Shifting the 401(k) ‘Balance’?

A week or so ago, I came across an announcement that IBM was making changes to its 401(k). More specifically that, effective next year they were going to replace their matching contribution in their 401(k) with an employer contribution to a cash balance plan.[i] In the days that followed, the news was picked up in a couple of different trade publications—the implication being that this might be signs of a new shift in plan design. Heck, even Teresa Ghilarducci weighed in, championing the “evolution” to a defined benefit structure from the “flawed” 401(k). She never misses an “opportunity.”

Readers here are likely familiar with the basic concepts of a cash balance design. Technically a defined benefit plan, it’s generally referred to as a “hybrid” because it also has a number of participant-friendly aspects that it shares with a defined contribution plan, notably an account balance (though it’s a “notional” one) that is shared with participants. The benefits accumulate somewhat evenly over time, rather than being more service “back-loaded” as traditional pension plans tend to be. But just like a traditional DB plan, cash balance plans are funded by the employer on an actuarial basis, and the investments are employer-directed, ostensibly with an eye toward the benefit obligations that are accruing. Also, some cash balance plans are insured by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), just like traditional pensions (and yes, the employer has to pay premiums).

Of course, cash balance designs aren’t new, nor are they new at IBM, which (in)famously shifted to one from a traditional defined benefit plan back in the late 1990s. I say “infamously” because it triggered a couple of participant lawsuits from individuals who thought their benefits had been reduced in the move—an age discrimination suit they won, only to lose on appeal. That said, even in finding for IBM the appellate court acknowledged that older workers were generally correct in perceiving "that they are worse off under a cash-balance approach" because such a plan eliminated the possibility of earning larger benefits as they neared retirement. "But removing a feature that gave extra benefits to the old differs from discriminating against them," the judge wrote. 

That controversy notwithstanding, cash balance plans have, in recent years, proven to be quite popular—particularly among smaller employers because they provide more funding flexibility than a traditional DB plan, and the potential for better benefit accumulation than the non-discrimination and top-heavy test limits often allow with defined contribution plans, such as a 401(k). But what IBM has done—basically replacing its 401(k) match with a cash balance plan contribution does appear to be unique—and worth noting.

As for IBM, while external perspectives on the announcement appear to be largely positive,[ii] it remains to be seen how it will be accepted by those it is ostensibly designed to benefit. Some have already commented that the loss of a match will reduce incentives to save in the 401(k)—others that the resulting diminishment in the 401(k) balance will undermine the amounts available for loans and hardships, though that arguably isn’t the purpose for those 401(k) savings, either. On the other hand, all eligible IBM employees stand to get this employer contribution, not just those who contribute to the 401(k) (though with what is said to be a 97% participation rate, it seems that few are left out at present, though we don’t know their contribution rates). You don’t have to be a cynic (though it helps) to imagine that IBM has done the math here, and that the change is either neutral, or inures favorably to their bottom line.

People tend to forget that the contributions defined in a defined contribution plan can be (re)defined each plan year—and while reductions are rare, they are not unprecedented. That said, even in rolling this new benefit out, IBM has (according to an internal communication memo posted online) acknowledged a reduction; “IBMers will also receive a one-time salary increase to offset the difference between the IBM contributions they are currently eligible to receive in the 401(k) Plan and the new 5% RBA pay credit”—though arguably that’s trading a pre-tax benefit for one on which taxes will be due immediately.   

While it’s certainly an interesting move—by a company with a history of interesting benefit moves—and, despite the enthusiastic response of Professor Ghilarducci, it seems unlikely to catch on more broadly.  Retirement savers have not only long understood and appreciated not only the value of an employer match, and so seem unlikely to embrace “losing” that to new plan they don’t understand, however even the tradeoffs are presented. As for plan sponsors—well, inertia is a powerful force in plan design as well—and a big design change that requires sensitive (and likely) ongoing communication will almost surely give pause to even the most innovative.

That said, it should serve as a reminder that plan designs can, and should, serve multiple purposes. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD  

---

[i] It’s actually referred to as a Retirement Benefit Account (RBA), though the description fits a cash balance plan, and it’s described as being offered “within IBM’s Personal Pension Plan.”

