Episode 48: Breaking Down SECURE 2.0 Act

Please note: This is a transcription so there may be slight grammatical errors.

Hello and welcome to Revamping Retirement, a podcast brought to you by CAPTRUST, where we explore the opportunities and challenges facing today’s retirement plan sponsors and fiduciaries. Our hosts, Jennifer Doss and Scott Matheson, lead the Employer-Sponsored Retirement Plan practice at CAPTRUST, one of the largest registered investment advisors in the U.S. and a thought leader in the retirement plan advisory and consulting space. We hope you enjoy Revamping Retirement.

Scott Matheson:

All right, welcome everybody to another episode of Revamping Retirement. It’s the first episode of 2023, so happy New Year. I’m joined, as always, by my co-host, Jennifer Doss. And we’re bringing a fan favorite back to the show now, one of our colleagues here, Dawn McPherson, who stepped in to co-host with me last year, when, Jennifer, you may remember this, but you needed a break from me, apparently.

Jennifer Doss:

I think that’s called vacation. I took a vacation.

Scott Matheson:

That’s not what our producer said. But anyway, Dawn, thanks for chiming in with us here from the great state of Kansas where you are piping in.

Dawn McPherson:

Yes, it’s good to be back.

Scott Matheson:

Yeah. Well, you don’t have to tell a fib. All right. We are here today to talk about what has become very quickly the number one issue in the retirement plan space. Maybe the topic du year. Is that a thing? You just came back from Paris?

Jennifer Doss:

No. Mm-mm. No.

Scott Matheson:

No, it’s not a thing. OK. We’re here to talk about what the biggest topic in the retirement plan industry is going to be in 2023, at least until we tell you otherwise, and that is Secure 2.0. For those of you that may remember back to 2019, Secure, the original Secure Act, which I guess now is Secure 1.0. Does that seem right?

Jennifer Doss:

I think so because I’m not saying the whole acronym. So, yes.

Scott Matheson:

I’m still stuck on… Dawn told me to call it two-dot-oh and I think that 2.0… Dawn, are we settled on that?

Dawn McPherson:

I think I like Secure Squared.

Scott Matheson:

Well, we’ll just call it what we want to call it. I just like that Congress has resorted to standard business practice, which is just calling things 2.0. And I don’t know what 3.0 is going to look like, but if it’s anything like 2.0 looks like here, it’s going to be exponentially more complicated and impactful. So with that, Jennifer, you stayed the closest to this of anybody I know, and I’m sorry that you had to do that, but you can also give our listeners a little bit of context. How’d we get here? When did this thing come into play? And then we’re going to talk a little bit about where are we now.

Jennifer Doss:

Yes. So happy new year. Happy Secure 2.0 Act, that’s what I’ve been telling people.

Scott Matheson:

Nice.

Jennifer Doss:

Some people react to that better than others. So we did get a massive, and I’ll cover that in a second, retirement bill included in the consolidated appropriations bill, which just rolls right off your tongue, that was passed in the last week of December.

Scott Matheson:

Is that the CAB?

Jennifer Doss:

Yeah, sure. It’s a must-pass spending bill, basically, to fund the government. And I think we’ve talked about this on previous podcasts, but the reason that Secure 2.0 got kind of tucked in there is because it’s really hard to get floor time specifically for a bill that’s just focused on a particular issue. So a lot of times, I think… I’m not going to say pork-barreling, right? But a lot of times you’re putting things in there that have to pass, and you put things in there that you’re trying to get passed and you just haven’t been able to. And that has been the case with Secure 2.0.

So pretty much since we got Secure 1.0, as you said, at the tail end of 2019, there’s a couple of other things we’ve been lobbying for. When I say a couple, apparently, I mean 92, because you’ve probably heard by now it is over 90 provisions. It is arguably more impactful than that first Secure Act that we got. By size alone, I think you can get a sense for that. The difference between the two—Secure 1.0 was 31 provisions; Secure 2.0 is 92. That is a lot to digest. We got a lot of good stuff out of it, really, really positive things, and the effective dates are really spread out. So we’re going to be talking about this for a long time, from the date of enactment—so that was December 29, 2022, that was when President Biden actually signed it into law—all the way to January 1, 2033, when the final RMD provision kicks in.

