No ‘Magic’ in These 401(k) Retirement Numbers

 Last week, a new report claimed to find a big jump in a so-called “magic” number for retirement, based on what survey respondents said they thought they’d need. As though they’d know.

It garnered quite a bit of coverage, including an article in The Wall Street Journal (and a comment from none other than Teresa Ghilarducci). While the “magic” number of $1.46 million didn’t seem astronomical (Professor Ghilarducci even commented that people often OVER-estimate their needs), that number jumped dramatically from $1.27 million a year ago—something the authors attributed to concerns about inflation.

There are many problems with reports like this—none of which the breathless reporting of the conclusions acknowledged:

(1) It’s an average—while we get some breakdown on age brackets, we know nothing about their incomes, where they live, their health, etc.  What someone needs (or thinks they need) living in New York City is (or should be) considerably different from the projections of someone living in Dubuque, Iowa.   

(2) It’s based on what people “think” (who have probably not given this any real thought).

(3) It’s surveying completely different groups of people a year apart, so drawing a trendline is a predictable, but dubious reality.

The good news is—this time—most industry “voices” pushed back on this “magic” number, albeit for different reasons. Mostly they cast shade on the notion that any one number would be right for everyone, and/or they preferred to rely on a percent of pay gauge. But those struck me as “nibbles” around the edge of the report; valid criticisms to be sure, but more about the result than the process used to produce it. 

Meanwhile, stories like this serve mostly to fuel the concerns that responsible human beings already have as they try to look ahead to a future decades ahead in a time of tremendous uncertainty. If they weren’t nervous before they saw these headlines, they surely are afterwards.

Now, those of us in this industry see—and produce—reports like this all the time. We look at those gaps (even the misperceived ones) as a challenge, an opportunity, a goal to strive for, a gap to close.  And thank goodness we do.

But while I wouldn’t for a moment suggest that those gaps don’t exist for some, nor would I advocate obscuring those realities, it would be naïve to think that those who want to shut down or “defund” private retirement plans don’t see these types of reports as an admission of failure, if not guilt. 

There are plenty of good stories to tell—and every day there’s an individual (perhaps many individuals) who confidently step off into retirement, buttressed by a history of consistent saving and encouraged by the support and guidance of a qualified retirement plan advisor. It’s a story that nobody seems interested in covering, but one in fairness that we don’t spend much time sharing, either.

I’d ask today that, in the future, you pause before sharing this kind of “the sky is falling” headline with your networks. Let’s start sharing the realities of the plans you work with, the retirement successes of the workers you support, the impact that holistic focus on financial wellness is having on the finances and emotional stress of those you serve… 

It may not be “magic”—but it sure matters.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

4 Reasons Why an Average 401(k) Balance Doesn’t ‘Mean’ Much

In recent days, we’ve gotten updates on average savings rates and 401(k) balances, and while for the very most part the reports have been positive and “directionally accurate,” I’ve always taken such findings with a grain of salt. Not so many in the press.

Indeed, the press coverage of those reports is generally quite negative, in the “how can people possibly retire on those small amounts” vein.

Here are four things to keep in mind about those “average” 401(k) balances.

Your average 401(k) balance may not be based on very many plans or participants.

Some reports of plan design trends and average balances may do so based on a relatively small customer base, and/or homogenous plan size. That doesn’t mean the results are without value – but let’s face it, sample size matters in discerning trends. The average 401(k) balance in a universe of 50 plans is surely less instructive than one that is a hundred times that size. In all surveys, sample size matters. And when it comes to averages, it matters a lot.

Your average 401(k) balance includes some very different people and circumstances.

Your average “average 401(k) balance” includes a broad array of circumstances: participants who may (or may not) have a DB program, who are of all ages, who receive widely different levels of pay, who work for employers that provide varying levels of match, and who live (and may retire) in completely different parts of the country. You might even have situations where ex-participants (who have zero balances in this plan, but might have balances elsewhere) are included in the mix. Those are all factors with enormous impact in terms of evaluating retirement income adequacy, and yet, because it is an average of so many varied circumstances, the result is almost never “enough” to provide anything remotely resembling an adequate source of retirement income.

This conclusion that the average is woefully inadequate as a retirement income measure is the main point, and often the only point, that is reiterated somewhat incessantly (and generally without the caveats about its somewhat tortured compilation) in the press.

Your average 401(k) balance doesn’t include the same people.

People change jobs all the time, and with astonishingly persistent regularity. High-turnover plans and plans in high turnover industries, almost by definition, will pull down averages. And when workers change jobs, they “start over” in their new employer’s plan. The bottom line is that the average 401(k) balance from a year ago almost certainly doesn’t include exactly the same participants. So exactly how valid are trendlines in average balances among completely different individuals?

Mitigating the distortions inherent with these averages, the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) makes a point of reporting on consistent 401(k) savers, specifically in its most recent analysis, participants who were part of the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database throughout the five-year period of 2010 through 2015. Their report finds that this consistent group had median and average account balances that were much higher than the median and average account balances of the broader EBRI/ICI 401(k) database. How much higher? Nearly double at the average, and consistent participants had nearly four times the median account balance of the broader group.

Makes you wonder about all those conclusions based on the averages of inconsistent participants…

Your average 401(k) balance doesn’t include the same plans.

It’s not just workers who move around – 401(k) plans change providers all the time. And when they change providers, their plan and participant balances move as well. So, if in 2015 your plan (and 401(k) balances) were being recordkept by Provider A, those balances would be picked up in their report of average 401(k) balances. Now, you change to Provider B in 2016. All of a sudden your plan’s account balances “disappear” from Provider A’s reporting – and now show up in the numbers reported by Provider B. The net effect? Well, that could mean that the average balances as reported by Provider A decrease – not because of any change in savings behaviors, but simply because a plan (and its accompanying balances) have moved to a different provider’s base.

Yes, I’d say that your average 401(k) balance is, generally speaking, mathematically accurate – and, at least in terms of ascertaining the nation’s retirement readiness, nearly completely useless.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD