‘Staying’ Power

  For years now, I’ve been saying that the only thing wrong with the 401(k) system is that there aren’t enough of them. And to be fair, the past several years have largely validated that view.

Indeed, Vanguard’s latest How America Saves report paints what is, on the surface anyway, a remarkably encouraging picture. Participation rates among eligible workers are near record highs. Contribution rates rose — 45% of participants increased their savings rate in 2025, contributing to an average savings rate of 12.1%, an all-time high. Professionally managed investments dominate participant portfolios. Most investors ignored market volatility entirely — and, doubtless as a result of all that — account balances reached new highs.

Yes, after decades spent worrying about employees failing to enroll, hunkering down in stable value funds, or panic-trading during downturns, the modern defined contribution system increasingly appears to be functioning as designed — or, as Vanguard labels it — a “quiet retirement revolution.”

But another recent study suggests that the industry may be misunderstanding what “success” actually looks like.

Morningstar’s paper, Access, Auto-Enrollment, and Accumulation: A Simulation of Universal Retirement Plan Coverage, modeled the impact of automatically enrolling workers without retirement plan access into a federally administered savings arrangement. The results are impressive. Tens of millions of additional workers could enter the retirement system. Hundreds of billions — perhaps more than a trillion dollars — in additional retirement savings could accumulate over time.

But buried deeper in the analysis is a more revealing point — the real breakthrough in retirement outcomes may not be access.

ad space

It may be continuity.

The Vanguard report and the Morningstar study actually tell a surprisingly consistent story when viewed together. While Vanguard shows a system increasingly optimized around automation and default behaviors, Morningstar shows that the outcomes of even the best-designed system can be undermined if workers cannot remain continuously connected to savings long enough for compounding to matter.

And that matters. Big time. Particularly in view of the workers most vulnerable to those employment “disconnects;” lower-paid, minorities, women, the young…

Let’s face it. The retirement industry has spent much of the last two decades trying to solve the participation problem. In many respects, it has succeeded. Automatic enrollment, automatic escalation, target-date funds, managed accounts, and payroll deduction have fundamentally changed participant behavior — or perhaps more accurately, reduced the need for participant behavior altogether.

More recently, the focus has shifted toward expanding access to workplace programs — reinforcing how strongly availability, combined with automation, improves savings outcomes — even for workers with modest incomes.

But the Morningstar analysis highlights that workers with long periods of uninterrupted participation saw dramatically larger projected gains than workers with shorter or fragmented savings histories. Automatic enrollment helped. Higher default contribution rates helped somewhat. But it was remaining attached to the system through job changes, financial emergencies, and career transitions — that mattered more than almost anything else. “Workers with 10+ years of sustained participation could see 67% to 125% higher retirement wealth under auto‑enrollment scenarios,” according to the report.

ad space

Leakage remains stubbornly high. The number, if not the amount, of hardship withdrawals continues to rise. Cash-outs during job transitions remain common — most particularly in situations where a participant loan is outstanding. Vanguard’s data itself hints at this tension: record balances existing alongside increasing hardship withdrawals. The system has become exceptionally good at getting money into retirement accounts — but still struggles to keep it there when life intervenes.

In other words, the retirement system may be healthier than it has ever been structurally — while on an individual basis many retirement savers remain financially fragile.

That tension becomes even more apparent when looking at which workers benefit most from expanded access proposals. Morningstar found the largest projected gains among lower-income households, younger workers, single women, Hispanic workers, and Black workers — populations historically less likely to have access to employer-sponsored plans.

For years, the policy focus has centered on access: state auto-IRAs, SECURE Act mandates, automatic enrollment requirements, and proposals to expand coverage. Those initiatives matter. They clearly move the needle — and will continue to do so.

But the future success of the defined contribution system may depend less on whether workers can open an account — and more on whether they can stay invested long enough for the system to work as intended.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

5 New Year’s Resolutions for 401(k) Plan Fiduciaries

This is the time of year when resolutions for the cessation of bad behaviors and the beginning of better ones are in vogue. Here are three for plan fiduciaries for 2023.

Develop a plan budget.

Most financially-focused New Year’s Resolutions focus on spending (less) or saving (more)—and the really thoughtful ones do both—all tied around the development of a budget that aligns what we have to spend with what we actually spend. 

Most (many?) plans have a budget when it comes to the expenditures that require corporate funding.  Less clear is how many establish some kind of budget when it comes to what participants have to spend.  Now, granted, what they pay will vary based on any number of …variables—but an essential part of ensuring that the fees paid by the plan (for the services provided to the plan) is knowing how much—and for what. 

At some level that means not only keeping an eye on things like expense ratios, the options with revenue-sharing, and the availability of alternative share classes (or options like CITs)—but it also means having an awareness not only of the plan features, but the usage rates of those plan features.

Because when it comes to retirement plans, there often IS a direct link between spending less and saving more.

Put your fund menu on a diet.