Scott Matheson:

Well, what do our plan sponsors that listen in need to know right now about this thing?

Jennifer Doss:

Yeah, I think Dawn will probably touch on this a little bit more, but the thing you really need to know right now is the required minimum distribution change that happened, and that’s been in the news, so people have probably heard about that one. But we have a new age, we have a second tier that goes into effect again in 2033. But effective January 1 of this year, the new RMD age requirement is 73. And the other, I think, positive thing that I’ll touch on that’s related to RMDs is the excise tax. So if you miss an RMD, there used to be a 50 percent penalty, and that was reduced down to 25 percent. And it really goes all the way down to 10 percent if you correct that mistake within two years. So that’s going to keep a lot more money back in people’s pockets, not only just because we’ve extended the RMD ages out, but we’ve also reduced that penalty if you don’t hit that.

And then the other thing I would mention is if you have long-term, part-time employees that you do not already allow to participate in the plan, you might remember that there was a long- term, part-time provision included in the first Secure Act. We got an update to that in this one, and even though this new one doesn’t go into effect until 01.01.2025, there’s some weird details between the two of them. And so if you do fall into that category, I’d get up to speed on that sooner rather than later.

Scott Matheson:

So one of the takeaways there is you need to [inaudible 00:06:01] long-term, part-time.

Jennifer Doss:

Yes.

Scott Matheson:

OK, got it. No, those are good. So I mean, obviously people want extended… People are living longer, they want the RMDs to be able to be pushed back, but it does sound like with that and then the Excise Tax reduction, those cost tax dollars at the end of the day. So I’m sure there were some pay-fors in this whole thing. Maybe that’ll work itself out through our conversation, or maybe they were part of that other big appropriations bill. So anything else that we need to know on the know-now, guys?

Jennifer Doss:

Nope.

Scott Matheson:

No? Good? OK. All right. Dawn, I’m coming your way because I know even though we got 92, it sounds like we wanted at least 94 or 95. So what did we not get?

Dawn McPherson:

How about something we got that we didn’t want?

Scott Matheson:

OK, so we want 91 and a half?

Dawn McPherson:

The one paper statement was stuck back in there, kind of at the last minute. We thought we had sidestepped this one, but it’s basically requiring that a defined contribution plan has to provide one paper statement per year unless a participant elects otherwise. And for DB plans, they have to provide a paper statement every three years, beginning in 2026. So just something that we think stems from a fear of retirement-age folks not having accessibility to the internet, which I would argue, both my parents are well into their retirement years and they both have smartphones and tablets, and my mom just told me on a call the other day that she literally uses her smartphone for everything. So we weren’t thrilled about that one.

Scott Matheson:

Yeah. So a little bit of a step back on that one. I think I said this to you when we were talking about it. I find it hilarious because, irrespective of age, I mean I do it, I’ve got to wear reading glasses now, and you go out to dinner, and what did you do if you didn’t have your readers on or your bifocals on, is you take a picture and you blow it up on your phone. Anyway, so that one’s one we got, we didn’t want to get. That was not the answer I was expecting. Jennifer, is there something we didn’t get that we wanted?

Jennifer Doss:

So if we just went from 92 to 91 and a half, I’m going to take it back up to 92 and a half. There is one that we wanted and, well, we sort of got, we sort of didn’t, which makes it very confusing. There was a provision included that allowed for Collective Investment Trusts, CITs, as allowable investments within 403(b) plans. What people, I think, didn’t understand, and what got very confusing, is that this was just an update to the IRS tax code, but we also needed to make this really a viable solution. We also needed updates to investment securities laws for that to work. And the reasons are pretty nerdy and nuanced, and I’m not going to get into them today in this podcast, but essentially 403(b) plans really needed an exemption, like 401(a), 401(k), 457(b), governmental plans currently enjoyed under securities laws, where they just don’t have to register with the SEC and meet certain requirements.

