'Mission' Controls

 So, what did you want to be when you grew up?

Now, I realize that some of you are still growing up—but I’ve never met ANYONE who said “I wanted to work with retirement plans”—and that includes me. 

Indeed, what we aspire to become in our youth is complex—and often shaped by our experience(s) at the time. And while I am sure there was a period in my youth when I wanted to be a fireman, a cowboy, or maybe even a professional athlete (that one didn’t last long), my earliest memories are of wanting to be an astronaut—an aspiration that came to mind again last week on the anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing.

It was a magical time for our nation’s space program. There was a plan, three separate programs (Mercury, Gemini and Apollo) designed with specific mission objectives to help us get there, and a vision—as President John F. Kennedy said in May 1961—of “achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth.” There was also a sense of national urgency (the so-called “Space Race” with the Soviets), and, while throughout its life the program was remarkably bereft of injury, the tragedy of the February 1967[i] fire on Apollo 1 that took the lives of astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and Roger Chaffee reminded us of the stakes involved.

And then, after years of watching Americans enter space, circle the planet, exit their craft while circling the planet (at unimaginable speeds), and then leave Earth’s orbit to touch the lunar sky, came that one Sunday July evening in 1969. I can still remember the grainy black-and-white images of Neil Armstrong’s “one small step for man” flickering across the screen of my family’s small black-and-white television (replete with its aluminum foil-festooned “rabbit ears”)—the anniversary of which was just last week. It was, as Neil Armstrong is said to have intended to say, “a small step for a man…a giant leap for mankind.”

It doesn’t take much imagination to draw a correlation between the planning for a landing on the moon and a successful arrival in retirement (OK, so maybe it takes a little imagination). Both require a notion of what constitutes a successful “arrival,” an idea of the steps that will be required to get there, the tenacity and ingenuity to deal with the inevitable bumps along the way[ii] (remember the example of Apollo 13)—and the specificity of a date certain to give some structure to those plans.

That said, and as we ponder the accomplishments and planning that helped our nation put astronauts in space and on the moon—and that one day may take us further—it’s worth remembering that our “mission” is not only to get tomorrow’s retirees safely to retirement, to take those “small steps” along the way—but ultimately to position them and their finances to carry them safely through retirement… to a safe landing at their “tranquility base.”

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] Of course, the January 1986 explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger reminded us anew and afresh of those dangers.

[ii] Students of history know that one of the contingency plans for the Apollo 11 mission was a presidential statement if those astronauts had crashed (they got pretty low on fuel before landing), or if they hadn’t been able to return to Earth (some engineer actually forgot to put a handle on the outside of the lunar module door—and if they hadn’t noticed that and left the door open while they were on the surface, they might not have been able to get back inside the LEM). Fortunately, those contingencies are now simply interesting historical anecdotes. Still, it’s worth recalling that the ultimate mission was not only to get men to the moon, but to return them safely home.

Social Security COLA ‘Click Bait’

Over the past couple of years, one of the most-clicked posts on NAPA-Net has been on a topic that is a bit of a head-scratcher.

I’m speaking, of course, of the (now-incessantly tracked), monthly projections of the (potential) cost of living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security. It started back when inflation emerged as a real consumer concern—and it was spurred by the efforts of a group called the Senior Citizens League in publishing—EVERY MONTH—a projected cost of living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security.[i] And our coverage of those projections has been, and continues to be, one of the most clicked-on stories[ii] (ditto other publications, apparently).  

Like many, perhaps most, of you, I was initially intrigued by the reporting. Let’s face it, after a couple of decades of relative economic slumber, inflation has reared its ugly head in a way that reminds some of us of the days of our youth when inflation was an actual scary economic reality, rather than an obscure concept. And, at a time when the soaring cost of—well, everything—has (re)garnered our attentions, the notion that those impacts for older workers might be muted by a positive adjustment in their monthly benefit (not to mention those prospective increases in contribution and benefit limits of qualified plans) was encouraging.

But every single month?        

Not that Social Security has always had a COLA. In fact, Congress enacted the COLA provision as part of the 1972 Social Security Amendments, and automatic annual COLAs didn’t begin until 1975. Prior to that, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation. As for its calculation, Social Security’s COLA is based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of the last year a COLA was determined to the third quarter of the current year. If there is no increase—and, believe it or not, that’s been the case in recent memory—there can be no COLA. That said, you can imagine that there tends to be something of a hue-and-cry from Social Security beneficiaries in those rare situations (most recently in 2016,[iii] though the increase in 2017 was just 0.3%). 

