What If There Was No ERISA?

 New research puts a new twist on “A Wonderful Life” – answering the question, what if there hadn’t been an ERISA?

ERISA is, of course, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 which just turned 50. The analysis[i] – put together by Morningstar Retirement’s Director of Retirement Studies Jack VanDerhei and Associate Director of Retirement Studies Spencer Look – first looks at the current “status quo” retirement readiness impact (more specifically, retirement readiness shortfalls). It then looks at the potential result if there had been no ERISA – or, perhaps more precisely if there had been no individual account retirement plans (defined contribution and IRAs), though allowance was made for the probability of saving to an IRA. 

Now, anyone with a realistic assessment/awareness of the limited availability of traditional pension plans in the private sector (before AND after ERISA’s passage) can hardly be surprised to find that the absence of individual accounts would have a significant negative impact. That said, you might be surprised at the size of that impact. 

The research notes that, when aggregated across all four income categories, the probability of Gen X households running short of money in retirement (granted, this is running short by as little as $1[ii]) would increase from 47% under the status quo to 59%. Millennials would fare worse, with the aggregate probability increasing from 44% to 69%, and Gen Z households would see their exposure soar from a risk of 37% in today’s environment to what the researchers termed a “devastating 72%” without individual account retirement plans. 

The paper also projects the outcomes across various income and education demographics, as well as industry, gender and race. To sum it up, single females, Hispanic Americans, and non-Hispanic Black Americans were found to be at a higher risk of retirement shortfalls. Needless to say perhaps – though the paper does – “[t]he elimination of DC participation and savings would drastically reduce the probability of a successful retirement, particularly for middle-income groups, as they heavily rely on these plans.”

Considering the positive impact of those individual accounts – albeit one limited by the status quo reality of access – it should come as no surprise that a projection that greatly broadens that access – alongside automatic enrollment and auto-escalation (as proscribed in the Automatic IRA Act of 2024) notably improves retirement prospects. Indeed, the researchers find that it could substantially improve retirement outcomes, with an aggregate average wealth ratio increase of 23.8% – and that’s assuming an opt-out rate of 30%![iii]   

All in all, just like good old George Bailey, it’s easy to underestimate the potential impact of the individual account regime that ERISA ultimately fostered – until you are able to imagine what things would be like without it. That said, this research affirms the positive impact – and puts some numbers behind it – while also affirming policy considerations for the future. 

Did I hear a bell ringing…

 - Nevin E. Adams, JD 

---

[i] With a title nearly as long as the paper itself “The Evolution of Retirement-Income Adequacy Under ERISA With a Focus on Defined-Contribution Plans: A Review of the Status Quo, Counterfactual Evidence, and an Analysis of Changes for the Future.”

[ii] Also worth noting, this analysis, unlike most other projection models – takes into account the potential impact of long-term care expenses.

[iii] Which turns out to be close, but less than opt-out rates in a number of the current state-run IRAs.

ERISA—Still ‘Nifty’ at 50

 I’ve long relished telling “newbies” to the retirement space that ERISA was the second big executive act of then-newly enshrined President Gerald R. Ford—less than one month after he took office. 

In fairness—and I’m not exactly a kid—I was barely out of high school when that event occurred.  I’ve never had a benefits program (retirement OR healthcare, and us retirement geeks tend to forget that ERISA also has sway over workplace health plans) that wasn’t operating under its auspices—and so, talking about what ERISA has done/changed requires going back before my personal experience. And yet, despite the disparaging acronym “Every Ridiculous Idea Since Adam,” what ERISA has accomplished—and what has emerged in its aftermath—seems truly remarkable to me. 

ERISA is, of course, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974—and on Labor Day 2024, that legislation will be 50 years young. Not that ERISA created either the concept or the reality of pensions and retirement plans; in fact, the former dates back to the time of the ancient Roman armies. But in America, the first private pension plan was that of the American Express Company in 1875—crafted in an effort to create a stable, career-oriented workforce. By 1899, there were (just) 13 private pension plans in the country.[i]

The reality is that employee pensions had very few protections under the law before ERISA—there were no rules around funding or protections for benefits if the plan sponsor went bankrupt or was sold. Many plans had long vesting schedules requiring as many as 20 to 30 years of service, some plans required employee service periods to be “uninterrupted,” and there were situations where companies reportedly terminated employees just a few months before vesting to avoid having to pay their pension benefits. 