And ultimately, the reason that that got taken out at the last minute is, how the language was written into those securities laws just could not be agreed upon between all the interested parties. There were some consumer protection concerns on the part of some legislators and other groups, and again, at the end of the day, we just ran out of time, frankly, to collaborate on that language and get everybody comfortable. And we certainly didn’t want to hold up the entirety. I say “we” like I was involved, but we didn’t want to hold up the entirety of Secure 2.0 for that one provision. Right?

Scott Matheson:

Right.

Jennifer Doss:

So, as you said, we kind of came down to the wire on this and yeah, that was a disappointing one.

Scott Matheson:

So you said we kind of got it, we didn’t get it. What do you mean?

Jennifer Doss:

So we got updates to the IRS tax code.

Scott Matheson:

Oh, OK.

Jennifer Doss:

We did not get updates to the securities laws and we needed both for it, really, to work.

Scott Matheson:

Oh, I got you. I got you.

Jennifer Doss:

So we will be working with—we do a lot with the National Association of Plan Advisors, NAPA. You hear us talk about that sometimes. We do a lot of work with them. We’re going to be working with them this year to push for those additional securities laws so that we can get CITs within 403(b) plans, because that was the thing I said I was most excited about last time.

Scott Matheson:

I know. I wasn’t going to bring it up, bring back those feelings of sadness for you, but I look forward to what changes happened to the 33 and 34 securities acts to make this work.

Jennifer Doss:

Don’t forget about 1940.

Scott Matheson:

Oh, the 40 act too. Gosh, I forgot. Very timely. OK, listen, we can go on about this all day. I think we covered what you need to know now, what we didn’t get, kind of got, didn’t want. We’re going to come back and talk about some of the fun stuff that’s in this, but before we do that, we’re going to break for our usual Minute with Mike. This month, Mike’s going to talk about common mistakes that plan sponsors make and maybe some misconceptions around excess deferrals. So take it away, Mike.

Mike Webb:

Thanks, Jennifer and Scott. Mike Webb here with another Minute with Mike. In this month’s Minute, we’ll discuss a common misconception on excess deferrals that plan sponsors have this time of year. First, let’s define an excess deferral. It is a deferral that exceeds the stated dollar limit under IRS Code Section 42(g) in a tax year. It is indexed every year for inflation, and this year the 42(g) dollar limit is $22,500. Now, last year in 2022, it was $20,500, so it’s gone up. There was also a special catch-up limit for those age 50 or older. In 2023, that is $7,500. We add that to $22,500, that’s a total deferral limit of $30,000 in 2023, and last year was $6,500 for the catch up. Adding that to the $20,500, we’d have a total deferral there of $27,000. If you have an excess deferral, which is over that amount, once it occurs and the funds are segregated from payroll and remitted to the plan’s record keeper, an excess must be corrected.

This correction involves special tax reporting as well as distribution by the record keeper to the participant. However, at least one plan sponsor contacts me every year at this time, insisting that the excess can be corrected by simply requesting the funds back from the plan’s record keeper and amending the employee’s W-2. Other sponsors will insist to me that the timing of the discovery of the excess dictates the corrective procedure. For example, if a 2022 excess deferral is discovered in 2022, a W-2 can be amended. But if the 2022 excess is discovered in 2023, the IRS corrective procedure must be used and the W-2 cannot be amended. In both cases, the plan sponsor’s incorrect. Once there is an excess deferral that has been segregated from payroll and sent to the record keeper, a W-2 may never be amended to correct the excess, regardless of the year in which it was discovered.

The IRS corrective procedure is always filed in a case of an excess deferral, and that procedure is explicit that an amended W-2 is never issued. The tax forms involved in reporting the excess are 1099s issued by the record keeper and a 1040 filed by the participant. No W-2 is ever corrected. An excess deferral can also never be returned to the plan sponsored by the plan’s record keeper. Instead, the excess is always distributed directly to the participant. Thanks for listening, and stay tuned for next month, when we’ll start our new Minute with Mike Secure Act Series, highlighting key provisions each month from Secure Act 2.0. For Revamping Retirement, I’m Mike Webb, and this has been your Minute with Mike. Now back to Jennifer and Scott.