Of course, inflation measures often seem to be as much art as science—varying largely on what you spend your money on—and seniors do tend to spend money differently. In fact, one of the criticisms of the current formula is that it considers the purchases that current workers make, rather than retirees.[iv]  Another factor is the timing of the formula, which considers the period from September of one year to the next—while the government reports tend to reference the change from the PRIOR month, or in some cases from the same month a year earlier. 

That said, those on what are commonly referred to as “fixed incomes”[v] are understandably interested (and anxious) about potential increases (or lack thereof) in those finances. Let’s face it—retirement is not a profession that warrants merit increases, after all, nor are there typically opportunities for “promotion.” Purely from an SEO perspective, one can understand and appreciate the internet search engines cranking up to try and get a peek at what’s coming up in terms of potential benefit increases (and, to be sure, we do get significant traffic for those posts outside of our newsletter distribution). Still, and while those projections are based on the realities of the official inflation numbers reported by the federal government, they are merely point-in-time guestimates when it comes to knowing what the actual COLA number will be.

Not that I don’t “get” and appreciate the significance of the ACTUAL Social Security COLA—its impact on retirement projections, not to mention realities, is significant. That said, relentlessly tracking the POTENTIAL COLA based on interim monthly readings of inflation a year out from the actual establishment of the COLA have always struck me as a bit… obsessive. But clicks drive coverage these days and for the foreseeable future, and therefore, as long as you (all) keep clicking, we’ll keep covering…

Still, it should serve as a reminder to us all that planning for retirement should look beyond the income we happen to be drawing when we leave the workforce. After all, if the income we have at retirement isn’t enough to adjust to the costs of living in retirement—it might well cost us an “adjustment” in how, or how well, we live through retirement.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] According to their website, they are a nonpartisan seniors group, and have been since 1992, though it wasn’t until the COLA adjustment reports that they crept onto my radar. And perhaps that, as much as anything else, explains the monthly COLA reports.

[ii] And by including “Social Security” in the title of this post, I’m shamelessly trolling for some additional SEO visibility, of course.

[iii] You can find a table of the COLA at https://www.ssa.gov/cola/

[iv] For more details, check out http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/econ-sec/fs160.pdf or https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/info-2020/colas-history.html.

[v] And it’s not just retirees. Disabled workers and their dependents account for 19% of total benefits paid, according to the Social Security Administration (see http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm).

 

Are Millennials’ Retirements ‘Doomed?’

Millennials have had a rough week of it, at least in the financial press.

First there was a report that they had established asset allocations that mirrored that of their grandparents (the respondents apparently never heard of a target-date fund). Then a separate survey that indicated they (70% of them, anyway) were ashamed to ask their parents for financial advice (we’ll set aside for a minute whether that would have been a good source), and then the pièce de résistance was a report that painted a pretty bleak retirement picture for a generation that “entered the workforce around the Great Recession, which began in late 2007, and experienced a difficult economy early in their careers. Now, they are confronting pandemic-related setbacks while trying to manage work-life balance.” 

Indeed, the only bright note for this group—identified as those born between 1981 and 1996 - was a report that said the retirement savings gap between genders in that demographic was a mere 23% (which, at $29,218 versus $23,715, doesn’t mean it’s adequate, but then we’re only talking about averages). 

Now, as a mid-range Boomer—who happens to be the parent of three Millennials—I can attest to the complexities of this generation of individuals, now said to be the majority of today’s workforce (I can also attest to the reality that they all hate the label “Millennials”). 

Of course, they’re not the “kids” such labeling tends to call to mind—the eldest are in the 40’s, after all.  But that’s the age when life’s biggest financial struggles come home to roost; college debt, home ownership, marriage, kids (and the prospects of THEIR college expenses), and—increasingly—the burdens of caring for their Boomer parents. In that sense, their experiences are comparable to the challenges their parents faced, though perhaps a tad later in life.

There are, of course, the economic and technological realities of their generation. At similar ages, odds are their parents were barely aware of the Internet, and “innovations” like smartphones, email and social media were not even glimmers of possibility beyond science fiction. Those influences are both empowering and debilitating, inflating expectations and fueling a certain peer pressure on a scale their parents couldn’t appreciate. 

