(Just Because) Survey Says?

 We’re often told (via surveys) of any number of retirement plan options that plan participants want. Should it matter?

Most recently, we’re assured that participants are clamoring to have access to private market investments. Before that, it was cryptocurrency — and for what seems like months now it’s all been about retirement income. Apparently vast majorities of participants are eager to have access through their 401(k) to an array of complex financial instruments to which they have, thus far, been largely (or totally) barred — or so surveys say.

Indeed, I’ve always been amazed that organizations are able to find so many ostensibly knowledgeable participants to weigh in on these complex topics — particularly since there is an abundance of (other) surveys that suggest that when it comes to financial matters, participants are, largely, clueless.

Not that that seems to dampen their collective interest in these new options — though when given a chance to put their money where their mouth is, participants seem to be about as cautious as you’d expect (want?) largely financially clueless individuals to be.  Doubtless the questions posed in these survey instruments are less complex than the actual decision points turn out to be.   

So, why bother asking participants what they (think they) want in the first place?

It’s not that there isn’t value to be gleaned in assessing participant sentiment but — as noted above, the actual take-up rate on those products, even when offered by a plan, has traditionally been…disappointing, certainly from the standpoint of the manufacturers of those offerings.

Manufacturers that, it bears noting, inevitably turn out to be the sponsors of these surveys claiming that participants want what they rarely seem to take. That doesn’t make them irrelevant, of course, nor does it mean that the results are hopelessly biased — but it is, I would argue, worth some caution in blindly embracing (or sharing) the results, even when a reputable canvassing body is involved. At a minimum, a visible footnote acknowledging that specific “interest” in the outcome seems warranted.

The reality is that these types of surveys are rarely designed to actually gauge participant interest — savvy product manufacturers have likely already done some of that alongside the inevitable market and profit margin projections. Rather, they are a means to create and/or fuel public awareness, but perhaps more specifically to encourage plan sponsor/fiduciary consideration on the path to the ultimate acceptance of options they might otherwise be disinclined to entertain.

Prudent plan fiduciaries should, of course, take note of such things — but arguably with a grain of salt, certainly as it pertains to their specific workforce. However fervent the interest of a group of unrelated individuals might be, that doesn’t make it relevant for those under your care.

Indeed, ERISA’s standard of care is a high threshold, one that requires that the services engaged not only be reasonable in terms of fees and applicability, but solely in the best interests of plan participants and their beneficiaries.

And, as any parent can attest, sometimes those in our care want things that don’t meet that standard, whatever their opinion may be at the time.

Regardless, plan fiduciaries shouldn’t feel coerced into incorporating options just because a sponsored survey says (some) participants want it — participants who, of course, might not know what they’re asking for. Because, after all, prudent plan fiduciaries are expected to.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Perception Gaps

  A recent survey “revealed” a big disconnect between participants and plan sponsors — or did it?

The survey, conducted from mid-January to mid-February earlier this year by Voya, found that while 91% of sponsors thought participants were either very or somewhat prepared for retirement, “just” 69% of participants felt that way. A finding that I think it’s fair to say surprised — well, probably no one. 

Indeed, I’m sure there are any number of advisors out there who saw this as an opportunity to tell plan sponsors that while they may THINK the participants they serve and support are in good shape, their reality may be different. Particularly since this survey also found that advisors’ perspective was pretty much aligned with that of the participants surveyed.  

But could plan sponsors’ “read” of participant readiness really be so strong as to be so out of touch with participants’ perception? The authors of the report opined that the bull market might explain the level of plan sponsor positivity (which apparently is a consistent finding), though elsewhere in the report it cites that market volatility has been a factor of concern for participants — and so, one might suppose that, depending on when you responded to the survey, you might be inclined to feel better — or not — depending on the state of the market at the time (in fairness, the authors note that participant confidence has INCREASED since 2023, up from 63%). 