Scott Matheson:

All right, thanks for that as always, Mike. Just by the way, I mentioned, everybody, what Mike has agreed to do for the next few months is actually focus on the biggest rocks of Secure 2.0 for his Minute with Mike. So we’ll be keeping you updated as we cut through all of the 92—91 and a half, whatever we settled on—provisions of this really seismic shift of, or a really seismic piece of, legislation for the retirement industry in so many positive ways. All right, with that, let’s talk about positives. There were a lot of really cool things in here, a lot of things with sizzle, things that make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, they’re so exciting. You’re supposed to laugh at that, Dawn. All right, so.

Dawn McPherson;

Oh, I was laughing. I was just trying to—

Scott Matheson:

It’s not when I say laugh, it’s—

Jennifer Doss:

She was muted probably. Yeah.

Scott Matheson:

Well just for that, I’m coming your way first. I’m going to give you… Tell us the top three, tell all the listeners the top three things that you’re excited about that came with Secure 2.0.

Dawn McPherson:

Buckle up.

Scott Matheson:

All right.

Dawn McPherson:

My number one is probably the student loan repayment. So this… Don’t sound so excited.

Scott Matheson:

No, I was just thinking, I’m thinking to myself, because Jennifer doesn’t know, I’m asking her next what her top three are and she just took that one.

Jennifer Doss:

I am. I was a little—

Dawn McPherson:

Yes. This is a good one. I think if you polled many people, this would be one of the top three among a large audience. So it’s an optional provision for employers to treat student loan repayments as elective deferrals so that they can match, give matching contributions to those. So to date, you think about employees who have student loan debt that they’re trying to pay off. They have to decide: “Am I going to pay my student loans down or am I going to contribute to my retirement plan?” And often, the choice, obviously, is to pay down the student loans with additional interest, and so they miss out on employer matching contributions. So this option for plans that choose to add the program allows participants to more easily pay down student loan debt and save for their retirement at the same time, which is really great.

Jennifer Doss:

Yeah, that was definitely one of mine. So I’ll just add, before we let Dawn go on.

Dawn McPherson:

Sure.

Jennifer Doss:

So the Employee Benefit Research Institute, I was looking at them, they actually estimate that there’s a $3.8 trillion retirement saving shortfall in the U.S., and Americans owe somewhere between $1.5 [trillion] and $2 trillion in student loan debt. So you can really start to get a sense for how impactful this could be in terms of people…to what Dawn was talking about, being able to do both. And so I think it is important to realize from an employer standpoint, that employees may need assistance with this feature, though. So if they do decide to add it, in terms of making trade-offs, I mean, we know from all the work we do with participants that they have a hard time prioritizing sometimes how to pay down different types of debt. Or again, now it’s like, “Do I contribute? Do I do this? Pre-tax versus Roth?” All those kinds of decisions. So they’re definitely going to need some help, I think, if you offer this, deciphering what that means and what the right decision is for them.

Scott Matheson:

Yeah, it’s a great one. It’s been one that we’ve struggled to figure out a path toward, so I’m excited about learning more about that. All right, Dawn, what number two do you want to steal from Jennifer?

Dawn McPherson:

All right. Actually, I don’t think this is going to be a steal because this one isn’t quite as splashy as some of the other provisions are, but I think it’s worth mentioning because it has the potential to make it easier and less expensive for sponsors to keep their plans in compliance. So there have been some enhancements made to EPCRS. Should I do a pop quiz on what EPCRS is?

Scott Matheson:

I think you should ask Jennifer what that is.

Dawn McPherson:

Now, so this is the IRS Correction program. It’s referred to as Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System. It includes the self-correction program component, and basically these allow plan sponsors to self-correct certain types of errors without needing to submit it for IRS approval. To date, there’s been some ambiguity or just really a lack of real definition around what constitutes an insignificant versus significant error.

And so that created a lot of uncertainty for these sponsors trying to submit for these corrections. There [were] also some requirements around the time period for some of the corrections, and then certain errors just weren’t included, like certain loan errors. And so the secure 2.0 expansion allows employers to correct now what’s called “inadvertent errors” when they’re discovered. And “inadvertent” is defined currently as a failure that occurs despite the fact that your practices and procedures are all designed to promote your compliance with code requirements.

