Debt ‘Limits’ – Causation, Correlation or Coincidence?

You have to wonder what the Wall Street Journal has against automatic enrollment.

The latest instance of finding the cloud in this silver lining arose in a recent Journal article by Anne Tergesen, “Downside of Automatic 401(k) Savings: More Debt” (subscription required). The article, based on the findings of a recent academic study, says that automatic enrollment has “pushed” millions of people who weren’t previously saving for retirement into those plans – but quickly cautions that “many of these workers appear to be offsetting those savings over the long term by taking on more auto and mortgage debt than they otherwise would have.”

This “crowding out” concern – that automatic enrollment would stretch already strained financial resources, particularly among lower-income workers – has long been a sticking point for those advocating caution regarding automatic enrollment.

The Study

So did the study – drawn based on what the researchers termed a “natural experiment” created by the decision of the U.S. Army to automatically enroll civilian workers into their retirement savings plan at a point in time – validate this concern? Well, the researchers found “no significant change” in debt levels of those automatically enrolled four years after hire – excluding auto loans and first mortgages.

In those categories, the researchers noted that automatic enrollment increased auto loan balances by 2% of income, and first mortgage balances by 7.4% of income. However, the researchers didn’t seem overly concerned about these increases, noting that they involved the acquisition of assets (and in the case of a home mortgage, an asset that might actually play a factor in retirement security) – though they did conclude that the advent of automatic enrollment seemed to leading workers to take on more debt to offset the “loss” in income to automatic enrollment savings.

On the other hand, the researchers note that it seems likely that much of the increase in first mortgage debt is caused by automatically enrolled employees being able to obtain larger mortgages due to their extra TSP balances loosening down payment constraints. And as regards their preparation for retirement, automatic enrollment clearly helps. The researchers noted that at 43-48 months of tenure, automatic enrollment increases cumulative employer plus employee contributions since hire by 5.8% of first year annualized salary.

Where’s the ‘Beef’?

So, what’s the beef about automatic enrollment? Well, despite the headline (and the subhead, “New research finds employees auto-enrolled in retirement plans borrow more than they otherwise would have, offsetting savings”), the article struggled to find anyone (including three of the authors of the research) who would say anything bad about automatic enrollment. But then, back in 2013, this same Ann Tergesen wrote about the “Mixed Bag for Auto-enrollment,” claiming that “employees who are automatically enrolled in their workplace savings plans save less than those who sign up on their own initiative.”

That article, in turn, built on – and cited – a 2011 article Tergesen jaw-droppingly titled “401(k) Law Suppresses Saving for Retirement.” In the case of the latter, Tergesen glommed on to one of 16 possible scenarios, and focused on the notion that some workers would simply rely on the mechanics of automatic enrollment’s 3% default, rather than picking the higher rate that they might if they filled out an enrollment form (encouraged by things like education meetings and incentivized by things like a company match). Remember that nothing about an automatic enrollment option requires workers to rely on automatic enrollment. In fact, under automatic enrollment, total savings actually went up, notably for lower income workers.
 
Auto Impact

The nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) has estimated that moving to automatic enrollment improves projected retirement outcomes by anywhere from 17.5% to more than 33%, depending on age and income. Indeed, the lowest income quartile saw their outcomes improve by more than 20% pretty much across the board. In fact, EBRI has previously projected that approximately 60% of those eligible for automatic enrollment would immediately be better off in those plans than in one relying on voluntary employment, and that over time (as automatic escalation provisions took effect for some of the workers) that would increase to 85%.

And while it wasn’t mentioned in the most recent Journal article, the study at hand acknowledged that automatic enrollment was “extremely successful at increasing contributions to the TSP at the left tail of the distribution while leaving the middle and the right of the distribution unchanged.” Said another way, automatic enrollment did a great job of increasing contributions among lower income workers.

All in all, while automatically enrolled workers in the study (and let’s remember this is a specific subset of the population for a limited period of time), on average had more debt in two very specific categories, it’s far from clear that this was a consequence of automatic enrollment – and it’s by no means certain, even if it were, that in the long term it’s a bad thing.

Indeed, it’s not clear that the dots connected here are causality or simply an interesting correlation.
What is clear is that automatic enrollment has been enormously successful at helping workers – particularly lower income workers – prepare for a more financially secure retirement.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

The Cost of Living

At a recent conference, our luncheon table got to talking about savings trends and the unique challenges of Millennials, specifically the impact of graduating with so much college debt.