But as I thought about the data — or rather the conclusions drawn there — I noted that these are separate surveys of participants and plan sponsors — not just in time, but in…location. These are NOT the participants in the plans overseen by these specific plan sponsors, and these participant sentiments expressed are from participants not under the guidance/purview of the surveyed plan sponsors.[i] Perhaps if the plan sponsors associated with these particular participants’ plans were surveyed, they’d have a more muted confidence. Similarly, if the survey focused on participants in the plans overseen by this particular group of plan sponsors — well, they might actually be in a better situation, and thus more confident.

But even then, there’s a high likelihood that the vast majority of the participants surveyed have NEVER made even a single attempt to figure out their retirement needs/target,[ii] and so when asked about their level of confidence … well, it’s pretty likely to be an “uninformed” assessment. You can, of course, be confident — or lack confidence — for no good reason.  And who’s to say that the evaluation of the plan sponsors — who may have no specific sense of the retirement needs of their participant base — is any more credible?

Let’s face it — a macro view of the plan’s participant readiness (not to mention that some plan sponsors are more cognizant of such things than others) is almost certainly going to vary from the micro perspective of an individual. It’s not quite apples and oranges, but it’s at least comparable to assessing the quality of a bushel of apples compared to a couple at the bottom of the basket.

Beyond that, when you look inside the numbers of the Voya survey you see that just 17% of participants considered themselves VERY prepared — and only 27% of plan sponsors characterized their participant readiness as “very” prepared. So, while there’s a perception “gap,” it’s not as wide as the headlines proclaimed. 

All this by way of saying that while there is value[iii] in comparing (and contrasting) the perspectives of plan sponsors and participants from different places, at different times with different levels of understanding and evaluation…

Well, it’s a good idea to keep those differences in mind — particularly when trying to close those gaps in perception.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD     

 

---

[i] I suppose some accidental overlap IS possible, but it seems unlikely.

[ii] If that question was asked, it wasn’t obvious from the results. Again, while confidence readings are easy to take, if you have no idea what you need (and perhaps a dated idea of what you have), I would argue it’s of little use in terms of gauging reality.

[iii] And, dare I say, click-throughs…

Plan Sponsors Are From… Mars?

Do plan sponsors really know what participants want?

Back in the early 1990s, there was a very popular “self-help” book on relationships titled “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.” The basic premise, of course, was that men and women have different means and styles of communication – that, in essence, they might as well be from different planets (hence the title).

It suffers, as most such works do, from over-generalizing (to say the least – the hidden points system ostensibly maintained by each gender struck me as truly bizarre, even in the 1990s) – but it no doubt stimulated some relationship conversations, and if it opened some of those doors – well, that’s a good thing.

The relationship between plan sponsors and participants isn’t generally fraught with the same layers of complexity, but every so often a survey comes out that makes me think otherwise.

The latest was a report by American Century which surveyed (separately, but both during Q1 2019) 1,500 respondents between the ages of 25 and 65, currently working full-time outside the government and 500 defined contribution plan decision makers.

The survey found that only a small minority of plan participants (14% of those ages 25-54) wanted employers to "leave them alone" when it came to help with retirement savings – about half the number that plan sponsors thought felt that way. And, according to the survey, more than 80% of participants wanted at least a "slight nudge" from their employers (though, let’s face it, plan fiduciaries might well be reluctant to go too far).

On target-date funds, some 40% of responding employers felt that investment risk pertaining to market movements was the most important factor in target-date investments – while a comparable number of employees were more concerned about longevity risk (in fairness, investment risk wasn’t far behind).

Speaking of investments, nearly all – 90% - who either already offered or were considering offering ESG investments thought their participants would be interested (and why wouldn’t they), while two-thirds of sponsors say their retirement plan advisor is currently or should be recommending ESG solutions.

However, only 37% of participants actually expressed some interest in ESG options – and we’ve seen plenty of industry surveys (including the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s, among others – and that interest, not surprisingly, was apparently at least somewhat dependent on performance comparable to the average product. Ultimately, American Century found that while sponsors believed that 88% of workers were at least somewhat interested in the option, fewer than 40% actually were.