So you’ve got these programs and practices or procedures in place, but you still inadvertently make an error. You’re allowed to correct that. Of course, it doesn’t include anything that’s egregious or a misuse of plan assets, but what this expansion does is, it provides more definition around the failures that are allowed to be corrected, which will help our plan sponsors. It strips out some of the time frames that used to be part of the requirement. So it makes it just a little easier to make those corrections. And it also now allows for simple [inaudible 00:19:34] to be self-corrected.

Jennifer Doss:

Oh, I did not have that one.

Scott Matheson:

You didn’t have that one?

Dawn McPherson:

I don’t think many people would have that on their list. I mean, we still need further guidance around this. But for the nerds in the room, this is one that’s a welcome change.

Scott Matheson:

Yeah. Well, I’m going to call it the “honest mistake provision.” How about that?

Jennifer Doss:

Yeah, that’s a good—

Scott Matheson:

Because that’s what I heard you say.

Dawn McPherson:

I think that’s great.

Scott Matheson:

Yeah. And I don’t like the term “nerd.” OK. I don’t want to be called that any more. All right. What’s your number three?

Dawn McPherson:

My number three is the RMD. So the changes to the required minimum distribution age, which Jennifer already alluded to, but basically effective 01.01.2023, the age increased to 73. And 10 years from now, it will increase to 75. So nothing like stretching out all these Secure Act provisions for 10 years.

Scott Matheson:

Yeah. Well, it’s also interesting. So there’s the gap, you’re aging the provision 10 years while people are aging, but not stepping them up. That’s an interesting dynamic.

Dawn McPherson:

It is interesting. I think some people would’ve liked to have seen this handled just a little bit differently. But it’s nice that it’s been increased. And of course, the benefit here is that it allows individuals to defer taxes on accumulated assets a little longer. It’s also worth mentioning, actually, that the RMDs for Roth contributions—so to date, under the current law, Roth IRAs, but not Roth amounts contributed to retirement plans, were exempt from the RMD rules. So now, the new provisions actually include Roth contributions to your retirement plan in that. So that’s any RMD that would be due in 2024. You don’t have to take an RMD from the Roth contributions.

Scott Matheson:

Oh, so common-sense legislation. All right. Well, those are pretty good. Well, two of those are really good. Just kidding. Those are great ones. Jennifer, good luck topping that. What are your top three?

Jennifer Doss:

Well, we already touched on one, student loans.

Scott Matheson:

You’re trying to… Oh, now we’re going two. OK.

Jennifer Doss:

Yeah. Got it. Exactly. The second one I had, I think it’s a really cool focus of Secure 2.0, and that’s really just increasing the amount of retirement plan coverage within the U.S. And there are two primary ways that [the] Secure 2.0 Act does that. The first is through offering some significant tax credits to employers of small businesses that start a retirement plan for their employees. So really encouraging that. There’s a credit to cover the administrative and the setup cost of the plan for a few years. And there’s increased incentives for employer contributions as well. So really, it’s a really beneficial program now. But the really interesting thing, and the reason I think this is super interesting—maybe for those plan sponsors out there that already have plans—is that going forward, and we’ll ignore some very confusing effective dates for purposes of this conversation, but all new 401(k) and 401(3) plans have to offer automatic enrollment and automatic escalation.

And the default rate has to be at least 3 percent, and then it has to be increased by 1 percent a year up to at least 10 percent, but with a max of 15 percent. And there’s some small exceptions in there, but the real impact I think this is going to have is it’s just going to drive more existing plans to also offer these auto features. It’s clearly best practice at this point, depending upon what industry publication you’re looking at. If we use, like, Plan Sponsored Council of America, for instance, 62 percent of plans currently offer auto-enrollment, and a little over half of those that offer auto-enrollment also do automatic escalation. So we still have plenty of room to increase that, and some improvement we can make in those areas. And we know from all the research that it makes a meaningful difference in plan participation and in savings rates over time, which is why all new plans going forward are going to have to offer it.

