Path(s) of Least Resistance

So, how many 401(k) accounts do you have?

At the moment, I have four—one from each of the employers in my career (including this one), all except the first one (that one went for law school and a house downpayment). Apparently I’m not alone. A recent survey of Plan Sponsor Council of America members found that only 18% of respondents had a single 401(k) account. Nearly as many (14.3%) had five. As it turns out, three was the most common response.

I joke that it’s just “market research”—after all, what better way to assess the quality of various retirement plan offerings than to have your own 401(k) supported by some of the best? Sure, there’s been institutional pricing at one that I’d hate to lose, access to a specific managed account platform that I value, and a really cool online platform at another—and then, in the back of my mind, is a concern that the taxability detail might get “jostled” in the process—in short, plenty of reasons to rationalize my leaving them where they are. But the truth of the matter is that moving your account remains a bit of a pain.

That has a number of implications, not the least of which is people can (and do) lose track of those “left behind” 401(k) accounts. That’s been an issue of some concern by both regulators and legislators alike—with potential remedies (or at least remedial efforts) like a “lost and found” directory. Perhaps just as significantly, the SECURE Act’s directive with regard to reporting projected retirement income numbers on participant statements won’t do anyone much good if it’s based on only one of the three or four account balances you actually have.[i]

There are other dangers[ii] in having multiple accounts—as they create multiple opportunities for hackers to access them. This is a particular concern when there’s been a change in recordkeepers (which is happening a lot these days), when you have a new account set up for you—but you don’t get around to promptly establishing a secure password (along with multi-factor authentication, personalized answers to key security questions, and electronic notifications of any changes to your account). After all, if you don’t lay claim to that account—quickly—it’s all the easier for a hacker to do so.  

Now, I’m guessing that the reality is that most people who leave their 401(k) accounts behind do so simply because it has become the easy no-action-required default (well, as long as your balance is over $5,000—if less than that, and certainly if less than $1,000, your “easy” default is likely a lump sum payment, taxed, and likely subject to premature withdrawal penalties as well. Indeed, the leakage that so many fret over—due to hardship withdrawals or loans—is fairly inconsequential. The exception, of course, is the loans that are outstanding when termination occurs—as well as the “forced” distributions at termination. A recent assessment by Alight notes that 80% of people who had an account of less than $1,000 cashed out at termination, while nearly two-thirds of those with balances between $1,000 and $5,000 did so.

Enter the Advancing Auto Portability Act of 2022, introduced by Sens. Tim Scott (R-SC) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH), provisions of which have been incorporated in the recently introduced Enhancing Americans’ Retirement Now (EARN) Act. The size of the leakage issue the legislation seeks to stem has been wildly exaggerated by some, but the Employee Benefit Research Institute credibly says auto-portability has the potential to preserve up to $1.5 trillion in retirement savings over a 40-year period. 

That’s right—just like automatic enrollment helps people get started doing the right thing, auto-portability is basically an infrastructure design that automatically helps participants—and most notably participants with small balances—and rolls those balances into an IRA, and then—if available and desirable—rolls that into their new employer’s retirement plan. But more than giving it structure, and legislative “legitimacy” (the Department of Labor lent some help in terms of a prohibited transaction exemption in 2019), the legislation provides a $500 tax credit for adopting small business employers to defray the costs of making the connections.     

Now, at the point of my job changes, it wouldn’t have taken much for me to decide to roll those balances into my new employer’s plan—but it took absolutely nothing at all for me to just leave them where they were—the path of least resistance. On the other hand, the default for those who have smaller balances—who are often just getting started doing the right thing by saving—is a default that requires that they “start over”—with a “forced” distribution, and one reduced by state and federal taxes, and likely a 10% penalty to boot. 

It's time we all had a path of least resistance that makes it easy for us to do the “right” thing. And now perhaps we do.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] In fairness, there are already concerns that the calculation proposed by the Labor Department in response to the SECURE Act’s directive already has shortcomings. Specifically, it would assume that the participant: (1) is retiring at age 67 (the Social Security full retirement age for many workers) or the participant's actual age, if older than 67); (2) uses an interest rate that is the 10-year constant maturity Treasuries (CMT) securities yield rate for the first business day of the last month of the period to which the benefit statement relates; (3) estimates life expectancy from a gender-neutral mortality table pursuant to IRC Sec. 417(e)(3)(B)—oh, and the biggie—(4) uses the current account value—assuming no further contributions.

[ii] Another “casualty” of multiple 401(k) accounts? When a provider publishes a list of “average” 401(k) balances (and 401(k) critics pounce on those as inadequate)—well, they might not have the whole picture. 

 

Conversation "Starters"

 This weekend is, of course, Father’s Day—but my dad’s decision to retire was driven more by time than timing. 

Like many of his generation, once he got to 65, it was time to “retire.” He didn’t have a pension (fortunately for him, my mother did), though he had Social Security, and savings in a 403(b) plan that he contributed to later in life—reluctantly—once he saw Mom’s modest savings in her 403(b) account grow.  