Sometimes the disconnects aren’t even between different parties; the American Century survey found that 82% of plan sponsors believe it was at least “very important” to measure how ready employees are for retirement – and yet only 46% formally did so.
Over the years, we’ve seen similar “disconnects” in the benefit priorities, availability of retirement income options, and, in fairness, we’ve also seen disconnects between what individuals say they would do – and what they seem to actually do given an opportunity. Not to mention those between plan sponsors and providers – and yes, between plan sponsors and advisors.

There are, of course, any number of rational explanations for those apparent gaps. We can be reasonably sure that these surveyed plan sponsors and participants aren’t coming from the same place - literally. We also know that different industries, and different employers, and even different geographic locations seek to hire and attract different kinds of workers – who are, in turn, motivated and attracted by different things – which they may or may not choose to share with their employer.

Sometimes people are more inclined toward openness with an anonymous survey – which may present option(s) they hadn’t even considered. And sometimes, of course, they’re “led” by questions designed to produce a certain outcome. Plan sponsors glean their sense of their workforce from any number of sources with a wide range of reliability – everything from personal experience, to industry surveys to the headlines in the press…to the inevitable “squeaky wheels” that (too?) often darken the door of HR with their latest complaint and/or suggestion.

That there are different perspectives should come as no real surprise – and, if the occasional survey highlights some apparent discrepancies in priorities, well one hopes that should spur some constructive consideration and engagement.   

Because, ultimately, what matters isn’t what “planet” you’re coming from – but that you’re speaking the same language.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Naughty? Or Nice?

Editor’s Note: There’s so much going on in the world of retirement saving and investing that I never feel the need (or feel like I have the opportunity) to recycle old columns – but this one has a certain “evergreen” consistency of message that always seems appropriate – particularly at this time of year.

A few years back—when my kids still believed in the reality of Santa Claus—we discovered an ingenious Web site.

This was a Web site that purported to offer a real-time assessment of your "naughty or nice" status.

Now, as Christmas approached, it was not uncommon for us to caution our occasionally misbehaving brood that they had best be attentive to how those actions might be viewed by the big guy at the North Pole. But nothing ever had the impact of that Web site - if not on their behaviors (they're kids, after all), then certainly on the level of their concern about the consequences. In fact, in one of his final years as a "believer," my son (who, it must be acknowledged, had been PARTICULARLY naughty) was on the verge of tears, worried that he'd find nothing under the Christmas tree but the coal and bundle of switches he surely deserved.

Naughty Behaviors?

One might plausibly argue that many participants act as though some kind of benevolent elf will drop down their chimney with a bag full of cold cash from the North Pole. They behave as though, somehow, their bad savings behaviors throughout the year(s) notwithstanding, they'll be able to pull the wool over the eyes of a myopic, portly gentleman in a red snow suit.

Not that they actually believe in a retirement version of St. Nick, but that's essentially how they behave, even though, like my son, a growing number evidence concern about the consequences of their "naughty" behaviors. Also, like my son, they tend to worry about it too late to influence the outcome—and don't change their behaviors in any meaningful way.

Ultimately, the volume of presents under our Christmas tree never really had anything to do with our kids' behavior, of course. As parents, we nurtured their belief in Santa Claus as long as we thought we could (without subjecting them to the ridicule of their classmates), not because we expected it to modify their behavior (though we hoped, from time to time), but because, IMHO, kids should have a chance to believe, if only for a little while, in those kinds of possibilities.

We all live in a world of possibilities, of course. But as adults we realize—or should realize—that those possibilities are frequently bounded in by the reality of our behaviors. This is a season of giving, of coming together, of sharing with others. However, it is also a time of year when we should all be making a list and checking it twice—taking note, and making changes to what is naughty and nice about our savings behaviors.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus—but he looks a lot like you, assisted by "helpers" like the employer match, your financial adviser, investment markets, and tax incentives.

