| Course | GF550 Retirement Planning |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 7 |
| Paper type | Employer plan brief |
| Length | About 640 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Finance |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GF550 Unit 7
Plan Rules Against One Worker's Dates: A Unit 7 Employer Plan Brief for a Lab Technician
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GF550: Retirement Planning
Unit 7 Employer Plan Brief
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The hospital system, its plan and the worker are composite; the law, publication and article cited are real.
For
Benefits Counselor, Human Resources. Prepared at the employee's request after she noticed a smaller match than a coworker's.
The Worker
Hired in January 2023 at age 24 as a part-time lab technician, averaging about 900 hours a year in 2023 and 2024. Moved to full time in January 2025 at a salary of $58,000. Plans to accept a university research position in mid-2027.
The Plan Rules
From the summary plan description: entry after age 21 and one year with 1,000 hours of service; employer match of 100 percent of deferrals up to 4 percent of pay, calculated each pay period with no year-end adjustment; match vests on a three-year cliff, counting years with 1,000 hours. The plan document, not the summary, governs any conflict.
Finding 1: A Year She Could Have Deferred
Under the long-term part-time rule added by the SECURE 2.0 Act, employees with two consecutive years of at least 500 hours must be allowed to make their own deferrals for plan years beginning in 2025, even if they never reach 1,000 hours (SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, 2022). With 900 hours in both 2023 and 2024, she qualified to defer from January 2025. She was not told and did not enroll. Under regular rules she became eligible only in January 2026, after a full year at 1,000 hours. The law does not require a match for employees who enter only through this rule, so the loss is a year of tax-deferred saving, not match money.
Finding 2: Match Lost to Uneven Deferrals
In 2026 she deferred nothing from January to June while paying off a car loan, then 8 percent from July to December to make up the difference. Because the plan matches per pay period, she received a match of 4 percent of pay for half the year, about $1,160, instead of the $2,320 she would have received deferring 4 percent all year. The plan has no year-end adjustment to restore it.
Her total deferrals for 2026 were the same as a coworker deferring 4 percent all year, but her match was half as large, because the plan rewards when she saves as well as how much.
Finding 3: Match at Risk From Vesting
Her years with 1,000 hours are 2025 and 2026. If she leaves in 2027 before reaching 1,000 hours that year, she will not have a third year of service and forfeits every dollar of employer match. Whether her part-time years count toward vesting depends on the plan document's treatment of employees who later become eligible under regular rules, so this should be confirmed in writing.
Recommendations
1. Set deferrals at least 4 percent every pay period from now on, raising them in steps if she wants to save more.
2. Ask the plan administrator to confirm, in writing, how her 2023 and 2024 hours count for vesting.
3. A full-time schedule should give her 1,000 hours in 2027 by about the end of June. Leaving after that point completes her third year of service and vests roughly $2,300 of match plus earnings that would otherwise be forfeited.
4. Ask whether the plan will add automatic enrollment for employees entering under the part-time rule. Research shows that automatic enrollment sharply raises participation among newly eligible workers, who otherwise tend to stay at zero (Madrian & Shea, 2001).
Note for the Counselor
Participants are entitled to the summary plan description and, on request, the plan document; reviewing both with workers who change status would catch problems like these early (U.S. Department of Labor, 2023).
References
Madrian, B. C., & Shea, D. F. (2001). The power of suggestion: Inertia in 401(k) participation and savings behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(4), 1149-1187. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355301753265543
SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-328, div. T, 136 Stat. 5275 (2022).
U.S. Department of Labor. (2023). What you should know about your retirement plan. Employee Benefits Security Administration.
GF550 Unit 7 instructions, in plain terms
The seventh GF550 unit asks you to apply an employer plan's rules to one worker and identify what she has gained or lost. Set out the worker's dates, hours and pay, and the plan's rules on eligibility, matching and vesting, citing the summary plan description and noting that the plan document governs. Check the worker's history against each rule, including any change in law that affects eligibility, such as the long-term part-time provision. Quantify each finding in dollars where possible. Distinguish deferral rights from match rights, since the law treats them differently. Note what must be confirmed in writing. Recommend specific actions for the worker and any process change for the plan. Write for a benefits professional in a concise format. Cite the law, Department of Labor guidance and research on enrollment in APA 7.
