'Inside' Straits

 A recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article asked what I view as a rhetorical question; “Do you really know what’s inside your 401(k)?” Rhetorical in that I suspect the answer from most people — certainly if they’re honest — is “no.”

Now there are many aspects to a 401(k) that bear scrutiny, but the article was focused on target-date funds (TDFs) — a mechanism that I think has been a boon for most of the novice investors (and savers) that I suspect most 401(k) participants (still) are.

You check one box (heck, these days that box is checked for you) and tap into the expertise — and ongoing expertise at that — of professional money managers to provide your retirement savings with a diversified portfolio mix. No longer do you have to concern yourself with weightings of stocks and bonds, value versus growth, domestic versus international — just leave it to the experts. 

But the WSJ article’s focus was a cautionary note — mostly concerned at the unexpected things that a collective investment trust (CIT) vehicle (now 52% of all TDF assets, according to the article) might open the door to — specifically alternative investments, notably so-called “private investments.” Which, the article points out, might undermine the cost advantages of the CIT with those alternative holdings that are more expensive, less transparent/readily valued, and illiquid.

Indeed, the author goes so far as to comment, “As far as the managers of private assets are concerned, the ‘target’ in target-date funds is you.” Of course, his concern is that the less rigorous reporting requirements of a CIT (compared to a mutual fund) would allow investors to be taken advantage of — as though they’re actually even skimming that mutual fund prospectus.

Let’s face it — target-date funds with all their simplicity (at least in the choosing) and promise have been pitched as a “do it for you” solution, and tens of millions of (too) busy, preoccupied participants have trusted their retirement savings to these vehicles assuming that the professional investment class — not to mention the plan sponsor fiduciaries that screened them — know what they’re doing.

Unfortunately, in some cases, that trust may have been misplaced.

ad space

Something not mentioned in the WSJ article is that most of the manufacturers of those vehicles several years back embraced a “through” retirement date glide path, rather than the “to” retirement date that was the original “pitch.” The latter meaning that you’d gradually move to a much more conservative asset mix at your projected retirement date. And while there is still certainly a modest shift in that direction, the shift in emphasis means that I suspect there are a lot of folks nearing retirement that have a portfolio mix that is significantly more exposed to stocks than they might expect and/or want.[i]

Some of this shift is, doubtless, a sense that individuals want to stay invested in those funds, irrespective of retirement date.[ii] Some doubtless a desire to report better returns, since I suspect most fiduciaries are (still) paying more attention to the current returns than the conceptual integrity of the glidepath.

Regardless, it is, to my eyes, anyway, a shift from the original premise — and one that I suspect many participants haven’t noticed, and one on which plan fiduciaries may not have focused. The inclusion of alternative investments (particularly when folks are talking about 20% allocations) is one thing — but the structural glide path of these options, particularly when positioned as a default investment, strikes me as even more fundamental.

That said, and as the WSJ article closes, “None of this means you should turn your back on these funds, which can give you a powerful boost toward a sustainable retirement. It does mean you’ll need to know what you own and speak up if you don’t like it. The ultimate hands-off investment is going to require you to be a lot more hands-on.”

I would say that goes double for those responsible for the selection and monitoring of these plan options.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] Note — not saying that the shift in glidepath focus isn’t legit, or even beneficial — it just seems that most folks probably missed that “memo.”

[ii] Cynics might even suggest that the shift is a function of TDF managers simply wanting to keep hold of that money all the way through the individual’s retirement, rather than handing it over to a different manager. 

IRA ‘Junk’ Bunk

 There’s a “new” retirement crisis to fret about — and it involves so-called “junk” IRAs.

You may have seen the recent Wall Street Journal’s headline that proclaimed “Forgotten 401(k) Accounts Are Costing Americans Billions in Lost Investment Gains.” This particular assertion turns out to be another spurred by (yet another) proclamation from an IRA provider (PensionBee), though this one at least doesn’t manufacture quite as ludicrous a compounding of the size and number of those accounts as others[i] have done.

More precisely, the issue they raise is that smaller retirement plan balances can, and often are, legally expunged from the plan of their prior employer into an IRA.  

