Match vs. Defaults

Which is more powerful—a generous match, or a high savings rate default? 

As it turns out, Christmas Eve brought us a new white paper with the fairly innocuous title, “The Impact of Employer Defaults and Match Rates on Retirement Saving.” Indeed, there have been plenty of surveys (and tons of data) that speak to this issue (many of which are cited as references in the paper)—but underneath that bland title the authors take on an intriguing question, specifically how, and how differently, the deployment of specific plan design features—the employer match, or default enrollment—impact retirement savings.

With regard to the former, there’s been plenty of real data to buttress the notion that the employer match acts as a virtual target for retirement savings—with employee contributions clustering around those like moths to a flame, regardless of the savings needs or income wherewithal of the participant. Similarly, we’ve long—but even more so since the advent of the Pension Protection Act of 2006– seen the dynamic impact that default savings rates—making individuals “opt out” rather than sign up—for retirement savings routinely produce participation rates north of 90%. 

Now, these plan designs have long been seen by employers (and those who support them) as positive forces to encourage workers to avail themselves of these critical benefits. On the other hand (and somewhat cynically), both can be seen as devices to produce retirement deferral rates sufficiently high to permit retirement plans to pass the muster of the various nondiscrimination tests to which they are subjected. And let’s face it, both carry costs for the employer(s) sponsoring the program. Indeed, if there is a shortcoming to these mechanisms at all it is that employees have seemed to assume they represent an answer to the “how much should I save” question, rather than simply being a function of how much the employer chooses to spend on benefits.

‘Better’ Idea?

As it turns out, the researchers (David Blanchett of PGIM DC Solutions, Michael Finke of the American College of Financial Services & Empower’s Zhikun Liu) have an answer to the question as to which is “better”—well “better” meaning the plan design that results in the highest employee savings rates, highest acceptance of the default investment, and lowest disparities in savings rates by income—that would be the one that uses a high default rate and a lower employee match.

 More specifically, based on a review of the activities of approximately 157,000 participants[i] who recently enrolled in an employer-matched 401(k) plan, they conclude that “a higher default rate has the largest impact on employee savings rates.”

Not only that, they caution that “plans with low default rates (say 3% or 4%) that match a high percentage of employee earnings induce higher-income participants to actively move away from the low default savings rate, resulting in a wider savings gap between higher- and lower-income employees.” On the other hand, setting a high default means that “fewer move away from the default savings rate resulting in higher and more equal savings rates among employees.” 

Other Considerations

There are some other considerations. They note that low default rates and high match rates also result in significantly fewer employees remaining in the default investment, and that while “raising the default savings level should increase savings rates for new participants, it won’t necessarily help existing participants.” As a consequence, the researchers comment that “plan sponsors may also consider different kinds of reenrollment or plan-reset options to utilize the positive impact of default savings rate increase. Additionally, plan sponsors should also consider including provisions for automatic savings rate increases to further boost participant savings levels”—because the one thing we know about most retirement savers is that—like Newton’s 1st Law of Motion—an object at rest remains at rest. And that’s what happens to most participants defaulted at a specific saving rate and in a specific investment—they stay there.

They also note that a high match appears to motivate workers to make an active decision to save more only when placed in a low initial default rate. Moreover, they found that a higher match motivates higher-income workers to save more, but only motivates lower-income workers who are defaulted (at the aforementioned 3% or 4% savings rate). They found that, when defaulted at a higher savings rate, the match rate only motivates high earners to increase their savings rate.

All in all, the match seems to matter to those who are more actively involved with the decision to join the plan—and those who are defaulted into the plan, in general, don’t seem to be those. There’s also a sense that more highly compensated individuals are more aware of, and active in, maximizing the match—though that may create nondiscrimination testing issues since less highly compensated workers seem to be more inclined to simply stay with the default rate.

Ultimately, of course, what matters is the default rate and the terms of the match; and with any luck at all, it’s not either or, but both!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Not that it matters, but the paper specifically cites “the second largest recordkeeper for retirement plans in the United States, which services over 12.8 million DC plan participants across approximately 67,000 retirement plans as of the third quarter of 2021”—Empower.

6 Things Those Who Don’t Get the Saver’s Credit Don’t ‘Get’ About the Saver’s Credit

Last week, Senate Democrats unveiled a bill that would, among other things, enhance the Saver’s Credit – a provision which retains bipartisan support, even as the take-up rate disappoints. Here are six things that people who don’t get the Saver’s Credit often don’t “get.”