Scott Matheson:

That’s pretty interesting. So expanded coverage, better savings mechanisms, harnessing all the lessons we’ve learned over participant behavior, and unfortunately inertia of human beings. Let’s use it for good. All right.

Jennifer Doss:

Exactly.

Scott Matheson:

I can get down with that one.

Jennifer Doss:

And the last one is complicated but meaningful to lower-income workers. And it’s the modification of the saver’s credit that currently exists within the tax law for low-income individuals that contribute to [a] qualified plan or an IRA. Really changes it from a saver’s credit to a saver’s match. And basically before, to take advantage of it, you had to have a low income. You had to be contributing to a qualified retirement account, and you had to have a tax liability to take advantage of the credit.

Now, we’re talking about a 50 percent matching contribution up to $2,000 for those that meet the income requirements and contribute to a qualified retirement account. But interestingly, that money will then be deposited straight into a qualified retirement account of the taxpayer’s choosing. So not only does this provision make the saver’s credit refundable, which is more applicable to more people where it wasn’t before, it also encourages further retirement savings by depositing that money straight into their retirement account for the taxpayer. So just like workers get an employer match to encourage retirement savings, now the government is also going to match and encourage retirement savings, and it’s estimated to impact over 108 million Americans.

Scott Matheson:

Wow. Well, that’s encouraging and depressing all at the same time, actually—there’s 108 million Americans who qualify—but that’s meaningful. You’re right. And complicated. So anything else on that?

Jennifer Doss:

No, I would just mention before we move on, I think when you start to combine some of these provisions is really where the magic starts to happen. I think that with higher trends and what we’re seeing from employers offering financial wellness and advice services, I think you get a really bright picture for retirement readiness for all generations. And the EBRI that I mentioned earlier, they did a really nice piece on the impact of some of these provisions. It’s a year or so old, but they discussed the impact of some of these provisions, implementing them, and they broke it out by race and by age cohort. So it’s really fascinating. If you’re interested, it’s called Impact of Five Legislative Proposals and Industry Innovations on Retirement Income Adequacy. OK.

Scott Matheson:

We should link down the show notes.

Jennifer Doss:

I think we should. But a highlight I will mention, I think, is that the increased savings projected to be associated with some of these provisions we discussed today—the auto feature, student loan matching, saver’s match—it’s really significant and particularly to non-white participants and those that are under 40. Again, these are just estimates, and the work that was done by EBRI isn’t based on the exact final provisions that we got, but I think it gives you a real sense for how meaningful … some of these Secure Act 2.0 provisions really are.

Scott Matheson:

Well, for that I’d say thanks to you, thanks to both of y’all who are involved—Jennifer, I know, directly in Washington on numerous occasions—for that, because you’re talking about a lot of underrepresented parts of the workforce that have had savings deficiencies that we know we need to address. And so if this does that, winner winner. Let’s go spend the time on all 92 of them. Huh? All right. We’re going to switch gears away from Secure 2.0. I know that’s disappointing to everybody.

Jennifer Doss:

No, I’m good.

Dawn McPherson:

Super disappointing.

Scott Matheson:

If you had a video of this, you’d be wondering why there’s somebody else sitting in the room with us this whole time, and it’s not compliance, it’s not somebody auditing. It’s Heather Shanahan, who joined us last year as a director of our endowment foundation business here at CAPTRUST. So welcome, Heather.

Heather Shanahan:

Thank you, Scott and Jennifer. It’s a pleasure to join you today.

Scott Matheson:

Yeah. Well, we’re excited you’re here. We’re excited that you’re here at CAPTRUST. Just real quick on your background, you can fill in the gaps, but you actually were in our business, the financial services industry, for quite some time, and then found your way onto serving on a board of a local nonprofit, a meaningful one. They had a leadership churn and a deficiency, and you left that world behind you and went on and became their CEO and executive director. So [you] bring a lot of, really, passion and understanding of the journey of these endowments and foundations and nonprofits in general. So what’d I miss? Tell me what I missed.