My dad was a man of (very) few words—at least spoken words. Conversations with him generally required… effort. Oh, he’d respond to direct questions, but his answers tended to be short and—well, direct. Again, like many of his generation, mostly he was content to let my mother be the conversationalist in family settings.   

So, when Dad turned to me one weekend afternoon for some input on his retirement planning—well, I was surprised. Not that it didn’t warrant a discussion, mind you—but it was not something we had ever discussed—and more’s the pity. That said, I dived into the financials, played through some spreadsheet projections, and—at the end of what I hoped was an educational and enlightening discussion of his options and trade-offs, their upsides and potential downsides—when I was sure that I had been able to unwind and demystify the maze and presented him with a straightforward presentation of alternatives, there was this long pause—and then, he turned to me and, as politely as he could, said, “I just want to know how much money I’ll have to live on every month.”

That, of course, was also the mindset of many in my dad’s generation—not how much we’ll need, but how much we’ll actually have. Ultimately, of course—certainly at the brink of retirement, that’s the reality of living in retirement. 

Now, the 32^nd annual Retirement Confidence Survey, published by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Greenwald Research, finds that nearly three quarters (73%) of American workers feel confident in their ability to live comfortably in retirement—indeed, 28% feel very confident (though nearly 6 in 10 say that preparing for retirement makes them feel stressed). While that assessment predated the recent market tumult (and there has been some correlation between the markets and retirement confidence over the years), much less the sustained inflation “bite,”[i] Americans’ confidence in retirement has proven to be pretty resilient—and this despite the persistent finding that many haven’t taken the time to do even a single estimate of their projected needs[ii]—and, at least traditionally, that included measures as unscientific as “guessing.”

Now, as it turned out, my analysis of my dad’s situation (stripped of all the fancy “upside potential” possibilities) affirmed his retirement decision—or at least it didn’t put him off it. I’ve wondered from time to time since what he would have done if it hadn’t. My guess is that, like many Americans confronted with those same realities, he’d have “adjusted.” To this day, I feel really lucky that he didn’t have to (if mostly because my mom’s planning compensated for his lack thereof). 

If it’s a conversation you haven’t (yet) had with your parents—or kids—perhaps it’s time you did.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Though, a third of workers and half of retirees who feel less confident cite inflation and the cost of living as the reason for their declining retirement confidence. 

[ii] However, and while it’s far from optimal, the most recent RCS did find that more than half (58 percent) ages 55 or older have tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved so that they can live comfortably in retirement.

Social Insecurities

Last week the Treasury Department’s Social Security Board of Trustees released its annual report in a classic case of good news, bad news.

The good news, of a sort, was that the date through which Social Security will be able to pay scheduled benefits was projected to be 2034—and while that’s not very far away, it was a year later than the prior year’s report had indicated. The bad news, of course, is that without some kind of adjustment the program won’t be able to pay those scheduled benefits beyond 2034.[i]

Now, that’s not the same as “going broke” or running out of money—but, as things stand now—assuming no adjustment is made—a possible outcome would be that the scheduled benefits paid would only be about three-fourths of “scheduled.”[ii]

What’s weird is that it’s hard to find anybody who seems to think the problem won’t get fixed at some point—though the definitions of “fixed” vary—and nobody is willing to hazard a guess on who’s going to step up, much less when or how. 

The ‘How’

Of course, the how is relatively straightforward. Years back, when the future crisis was no less real, but somewhat less large, I had the opportunity to hear former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan speak on the subject of “fixing” Social Security. Greenspan, who had led a commission in the early 1980s charged with solving what was then a much more immediate crisis of the program (believe it or not), outlined the two core elements of any serious attempt to resolve the funding shortfall:

1. increasing funding (generally either by raising the withholding rates or the compensation level to which they are applied, or both); and
2. reducing benefits, either by raising the claiming age —or what’s euphemistically referred to as “means testing,” which effectively reduces the benefits to higher income recipients. 

So, the answer to the problem is, as the actuaries remind us, “just math,” and we needn’t choose one solution or the other; rather, some combination—as it was in 1983—is the approach that seems the most likely outcome. That said, if there’s any aspect of this that is as widely known as the fact that there is a looming financial shortfall, it’s that the longer we put off taking steps to do so, the more difficult—the more expensive—it will be.

Whatever that system’s historic successes, and the dependence of the nation’s retirees on its benefits, I think most in my generation—and certainly those in my children’s—have doubts as to its long-term financial sustainability. Adjustments have been made over time to address those potential shortfalls—the retirement age has been lifted, the taxes withheld from current pay to fund that system have been increased, the benefits paid from that system have been subjected to taxation (effectively reducing benefits, particularly since those limits weren’t adjusted for inflation)—and most honest folk (even politicians) will admit that those same kinds of changes will be required again to avert the future funding crisis.