Indeed, ERISA represented a major shift in attitude—inserting the federal government into an oversight role over what, until that point, had pretty well been left to the parties to the employment contract; employers, workers and unions. Perhaps most importantly, it established ERISA’s federal law preemption over what might otherwise have been a mishmash of state regulations and requirements.   

That said, ERISA did not require any employer to establish a retirement plan. It “only” required—and still requires—that those that establish plans meet certain minimum standards. However, the law did a number of things that we take for granted today. At a high level, it established federal standards for things like vesting, participation and eligibility. It established rules regarding reporting and disclosure about plan features, funding and investments to participants—and via mechanisms such as Form 5500, reporting to the government as well. It put limits on benefits—and gives participants the right to sue for benefits and breaches of their fiduciary duty under that law. 

Of course, ERISA wasn’t about making it easy—it was about making sure that the promises made to workers were upheld—and in that sense the EMPLOYEE retirement income security act was aptly named. The poster child for this undertaking was, of course, the bankruptcy (and discarded pension promises) of a major U.S. automaker[ii] (Studebaker,[iii] though arguably it was the assumed pension obligations of Packard that really did it in). And in that regard, SECURITY of those promises[iv] was paramount—it was about quality, not quantity—about ensuring that the promises made were promises kept.

Notably, ERISA established fiduciary duties for those managing retirement plans—requiring that fiduciaries act in the best interest of plan participants and beneficiaries. It laid the groundwork for a definition of fiduciary which would, a year later, find form in the so-called five-part test—which would hold for nearly 50 years.[v]

Has It Worked?

Has ERISA “worked”? Well, in signing that legislation, President Ford noted that from 1960 to 1970, private pension coverage increased from 21.2 million employees to approximately 30 million workers, while during that same period, assets of these private plans increased from $52 billion to $138 billion, acknowledging that “[i]t will not be long before such assets become the largest source of capital in our economy.”

As of the latest (2021) numbers available, that system has grown to exceed $13 trillion (and another $11.5 trillion in IRAs, much of which came from that private retirement system), covering nearly 100 million active workers (146 million in total) in more than 765,000 plans. Indeed, the Labor Department recently reported that plans disbursed $322.5 billion more than they received in contributions during 2021.

That said, the composition of the plans, like the composition of the workforce those plans cover, has changed significantly over time. While much is made about the perceived shortcomings in coverage of the current system, the projections of multi-trillion dollar shortfalls of retirement income, the pining for the “good old days” when (people act like) everyone had a pension (that never really existed for most), the reality is that ERISA—and its progeny—have unquestionably allowed more Americans to be better financially prepared for a longer retirement than they otherwise would be.

Fifty years on, ERISA—and the nation’s retirement challenges—may yet be a work in progress. But it’s hard to imagine American retirement without it. It is a rich legacy that we all benefit from today—and—with luck and the ongoing work to improve upon it—will—for decades to come.

Happy birthday, ERISA!

 

---

[i] Steven A. Sass, The Promise of Private Pensions, The First Hundred Years, at 9 (1997).

[ii] I’d wager that a majority of Americans have never even heard of a Studebaker, and the notion that a major U.S. automobile maker once operated out of South Bend, Indiana would likely come as a surprise to most. The Studebaker brothers (there were five of them) went from being blacksmiths in the 1850s to making parts for wagons, to making wheelbarrows (that were in great demand during the 1849 Gold Rush) to building wagons used by the Union Army during the Civil War, before turning to making cars (first electric, then gasoline) after the turn of the century. Indeed, they had a good, long run making automobiles that were generally well regarded for their quality and reliability (their finances, not so much) until a combination of factors (including, ironically, pension funding) resulted in the cessation of production at the South Bend plant on Dec. 20, 1963.

[iii] Roughly 70% of Studebaker’s workers were left without their promised retirement benefits after the South Bend, Indiana plant was closed in 1963. Of some 10,500 current and former employees in the pension plan, about 4,000 with more than 20 years of history at the company received only about 15 cents for each dollar they expected—roughly 3,000 shorter tenured employees got nothing.

[iv] It's been opined by some that ERISA was responsible for the decline of traditional defined benefit pension plans—and certainly the vesting standards, reporting scrutiny, funding standards and the pension insurance premiums from ERISA’s formation of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)—all designed to forestall outcomes like the Studebaker bankruptcy’s impact on its workers’ pensions played a part. While ERISA’s transparency requirements—and those funding requirements—have certainly been economic factors, it seems more likely that wide swings in interest rates, the accounting rigor imposed by FAS 87, the benefit limits imposed—and the elevation of those liabilities on the corporate balance sheet were the real culprits.