[ii] Not exclusively, of course—there’s cynicism to be found with regard to IBM’s true motives here. 

9 Things You May Not Know About the Saver's Credit

 As I was pulling together tax information this weekend, I was reminded that, in addition to the benefits of pre-tax savings and deferred taxes on retirement savings, there’s another tax benefit—but one of which many aren’t aware. 

It’s called the Saver’s Credit—but only 43% of workers are aware of the credit, according to the 20th Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of workers. It’s available to low- to moderate-income workers who are saving for retirement. For those who qualify, in addition to the customary benefits of workplace retirement savings, it could mean a $1,000 break on your taxes—twice that if you are married and file a joint return!

Now, there are some limitations[i]—both regard as to who is eligible, and the income levels to which it applies. But in a year when household income levels might be impacted by COVID—well, it’s worth revisiting the option even if it hasn’t been available in the past.  

Here are some things you (not to mention your plan sponsor clients, or participants) may not know about the Saver’s Credit:

1. It’s not technically the Saver’s Credit.

The official name for the Saver’s Credit is actually “the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit.” At least that’s what the IRS calls it.

2. It’s a credit, not a deduction.

A deduction lowers your tax bill by reducing the income subject to tax. However, a credit actually reduces the amount of tax you owe. Then again, if you don’t owe any federal income tax, the credit won’t do you any good, because it isn’t refundable. Additionally, it can’t be carried forward to the next year. Nor can you get a tax refund based only on the amount of the Saver’s Credit.

3. A wide variety of retirement savings contributions qualify.

Eligible contributions include those made to a traditional or Roth IRA or to a 401(k), 403(b), governmental 457(b), SARSEP or SIMPLE plan; voluntary after-tax employee contributions made to a qualified retirement plan (including the federal Thrift Savings Plan) or a 403(b) plan; contributions to a 501(c)(18)(D) plan; or contributions made to an ABLE account for which the individual is the designated beneficiary (beginning in 2018).

4. However, rollover contributions do NOT qualify.

5. Withdrawals can reduce the credit

The amount of eligible contributions may be reduced by any recent distributions received from a retirement plan or IRA, or from an ABLE account.

6. There are two deadlines for eligible contributions.

To qualify for the Saver’s Credit, contributions must be made to a 401(k), 403(b), 457 plan or the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan by the end of the calendar year. However, retirement savers have until the tax filing deadline of April 18, 2022 to make a contribution to an IRA and have it count as a 2021 contribution.

7. It’s not (yet) “EZ” 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).

8. You can take a quiz to see if you qualify.

The IRS now offers an online quiz to easily determine if you qualify for the credit at https://www.irs.gov/help/ita/do-i-qualify-for-the-retirement-savings-contributions-credit.

9. You have to file to get it.

You only get the 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.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] There have been legislative attempts in recent months to broaden utilization of the Saver’s Credit, both by lifting the current income eligibility levels, and by making the credit “refundable.” To date, however, those efforts have not been successful. 

• 
  

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

Are You Exploiting Naïve Myopic Workers With That Employer Match?

Over the years, I’ve seen some convoluted ways to rationalize undermining the tax preferences of workplace retirement plans and substituting government tax credits — but a new one just may take the cake.

“A Behavioral Contract Theory Perspective on Retirement Savings,” authored by Ryan Bubb and Patrick Corrigan from the New York University School of Law and Patrick L. Warren from Clemson University’s John E. Walker Department of Economics, starts off by assuming that workers are rational, though perhaps not rational in the way you or I might consider to be rational. However, I’ll accept as logical their assertion that rational workers will prefer saving through an employer-provided plan, rather than accepting a job that does not provide such a plan.

They also claim to provide an analysis that “provides novel explanations for the use of low default contribution rates in automatic enrollment plans, the shift away from defined benefit annuities toward lump sum distributions in defined contribution plans, and the offering of investment options with excessive fees.” Well, it’s certainly novel. More on that in a minute.