Happy Holidays!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Naughty or Nice site is STILL online (at http://www.claus.com/naughtyornice/index.php.htm ). An improved site and much better internet connection speeds produce a lightning fast response – more’s the pity. I used to like the sense that someone was actually going to the list, and having to check it twice!

The IKEA “Experience”

We spent some time this past weekend getting my eldest daughter squared away in her new apartment. It’s her first, and as with nearly all first apartments, there is a lot you need to get that you never needed in your room at home or in your dorm away at college. So we headed out to IKEA.

Those who have never had occasion to visit an IKEA store should check it out at least once. They are mammoth stores—big on the outside and seemingly even more massive on the inside. It’s the kind of store you can easily get lost in (not to worry, they have their own food court inside), and yet it’s very hard to simply get from point A to point B, even if you know what you want to buy. About the only way to get through the store is to wander along the winding path the IKEA folks have constructed that takes you—literally—through every display imaginable.1

But the really interesting thing about the IKEA shopping process is that you not only have to find what you want, you must write down the part number(s), and—at the end of your journey through this mammoth store—you must assemble the requisite pieces/boxes in the warehouse.2 You not only have to make sure that you have each of your purchases, you frequently have to make sure that you have all the (separate) boxes into which your purchase has been divided. Ironically, the consummation of that IKEA shopping experience is that you get to go home and put your purchases together.


Now, I’ve never met anyone who didn’t like the IKEA “experience.” Oh, some might not care for the quality of the furniture, or the selection—and surely I’m not the only one who wonders why I have to do all the work (I understand that it’s supposed to be cheaper, but I haven’t found it to be cheap). But it’s not for those in a hurry, and at the end of the night, I kept feeling like I should be able to present someone else with the bill!

As I was loading up the family van with our purchases, I wondered if this is how participants feel about the current structure of our voluntary savings system: one (still) fraught with a mind-numbing array of choices that have to be assembled at the point of enrollment by participants who want to do the right thing(s), but who find themselves stuck trying to follow an instruction manual they don’t quite understand, surrounded by people who seem to get it (but probably don’t, either), only to find themselves at the checkout counter wondering if they do, in fact, have everything they need—only to then have to go home and put it together themselves.

And I wonder if, when they tally up that bill, they too will observe that it’s probably supposed to be cheaper that way—but find that it’s not exactly cheap.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

1 This turns out to be an interesting way to create the kind of “impulse” purchasing that most retail stores only have positioned at the checkout counter, as one continually wanders past interesting things that you hadn’t even thought you needed. On the other hand, the maps posted along the way that purport to show you where you are were not exactly reassuring to those in a hurry.

2 A place reminiscent of that last scene in “Raiders of the Lost Ark” (albeit with numbered shelves and aisles).

“Nigh” Five

A few weeks back, I offered some notions about what the next five years will bring in terms of industry trends (see “IMHO: Fifth ‘Avenues’”). However, in preparing for our recent PLANADVISER National Conference, I came up with five more.

Everybody isn’t going to do automatic enrollment.

Without question, automatic enrollment has done much to shore up the retirement savings rates of American workers. For plan sponsors and participants alike, the efficacy of an approach that doesn’t require participants to complete an enrollment form, deliberate over investment choices, set upon a desired rate of savings, or even darken the door of an education meeting has done much to get tens of thousands of workers off on the right retirement savings foot. And, for the vast majority of workers, the ability to do the right thing without doing anything at all has not only been well-received, but much appreciated as well.

Not that automatic enrollment as outlined by the Pension Protection Act (PPA) doesn’t have its shortcomings. Arguably, the 3% starting deferral rate outlined in the PPA—and still adopted by the vast majority of plans—is better suited to avoid creating a financial burden on workers than to ensuring an adequate level of retirement savings; and some workers, in taking the “easy” path cleared by automatic enrollment, wind up saving at lower rates than they would likely choose for themselves had they only taken the time to actually fill out an enrollment form (see “IMHO: ‘Starting’ Points”).

