble begins. If the plan document allows multiple uses, that doesn\u2019t mean anything goes. There needs to be a process, a rationale, and documentation to support it. Otherwise, you\u2019re opening the door to questions you don\u2019t want to answer.<\/p>\n
Good providers don\u2019t wait for forfeitures to become a problem. They track them, they communicate about them, and they push plan sponsors to make decisions in real time\u2014not three years later when the number gets uncomfortable.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not a complicated issue. But like most problems in this space, it becomes complicated the moment you stop paying attention.<\/p>\n
<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Forfeitures are one of those things in a 401(k) plan that everyone thinks they understand\u2014until they don\u2019t. It\u2019s a small line item, often buried in reports, but it has a way of creating outsized problems when it\u2019s ignored. Most providers … Continue reading