Now, retirement plan professionals know how this works — those who sever (or who are severed from) employment with less than a $1,000 balance will likely have that distributed to them in cash, those with balances above $7,000[ii] will generally have the option to leave that balance behind,[iii] and those with balances in between those two figures … well, if the employee doesn’t make a separate election, their former employer has the option[iv] to distribute out these “small” balances to an IRA.

Not just any IRA, mind you — the law (ERISA) requires a review and selection process that the plan fiduciary must enter into a written agreement with the IRA provider that — among other things — addresses the investment of the rollover funds and the fees and expenses to be charged to the account. With regard to the former, the rollover funds must be invested in a vehicle “designed to preserve principal, and provide a reasonable rate of return, whether or not such return is guaranteed, consistent with liquidity,” such as money market funds, interest-bearing savings accounts, certificates of deposit or other “stable value products.” 

With regard to the latter, the fees assessed against the IRA cannot exceed the amounts charged by the IRA provider for comparable IRAs established for rollover distributions that are not automatic rollovers. Sound like “junk” to you?

Oh — and participants are required to receive notice of this. 

So, what’s the big deal? Well, to put a “face” on this crisis, the Wall Street Journal manages to find a person who admits that she was told about this when she left her job, but “busy with her new job,” didn’t do anything about it. Only to find out (much later) that the IRA balance declined during that period — because the return on that IRA ($6.98) was less than the fees in the IRA ($15). This individual now says she feels “duped” — because she missed out on market returns (24% that year,[v] according to the WSJ) while “busy with her new job.” 

Well, cry me a river. 

So — how are these “junk” IRAs costing Americans billions? PensionBee leans on data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) to say that “By 2030, 13 million accounts worth $43 billion are projected to be swept into Safe Harbor IRAs through automatic rollovers.” Now, considering the size of the overall retirement savings market, that’s not a lot — but it IS, at least the purported “billions,” and from a credible source.

ad space

But then the white paper that highlights the issue cautions about the “threat” posed by so-called “junk” IRAs — and by “junk,” they apparently mean IRAs other than the ones they offer.

Look, what this individual — and the “millions” of others like her — aren’t helped to appreciate by this article is that the provision here not only likely helped preserve their retirement savings, but spared them from paying the taxes and penalties that would have been assessed if they had simply taken that distribution in cash. Oh — and that they were told they had an opportunity to make a different decision, and just … didn’t.

That’s not the fault of the employer, the 401(k) plan, or the IRA she was invested in, despite the pejorative label a competing firm wants to apply to it.

The only folks being “duped” are the ones who fail to see what the real problem here is.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] See Talking Points: Third Time No Charm in ‘Forgotten Account’ Fantasy

[ii] Previously $5,000 – SECURE 2.0 increased that to $7,000.

[iii] Of course, those have wound up being described by another IRA provider as “forgotten.”

[iv] The WSJ article acknowledges that most employers do so since the cost to administer small-balance accounts generally drives up the plan’s administrative expenses.

[v] One wonders what she would have thought if that balance had been invested in something other than the conservative investments required by law during a bear market. Maybe relieved? 

My ‘Retirement’ Thanksgiving

 Thanksgiving has been called a “uniquely American” holiday — and as we approach the holiday season, it seems appropriate to take a moment to reflect upon, and acknowledge — to give thanks, if you will.

Indeed, even amidst all of the strife and turmoil in our world, there remains much for which we can all be thankful. And in this, my third year of “retirement” — well, my list seems even longer.

I’m once again thankful that so many employers (still) voluntarily choose to offer a workplace retirement plan — and, particularly in these extraordinary times, that so many have remained committed to that promise. I’m hopeful that the incentives in SECURE and SECURE 2.0 will continue to spur more to provide that opportunity — and encouraged by the current rate of adoptions.

I’m thankful that so many workers, given an opportunity to participate in these programs, (still) do. And that, under new provisions in SECURE 2.0, those who gain new access to those programs will be automatically enrolled. I’m also encouraged (and thankful) by a sense that the automatic enrollment requirement doesn’t seem to have impacted the volume of new plan formation.

I’m thankful that the vast majority of workers defaulted into retirement savings programs tend to remain there — and that there are mechanisms (automatic enrollment, contribution acceleration and qualified default investment alternatives) in place to help them save and invest better than they might otherwise.