While several at the table had graduated with (and since paid off) college debt, the sums paled in comparison to the kinds of figures bandied about in recent headlines — or did, until I loaded up an online calculator that allowed us to see what our college debt at graduation amounted to in today’s dollars. To the collective astonishment of the retirement experts at that table, the totals, adjusted for inflation, were very much in line with the figures reported for today’s graduates.

Factoring in those kinds of cost-of-living adjustments is, of course, a crucial aspect of retirement planning. Unlike Social Security, there is no annual cost-of-living “adjustment” for retirement savings—no systematic means by which those accumulated savings are increased to offset the increased costs of things like heating fuel, food and medicine. After all, managing to replace a targeted amount of preretirement income is of little consequence if, 10 years into retirement, that amount isn’t sufficient to provide for life’s necessities.

The bottom line is this: We’re well advised as savers to take into account the inevitable cost-of-living increases that occur over time, even in a period of low inflation. To their credit, most retirement savings calculators retain an inflation assumption that can help those future projections reflect potential realities (though you often have to provide that rate).

However, those adjustments are also often incorporated in a projected annual increase in pay (and deferral) that, for a significant number of American workers, may be little more than a quaint anachronism. Unfortunately, the cost of living moves on without our proactive involvement — unlike our rate of savings (in the absence of design changes such as contribution acceleration).  

Every generation has its own challenges, of course. And even if this newest generation of workers lacks the promise of a defined benefit pension (as noted previously, the realities of those promises were often something else altogether), a growing number will find themselves enrolled automatically upon hire and invested in a diversified asset allocation portfolio. Some will also find that their initial deferral is raised automatically each year.

Certainly the level of college debt is daunting for many, and may well dissuade some from saving for retirement, at least until some of that obligation is “retired” — as it did many of their parents.  Doubtless this newest generation of workplace savers feels that they are dealing with a set of extraordinary financial constraints, though those constraints may not be as unique as they may think once one takes the cost of living into account.

Not to mention the costs of living — in retirement.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Spend "Thrift"

Having now lived in our new home long enough for most of the extraordinary expenses to emerge, and for the costs of living in a different place to become “normal,” my wife and I recently sat down with a financial planner to update our retirement plan(s). Having gathered the requisite documents regarding retirement savings, insurance, wills, and investments, we turned to our current budget and spending patterns.

Retirement remains a relatively distant goal—but we are at a point in our lives where we can see the end of certain expenses (college tuition for the kids, the mortgage on the house), and the need for different, and potentially higher, levels of expenditure on others (insurance, long-term care). And, while we’ve long done budgets, established goals, and set aside funds to meet long-term objectives, retirement planning—as those who have undertaken to do so can attest—takes that focus to a whole new level, as you begin to take into account different sources of income, as well as expenses.

A recent EBRI Issue Brief (see “Income Composition, Income Trends, and Income Shortfalls of Older Households,” online here) examined the trends in income and spending among older American households. Not surprisingly, for all age groups above 65, Social Security remains the primary source of income, and by significant amounts. Consider that in 2009, households ages 65–74 and households with members age 85 or above received 54 percent and 66 percent of their total household incomes, respectively, from Social Security benefits. Moreover, the proportionate importance of Social Security income increases with age.

Additionally, income from pensions and annuities (including distributions from IRAs) is the second-largest source of income for older households. In 2009, households ages 65–74 received 17.1 percent and households above age 85 received 15.3 percent of their incomes from pensions and annuities.

As you might expect, the sources of income, and their proportionate contributions, varied over time—but the report noted that more than half (about 60 percent) of elderly American households do not yet appear to be “decumulating,” in that they spent less than their incomes. On the other hand, there were some—in 2009 more than 14 percent of older households—who spent considerably more than their income: 175 percent, in fact. Of some concern, the EBRI report noted that households that face income shortfalls not only tend to have much lower levels of assets, they spend down their liquid assets at a faster rate than households with no income shortfalls.

We should expect to spend more than we “make” (in the form of new income) in retirement. That’s why reliable “new” income sources in retirement, whether Social Security or pensions, systematic withdrawals from 401(k)s or IRAs, are so important, especially as “old” sources (such as that regular payroll check) fade away—certainly if you don’t want to run out of retirement income before you run out of retirement.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Fiscal Therapy?