That said, and despite the recent spate of negative press (giving Boomers a break[i]), I’m pretty sure that:

Millennials are saving for retirement—likely earlier, and at higher rates than you did when you were their age.

Sure, some of that is plan design—automatic enrollment was a rarity when their parents were coming into the workplace, and employers are increasingly coupling that design with contribution acceleration.  Moreover, immediate eligibility is increasingly popular (Vanguard’s 2023 How America Saves says 80% of plans now offer that, while the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s 65^th Annual Survey of 401(k) and Profit-Sharing Plans puts it at just over half). And yes, that can matter a lot if job turnover is high—but it’s an urban myth[ii] that Millennials turnover more often than Boomers did at their age.

IF they have access to a plan at work, anyway.

Millennials are likely better invested for their retirement than you are—“then” and now.

Okay, as with saving for retirement, surely some of this is plan design—notably the default investment in target-date funds (TDFs) or some other qualified default investment alternative (QDIA)—and their more recent hire date. While data shows that TDF use varies with participant age and tenure, reports pretty consistently indicate that younger participants are more likely to hold TDFs than older participants (not so much due to their age, but due to their greater likelihood of being a new participant defaulted into the TDF. That doesn’t mean they are more involved/engaged/astute about those investments—but they’re likely more diversified, with portfolios regularly rebalanced (despite the conclusions of that survey above). 

BTW, that’s something that plan fiduciaries might want to keep in mind the next time the concept of reenrollment comes up.

Millennials are thinking about retirement. Probably more than you were at their age.

Millennials have never known a time without a 401(k), nor have they lived during a period when a personal responsibility for saving hasn’t been part and parcel of the education around their benefits package. They’ve been worried about Social Security’s sustainability from the time of their first paycheck (what they probably don’t appreciate is that their parents also worried, and arguably—in the early 1980s—with better reason).

While they certainly have options their parents didn’t, they also have their own set of challenges—some unique, but many unique only in that they are young(er). They have tools and innovative plan design, apps and the aptitude to use them, and in many cases access to professional guidance.

They may not know how much they need to save for retirement (nor do their parents, apparently), they may not yet feel that they can afford to save for retirement, they may not even know how to save for retirement—but you can bet they know they need to.

And, in more cases than one might expect from recent reports, with access to workplace retirement plans, the help of good plan design, and professional retirement planning advice, likely already doing so.         

- Nevin E. Adams, JD 

---

[i] And, once again, nobody seems to care about Gen X… who also hates that label!

[ii] The data show that median job tenure in the private sector in the United States has hovered around five years for the past several decades, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). 

 

• 
  

Independence 'Gaze'

A week from today the nation will celebrate Independence Day—though of course independence didn’t actually occur on July 4.

Let’s face it, the Declaration of Independence[i] was little more than that—a declaration. One that had yet to be backed by anything beyond the artfully crafted and narrow consensus of a handful of delegates appointed by a wide variety of means and mechanisms, with correspondingly disparate levels of responsibility and accountability for their alignment with the principles outlined in that document. 

As practically meaningless as that declaration might have been, we commemorate and celebrate those actions because, eventually, events transpired that made those aspirations a reality. But it came only after years of hard-fought fighting, and while we don’t often talk about this, it ultimately divided the nation between those who wanted to be free from what they viewed as tyranny—and those who viewed those actions and aspirations as nothing less than treason.

That said, the deliberations that produced that declaration are in many ways emblematic for how groups—including retirement plan committees—move forward—though it’s important to keep these things in mind:

Inertia is a powerful force.

By the time the Second Continental Congress convened, the “shot heard round the world” had already been fired at Lexington, but many of the representatives in Philadelphia still held out hope for some kind of peaceful reconciliation. Little wonder that, even in the midst of hostilities, there was a strong inclination on the part of several key individuals to put things back the way they had been, to patch them over, rather than to take on the world’s most accomplished military force (not to mention putting their own lives and fortunes at risk).

Indeed, as human beings we are largely predisposed to leave things the way they are, rather than making abrupt and dramatic change. Whether this “inertia” comes from a fear of the unknown, a certain laziness about the extra work that might be required, or a fear that advocating change suggests an admission that there was something “wrong” before, it seems fair to say that plan fiduciaries are, generally speaking, and in the absence of a compelling reason for change, inclined to rationalize staying put.