Though it is a point often made with studies (well, one frequently cited study, actually) dealing with jellies and ice cream, a long-standing behavioral finance tenet is that more choice doesn’t lead to better decisions. So, what’s with those (still) burgeoning 401(k) investment menus? The 65^th annual Plan Sponsor Council of America’s Survey of Profit-Sharing and 401(k) Plans found that more than a quarter of plan sponsors offer 26 OR MORE options, while another 18% offered 21-25, and 27% offered 16-20.

Odds are that there are funds on the current menu that either aren’t being used or aren’t being used widely—options that contribute little other than clutter to your investment review and to the decisions of your participants.

Take a look—your retirement plan menu shouldn’t be a kitchen sink “solution.”

Check-up—on your target-date fund(s).

Flows to target-date funds (TDF) have continued to be strong—and little wonder, what with their positioning as the qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) of choice for most 401(k)s. That said, the vast majority of those assets are still under the purview of an incredibly small number of firms—with glidepaths that are not as dissimilar as their marketing materials might suggest. 

A TDF is, of course, a plan investment, and like any plan investment, if it fails to pass muster, a plan fiduciary would certainly want to remedy that situation, including removing the fund if necessary (don’t take my word for it—that’s coming straight from the Labor Department).  

That said, TDFs are frequently, if not always, pitched (and likely bought) as a package. While each fund in the family is reviewed separately, and certainly should be, breaking up the set certainly carries with it a series of complicated consequences, not the least of which are participant communication issues and glide path compatibility. Not that those can’t be overcome—and not that those complications would be deemed sufficient to retain an inappropriate investment on the plan menu—but it doesn’t take much imagination to think about the heartburn that might cause.

The reasons cited behind TDF selection run a predictable gamut; price/fees, performance (past, of course, despite those disclaimers), platform (as in, it happens either to be their recordkeepers, or compatible with their program)—and doubtless some are actually doing so based on an objective evaluation of the TDF’s suitability for their plan and employee demographics. 

Whatever your rationale, it’s likely that things have changed—with the TDF’s designs, the markets, your plan, your workforce, or all of the above. 

Pump up the default rate in your auto-enrollment plan.

While a growing number of employers are auto-enrolling workers in their 401(k) plan, one is inclined to assume that, a decade and a half after the passage of the Pension Protection Act, if a plan hasn’t done so by now, they likely have some very specific reasons.

But for those who have already embraced automatic enrollment, those are plans who have (apparently) overcome the range of objections; concerns about paternalism, administrative issues, cost—some may even have heard that fixing problems with automatic enrollment can be—well, problematic (though things have gotten a little easier on that front).

There has been movement here over the years—indeed the most recent PSCA survey found that two-thirds (65%) of plans with automatic enrollment set the default deferral rate high enough so that participants receive the full possible company matching contribution, up from 57.1% as recently as 2020. In fact, the most common default rate for automatic enrollment plans is now more than 6%. 

Set goals for your plan designs.

The mantra about retirement benefits has always been that they exist to help attract and retain good workers. More recently, a reimagined emphasis on financial wellness has offered some nuance to that—to provide better levels of engagement while they are working, to forestall the “distractions” (and potential malfeasance) that financial stress can engender, and ultimately to help workers retire “on time.” These goals are not inherently incompatible, but at any given point in time they require differences in communication, education, emphasis, and potentially program design.  

There is, by the way, a sense of a shift in such things. While the primary goal of participant education has historically been to increase participation rates, the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s 65^th Annual Survey of Profit-Sharing and 401(k) plans notes that in 2020 that shifted to increasing financial literacy of employees in 2020—a shift that held in the most recent survey with 77.4% of organizations now stating that as their primary educational goal. The secondary goal was increasing appreciation for the plan (likely as a retention method) followed by providing retirement planning to employees. The percent of organizations offering financial wellness programs increased to 27%, including more than half of large employers.

If you haven’t revisited those objectives in a while—or, heaven forbid, have never done so—there’s no time like the present for a reset. After all, as Yogi Berra once commented, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you might wind up someplace else.” 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Has the 401(k) Passed its ‘Expiration Date’?

That’s the premise behind a recent column by Morningstar’s John Rekenthaler, who writes that “the plans are as good as they can be under the current framework – and that's not good enough.”

I had the pleasure of meeting John a number of years back – and I’ve been keeping up with his writing ever since. His columns are thoughtful and thought-provoking, his perspectives rational and well-reasoned, his commentary nearly always not only interesting, but entertaining. But on this one – well, let’s just say we disagree.

John acknowledges that his views on the 401(k) have “evolved,” and that while he has long been in the camp that called for improvements in the current system, a “defender” of the 401(k) – but now, apparently, he’s calling for an “overhaul.”

‘Leaky’ Assumptions

He doesn’t fault the current system for its perceived shortcomings; he notes that the 401(k) wasn’t designed to be a solution for the general public’s retirement, saw the growth in the 1980s and 1990s as “modest,” and while he apparently saw the advent of automated design solutions as “solving half the country’s problems,” that confidence seems to have been shaken by a couple of academic studies. And that’s where things begin to get shaky.