The Saver’s Credit is, of course, a tax credit from the federal government for low- to moderate-income workers who are saving for retirement. For those who qualify,¹ in addition to the customary benefits of workplace retirement savings, the amount of the credit is 50%, 20% or 10% of retirement plan (or IRA or ABLE account) contributions depending on adjusted gross income.

Credit ‘Limits’?

And yet, some of the things that seem to be holding back the take-up rates could surely be addressed with a legislative “fix” – and here we’re talking about the relatively low income thresholds to which it applies, the fact that while it’s a credit, it’s not a refundable credit (and thus you have to have a federal income tax against which it can be offset), and that you have to file on Form 1040, rather than on Form 1040-EZ (which many, perhaps most, lower income individuals use).

That said, the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies’ 18th Annual Retirement Survey found that two out of three American workers are unaware of the Saver’s Credit. And so, as we near the end of the tax year, and look to possible withholding changes for 2019, here are some things people who might be eligible for the Saver’s Credit don’t always “get” about it.

There are two deadlines for contributions.

To qualify for the Saver’s Credit, contributions must be made to 401(k)s, 403(b)s, 457s or the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan by the end of the calendar year. However, retirement savers have until April 15, 2019, to make an IRA contribution that could qualify them for the Saver’s Credit for tax year 2018.

A wide variety of retirement savings contributions qualify.

The Saver’s Credit can be taken for contributions to a traditional or Roth IRA, 401(k), SIMPLE IRA, SARSEP, 403(b), 501(c)(18) or governmental 457(b) plan, as well as voluntary after-tax employee contributions to qualified retirement and 403(b) plans. However, rollover contributions aren’t eligible for the Saver’s Credit – and eligible contributions may be reduced by any recent distributions from a retirement plan or IRA.

The income limits are higher for 2019.

The income limits for those eligible for the Saver’s Credit were adjusted higher for 2019 – to $64,000 (from $63,000 in 2018) for a married individual (a table outlining those changes, as well as the limits for 2018 and 2019 is available here).

You have to have a federal income tax bill to get the tax credit.

It’s a tax credit, not a deduction – a dollar-for-dollar reduction of tax liability. However, if the standard or itemized deductions or personal exemptions eliminate tax liability, you can’t claim the Saver’s Credit. Moreover, it can’t be carried forward to the next year. Nor can you get a tax refund based only on the amount of the credit.

You have to file your taxes on Form 1040.

And complete Form 8880, the aptly named “Credit for Qualified Retirement Savings Contributions” to get the credit. That’s right, the Saver’s Credit is (still) not available via the 1040-EZ form (though there have been legislative attempts to remedy that situation – including the bill introduced last week.

You only get credit if you file for it.

It’s not too late to save and get “credit” for doing so – make sure the participants you work with, and plan sponsors you work for, are aware of it.

Additional information about the Saver’s Credit from the IRS is available here.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD
 
Footnote

1. In addition to the income limits, to be eligible for the Saver’s Credit, individuals must be age 18 or older; not a full-time student; and not claimed as a dependent on another person’s return. ↩

Why the Match Matters – to Employers

It has been heartening in recent weeks to see a number of employers announce plans to expand and increase benefit programs, offer bonuses, and increase the employer match. Better still, a recent survey indicates that more positive changes could lie ahead.

A decade ago, the headlines were filled with stories about a number of large firms announcing that they were cutting, and in some cases eliminating altogether, the employer match. While the vast majority of employers didn’t reduce those matches, it was nonetheless a stark reminder that those defined contributions are “defined” annually, not in perpetuity.

The Match Matters

There are a number of things that we know about the importance of the employer match; there’s the obvious (though sometimes glossed over) impact that an employer contribution means in terms of retirement security in simple dollars, for one thing. Indeed, the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) has estimated that if future employer contributions were eliminated for Gen Xers, their retirement readiness rating would decline from 57.7% to 54.6% – and that doesn’t consider what might happen to employee contributions as a result.

And then there’s the reality that those who it save in a retirement plan at work appear to save at/near the level matched (though the amount of the match matters less than the existence of the match), suggesting that it provides a savings target of sorts for workers.

There’s little question that the match does good things for workers and their retirement security – but, let’s be honest, the employer match that is “free” for workplace savers is anything but for the employers that provide it. Here’s why it’s worth the money.

Better Finances Mean Better Work

A 2017 Mercer study found that on average, people spend about 13 hours per month worrying about money matters at work – about 5 hours at the median, suggesting that some spend a lot more time than others thinking about such things.