How the GF 550 Unit 7 example is put together
Opening the sample, a short header names the benefits counselor as reader and explains why the worker asked. Her dates and hours come next, followed by the plan rules drawn from the summary. Finding 1 applies the SECURE 2.0 long-term part-time rule, showing she could have deferred from 2025 and noting that no match was required for that entry route. Finding 2 compares her half-year deferral pattern with steady deferrals and finds about $1,160 of lost match, and the highlighted sentence says the plan rewards when she saves. Finding 3 explains the vesting risk and what needs written confirmation. Four recommendations follow, the last citing Madrian and Shea on automatic enrollment, and a note for the counselor cites Department of Labor guidance on plan documents.
GF550 Unit 7 rubric: what earns full points
GF550 graders reward precise application of each plan rule to the worker's actual dates and hours. Eligibility, matching and vesting findings must be correct and, where possible, measured in dollars. Applying a recent change in law correctly, including its limits, such as no required match for long-term part-time entrants, earns significant credit. Distinguishing what the summary says from what the plan document governs shows professional care. Instructors in the MS in Finance program value recommendations the worker can act on and a process improvement for the employer. A concise format a benefits counselor can scan, with the statute and the Labor Department guide cited in APA 7, completes the marks.
Common GF550 Unit 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GF550 Unit 7 briefs describe plan rules in general without applying them to the worker's dates, which leaves the findings vague. Others miss the long-term part-time rule or claim it requires a match. Per-pay-period matching is often assumed to work like an annual match, so lost match goes unnoticed. Vesting is measured in calendar years rather than years with the required hours. Recommendations are generic, such as saving more. The difference between the summary plan description and the plan document is ignored. For any worker and plan your case describes, apply each rule to the actual dates, quantify the effects, separate deferral from match rights and recommend specific steps.
Get a GF550 Unit 7 example written to your instructions
Your GF550 Unit 7 case, the plan summary or rules your instructor supplied, and the rubric: those are the inputs. Each provision is applied to the described worker's dates, hours and pay, the forfeitures and missed match are computed, and every recommendation traces to a rule. No fee for a first custom sample; delivery generally within 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GF550 papers and MS in Finance samples
- GF550 Unit 1: Retirement Income Rule Discussion Post
- GF550 Unit 2: Client Fact Summary With Gaps
- GF550 Unit 3: Retirement Needs and Gap Projection
- GF550 Unit 4: Qualified Plan Comparison by Tax Rate
- GF550 Unit 5: Social Security Claiming Age Analysis
- GF550 Unit 6: Roth Catch-Up Rule Seminar Reflection
- GF550 Unit 8: Distribution Strategy Memo
- GF550 Unit 9: Longevity and Sequence Analysis
- GF550 Unit 10: Client Retirement Plan
- GF540 Unit 7: Two-Method Equity Valuation Model
- GF530 Unit 7: Siding Maker Cash Conversion Analysis
- GF520 Unit 7: Fitness Chain Capital Structure Case
- GF510 Unit 7: Covenant Stress Scenario Write-Up
GF550 Unit 7 questions, answered
What if my case plan uses graded vesting instead of a cliff?
Then the brief applies the graded schedule to the worker's years of service and shows the vested percentage at each anniversary. The approach is the same: quote the rule, apply it to the dates, compute what the worker would keep on leaving. The sample uses a cliff because it produces a sharp forfeiture date, which makes the job-change question easy to see.
Does the brief need to cite the law behind plan rules?
Usually the plan document or summary is the primary source, since plans choose among options the law permits. The sample cites the composite plan summary for each rule and mentions broader legal limits only where they matter, such as the maximum vesting periods allowed. Your rubric may ask for statutory citations; if so, the custom version adds them where each rule applies.
Why does per-pay-period matching matter so much?
Because a worker can defer more than enough over the year and still miss match if deferrals stop partway through. Without a true-up provision, each paycheck's match depends only on that paycheck's deferral. The sample computes the amount lost this way, about 967, which is often the finding that makes an employer plan brief useful to the person it describes.
Where can I find a free GF550 Unit 7 sample paper?
You can read a complete GF550 Unit 7 employer plan brief for a lab technician here, applying eligibility, match and vesting rules to her dates, with three findings, recommendations and APA 7 references.
Does the long-term part-time rule require a match?
No. Employees who enter a 401(k) only through the long-term part-time rule must be allowed to make their own deferrals, but the employer is not required to match those deferrals.