Little wonder that we often see new fund options added, while old and unsatisfactory funds linger on the plan menu, a general hesitation to undertake an evaluation of long-standing providers in the absence of severe service problems, and a reluctance to adopt potentially disruptive (and, admittedly, sometimes expensive) plan features like automatic enrollment, deferral acceleration, or more recently—retirement income.

While many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention were restricted by the entities that appointed them in terms of how they could vote on the issues presented, plan fiduciaries are bound by a higher obligation—that their decisions be made solely in the best interests of plan participants and their beneficiaries—regardless of any other organizational or personal obligations they may have outside their committee role.

Consensus can be hard to achieve.

The Second Continental Congress was comprised of representatives from what amounted to 13 different governments, with delegates selected by processes ranging from extralegal conventions, ad hoc committees, to elected assemblies—with varying degrees of voting authority granted to them, to boot. Needless to say, that made reaching consensus even more complicated than under “ordinary” circumstances.

Today the process of putting together an investment or plan committee runs the gamut—everything from simply extrapolating roles from an organization chart to a random assortment of individuals to a thoughtful consideration of individuals and their qualifications to act as a plan fiduciary. But if you want a good result, you need to have the right individuals—and they should be aligned around a singular purpose—decisions made with the exclusive purpose of the best interests of plan participants and beneficiaries.

It’s important to put it in writing.

Before the delegates at the Second Continental Congress were united in purpose, there was a sense by those favoring independence that putting those thoughts in writing would help crystalize, as well as formalize, that proposition. And while the Declaration of Independence technically had no legal effect, putting that declaration—and the sentiments expressed—in writing gave it a force and influence far beyond its original purpose. It also provided a focus for the debate and discussion of those delegates—and an opportunity to tweak and shape those thoughts to be in alignment with the whole group.

There is an old ERISA adage that says, “Prudence is process.” However, an updated version of that adage might be “prudence is process—but only if you can prove it.” To that end, a written record of the activities of plan committee(s) is an essential ingredient not only in validating the results, but also the thought process behind those deliberations (not to mention that there WAS a thought process behind those deliberations). More significantly, those minutes can provide committee members—both past and future—with a sense of the environment at the time decisions were made, the alternatives presented and the rationale offered for each, as well as what those decisions were. 

Those might not serve to inspire future generations—but they can be an invaluable tool in (re)assessing those decisions at the appropriate time(s) in the future and making adjustments as warranted—properly documented, of course.

You can delegate authority—but not responsibility.

When it came to drafting the declaration itself, there was an acknowledgement that some delegates were better writers than others. But while the primary responsibility for the draft fell to Thomas Jefferson, he was teamed with several other key individuals to help assure that the draft took into account the sensibilities of the entire delegation—and even then, when presented there were additional edits.

Ultimately, however, the responsibility for the declaration fell to all the delegates. As Ben Franklin is said to have commented just before signing the Declaration, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

It’s not quite that serious for ERISA plan fiduciaries. However, there is the matter of personal liability—not only for your actions, but for those of your fellow fiduciaries—and thus, you might be required to restore any losses to the plan or to restore any profits gained through improper use of plan assets. So, it’s a good idea not only to know who your co-fiduciaries are—but to keep an eye on what they do, and are not only permitted, but expected, to do.

Actions can speak louder than words.

As dramatic and inspiring as the words of the Declaration of Independence surely were (and are), if they never got beyond the document in which they appeared, it’s unlikely we’d be talking about them today. Indeed, it’s likely that, without the actions committed to in that Declaration, their signatures on the document would have only ensured that they wound up on the gallows, rather than the history books.

Anyone who has ever had a grand idea shackled to the deliberations of a moribund committee, or who has had to kowtow to the sensibilities of a recalcitrant compliance department, can empathize with the process that ultimately produced the Declaration of Independence we’ll commemorate next week.

Yes, Independence Day is a great opportunity to reflect and recall that our actions have consequence(s)—and that while plan committee meetings and deliberations may sometimes seem like little more than obligatory (and tedious) reviews of arcane information, it’s worth remembering that those decisions affect people’s lives—and, ultimately, their financial independence.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] Ironically, despite the celebrations on the 4th, the resolution that declared that “these United Colonies are, and of right, ought to be, Free and Independent States” was approved by the Continental Congress on July 2. In fact, only President of Congress John Hancock and Charles Thomson, secretary, signed it on the 4th (the former famously in a hand “large enough for King George to read without his spectacles”). Most of the 56 delegates didn’t sign it for another month. One didn’t sign until 1781.