This week I will undergo one of those “you’re getting older” physicals. This has been scheduled for about six months now (yes, that’s how long it takes to get in for a physical these days)—and I have dreaded it, more or less consistently (and, more recently, constantly) ever since the appointment was made.

I know that I’m eating too much of the wrong things, and not exercising enough (at all?)—and while I sincerely meant to alter some of those behaviors over the past six months, other things have taken priority. What remains to be seen is what my doctor will see/say—and what, if any, lifestyle changes lie ahead.

In random conversations over the past several weeks, it was easy to find people who were supportive of the need to do something about the yawing federal deficit, and even easier to find folks who had problems with one—or more—of the recommendations of the so-called Deficit Commission that were made formal last week. Like my trip to the doctor, we all knew that we had some fiscal behavioral imbalances that needed to be addressed—we just didn’t know how painful the cure might be1.

Retirement Plans

Those in our industry were primarily focused on two things: the reduction of tax-favored treatment for benefits (impacting both workplace retirement and health benefits) and changes to Social Security. The latter drew a lot of focus and angst though, at least as I read them, they seemed relatively modest, certainly compared with the 1983 moves (though, make no mistake—in my reading, a large number of decidedly middle-income workers will pay much more and get less in benefits under the proposal).


My issues with the proposed Social Security reform were that they ultimately seemed to be just one more step down the path of institutionalizing it as a kind of uber-welfare program, rather than one that retains at least a modest cognizance of individual contributions to the system. But the real pushback on Social Security reform seemed mostly of the type that has staved off serious discussion for decades 2; to wit, the program is not REALLY in trouble, because it can keep paying benefits for a long time with no changes at all (clearly Social Security isn’t hemmed in by the accounting rules that have been brought to bear on the funding premises of defined benefit pension programs).

Regardless of this proposal’s fate (or its inevitable progeny), sooner or later we all know that the “normal” retirement age will be lifted, the rate of FICA tax withholding imposed will be raised, and more of the benefits paid will be taxed. Like my exercise regimen, the longer we put that off, the bigger the changes will have to be.

The implications for workplace benefit programs that would be sheared of much of their current tax-advantage are more complex. Now, I’ve certainly had in mind the tax preferences accorded my pre-tax contributions when I make them (and the future of tax rates as I begin to slide some into my Roth account)—and, if I’m reading the recommendation correctly (and there’s less than a paragraph of the 66-page report devoted to this3), the individual limitations would still allow most workers to save at the pace they do at present (there’s also a call for an expansion of the Savers’ Credit in the report).

The presumption by some industry advocates was that once the tax preferences for employers sponsoring the programs were removed, employers would no longer sponsor the programs. Also, that the aforementioned change, along with the limitation of tax preferences for individual savings to the lower of $20,000 or 20% of income would, in the words of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (ASPPA), “effectively eliminate employer sponsored profit-sharing plans, shifting responsibility for retirement savings to workers.”

Indeed, one has to wonder: If the federal tax incentives for sponsoring workplace retirement (and health care) programs were removed, would employers still sponsor the programs?

The answer to that question is key because, while some of the changes advocated by the proposal might have unforeseen consequences 4, I’m reasonably certain that if employers don’t continue to sponsor these programs, private retirement savings will almost certainly go on a crash diet.

—Nevin E, Adams, JD

1 On an unrelated note, the editor in me was completely perturbed by the Commission report’s misspelling of “Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation” (it’s “Guaranty”). Perhaps a Freudian slip?

2 Many opponents this time around claimed that, since Social Security doesn’t technically contribute to the deficit, it shouldn’t have been on the table for consideration by this particular commission.

3 You can read the report at http://www.fiscalcommission.gov/sites/fiscalcommission.gov/files/documents/TheMomentofTruth12_1_2010.pdf

4 In all likelihood, this effort was doomed from the beginning. The problem it is trying to solve—a $13 TRILLION deficit—is daunting both in its size and scope. Not that the proposal claims to solve the whole problem; rather, it just takes a good “whack” at it (a whack in this case being $4 trillion in savings, through 2020). To get to that result, the proposal cuts a broad swathe through the nation’s tax system and structure; calls for caps, though not cuts, in discretionary spending (albeit at 2011 levels and not until 2012); calls for a near doubling in the federal gasoline tax; and a three-year freeze (though again, no cut) on federal worker pay, among other things.