I’m thankful for new and modestly expanded contribution limits for these programs (I’d have been more thankful if we’d had them sooner) — and hopeful that that will encourage more workers to take full advantage of those opportunities. I’m particularly thankful that the new so-called “super” catch-up limits will provide even more help.

I’m not (completely) thankful for the new cap on pre-tax catch-up savings, though I suspect most will be appreciative of that shift once they get to retirement (seriously — do you think tax rates are going to decline?).

I’m thankful for the Roth savings option that provides workers with a choice on how and when they’ll pay taxes on their retirement savings. “Retirement” has served to remind me that there’s a LOT to be said in favor of tax diversification, particularly the way benefits like Social Security and Medicare are means-tested.

I’m thankful that our industry continues to explore and develop fresh alternatives to the challenge of decumulation — helping those who have been successful at accumulating retirement savings find prudent ways to effectively draw them down in a way that provides a financially sustainable retirement. Trust me, knowing how much your retirement income will be is an essential element in knowing when you can comfortably retire.

I’m thankful for qualified default investment alternatives that make it easy for participants to benefit from well diversified and regularly rebalanced investment portfolios — and for the thoughtful and ongoing review of those options by prudent plan fiduciaries. I’m hopeful (if somewhat skeptical) that the nuances of those glidepaths have been adequately explained to those who invest in them, and that those nearing retirement will be better served by those devices than many were a couple of decades ago (though my recent perusal of the age-65 glidepaths for several leading providers leaves me skeptical).

I’m thankful that the state-run IRAs for private sector workers are enjoying some success in closing the coverage gap, providing workers who ostensibly lacked access to a workplace retirement plan that option. However, I’m even more thankful that the existence of those programs continues to engender a greater interest on the part of small business owners to provide access to a “real” retirement plan like a 401(k).

ad space

I’m thankful that figuring out ways to expand access to workplace retirement plans remains, even now, a bipartisan focus — even if the ways to address it aren’t always.

I’m thankful that the ongoing “plot” to kill the 401(k)…despite some new voices…(still) hasn’t.

I’m thankful that those who regulate our industry continue to seek the input of those in the industry — and that so many, particularly those among the ARA membership, take the time and energy to provide that input.

I’m thankful to (still) be part of a team (even in “retirement”) that champions retirement savings — and to be a part of helping improve and enhance that system.

I’m thankful — even in “retirement” — to continue to be able to make a “difference.” I’m thankful for those who seek me out at various events, or via email, to tell me how much they enjoy and appreciate my writing and speaking.

I am, of course, thankful for being able to “retire” — to kick back a bit. While I continue to get good-natured ribbing about how I don’t understand the concept, this my third year of not working full-time has been a blessing in so many ways (thanks especially Bonnie Treichel, Todd Kading and Kassandra Hendrix). I’m especially grateful to my wife for her encouragement and support throughout nearly four decades (amidst a LOT of sacrifices) as we both “adjust.” 

I’m thankful for the new home we’ve established as a base from which to enter that next chapter — and the “Velocity Blue” Mustang GT in which I get to explore it.  

I’m thankful that I was able to be with my Mom when she passed last year, for the comfort that her faith brought her and us, and the spirit in which our family was able to work together through the process of winding up her estate.

But most of all, I’m once again thankful for the unconditional love and patience of my wife, the camaraderie of an expanding circle of dear friends and colleagues, the opportunity to write and share these thoughts — and for the ongoing support and appreciation of dear readers… like you.

Wishing you and yours a very happy Thanksgiving!

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

A PEP-spective on Fiduciary Reviews

  Some months back, the Labor Department published an intriguing three-part “proposed rule” that, to my eye, offered helpful fiduciary tips that go well beyond pooled employer plans (PEPs).

The title alone — “Pooled Employer Plans: Big Plans for Small Businesses” — told you all you needed to know about the motives behind the publication. And, true to form, both the data provided on the current state of pooled employer plan adoption and the focus of the request for information (RFI) included were very much in the spirit of removing barriers to PEP adoption, if not outright promotion of the same.