To get a sense for just how endemic Social Security is to retirement planning, just try finding a retirement income needs projection that doesn’t have as a foundational baseline Social Security benefits. Or consider that an emerging strategy to compensate for retirement savings shortfalls is to use those savings to postpone Social Security claiming in order to maximize those benefits. Indeed, considering how many Americans rely on Social Security as their sole—or at least a primary—source of retirement income, you’d think addressing the looming shortfall would be a matter of high priority for policy makers. But for the most part it seems to be left to “someone else, some other time.” 

Without a doubt, Social Security is most certainly the biggest retirement assumption—by individuals, retirement planners and legislators alike. At a time when we’re working to broaden coverage, to expand the impact of automatic plan design features, and the reach of state-run IRA programs, we know that as valuable, even essential, as those steps might be in broadening and deepening the success of the private retirement system—they won’t be “enough” if we don’t shore up the baseline foundation upon which the nation’s retirement security is currently predicated.

The “math” in the trustees’ report suggests we just picked up an “extra” year to solve the problem. Let’s not waste it.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Lest we forget, the Medicare program is in (even) worse shape. But that’s a post for another day.

[ii] Not that the potential beneficiaries have a solid grasp on how the program works even under the best of circumstances—see Many Near-Retirees in the Dark About How Social Security Works.

Middle "Grounds"

A new report entitled “The Missing Middle” by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) treads some all-too-familiar ground, myopically focusing on one element of the nation’s private retirement system.

The articulated concern is, of course, the “middle”—an income grouping for which Social Security’s progressive structure doesn’t reach high enough to provide an adequate replacement income, but that lacks the more expansive financial wherewithal of those at the upper end of the income strata.

According to the paper, the tax incentives that arguably existed at the birth of the 401(k) have been muted due to lower marginal tax rates and the expansion of the standard deduction—both of which serve to mitigate the tax burden on lower-income individuals—but in the process also arguably lessen the financial incentive for deferring taxes. And if that were not enough, the authors also argue that the “…tax benefits relating to investment returns may be less in a market with lower returns.”

Of course, the focus of the authors here is the tax incentives for retirement savings[i]—and, unsurprisingly, the premise is that those with lower incomes—and thus less tax liability—get less from the current tax deferrals afforded 401(k) contributions than do those at higher incomes (who pay more in taxes). And, if you look only at that aspect—and that’s where most such critiques stop—it’s a fair point.

Before going into the shortcomings in that analysis, I’ll admit that there are certain legitimate economic realities that the paper highlights—that higher-income (and by this we don’t necessarily mean wealthy) individuals are more likely to have access to a retirement plan through work, that there are racial aspects that correlate to wealth inequities and access in the workplace, that the Saver’s Credit as currently designed (requiring a long-form tax filing to claim and being non-refundable) aren’t available to many who would otherwise be eligible, and that Social Security, though an underlying foundation of private requirement as a whole, and particularly for lower-income individuals, has funding issues of its own to fulfill the current benefit promises.[ii]

‘Missing’ Interactions

Unfortunately, as noted above, these types of analyses always gloss over the interrelationships between the tax incentives and the creation of these plans in the first place. It is assumed (generally implicitly) that employers that want to be considered an “employer of choice” will be forced to offer these plans regardless of the tax preferences to do so. Let’s face it, the tax preferences—though modest at an individual level—do provide an incentive to not only offer the plan, but—in most cases—to provide a matching contribution. A matching contribution that these type critiques always seem to gloss over (it does make their math simpler). And let’s face it, there’s no question that having access to a plan matters—even this NIRS paper acknowledges that those with access are 15 times more likely to save. 

What’s also glossed over is the impact of non-discrimination tests and legal contribution limits—limits that work, and work as designed, to keep an effective balance between the benefits of higher-paid and other workers. In fact, data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute has proven that while higher-income individuals do have higher account balances, those balances are in rough proportion to their incomes. 

In calling for a “recalibration” of what they see as a “fundamentally inequitable system,” the well-intentioned authors are missing the mark. By focusing exclusively on the individual tax preferences, while at the same time ignoring the impact of tax preferences on the decision to offer a plan in the first place, as well as the influence of non-discrimination testing in encouraging an employer match (not to mention the financial impact that has on the retirement prospects of non-highly compensated workers), they—and their purported solutions—turn out to be missing the point—and the very “middle” they claim the current system overlooks. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Once again, the trade-off for deciding to defer taking pay now, and depositing it in a trust subject to various restrictions and pre-withdrawal penalties is that you don’t pay taxes on compensation you haven’t gotten access to.

[ii] To address the perceived shortcomings identified, the authors have several solutions. Specifically, they want to boost and expand Social Security, federalize the state-run IRAs, target the Saver’s Credit to participants in those programs, and perhaps introduce a state version of the refundable government credit in place of tax incentives, which would equalize the credit.