But at some level, automatic enrollment requires that the plan sponsor “impose” a savings decision on a participant, and even though workers can choose to opt out, many plan sponsors are simply disinclined to set aside the purely voluntary approach. Many smaller programs that might once have been willing to go down that route as a means of avoiding trouble with the nondiscrimination tests have since found the solace required in adopting a safe harbor design. But for many, perhaps most these days, it’s all about economics; simply said, the more participants, the more matching dollars—and considering the potential number of additional participants, those matching dollars could be significant, or significant “enough” in the current economic environment.

PLANSPONSOR’s annual Defined Contribution Survey has, for the past several years, shown a flat or flattening adoption rate for automatic enrollment. There’s no reason to think this will change in the short term.

Everybody who does automatic enrollment isn’t going to do it for everybody.

Among the PPA’s provisions is a safe harbor for those adopting automatic enrolment—a safe harbor that effectively provides plan sponsors with protection identical to that afforded under ERISA 404(c ), so long as certain conditions are met. Among those conditions is that all eligible participants be automatically enrolled and/or given the chance to opt out.

And yet, PLANSPONSOR’s annual Defined Contribution Survey has found, for several years running, that two-thirds of plan sponsors that have embraced automatic enrollment have done so only for newer hires (see “IMHO: A Prospective Perspective”). Anecdotally, plan sponsors are reluctant to “disturb” workers who, at least in theory, have previously been afforded the opportunity to participate and decided not to. Some are hesitant to “insult their intelligence” by doing so, and for others, it’s just the economic dilemma posed above. The PPA doesn’t mandate going back to older workers, of course—but plan sponsors desirous of those safe harbor protections either have to, or have to be able to establish that they have. There is also, of course, the issue of a plan design that, at least on the surface, is more attentive to the financial security of shorter-tenured workers.

Still, the current—and apparently persistent trend—is to adopt this feature prospectively, and it will likely take an improved economy—or perhaps litigation—to change that dynamic.

Roth 401(k)s are going to continue to gain ground.


The advantages of tax-deferred savings have long been part-and-parcel of the pitch behind 401(k) plans. The notion is simple: defer paying taxes on your savings now, and they’ll add up faster, further fueled by the tax-deferred accumulation of earnings on those balances. And then, the logic goes, you pay taxes on those monies as you withdraw them—years from now—and at rates that, post-retirement, will be lower.

Plan sponsors have long been reluctant to push Roth 401(k)s; their pay-it-now concept on taxes at odds with the traditional tax deferral mantra, and their benefits often seen as skewed toward more highly compensated workers.

However, these days, it’s hard to find someone willing to predict lower taxes in the future, even post-retirement. Moreover, today’s younger (and not-so-highly compensated) workers may very well be paying the lowest tax rates they will ever experience.

To date, most surveys indicate that the participant take-up rate on Roth 401(k)s remains modest, something on the order of what self-directed brokerage accounts have garnered (and in many cases, appealing to the same audience). However, the preliminary results of PLANSPONSOR’s annual Defined Contribution Survey suggest that Roth 401(k)s are cropping up on a surprising number of plan menus. It’s a trend that, IMHO, bears watching.

Plan sponsors will (continue to) measure plan success on things (they think) they can control.

Plan sponsors have long measured the success of their defined contribution plans by the rate of participation in the plan. More than just providing a sense of interest and/or the success of inspiring enrollment meetings, the rate of participation, certainly by non-highly compensated workers, has a significant impact on the plan’s ability not only to pass nondiscrimination tests, but to allow highly compensated workers to defer at meaningful rates. However, in an era of automatic enrollment and safe harbor plan designs, the value of this metric has been muted or, in many cases, eliminated.

There is, however, a growing discussion among providers that plan sponsors should begin—and in some cases, are beginning—to consider other metrics: things like rates of deferral, diversity of asset allocation, and even adequacy of retirement income. That they are now able to consider such a shift in focus is a testament to a new and exciting generation of tools now available from the provider community, and they may well foreshadow a time in the not-too-distant future where those perspectives are shared with participants who may, for example, increase their current rate of deferral to ensure a higher level of retirement income, or adjust their asset allocation to preserve portfolio gains as they near retirement.