Exploit ‘Actions’

The authors claim that employers that provide qualified retirement plans provide more after-tax compensation (in the form of employer contributions not subject to FICA) to employees than employers that do not, and that if workers are rational (there’s that “rational” reference again), then competition for workers in the labor market should therefore provide incentives for employers to offer such plans. So, all other things being equal, workers would prefer to work for an employer that offers a plan than one that doesn’t. So far, so good.

Now we all know that some workers don’t save, and some don’t save enough. But the paper maintains that “if workers undersave (or make other retirement savings mistakes) due to behavioral biases,” then the labor market will give employers incentives to design plans that “cater to and exploit, rather than resolve, those behavioral biases.”

They claim that some workers undersave due to myopia — and that also results in employer plan designs that “exploit the myopic,” and that they do so specifically by — wait for it — offering matching contributions, which the study’s authors claim “naïve myopic workers overvalue.”

Moreover, they claim that this matching results in what they term “cross-subsidization” of rational workers, which, in turn, lowers myopic workers’ total compensation. Said another way, matching contributions mean that the naïve, myopic part of the workforce is not only undersaving (because they overvalue the contributions), but actually receiving less compensation (since the employer is paying them less to offset the cost of the contributions). Are you following this?

And while you may be under the impression that employers offer matching contributions either to increase NHCEs’ contribution rates or to meet one of the safe harbors so that they can provide greater tax-advantaged compensation to HCEs, according to the researchers, you would be wrong. They claim that employers offer those matches precisely because myopic workers overvalue them. Sound like a devious plot to you? Now you’re getting it…

Not only that, they also claim that matching contributions crowd out what they consider to be the superior — and non-redistributive — “commitment device” of non-elective contributions. That’s right, contributions that do not require any particular action on the part of the worker other than to exist and be eligible. Apparently it’s the reward for specific behaviors that is distorting things.

‘Over’ Matched?

Indeed, these researchers believe that the mere existence of the match means that workers will overestimate how much they will, in fact, save for retirement — and, since they think they will accumulate more than they actually will, they will save less — and employers save money, not only because they pay less (the offset for the matching contributions), the workers will choose to save less — and get less of a match.

Put simply, the paper claims that the labor market gives employers incentives to craft plan designs that cater to what biased workers perceive to be of value, and that the same behavioral biases that produce worker mistakes in saving for retirement will also typically lead workers to prefer plans that fail to correct their mistakes (apparently by encouraging them to save for retirement, but not as much as they need) and that can even exacerbate them. The result, they say, is an equilibrium set of choice architectures (plan design) that fails to effectively address the basic retirement savings policy problem of people not saving enough for retirement. Choice architecture that, in their estimation, is making things worse, not better. Because employers offer workplace retirement plans — and have the temerity to match the contributions of workers who take advantage of these programs. The horror!

Employer ‘Incentives’

The authors’ main message is that when workers undersave due to those behavioral biases, then “employers have incentives to design employer contributions in a way that fails to address the undersaving problem and indeed that can even actively exploit the undersavers.”

They not only claim that matching contributions are harmful to rational workers, but maintain that they are “unambiguously so.” How? Well, they claim that matching contributions distort the worker’s incentive to save by encouraging too much savings (which is apparently different than enough savings), and the worker would receive more “utility” from being paid this money as wages.

Oh, and as another example of employer bad behavior in plan design (and ostensibly another reason employers can’t be relied upon in this role), the authors note that most employers choose an automatic enrollment default deferral rate of 3%. The authors concede that the use of automatic enrollment can result in retirement savings by employees who would otherwise have initially contributed nothing to the plan. However, they caveat this admission by noting that some who would have saved more than that default rate if they had had to fill out an enrollment form only save at the default rate.

The solution for this? Substituting for the current system of employer-provided pension plans a new federal defined contribution plan, designed by a federal agency and not linked to any particular job, of course. Oh, and not only do they claim that this could improve savings outcomes, but that it would do so “at little to no fiscal cost to the government.”

Except, presumably, for the part where the government trades the temporary deferral of tax revenues for the permanent forgiveness of a government tax subsidy.

FWIW, I find it hard to believe that this kind of analysis would survive serious scrutiny outside of the rarefied air of academia. But stranger notions have.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD