Uncertain Outcomes

As the nation enters its third month under the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, it seems a dramatic understatement to say we are living in uncertain times.

Let’s face it, even as the nation begins to (re)open, concerns about the coronavirus remain widespread, and the markets, though stabilizing, remain volatile. Unemployment rates, though optimism remains that they will be short-lived, are at levels not seen since… well, at levels never seen before. And then, in the midst of all this, as a nation, we are reeling from a fresh wound—the tragedy and implications of George Floyd’s death—and while many are hopeful that meaningful change can finally come from this, there’s sadness—and anger—that the protests calling for that change have been accompanied by acts of violence.

Amidst all this worry and uncertainty, it’s hard to believe that the CARES Act—and the Payroll Protection Program—have only just been drafted, executed, and implemented to help stave off at least some of the economic uncertainty that currently confronts many. Not to mention that we had only just begun getting our arms around the practical implications of the SECURE Act—which incorporated retirement provisions that purported to stave off future economic disaster.

The mortality and hospitalization projections related to COVID-19 have perhaps provided a fresh appreciation for both the importance, and the limitations, of models as a predictor of the future impact of current decisions. That said, those seeking to forestall problems are generally well advised to rely on something other than a “gut sense” of the potential impact.

Earlier this year the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) projected the potential impact of the key provisions[i] of the SECURE Act. EBRI projected that those projections could  reduce the U.S. retirement deficit for workers currently age 35-39 by as much as 5.3%—double that if they work for small employers (those less than 100 employees), mostly because those who are in the latter category are so much less likely to have access to a retirement savings plan at work—and, as readers of our publications know, those without access to a plan at work are significantly less likely to save for retirement—12 times less likely, in fact.

However, the overall impact of these SECURE provisions is larger; those specific projections merely quantify the reduction in shortfalls for those who otherwise wouldn’t have enough retirement income.
Among those who were already deemed to have had “enough” retirement income (and EBRI employs a fairly conservative basis for that foundation, one based on actual estimated needs, rather than an ad hoc percentage of pre-retirement income), SECURE almost certainly adds some cushion to those projections. Indeed, the EBRI report differentiates between reductions in deficit and increases in surplus.

When You Assume…

Those are encouraging numbers. But it’s worth acknowledging that there’s a healthy dose of assumptions underlying those projections, as surely there must be in anticipating future human behaviors. EBRI’s Research Director (and data modeler extraordinaire) Dr. Jack VanDerhei takes pains to outline those in the paper, but it’s worth noting that the ranges in assumptions employed are—well, they’re all over the place.

---

Visit our SECURE Act resource center!

---

Consider that in the EBRI report, the assumptions presented for MEP adoption range from a one-third take-up by employers with no participant opt-out to one in which two-thirds of employers who do not currently offer a plan choose to do so, with a 25% opt-out rate by workers. And, as you might imagine, the results vary widely based on the assumptions used. On the other hand, they’re arguably no different than if you were to ask a random group of advisors how many more employers will now offer plans because of changes like the greatly expanded start-up tax credit, or as a result of the efficiencies resulting from an open MEP.

Now, unlike many of the uncertainties in our lives, when it comes to retirement, advisors can make a difference—and potentially a huge difference in the SECURE Act realities, whether it’s by informing and encouraging employers to take action, nudging them toward positive and proactive plan designs, or simply working with individual workers to help them maximize the expanded opportunities. In sum, we can all have an impact far beyond our immediate circle—and beyond our lifetimes.

We live in uncertain times, after all—but the importance of the role you  play in expanding retirement opportunity and security—and our nation’s future—is anything but…

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i]Specifically, the projections contemplate greater access by allowing providers to offer multiple employee plans (MEPs), and also factor in the impact of raising the cap under which plan sponsors can automatically enroll workers in “safe harbor” 401(k) plans from 10% to 15% of wages, and required coverage of long-term part-time employees.

Will the Administration’s Executive Order ‘Work’?

Over the coming weeks, a question that you’re likely to see posed (again and again) about the President’s Executive Order is – “will it work?”

“Work” in this case means to expand access to workplace retirement plans, for that is the stated policy of the Trump administration in issuing the order.

The answer, of course, will depend in no small part on what emerges as a result. While it’s hard to argue with the underlying principle, and even less with the foundational arguments (“Enhancing workplace retirement plan coverage is critical to ensuring that American workers will be financially prepared to retire” and “Regulatory burdens and complexity can be costly and discourage employers, especially small businesses, from offering workplace retirement plans to their employees”), at this point the order is no more than a directive to the Labor and Treasury Departments to consider and recommend some alternatives.

That said, the directives are reasonably specific – to look into ways to expand access to multiple employer plans (MEPs), and even more specifically, to look into ways to expand access to workplace retirement plans by those with “non-traditional employer-employee relationships,” to review ways to make retirement plan disclosures more “understandable and useful,” including a consideration of a “broader use” of electronic disclosures, and to at least look into and consider changes to the life expectancy assumptions imbedded in current required minimum distribution calculations.

As for the MEP directive – it’s well established that access to a workplace retirement plan has a significant positive impact on retirement security, and on the likelihood that individuals will save for retirement, and so anything that expands access to those programs is a good thing. As for the impact of MEPs, well, providers have long touted the ability of a multiple employer plan structure to expand coverage – and since plans at the smaller end of the market are unarguably sold, and not bought, at a minimum it should make it easier to profitably support and provide services to that market. But again, and as I’ve noted before, all MEPs are not created equal in terms of the security they offer retirement savings – and so, the ability to deliver on those promises will depend on the final recommendation.