However, it’s not clear to me that plan sponsors will choose to benchmark their plans on criteria that is so individualized and so far outside their control to influence. Consider that about two-thirds of plan sponsors today still benchmark based on participation, and half that number examine deferral rates within various employee groups. These measures may not provide a picture of what the plan will yield in terms of its ultimate goal, but they are indicative of things a plan sponsor can control or influence with plan design, and—for the foreseeable future, anyway—I’m guessing they will continue to be the measures of choice.

Plan sponsors want good retirement outcomes for participants—but don’t feel it is their responsibility to ensure them.

Under the auspices of “best practices” and armed with some of the aforementioned benchmarking measures, some claim that fulfilling the plan fiduciary’s responsibility to act in the interests of plan participants extends to ensuring a good result. Of course, some plan sponsors are reluctant to know the results of that benchmarking for just that reason: that, once apprised of those results, they will one day be held to account for them.

Unlikely as that seems to me, one should never underestimate the creativity of the plaintiff’s bar. The reality is that a voluntary savings system needs goals, and I think participants would save better if they understood more. It also seems to me that plan sponsors who know more about what is going on in their plan might do a better job as well.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

Group “Think”

Somewhere over the course of your academic or professional career, I’m sure you’ve been exposed to a group exercise dealing with being stranded in an inhospitable place (the moon, or maybe a deserted island) with a limited amount of supplies, and a limited amount of time to choose from those supplies to ensure your survival.

In these exercises, you’re asked to make those picks as an individual exercise, and then put together with a group to make group choices. Not only are the group choices generally different, they are nearly always “better” (more likely to ensure survival) than those made by individuals. The point of the exercise is, of course, that we make better decisions working together as a team than we do trying to make them on our own—and it generally works out that way.

Sure, that may work in hypothetical situations where none of the group members has any particular expertise. But if I’ve crash-landed on the moon, and there’s a trained astronaut in the group—well, let’s just say you’re probably better off following their lead than putting things up for a vote.

That said, to me, the point of that exercise isn’t necessarily that group decisions are better than individuals’—they frequently aren’t, IMHO—but that groups we are part of make different decisions than we might as individuals.


Now, sometimes that inures to our benefit. There is certainly value in a collective experience/perspective, and there is an important collaborative element in just being able to bounce ideas off other people. Moreover, there are times when individual members of the group have knowledge and/or expertise that everyone doesn’t have. And let’s face it—plan sponsors make a lot of individual decisions, but even relatively small employers are inclined to rely on the collective experience of a group when it comes to making plan design and investment decisions. That’s supposed to make for better decisions but, as any retirement plan adviser can attest, not always.

Behavioral finance purports to explain why people make the financial choices they do, choices that are frequently at odds with what “rational” decisionmaking would support. In recent years, a lot of attention and focus have been directed toward behavioral finance, particularly as it applies to participant decisionmaking or the lack thereof (in fact, thus far most of those behavioral finance-oriented solutions – automatic enrollment, contribution acceleration, QDIAs - have been directed not toward helping participants make better choices, but rather toward making better choices for the participants).

In fact, in the cover story of the January issue of PLANSPONSOR, Gary Mottola, Associate Director of Investor Education at the Washington-based Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), observes: “Plan sponsors are very aware of the biases that affect individuals, but I do not think a lot of sponsors are aware of these biases” that can affect them. Plan sponsors make most of their decisions in groups and committees, so they are vulnerable to both group and individual biases.”

What kinds of biases? Well, there are things like “shared-information bias,” where groups tend to focus on things of common knowledge/interest, even if it isn’t the most pertinent/critical. My favorite is “group polarization,” which speaks to a group’s tendency to make more-extreme decisions—both in cautious and risky directions—than individuals. In essence, the group tends to reinforce its own prejudices—and then some.

Even the best committees can make bad decisions, not because they aren’t well-intentioned, or even well-equipped to make complex financial decisions, but because they may make decisions based on dynamics of which they aren’t even aware.

