The Deification of DB-ification

I recently stumbled across another of those “DC plans are becoming like DB plans” articles — you know, the so-called “DB-ification” of 401(k)s? This is all supposed to be a good thing, of course, but is it?

We are, of course, routinely told that defined benefit plans do (or did) a better job of providing adequate income in retirement than defined contribution plans — though we aren’t generally reminded that that assumes that workers have actually managed to accumulate service credits sufficient to vest in those benefits, and that those programs are properly funded.

However, this interest in emulation of DB plans by DC plans is a relatively recent focus, fueled in no small part by the success of Pension Protection Act-engendered trends, primarily auto-enrollment (after all, nobody asks people to fill out a form to be covered by their DB plan) and asset allocation fund defaults (ditto on asking participants to choose the investments in the DB plan). But while it’s said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, it’s not like those auto-designs were actually copied from DB plans.¹

Don’t get me wrong — anything that turns employees into participants (and automatic enrollment surely does that) and helps them make better investment decisions (and, generally speaking, asset allocation solutions fulfill that need) has to be a good thing. But to suggest — as many of these reports do — that these trends are essentially helping DC programs mature into their more “responsible” DB counterparts seems a gross misinterpretation of what is going on.

If we’re really looking to bring the best of the DB approach to DC plans, we need look no further than the definition of a defined benefit. Defined benefit plans are funded — at least, they are supposed to be — with an eye toward the benefit that will be paid out. As the name suggests, the benefit is defined — and the decisions that are made about how much to contribute to the plan and how those contributions will be invested are also done with that in mind.

Defined contribution plans, on the other hand — even the “automatic,” DB-ified ones — have an entirely different focus. They are (still) mostly focused on how much participants can afford to put into them (or can be forced to put into them without them opting out), not how much you need to get out of them. Oh, sure, the PPA’s safe harbor automatic enrollment — and a growing number of DC plans — includes a provision to increase those contributions on an annual basis. But is it any replacement for the kind of true funding discipline that a defined benefit focus represents? More importantly, will it be enough to provide the same kind of retirement security that the DB system promised?

Let’s not kid ourselves — when they worked (and they didn’t always), DB designs were “better” not because they made decisions for individuals (though that helped), but because somebody else was generally doing the funding,² but more importantly doing so based on specifically targeted outcomes.

We’re not likely to shift the funding paradigm — but there’s nothing to keep us from emphasizing the focus on the ultimate benefit, the outcome that we hope to achieve — and the discipline to fund those DC accounts so that they can provide it.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD


Footnotes

1. Another DB “innovation” – the annuitization of the benefit — is certainly talked about (though not yet widely adopted) in the context of DC plans. Ironically, the trend in DB plans seems to be to replace that with the lump sum option so prevalent in DC plans.
2. Another significant DB/DC difference — and one that tends to get glossed over — is that DB plans not only don’t ask employees to sign up or make investment decisions — they — at least the ones in the private sector — generally don’t ask participants to fund them. Oh, sure, that DC plan frequently comes with a match, but the primary source of funding for most of these programs lies with the participant.

"Better" Business

It has become something of a truism in our industry that defined benefit plans are “better” than defined contribution plans. We’re told that returns are higher(1) and fees lower in the former, that employees are better served by having the investment decisions made by professionals, and that many individuals don’t save enough on their own to provide the level of retirement income that they could expect from a defined benefit pension plan. Even the recent (arguably positive) changes in defined contribution design—automatic enrollment, qualified default investment alternatives, and the expanding availability of retirement income options(2)—are often said to represent the “DB-ification” of DC plans.

However, a recent analysis by EBRI reveals that DB is not always “better,” at least not defined as providing financial resources in retirement. In fact, if historical rates of return are assumed, as well as annuity purchase prices reflecting average bond rates over the last 27 years, the median comparisons show a strong outcome advantage for voluntary-enrollment (VE) 401(k) plans over both stylized, final-average DB plan and cash balance plan designs.(3)

Admittedly, those findings are based on a number of assumptions, not the least of which include the specific benefit formulae of the DB plans, and the performance of the markets. Indeed, the analysis in the June EBRI Issue Brief takes pains not only to outline and explain those assumptions,(4) but, using EBRI’s unique Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM) to produce a wide range of simulations, provides a direct comparison of the likely benefits in a number of possible scenarios, some of which produce different comparative outcomes. While the results do reflect the projected cumulative effects of job changes and things like loans, as well as the real-life 401(k) plan design parameters in several hundred different plans, they do not yet incorporate the potentially positive impact that automatic enrollment might have, particularly for lower-income individuals.


Significantly, the EBRI report does take into account another real-world factor that is frequently overlooked in the DB-to-DC comparisons: the actual job tenure experience of those in the private sector. In fact, as a recent EBRI Notes article(5) points out, the data on employee tenure (the amount of time an individual has been with his or her current employer) show that so-called “career jobs” NEVER existed for most workers. Indeed, over the past nearly 30 years, the median tenure of all wage and salary workers age 20 or older has held steady, at approximately five years. Even with today’s accelerated vesting schedules, that kind of turnover represents a kind of tenure “leakage” that can have a significant impact on pension benefits—even when they work for an employer that offers that benefit, they simply don’t work for one employer long enough to qualify for a meaningful benefit.

So, which type of retirement plan is “better”? As the EBRI analysis illustrates, there is no single right answer—but the data suggests that ignoring how often people actually change employers can be as misleading as ignoring how much they actually save.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1) In the days following publication of the EBRI Issue Brief, (“Reality Checks: A Comparative Analysis of Future Benefits from Private-Sector, Voluntary-Enrollment 401(k) Plans vs. Stylized, Final-Average-Pay Defined Benefit and Cash Balance Plans,” online here),  a number of individuals commented specifically on the chronicled difference in return in DB and DC plans; outside of some exceptions in the public sector, DB investment performance generally has no effect on the benefits paid.

(2) A recent EBRI analysis indicates that, even in DB plans, the rate of annuitization varies directly with the degree to which plan rules restrict the ability to choose a partial or lump-sum distribution. See “Annuity and Lump-Sum Decisions in Defined Benefit Plans: The Role of Plan Rules,” online here.

(3) While the DC plans modeled in this analysis draw from the actual design experience of several hundred VE 401(k) plans, in the interest of clarity it was decided to limit the comparisons for DB plans to only two stylized representative plan designs: a high-three-year, final-average DB plan and a cash balance plan. Median generosity parameters are used for baseline purposes but comparisons are also re-run with more generous provisions (the 75th percentile) as part of the sensitivity analysis.

(4) The report notes that a multitude of factors affect the ultimate outcome: interest rates and investment returns; the level and length of participation; an individual’s age, job tenure, and remaining length of time in the work force; and the purchase price of an annuity, among other things.

(5) The EBRI report highlights several implications of these tenure trends: the effect on DB accruals (even for workers still covered by those programs), the impact of the lump-sum distributions that often accompany job change, and the implications for social programs and workplace stability. “See Employee Tenure Trends, 1983–2012,” online here.