“Whether auto-enrolled or not, leakage from 401(k) accounts, caused by early withdrawals, is substantial,” he writes, going on to cite one paper that “shows for households under the age of 55, average 401(k) outflows equal 40% of the inflows. Another study, by Laibson's co-researcher Beshears, estimates that, within the first four years, 25% of the benefits of automated-enrollment programs are consumed by early withdrawals.”


Now, John’s not the first to have logic waylaid by respected academics. One of these “studies” got picked up in the Wall Street Journal back in 2018. I encourage you to revisit my analysis of that survey at your leisure, but here’s the salient part(s): this study is based on activity at a single firm. One. Granted, it’s described as a large (approximately 7,500-participant), Fortune 500 financial services firm – but it’s one that even the researchers concede has high turnover. It’s also, based on the salary information provided, one with relatively modest income workers. However, even with those impediments, automatic enrollment did “work” – transforming the plan’s participation rate from 62% to 98%.

That said, you can imagine what happened when the employer in question adopted automatic enrollment in a plan of modest income workers; you get more, albeit arguably smaller, account balances (also their contribution default was just 2%). And with a workforce that has high turnover – those smaller balances are more likely to be cashed out – and then create “leakage.” And apparently in this isolated circumstance, with contribution rates (and amounts) so low and turnover so high you can actually get a result that allows you to conclude with a straight face that the withdrawals add up to 40% of the inflows. A conclusion that might well be transformed by the casual reader into an assumption that the result could rationally be imputed to the 401(k) system at large  And then (with a similarly straight face) hold that  out as though that is in any way representative of the 401(k) system overall.

All in all, Rekenthaler’s issues with the 401(k) appear to be two-fold: the aforementioned issue with leakage[i] – and coverage. The former he apparently wants to rectify by “replacing early withdrawal tax penalties with a stronger deterrent.” However, since he appears to want to preserve a participant’s right to “opt out” of this new design, it seems fair to worry that restricting access to those funds will almost certainly diminish the amount(s) that workers are willing to set aside in those accounts. In other words, there may be less coming out – but then, there might well be (much?) less going in.  

Access Able?

As for coverage, Rekenthaler apparently wants to solve with some kind of program such that “Every worker at every company, in every state, in every industry, will have access to a New Retirement Plan.” Apparently he’s not referring to Social Security, though of course, it already extends that far.

However, when it comes to coverage, I share Rekentaler’s concern. As we’ve commented before, with all of its success, and expansion, with all the trillions of dollars now set aside for retirement, coverage remains an issue. We’ve estimated that nearly 5 million employers nationwide do not provide a retirement plan to employees, and as a result some 28,280,000 full-time employees still do not have access to an employer provided retirement plan.

Now, Rekenthaler’s hinted at a solution (he promises to unveil it today) – that involves “removing the employer from the system.”
And that’s where I think he makes a (really) big mistake.

There’s no doubt that a system that relies both on voluntary action on the part employers and an active response by workers will inevitably miss some – and indeed there’s no getting around the reality that, 40 years on, retirement plan coverage has, basically, “flat-lined”.

That said, there’s already a version of “removing the employer from the system” in place, of course – it’s the state-run programs for private sector workers in Oregon, and more recently in California. Proponents tout the contribution and participation rates of those programs as a success and – relative to their non-participation outside those programs–,that’s a fair assessment.

Of course, those contribution (5.5%) and participation (approximately 70%) rates pale in comparison to private sector plan experience, where participation rates in automatic enrollment plans typically exceed 90% and where the 62^nd annual Plan Sponsor Council of America (PSCA) 401(k) survey recently found a combined employer/employee contribution rate of 12.2%.

The involvement of the employer is even more compelling when you consider that even workers of relatively modest means (those earning $30,000-$50,000/year) are 12 times as likely to save for retirement ina tax-advantaged account if they have access to a plan at work.

There’s something to be said for making it easier to transport those accounts from one employer to another, for making it easier to roll them over into an IRA than to simply take the distribution in cash. That said, the problem seems not to be the 401(k) plan, but the lack of 401(k) plans – plans that thrive because of the support and encouragement of employers – not just in enrollment and education, but in the matching contributions which often accompany such undertakings. 

It’s been said that there’s no use crying over spilled milk. But it seems to me that discarding the 401(k) as “expired” would be like throwing out milk weeks ahead of its “best if served by” date.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i]With regard to leakage, while it’s an issue of some concern, none other than the non-partisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) has previously considered the issue, and found that cashouts at job change were found to have a much more serious impact on 401(k) accumulation than either plan loan defaults or hardship withdrawals (even with the impact of a six-month suspension of contributions included, and though thanks to recent legislation, that should be less of an issue going forward. How much more? Well, cashouts at termination were approximately two-thirds of the leakage impact.