[v] Though with litigation pending, the five-part test still lives!

Happy Birthday, ERISA!

Pensions were not on my mind in 1974, certainly not on Labor Day of that year. 

While I was pondering my new college textbooks (and trying to figure out how I was going to pay for $.55/gallon gasoline), President Gerald R. Ford, less than a month in that role—and, appropriately enough on Labor Day, signed into law the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974—better known to most of us as ERISA.

Little did I know at the time that that law—and the structure it provided to the nation’s private pension system—would, in the years to follow, play such an integral role in my life. And yet, in a wide variety of positions, and a handful of different organizations and locations, from that first college internship in 1977 to—well, today—retirement has been my career.

ERISA did not create pensions, of course; they existed in significant numbers prior to 1974. A major motivation for ERISA was the termination of the Studebaker[i] pension plan for its hourly workers in 1963.  At the time, the plan covered roughly 10,500 workers, 3,600 of whom had already retired and who—despite the stories you sometimes hear about Studebaker—received their full benefits when the plan was terminated.

However, some 4,000 workers between the ages of 40 and 59—didn’t. They only got about 15 cents for each dollar of benefit they had been promised, though the average age of this group of workers was 52 years with an average of 23 years of service (another 2,900 employees, who all had less than 10 years of service, received nothing). And so, armed with the real life example of those Studebaker pensions, highlighting what had been a growing concern about the default risk of private sector plans (public sector programs weren’t seen as being vulnerable to the same risk at that time)—well, it may have been a decade before ERISA was to become a reality, but the example of Studebaker’s pensions provided a powerful and on-going “real life” reminder of the need for reform.

In fact, ERISA was designed to regulate what was there and would yet come to be—to protect the funds invested in those plans for the benefit of participants and beneficiaries with a consistent set of federal standards. And, as part of that protection, to establish the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).  As President Ford said at the time, “It is essential to bring some order and humanity into this welter of different and sometimes inequitable retirement plans within private industry.”

Has ERISA “worked”? Well, in signing that legislation, President Ford noted that from 1960 to 1970, private pension coverage increased from 21.2 million employees to approximately 30 million workers, while during that same period, assets of these private plans increased from $52 billion to $138 billion, acknowledging that “[i]t will not be long before such assets become the largest source of capital in our economy.” Today, that system has grown to exceed $12 trillion (and another 11.5 trillion in IRAs, much of which came from that private retirement system), covering more than 97 million active workers (142 million in total) in more than 746,000 plans. 

The composition of the plans, like the composition of the workforce those plans cover, has changed significantly over time. While much is made about the perceived shortcomings in coverage of the current system, the projections of multi-trillion dollar shortfalls of retirement income, the pining for the “good old days” when (people act like) everyone had a pension (that never really existed for most), the reality is that ERISA—and its progeny—have unquestionably allowed more Americans to be better financially prepared for a longer retirement. Indeed, the Labor Department recently reported that plans disbursed $266 billion more than they received in contributions[ii] during 2020.

Forty-nine years on, ERISA—and the nation’s retirement challenges—may yet be a work in progress. But it’s hard to imagine American retirement without it, and the individuals who gave it “birth.” 

Happy birthday, ERISA!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD 

---

[i] I’d wager that a majority of Americans have never even heard of a Studebaker, and the notion that a major U.S. automobile maker once operated out of South Bend, Indiana would likely come as a surprise to most. The Studebaker brothers (there were five of them) went from being blacksmiths in the 1850s to making parts for wagons, to making wheelbarrows (that were in great demand during the 1849 Gold Rush) to building wagons used by the Union Army during the Civil War, before turning to making cars (first electric, then gasoline) after the turn of the century. Indeed, they had a good, long run making automobiles that were generally well regarded for their quality and reliability (their finances, not so much) until a combination of factors (including, ironically, pension funding) resulted in the cessation of production at the South Bend plant on Dec. 20, 1963.

[ii] Though in total, contributions (DB and DC) increased by 3.2%, to $694.2 billion.

 

5 Dangerous Fiduciary Assumptions

There’s an old saying that when you assume… well, here are some assumptions that can create real headaches for retirement plan fiduciaries.