EBRI’s Retirement Confidence Survey suggests that retirement confidence — and the retirement savings that ostensibly underpin that confidence – are at least somewhat connected. There’s a growing body of research that suggests that financial concerns take a toll on productivity. That’s not just retirement, of course – but it’s a big part of it.

Little wonder that more than 8 out of 10 (82%) finance executives surveyed by CFO Research with Prudential Financial, Inc., believe that their companies benefit from having workforces that are financially secure – and nearly as many believe that employers should assist employees in achieving financial wellness during their working years.

Better Benefits Attract Better Workers

Okay, every time somebody talks about the reasons to offer a retirement plan, “attract and retain qualified workers” is on, if not at the top of, that list. Thinking about that next generation of workers? Well, the 2018 Millennial Benefit Trends Report from Pentegra found that, asked if they take into account whether a job offers benefits when considering applying – well, pretty much everyone (96.77%) said yes. And, asked to rate five general benefits categories in order of importance, “401(k) Retirement Savings” easily outpaced the others, with about 4 in 10 rating it “extremely important.”

The CFO Research survey noted above also found that nearly two-thirds (63%) say that employee satisfaction with benefits is important for their company’s success, and 65% believe that employee benefits are critical to attracting and retaining employees.

Better Benefits Keep Workers

By far, the finance executives surveyed consider higher employee satisfaction (59%) and increased retention (53%) as the most important benefits of a focus on financial wellness.

State Street Global Advisors’ 2016 research suggests that there is a noteworthy interplay between people’s happiness with their working life and their financial well-being. In fact, reports indicate that financial wellness actually influences an employee’s happiness at work.

Poor Savings Postpones Retirements

A report by Prudential (aptly titled “Why Employers Should Care About the Cost of Delayed
Retirements”) found that a one-year increase in average retirement age results in an incremental cost (the difference between the retiring employee and a newly hired employee) of over $50,000 for an individual whose retirement is delayed.

Moreover, the report notes that it results in an incremental annual workforce cost of about 1.0%-1.5% for an entire workforce. This represents the incremental annual cost of a one-year delay in retirement averaged over a five-year period. Prudential notes that for an employer with 3,000 employees and workforce costs of $200 million, a one-year delay in retirement age may cost the employer about $2-3 million.

It’s been great to see so many employers announce enhancements to their benefits programs, cash bonuses and – most particularly – increases to their 401(k) matches. However, every year tens of thousands of employers commit to helping their workers save for retirement by committing to making a company match – and they have done so in good times and times that weren’t so good.

It’s a commitment that makes a huge difference – and one that shouldn’t be taken for granted.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

The ‘Free’ Retirement Money Many Overlook

People often talk about the significance of the “free” money associated with the company match in retirement savings – but there’s another source of “free” money that is often overlooked.

I’m talking about the so-called Saver’s Credit, more precisely the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit. It’s a credit, not a deduction – a dollar-for-dollar reduction of tax liability.

Income Limits

For those who qualify, in addition to the customary benefits of workplace retirement savings, it could mean a $1,000 break on their taxes — twice that if married and file a joint return. In fact, for a moderate income saver, it can offset 50%, 20% or 10% of retirement plan or IRA contributions up to $2,000 ($4,000 if married filing jointly), depending on adjusted gross income.

Speaking of which, the Saver’s Credit can be claimed by:

• married couples filing jointly with incomes up to $61,500 in 2016;
• heads of households with incomes up to $46,125 in 2016;
• married individuals filing separately; and
• singles with incomes up to $30,750 in 2016.

Additionally, in order to claim the credit, individuals must be 18 years or older, must not be a full-time student, and cannot be claimed as a dependent on another person’s return.

5 Things You May Not Know

Here are five things you may not know about the Saver’s Credit:

• It applies to a variety of retirement savings. The Saver’s Credit can be taken for contributions to a traditional or Roth IRA (including myRA), a 401(k), SIMPLE IRA, SARSEP, 403(b), 501(c)(18) or governmental 457(b) plan, as well as voluntary after-tax employee contributions to qualified retirement and 403(b) plans.
• There are two deadlines for contributions. To qualify for the Saver’s Credit, contributions must be made to 401(k)s, 403(b)s, 457s or the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan by the end of the calendar year. However, taxpayers have until April 18, the due date for filing a 2016 tax return, to set up a new individual retirement arrangement or add money to an existing plan for 2016.
• Rollover contributions aren’t eligible for the Saver’s Credit. Eligible contributions may be reduced by any recent distributions (for 2015, distributions received after 2012, and before the due date of the 2015 return, including extensions) from a retirement plan or IRA (a list of these distributions is available here.)
• You have to file Form 1040, Form 1040A, or Form 1040NR to claim the credit. The Saver’s Credit is (still) not available via the 1040-EZ form (though there have been legislative attempts to remedy that situation). However, if you use tax software, such as TaxAct or TurboTax, it should calculate the credit for you if you report your retirement contributions. Look for a completed Form 8880 in the attachments that your tax software provides.
• You only get the credit if you file for it. Just 24% of American workers with annual household incomes of less than $50,000 are aware of the credit, according to the 15th Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey.