What’s ironic, IMHO, is how intertwined the acknowledgement of such behaviors has become in thoughtful plan designs—and yet how infrequently we acknowledge their impact on those who make the complex financial decisions that affect the participant decisions.


- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Check out “Misbehavioral Finance”

Naughty or Nice?

Editor’s Note: There’s so much going on in the world of retirement saving and investing that I never feel the need (or feel like I have the opportunity) to recycle old columns – but this one has a certain “evergreen” consistency of message that always seems appropriate – particularly at this time of year.

A few years back—when my kids still believed in the reality of Santa Claus—we discovered an ingenious Web site that purported to offer a real-time assessment of their "naughty or nice" status.

Now, as Christmas approached, it was not uncommon for us to caution our occasionally misbehaving brood that they had best be attentive to how those actions might be viewed by the big guy at the North Pole. But nothing ever had the impact of that Web site - if not on their behaviors (they're kids, after all), then certainly on the level of their concern about the consequences. In fact, in one of his final years as a "believer," my son (who, it must be acknowledged, had been PARTICULARLY naughty) was on the verge of tears, worried that he'd find nothing under the Christmas tree but the coal and bundle of switches he surely deserved.

Naughty Behaviors?

One might plausibly argue that many participants act as though some kind of benevolent elf will drop down their chimney with a bag full of cold cash from the North Pole. They behave as though, somehow, their bad savings behaviors throughout the year(s) notwithstanding, they'll be able to pull the wool over the eyes of a myopic, portly gentleman in a red snow suit. Not that they actually believe in a retirement version of St. Nick, but that's essentially how they behave, even though, like my son, a growing number evidence concern about the consequences of their "naughty" behaviors. Also, like my son, they tend to worry about it too late to influence the outcome—and don't change their behaviors in any meaningful way.


Ultimately, the volume of presents under our Christmas tree never really had anything to do with our kids' behavior, of course. As parents, we nurtured their belief in Santa Claus as long as we thought we could (without subjecting them to the ridicule of their classmates), not because we expected it to modify their behavior (though we hoped, from time to time), but because, IMHO, kids should have a chance to believe, if only for a little while, in those kinds of possibilities.

We all live in a world of possibilities, of course. But as adults we realize—or should realize—that those possibilities are frequently bounded in by the reality of our behaviors. This is a season of giving, of coming together, of sharing with others. However, it is also a time of year when we should all be making a list and checking it twice—taking note, and making changes to what is naughty and nice about our savings behaviors.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus—but he looks a lot like you, assisted by "helpers" like the employer match, your financial adviser, investment markets, and tax incentives.

Happy Holidays!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Naughty or Nice site is STILL online (at http://www.claus.com/naughtyornice/index.php.htm). An improved site and much better internet connection speeds produce a lightning fast response – more’s the pity. I used to like the sense that someone was actually going to the list, and having to check it twice!

The Measure of the Plan

Not so long ago, plan sponsors gauged the success of their defined contribution offerings by a single metric: participation rate. It’s not that they didn’t pay attention to other criteria, but participation rate is objective, easy to calculate, and, certainly for a voluntary savings program, it’s not an inappropriate gauge of the program’s perceived value.

Over the past couple of years, a growing number of plan providers have brought to market a new set of plan diagnostic measures, measures that not only show individual and plan balances, but also project those balances out to an estimate of what those balances will provide in retirement income, or presented as a measure of retirement readiness—compared with an established level of income replacement.

It’s not a new idea, of course. Heck, there has even been legislation introduced to place—on participant statements—a projection as to what the participant’s monthly retirement income would be. Meanwhile, despite long-standing fears that participants, confronted with the stark realities of their savings situation, would abandon the cause, the realities seem to be quite different. One might well expect the providers touting such wares to extol the virtues of the approach (and they do), but I have yet to meet a plan sponsor who had adopted these enhanced gauges of retirement readiness who said it had had a negative impact.