While open MEPs – certainly a version that permits non-related employers to join together, and that addresses the “one bad apple” concern – are clearly the big deal in this particular order, the potential impact of the other two initiatives have the potential to be significant. For example, a recent study (underwritten by the American Retirement Association and the Investment Company Institute) of the impact of a shift in e-delivery assumptions found that participants could save more than $500 million per year, assuming about eight participant mailings per year across more than 80 million 401(k) account holders.

As for the impact of a change in the RMD calculations – well, for some people at least, that could provide some relief as well. A new study by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) finds that the withdrawal amounts taken by those 71 or older are generally no greater than the RMD. In fact, in 2016, more than three-quarters of those 71 or older took only the amount they were required to take – and so, if they were required to take less, that might well mean savings that would last longer.

So, with any luck at all, this might well add up to more retirement plans, more retirement plan savers, and retirement plan savings that might last longer.

Here’s hoping.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

‘Multiple’ Choices: All MEPs Not Created Equal

Delegates to last week’s NAPA DC Fly-In Forum had a lot to learn and say about a wide array of topics – but multiple employer plans (MEPs) dominated the discussion.

The reason, as has been noted in previous coverage on NAPA Net, is the Small Business Employees Retirement Enhancement Act, introduced earlier this month by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), which includes provisions regarding so-called “open” MEPs, a type of employee benefit plan that can be maintained as a single plan in which two or more unrelated employers participate. This is a concept that has received bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, and of which the American Retirement Association has been largely supportive, viewing it as a device that could broaden coverage by encouraging employers to offer a plan.

However, under this bill, employers that have 100 or fewer employees who earned at least $5,000 during the preceding year and that participate in a pooled employer plan (PEP) registered with the Labor Department (though exactly what, if any, validation would occur as part of this registration is currently unclear) would not be considered a fiduciary to that plan – including with respect to the selection and monitoring of any plan service provider or any investment under the plan.

That’s right – for the first time since the passage of ERISA in 1974, the employer – in what remains an employment-based retirement system – would basically have no fiduciary role.

Barriers ‘Riff’

The proponents of this approach apparently think this level of involvement is a barrier to small employer adoption of these plans. There’s just one problem; that doesn’t seem to be the case when you actually survey employers who aren’t offering a plan as to why that’s the case.

For example, consider a 2017 survey of employers by Pew Charitable Trusts. Among those employers, 37% cited “too expensive to set up” as a “main” reason, and 71% as a reason. A lack of resources to administer the plan was cited by 22% as a main reason, and 63% as a reason. “Employees not interested” was a reason for half the respondents, and a main reason for 17%. Nearly a quarter (22%) noted they hadn’t even thought about it. Concerns about fiduciary liability? Not even on the list.

These trends have been pretty consistent over time. As far back as 2003 in the Small Employer Retirement Survey published by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute, employers cited uncertain revenue (27%) as a top reason, costs of setting up/running a plan (16%), employees not interested (12%), and a concern that too much of the plan’s benefit would go to short-term workers (also 12%). Where did fiduciary concerns rank? Once again, they weren’t even on the list.

One place where fiduciary concerns were mentioned was a 2015 survey by the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. However, that survey found that concerns about fiduciary liability was cited by just 13% of employers – the very last item on their list of reasons (except for “other”). It was dwarfed by reasons like company is not large enough (58%), cost concerns (50%), employees not interested (32%), company/management not interested (27%), and concerned about administrative complexity (19%).

In sum, the issues that are holding employers back – and that have long held employers back – don’t have anything to do with fiduciary liability.

The good news is that when you look through those survey results to the things that are actually holding employers back, there are things that an open MEP could help solve, issues like cost and administrative complexity.

What Could Go Wrong?

Indeed, those who fail to appreciate the importance of employer involvement would be well advised to recall the case of Matt Hutcheson, who, after years of lecturing the industry on the importance of fiduciary standards, was sentenced to 17 years in prison by a federal judge in Boise, ID on 17 counts of a wire fraud scheme to steal $5 million of pension funds he oversaw to enrich himself and his family as well as buy a cash-strapped resort. An estimated 250 people lost money as part Hutcheson’s misconduct, with one person losing $950,000.

See, it wasn’t a regulator that detected Hutcheson’s criminal acts, and it sure wasn’t the MEP he was running – it was a plan sponsor.

Doubtless, those looking to insulate the plan sponsor from fiduciary liability are focused on removing what they think – or have been told – is a barrier to plan adoption, and thus see the elimination of that role as a step on the path to increasing retirement plan coverage. Doubtless there are MEP providers willing to assume the “transfer” of that responsibility.

The result, however, is more likely akin to removing a barrier between a fox and the henhouse.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD
 
Note: A 2012 GAO report notes that the Labor Department has said the potential for inadequate employer oversight of the MEP is greater because employers have passed along so much responsibility to the entity controlling the MEP, and that potential abuses might include layering of fees, misuse of the assets, or falsification of benefit statements. One pension expert also observed that small businesses do not extensively research retirement plans or actively seek them out. As a consequence, marketing may be the biggest determinant of MEP growth.