However, it’s not too late to save and get “credit” for doing so – make sure the participants you work with, and plan sponsors you work for – are aware.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

See also:

• What’s Wrong With the Saver’s Credit?
• 7 Things You May Not Know About the Saver’s Credit (and 4 You Should)
• Save Twice with the Saver’s Credit

 

Facts In Circumstances

One of the things I have always enjoyed most about this job is the access to information—not only from our own research, but from any number of academic and professional organizations. It’s a lot to keep up with, of course, but it’s a great tapestry from which to construct a sense of where things are going, and what things need to get going.

There are, of course, things to be wary of. For example, surveys conducted on behalf of organizations supportive of a particular view—that suggest that most people agree with that view—are an obvious eyebrow raiser. Studies based on samplings that are limited in size or scope aren’t inherently flawed, but should always be taken with a grain of salt (for example, a survey of large plans isn’t always illustrative or predictive of the behaviors of smaller programs). My personal favorite: “studies” by the purveyor of a particular good or service that indicate that what people really want is—more of that particular good or service.

But there’s another kind of survey that can sneak up on even the most discerning—the survey that confirms what you already believe.

There was an example of that just about a month ago when Urban Institute researchers Mauricio Soto and Barbara A. Butrica, who did the study for the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, reported that employers with auto-enrollment had match rates about 7% below their non-auto-enrolling counterparts (see “Auto Enrollment Could Lead to Reduced Match”)--and from that finding, drew a not-unreasonable conclusion—that automatic enrollment could lead to situations where employers reduced their matching contributions.

And so it might. Generally speaking, automatic enrollment leads to more participants and, generally speaking, more participants leads to more matching dollars and, particularly for cash-strapped employers, more matching dollars can be a problem—a problem that could certainly result in a reduced (or suspended) match. Moreover, while matching contributions have often served as valuable participation incentives, in an era of automatic enrollment, those incentives might well play a different role, a role at a different level or, in the most extreme case, no role at all(1).

Now, it really doesn’t require a leap of faith to accept the premise of the study. And, if you’re like most people in our business, you probably saw the headline, skimmed over the results, and filed it under unintended plan-design consequences—or maybe even “bad things about auto-enrollment.” However, there’s a problem: Last week, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) put out a report that claimed exactly the opposite; that, in fact, automatic enrollment has led to a HIGHER rate of match, at least among large plan sponsors (see “Study Finds Auto-Enrollment/Higher Match Link Among Large Plans”) (2).

In ordinary circumstances, we might be left to draw our own conclusions about two studies from reputable sources that seemed to draw two such widely disparate conclusions. This time, however, the folks at EBRI not only acknowledged the disparity, they offered insights into those differences. According to EBRI, the CRR/Urban Institute data was based on match rates constructed by the researchers, not actual rates of match—and then, this inferred rate was matched (no pun intended) against a separate listing of plans to determine which had, at some point, adopted automatic enrollment—though when that had been adopted vis-à-vis the match changes (if any) was not identified.

The bottom line: The conclusion drawn in the CRR/Urban Institute report (3) wasn’t illogical, but it was apparently based on such an oddly concocted methodology that, IMHO, it wasn’t worth the paper it was printed on. Consequently, when all is said and done, it doesn’t really add much to our insights about matching contributions and employer decisions—but it surely reminds us that we must always be careful not to jump to factual conclusions that, however reasonable, aren’t supported by the facts.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1) See “Miss Match,” PLANSPONSOR Magazine

(2) The plans in the EBRI sampling weren’t exactly just increasing their 401(k) match, of course. They were also making changes to the defined benefit plans, and in some cases freezing their defined benefit plans while increasing their 401(k) match. More information is available HERE

(3) In their defense, the CRR/Urban Institute qualified their conclusion by saying that their study “suggested,” rather than established, a relationship between automatic enrollment and the matching level. That, however, is a nuance that is almost surely lost on most who read the report, including those who write about their conclusions for a broader audience.