Assuming that the worst-case deadline for depositing participant contributions IS the deadline for depositing participant contributions.

The legal requirements for depositing contributions to the plan are perhaps the most widely misunderstood elements of plan administration. A delay in contribution deposits is also one of the most common signs that an employer is in financial trouble—and that the Labor Department is likely to investigate.

Note that the law requires that participant contributions be deposited in the plan as soon as it is reasonably possible to segregate them from the company’s assets, but no later than the 15th business day of the month following the payday. If employers can reasonably make the deposits sooner, they need to do so. Many have read the worst-case situation (the 15th business day of the month following) to be the legal requirement. It is not.

Assuming that not being required to have an investment policy statement means you don’t need to have an investment policy.

While plan advisers and consultants routinely counsel on the need for, and importance of, an investment policy statement (IPS), the reality is that the law does not require one, and thus, many plan sponsors—sometimes at the direction of legal counsel—choose not to put one in place.

Of course, while the law does not, in fact, specifically require a written IPS—think of it as investment guidelines for the plan—ERISA nonetheless basically anticipates that plan fiduciaries will conduct themselves as though they had one in place. And, generally speaking, plan sponsors (and the advisors they work with) will find it easier to conduct the plan’s investment business in accordance with a set of established, prudent standards—if those standards are already in writing, not crafted at a point in time when you are desperately trying to make sense of the markets.

In sum, you want an IPS in place before you need an IPS in place.

Assuming that ERISA’s required fiduciary bond covers your liability as an ERISA plan fiduciary. 

These are two very different things with similar names. Suffice it to say that the Fidelity Bond required by ERISA protects the plan and its participants from potential malfeasance on the part of those who handle plan assets. The plan is the named insured in the fidelity bond. 

On the other hand, Fiduciary Liability Insurance typically protects the plan’s fiduciaries from claims of a breach of fiduciary responsibilities—an important protection since ERISA plan fiduciaries have personal liability, not only for their actions, but for the actions of their co-fiduciaries. The cost of the insurance can be paid by the employer or by the plan fiduciary—but not from plan assets.

Assuming that hiring a fiduciary keeps you from being a fiduciary.

ERISA has a couple of very specific exceptions through which you can limit—but not eliminate—fiduciary obligations. The first has to do with the specific decisions made by a qualified investment manager—and, even then, a plan sponsor/fiduciary remains responsible for the prudent selection and monitoring of that investment manager’s activities on behalf of the plan.

The second exception has to do with specific investment decisions made by properly informed and empowered individual participants in accordance with ERISA Section 404(c). Here also, even if the plan meets the 404(c) criteria (and it is by no means certain it will), the plan fiduciary remains responsible for the prudent selection and monitoring of the options on the investment menu (and, as the Tibble case reminds us, that obligation is ongoing).

Outside of these two exceptions, the plan sponsor/fiduciary is essentially responsible for the quality of the investments of the plan—including those that participants make. Oh, and hiring a 3(16) fiduciary? Still on the hook as a fiduciary for selecting that provider.

Assuming you have to figure it all out on your own.

ERISA imposes a duty of prudence on plan fiduciaries that is often referred to as one of the highest duties known to law—and for good reason. Those fiduciaries must act “with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use in the conduct of an enterprise of a like character and with like aims.”

The “familiar with such matters” is the sticking point for those who might otherwise be inclined to simply adopt a “do unto others as you would have others do unto you” approach. Similarly, those who might be naturally predisposed toward a kind of Hippocratic, “first, do no harm” stance are afforded no such discretion under ERISA’s strictures. That said, the Department of Labor has stated that “[l]acking that expertise, a fiduciary will want to hire someone with that professional knowledge to carry out the investment and other functions.”

Simply stated, if you lack the skill, prudence and diligence of an expert in such matters, you are not only entitled to get help—you are expected to do so.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

A "Real Life" Example

In addition to the books, reference guides, and a few personal “knick knacks,” I have for years had in my office a couple of model cars – but not for the reason people generally think.

These models happen to be Studebakers (a 1950 Champion, a 1953 Starliner and a 1963 Avanti). I’d wager that a majority of Americans have never even heard of a Studebaker, and the notion that a major U.S. automobile maker once operated out of South Bend, Indiana would likely come as a surprise to most. I keep them in my office not because I have an appreciation for classic cars (though I do), but because of the role the automaker played in ERISA’s formation.

