What’s the Worst that Could Happen?

 Did you hear the one about how a rollover delay could cost you $76,000?

Hard to believe? Well, there’s a reason. To get to that number, the folks at PensionBee had to make not just one, but a series of worst-case assumptions. To get to $76,000, you have to assume:

• that you are waiting for a $100,000 check…
• that you get out of the market at exactly the wrong time — a low point right before an extraordinary market surge (that you miss, of course)…
• that continues unabated while you’re “out” of the market… (cause markets only go up)
  • oh, and you’re assumed to be out of the market for EIGHT WEEKS because it’s assumed that your rollover check got lost in the mail, and you had to have it reissued (during which, of course, the markets continue to rise)...
• Oh, and THEN you take that market uptick that you missed (cause, as we all know, markets NEVER go down)...
• 
  and then assume a 7% positive return thereafter on the money you missed (with fees of just 0.85%)… compound it for 30 years (because, apparently, you requested that distribution several decades ago… and voila! That rollover delay, compounded by a series of worst-case assumptions — well, at that point, it’s just math.

Now, that’s not to say it couldn’t possibly happen — but I think we can all admit it’s exaggerated for effect (clicks, anyone). In other words, it assumes the worst that could happen.

Roll ‘Plays’

Now, in fairness, at least PensionBee was honest enough to share their assumptions (and provide some alternate outcomes that were less severe). But, speaking from experience, the rollover process still…sucks. 

I actually contemplated rolling over my 401(k) accounts two different times over the years before the “finality” of retirement pushed me past my reluctance. Granted, in the 20-odd some years since I first contemplated (and struggled with) a rollover, things have improved (more on that in a minute). That said, EVERYBODY (and we’re talking three major 401(k) providers here) insisted on cutting a physical check[i] and mailing it to me (two checks, actually — Roths are distributed separately). 

Now, I don’t know about you, but mail service no longer seems to be as reliable as it once was. And the idea of checks of that size (and probably looking like checks) being dropped off in the mail — well, it gave me pause.[ii] Oh, I was “allowed” to pay a pretty significant premium for “expedited” delivery — but though we’re talking about rates in excess of what Federal Express or UPS might charge, we weren’t talking about delivery that was truly special. 

As it turned out, the checks did arrive (and yes, I paid the premium), leaving me out of the market for about a week. Mitigating that was that my chosen IRA provider allowed me to do a mobile deposit of those checks (Yay!), so at least I was spared the dilemma (and sleepless nights) of putting those in the mail…again.[iii]

Overall, I was pleasantly surprised at how much the rollover process has improved over the past 20 years. I was able to do it all without sitting on hold for interminable periods for the “next available operator” while listening to product pitches (or bad elevator music) — without talking to a single person, in fact, much less people from different firms (sending and receiving). 

I realize there is an opportunity for fraud with wire transfers — but surely no more than with the antiquated process of physically producing and dropping off checks with the United States Postal Service. And, honestly, what’s being charged for “expedited” processing (and with separate charges for Roth and non-Roth accounts) struck me as — well, excessive — certainly for what it seemed to provide (one hates to think of the non-special alternative).    

That said, the reality seems to be that our industry is (still) ever so much better at taking in money than in sending it “out.” Indeed, the cynic in me can’t help but wonder if that is deliberate. 

It may not be the worst that could happen. But there’s certainly room for improvement.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] That is, unless you want to roll it over to THEIR IRA — in which case, electronic transfer was an option.

[ii] During this process, one of the insurance checks related to my mother’s estate — that looked like a check — was “misdelivered” to the wrong house. Fortunately, I have honest neighbors.

[iii] The New York Times recently profiled the experience of a participant that was not so fortunate — though his check got to him, it was the forwarded checks to his IRA provider that got stolen. See https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/business/paychex-401k-rollover-checks.html?unlocked_article_code=1.KE8.bOS8.VimnT7OedYLF&smid=url-share

Looking Before You 'Leap'

As new rules about rollover disclosures kick in, a new report highlights an often unacknowledged risk of rollovers—high(er) fees.

That’s right—a new report from Pew Trusts seems to have stirred up a new awareness of that issue—all this attention just as PTE 2020-02 brings the written requirement of why a rollover is in the best interests of participants into play.

That difference shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who has ever compared the fees in their 401(k) to an IRA. Most 401(k)s benefit from institutional pricing, and if the menu of available investment options isn’t quite as broad as that in an IRA, they benefit from the selection and monitoring by ERISA fiduciaries. Yes, IRAs are just that—individual retirement accounts—smaller, generally speaking with more options—and yes, much more likely to be charged retail mutual fund fees—more expensive. In that sense the report—though it’s garnered headlines of late—doesn’t really tell us anything we didn’t know, if we’d only stop to acknowledge it. 