But what I viewed as the third part of the publication (though it’s labeled V. Fiduciary Tips for Small Employers Selecting a PEP) was, to my eye, the most intriguing aspect, in no small part because it served as a valuable reminder that there ARE fiduciary considerations in making that choice — something that purveyors of that option have been known to gloss over.

As I was recently scanning these — it occurred to me that these admonitions could — and should — be broadly applied to pretty much any new plan option — and not just for small employers.

To that end, consider the following as a fill-in-the-blank template, replacing the word PEP with, say — alternative investments, cryptocurrency, retirement income, or a managed account. Consider:

The Considerations

1. Consider what ________ [i] has to offer you and your employees.

The PEP-focused explanation emphasizes an opportunity to leverage economies of scale, as well as to free up time for plan fiduciaries to run their business “…while simultaneously providing your employees with an opportunity to save and achieve retirement security.”  While that buries the lead a bit, it’s a reminder that your actions need to be prudent and in the best interests of plan participants and beneficiaries” — but mostly a reminder to consider the benefits and costs of the service(s) under consideration.

• Make sure you understand the type of ____________ under consideration.

The PEP-focused explanation notes that, while this option has certain things in common, they aren’t all the same, and don’t operate in the same way — that plan fiduciaries should consider the needs and best fit, and the importance of considering several before making a choice. The same thing is true with pretty much every option that might be under consideration, as the labels retirement income, alternative investments, and managed accounts are widely applied to very different products and operational considerations.

• Make sure you consider the experience and qualifications of the _______.

While the pooled plan provider (PPP) is mentioned here, every service offering is delivered by a provider of some type, and as this tip reminds, “understanding the experience and qualifications” of this entity “…is one of the most important — if not the single most important — aspects….” That means you need to ask and understand “questions relating to the quality of their services, customer satisfaction, prior litigation or government enforcement matters…” as well as “the number of employers and participants in the plan and the amount of its assets….” Basically, you want to make sure that the entity is capable — and has a track record — to fulfill the promises that have been made, and the needs of your plan.

• Make sure you ask questions about ________ fees.

This one really doesn’t need any more explanation, other than a reminder not only to find out what the fees are and who pays them, but also who is getting paid, notably any third parties — or third parties that might be providing compensation to the provider you’ve hired.

• Make sure you understand the investment options.

Of course, for some of the possibilities noted above, this (alternative investments, crypto) is the investment option under consideration and definitely should be understood. Ditto retirement income, which comes in many shapes and sizes (and was recently included in the executive order regarding alternative investments).

• Ask questions about your exposure to fiduciary liability for investments.
• Ask questions about your exposure to fiduciary liability should you join _____.
• Don't forget to monitor ________ on an ongoing basis.

One of the interesting call outs in the PEP document was that “under federal law, employers joining a PEP are legally responsible as fiduciaries for the proper selection of investment options for their employees unless the pooled plan provider hires an investment professional to act as a fiduciary with respect to investment selection.”  Interesting in that, again, some of the purveyors of those options have tended to gloss over/downplay this aspect.

That said it’s good to remember that, barring some kind of special provision, you are personally liable for the prudent selection and ongoing monitoring of all plan investments and services. All of which are embodied in the three tips listed above.

• Make sure you fully inquire about the implications of exiting _____.

I’ve heard it said that it’s a lot easier to get INTO a PEP than to get out of it (though that may just be a nasty rumor, and is doubtless a function of the PEP you have gotten into) — but the same could apply to any number of the other services outlined above, notably retirement income and alternative investments.

The tip here notes that it’s good to ask about any timing or penalty-imposed restrictions from a PEP, but similar impediments might, of course, be found with retirement income or different types of alternative investments. The bottom line here is that while you may not need to exercise an “exit” strategy, you need to know what the implications for the plan and participants would be if it came to that.

In Sum

So there in a nutshell you have it. For any/every product service being considered, make sure you know what benefits/costs it brings to the plan/participants, the capabilities/sustainability of the entity providing it, the fees (and who’s getting them), the process/costs for exiting — and that you have an ongoing personal liability/responsibility for monitoring the services, once engaged.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Just fill in the blank with the applicable service/product under consideration: managed account, retirement income, alternative investments, crypto, etc.