Born into a wagon-making family, the Studebaker brothers (there were five of them) went from being blacksmiths in the 1850s to making parts for wagons, to making wheelbarrows (that were in great demand during the 1849 Gold Rush) to building wagons used by the Union Army during the Civil War, before turning to making cars (first electric, then gasoline) after the turn of the century. Indeed, they had a good, long run making automobiles that were generally well regarded for their quality and reliability (their finances, not so much) until a combination of factors (including, ironically, pension funding) resulted in the cessation of production at the South Bend plant on Dec. 20, 1963. Shortly thereafter Studebaker terminated its retirement plan for hourly workers, and the plan defaulted on its obligations.

At the time, the plan covered roughly 10,500 workers, 3,600 of whom had already retired and who – despite the stories you sometimes hear about Studebaker – received their full benefits when the plan was terminated. However, some 4,000 workers between the ages of 40 and 59 – didn’t. They only got about 15 cents for each dollar of benefit they had been promised, though the average age of this group of workers was 52 years with an average of 23 years of service (another 2,900 employees, who all had less than 10 years of service, received nothing).

ERISA did not create pensions, of course; they existed in significant numbers prior to 1974, as the workers at Studebaker surely knew (they certainly had reason to – Studebaker-Packard had terminated the retirement plan for employees of the former Packard Motor Car company in 1958, and they got even less than the Studebaker workers wound up with in 1964). But armed with the real life example of those Studebaker pensions, highlighting what had been a growing concern about the default risk of private sector plans (public sector programs weren’t seen as being vulnerable to the same risk at that time) – well, it may have been a decade before ERISA was to become a reality, but the example of Studebaker’s pensions provided a powerful and on-going “real life” reminder of the need for reform.

Has ERISA “worked”? Well, in signing that legislation – 43 years ago this past weekend – President Ford noted that from 1960 to 1970, private pension coverage increased from 21.2 million employees to approximately 30 million workers, while during that same period, assets of these private plans increased from $52 billion to $138 billion, acknowledging that “[i]t will not be long before such assets become the largest source of capital in our economy.” His words were prophetic; today that system has grown to exceed $17 trillion, covering more than 85 million workers in more than 700,000 plans.

The composition of the plans, like the composition of the workforce those plans cover, has changed considerably over time, as has ERISA’s original framework. Today much is made about the shortcomings in coverage and protections of the current system, the projections of multitrillion-dollar shortfalls of retirement income, the pining for the “good old days” when everyone had a pension (that never really existed for most), the reality is that ERISA – and its progeny – have unquestionably allowed more Americans to be better financially prepared for retirement than ever before.

It’s a real life example I think about every time I look at those model cars – and every time I have the opportunity to explain the story behind them.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

"Class" of 74

Pensions were not on my mind in 1974, certainly not on Labor Day of that year.  While I was pondering my new college textbooks, President Gerald Ford, less than a month in that role, signed into law the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 – better known to most of us as ERISA. Little did I know at the time that that law – and the structure it provided to the nation’s private pension system – would, in the years to follow, play such an integral role in my life.

ERISA did not create pensions, of course; they existed in significant numbers prior to 1974.  Rather, it was designed to regulate what was there and would yet come to be – to protect the funds invested in those plans for the benefit of participants and beneficiaries with a consistent set of federal standards.  And, as part of that protection, to establish the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).  As President Ford said at the time, “It is essential to bring some order and humanity into this welter of different and sometimes inequitable retirement plans within private industry.”

Has ERISA “worked”?  Well, in signing that legislation, President Ford noted that from 1960 to 1970, private pension coverage increased from 21.2 million employees to approximately 30 million workers, while during that same period, assets of these private plans increased from $52 billion to $138 billion, acknowledging that “[i]t will not be long before such assets become the largest source of capital in our economy.”  Today that system has grown to exceed $17 trillion, covering more than 85 million workers in more than 700,000 plans.

The composition of the plans, like the composition of the workforce those plans cover, has changed over time.  While much is made about the perceived shortcomings in coverage of the current system, the projections of multi-trillion dollar shortfalls of retirement income, the pining for the “good old days” when everyone had a pension (that never really existed for most), the reality is that ERISA—and its progeny—have unquestionably allowed more Americans to be better financially prepared for a longer retirement. 

Forty years on, ERISA – and the nation’s retirement challenges – may yet be a work in progress.  But, by any measure, this “class of 74” has done the nation a great service.

-          Nevin E. Adams, JD