However, sure as I am willing to accept the conclusions based on both personal experience and professional acumen, I am a tad skeptical in the results of the analysis. The title is truer than one might expect. The title of the report speaks volumes as it says: “Small Differences in Mutual Fund Fees Can Cut Billions From Americans' Retirement Savings.” Because, after all, it surely could—but does it?

The report that is garnering so much attention now claims that, in the aggregate, the amount of retirement savings lost in such rollovers potentially reaches tens of billions of dollars. Citing data from the Investment Company Institute, the report notes that in 2018 alone, investors rolled $516.7 billion from employer retirement plans into traditional IRAs. They go on to assert that an analysis of fee differentials suggests that over a hypothetical retirement period of 25 years, those retail investors could see an aggregate reduction in savings of about $45.5 billion—just from that single year of rollovers.

Math ‘Problems’

The analysis—based on data from Survivor-Bias-Free U.S. Mutual Fund Database, Center for Research in Security Prices—though it relies on medians and averages for its fee conclusions—and, based on those, it asserts that annual expenses for median retail shares (ostensibly what you’d have access to in an IRA) were 0.34 percentage points higher than those for institutional shares (again, ostensibly what you’d have access to via your typical 401(k). Similar projections are presented for hybrid, and for what the analysis purports to be the smallest median fee difference. Having chosen these points of reference, the analysis simply does the math.[i]

Rollover Rationales

Regardless of the size of the differential—what role, if any, do fees play in these rollover decisions? Suffice it to say—not much. 

At least according to another report[ii] published last September by Pew, based on a survey of 1,125 older workers and recent retirees ages 55 to 75 between May 12 and June 5, 2020—roughly half currently and the rest working full time, though all had at least $30,000 in retirement savings. The survey asked participants a series of questions about whom they had consulted in deciding what to do with their retirement savings and how they planned to handle their savings (in the case of those still working), or what they had done with their savings (in the case of retirees).

Now, there are many reasons underlying the distribution decision—fees, convenience, investment options—but when the workers weighed in they said they were most motivated to stay in their current plan because they preferred the investment options—a reason cited by 50% of respondents as the most important reason, and mentioned by nearly three-quarters (73%) as at least one reason why they intend to leave their savings in their current plan when they retire. Not surprisingly—since those surveyed had at least $30,000 in savings—more than half felt that staying in their current plan would be convenient.

On the other hand, only about 3 in 10 were motivated to plan on keeping their savings in their current plan because they thought it would have lower fees than other options, and a mere 15% said lower fees in their current plan was the most important reason for planning to leave their savings where they are.

‘Control’ Voice

Near-retirees planning to roll their savings into an IRA at retirement were similarly motivated by convenience and investment options, according to the report. However, the strongest motivating factor for those respondents was the ability to have greater control over their investments, with more than 6 in 10 (63%) saying that was one reason that they planned to roll their workplace savings into an IRA, while for nearly 4 in 10 it was the most important reason. Roughly a quarter said that investment performance was behind their plan to move their savings into an IRA when they retired, and the same number actually said it was because the IRA had lower fees. 

Control was most important among retirees as well; about 18% of retirees cited lower fees as a reason for rolling over their savings, slightly less than the 25% of near retirees who cited fees as a reason—more specifically that the IRA had lower fees than their current plan. Only 4% of retirees said it was the most important reason, nearly identical to the 3% of near retirees who said the same.

Said another way, fees were not a major consideration in the rollover decision—and when it did manifest itself as a reason, it was because the IRA fees were believed to be lower than their current plan. Which, again, in view of certain market realities, suggests that those workers didn’t appreciate/understand the fees paid in their 401(k).  

The reality is, a small difference in mutual fund fees can cut billions from Americans’ savings—an impact that, unfortunately, many of those contemplating a rollover may not realize[iii] or prioritize in their decisions. 

That said, while those new disclosures documenting why a rollover is in the participants’ best interest may not solve the problem—they should make it easier for advisors to help them better understand what they may be giving up. And perhaps all of this attention to this important issue will help participants who aren't working with an advisor to "look" before they simply leap... 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

[i] While the comparisons are certainly “directionally” accurate assuming the math is correct, the size and scope of the impact surely suffer from the imprecision of the markers employed. But considering the sheer size of the rollover market (it now outpaces that of the 401(k), it’s surely a significant amount.

[ii] Pew Survey Explores Consumer Trend to Roll Over Workplace Savings Into IRA Plans

[iii] The Pew report notes that “although few said that they would continue a rollover into an IRA with higher fees than their workplace plan, previous research by Pew has shown that many people struggle to fully understand their investment fees. Just 25% of workers in an earlier Pew survey said that they had read and understood the fee disclosure of their retirement account.