Heather Shanahan:

That’s a good summary, and the really amazing thing about what I’m doing now is that all these pieces [are] tied together here at CAPTRUST. So it’s an opportunity to still stay in the philanthropic vein with an organization that’s completely committed to that and help us support that line of business and grow.

Scott Matheson:

Yeah. Well, we got the right person for that. Glad you’re here, but you’re really here today on the podcast because you have decided that we are going to launch a new podcast here at CAPTRUST focused on some of those core issues that you were just referencing. We’re calling it Mission and Markets. So tell me what’s going on there. Tell our listeners. See if there’s some crossover we can pick up for you.

Heather Shanahan:

Absolutely. Well, first of all, big shoes to fill here between the two of you and the amazing job that you do here. I don’t know that my jokes are going to be as good.

Scott Matheson:

Mine are not good, so you’re fine.

Heather Shanahan:

All right.
Jennifer Doss:

They’re not my jokes. I’m not the joke person.

Heather Shanahan:

So maybe the bar’s low, but anyway.

Scott Matheson:

Exactly.

Heather Shanahan:

We’re really excited to expand on what we want to focus on beyond strictly the investment management story that we do so well here at CAPTRUST. So taking a look at supporting organizations’ missions, taking a look at meeting their needs and helping them have best practice ideas from a fiduciary and governance standpoint. So our launch, our first episode, will actually be taking a look at our Annual Endowment and Foundation Survey. We’ll have some guest speakers on to talk about content there, what feedback we got, what we’re hearing from nonprofits, and so that should be a great groundbreaking conversation. We’ll be taking a look at things such as grant writing, how to handle board turnover, board member roles, mission aligned investing, different topics every month. So we’ll switch it up and have some folks that are internal to CAPTRUST, we’ll have some clients on board, and then we’ll also have some industry thought leadership that’ll join us too.

Scott Matheson:

Oh, nice. Well, that does sound great. Looking forward to it. And so it starts, I think we’re dropping it in February, right?

Heather Shanahan:

That is correct, yeah.

Scott Matheson:

Well, for everybody else that’s listening, we will link it in our show notes because you clearly just heard you’re going to have a better host or one of the hosts. Sorry, Jennifer. Maybe you two should take over. Maybe I’ll just leave now. All right, hopefully, Heather, this is not the last time that you agree to come in here, although it’s not trending in a favorable way. But in case it is, we don’t let anybody come in the room unless they answer one question, and that is, what does retirement look like to you, Heather Shanahan, aside from being many, many years from now?
Heather Shanahan:

Well, I’m glad you asked, Scott.

Heather Shanahan:

That didn’t feel natural at all.

Jennifer Doss:

No.

Heather Shanahan:

I think there’s a lot of travel involved. That’s the plan. So a little nomadic version of Heather. I think that’s what that looks like in the future, but you’re right, a really, really long way down the road. Subject to change.

Scott Matheson:

Well, that sounds cool. All right. Well, that wasn’t that hard. Come on.

Heather Shanahan:

No. It was easy.

Scott Matheson:

Cool. All right, good. All right, listen, everybody, thanks for sticking in there with us. Thanks for tolerating more discussions on Secure. We are excited about Secure 2.0. As Jennifer said, if you peel back and think about the forest through the trees here, this is a good thing for the industry. It’s a good thing for all the American workers that we’re all serving at the end of the day. We’ll focus on that this year on your behalf and keep you posted when you need to know. In the meantime, thanks for joining us. As always, we’d love to know what you think, topics we can cover, guests we can have. So tell us how we’re doing there. And as always, don’t forget to like and subscribe us so that other people follow us on your favorite listening app. Until next time, I’m Scott Matheson for this whole crew of talented people, way more talented than me, around me, and telling you to have a great month.

The discussions and opinions expressed in this podcast are [those] of the speaker and are subject to change without notice. This podcast is intended to be informational only. Nothing in this podcast constitutes a solicitation, investment advice, or recommendation to invest in any securities. CAPTRUST Financial Advisors is an investment advisor registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. CAPTRUST does not render legal advice. Thank you for listening to Revamping Retirement.