That said, there are still many plan sponsors that have not yet taken that step. At the PLANSPONSOR National Conference this past June, I asked the audience of some 200-plus plan sponsors if they had established any kind of target replacement ratio as part of their program design. While the survey sampling was admittedly unscientific (though I would suspect skewered toward more-active, involved, engaged plan sponsors) a whopping 78% said “no.” Just one in 10 said yes, while the remaining 12% responded “not explicitly, but it’s in the back of our minds.” (1)

Based on that result, I wasn’t too surprised that just 28% said their participants will be able to retire comfortably, while 43% said “maybe” (the polling was anonymous). (2)


Now, most of us have a hard enough time answering that comfortable retirement question for our individual situation, much less an entire employee populationbut I was struck by how many of those in that particular attendance didn’t even seem to have a rough notion in the back of their mind. As I explored that poll result with the audience, a couple of themes emerged: First, plan sponsors only know so much about an individual participant’s lifestyle, sources of income, and/or plans for retirement, and generally don’t have the time or inclination to know any of that, anyway. Second, these are voluntary programs, and while plan sponsors take seriously their responsibility to see that they are well, reasonably, and efficiently run, most don’t see it as their responsibility to make sure that participants are doing what they need to do (in fairness, most plan sponsors have their hands full just trying to make sure that THEY are doing what they need to do).

In casual conversations with plan sponsors about these types of programs and their reluctance to embrace them, it isn’t the cost or complexity that holds them back, nor is it concern about the response of newly enlightened participant-savers. Rather, it’s an underlying concern that, once those retirement replacement goals have been established at a plan committee level, and once those readiness results are presented in black and white (or multi-color) to plan fiduciaries, they could be held accountable for the results and/or shortfalls. Ignorance, to some it seems, is not only bliss, it’s a litigation shield.

Personally, I think plan sponsors already carry burdens and responsibilities beyond what many, perhaps most, are compensated for (and some beyond what they are aware). That said, it seems to me that presenting plan participants with specific information about their retirement savings situation, coupled with the kinds of diagnostic tools that accompany most of these offerings (not to mention the counsel of a trusted adviser) not only serves to help them make better decisions sooner, it effectively undermines their ability to later turn on the plan fiduciaries and try to hold them accountable for the participant’s results.

Now, some might argue that sponsoring these programs with no specific goal in mind is not much better than participants who save with no goal or focus to those efforts. Others would go so far as to suggest that failing to administer these programs with those kinds of specific goals in mind runs afoul of ERISA’s fiduciary charge.

For me, it’s not about measuring your program—it’s about seeing how your program measures up.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD ,

(1) While I don’t have a correlation between the responses and the program designs represented, it seems fair to say that many were in the DC-only camp.
(2) As for the rest of the responses, 16% said “no,” 10% were “not sure,” and 3% said “I’ve no idea.”

Thinking "Caps"

While the spate of revenue-sharing suits has—for the moment, anyway—faded into the background, fees remain one of the most hotly debated topics in our industry.

If anything, the intensity has heightened in recent weeks, as we near the Form 5500 filing deadline for December plan-year ends, even as we anxiously await the new 408(b)(2) fee disclosure regulations from the Labor Department—regulations that might well have been at some odds with legislation proposed by Congressman George Miller (D-California) that rode through the House as part of that extenders bill before being dropped by the Senate.

The urgency behind these initiatives is two-fold: to force those who provide services to these plans to more fully and accurately disclose their fees to plan fiduciaries, and to provide participants with some idea of the monies that are being netted from their investment returns (and taken from their accounts). Ultimately, it is about helping people make better, or at least more informed, decisions about their retirement plan investments—and these initiatives are all predicated on the notion that these fees are not adequately disclosed, or sufficiently understood, at present.

That said, a report recently issued by the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies (from its 11th Annual Retirement Survey) paints a somewhat different picture (see 401(k) Participants not as Knowledgeable as Employers Think).

Asked whether they would like to receive more information from their retirement plan provider about fees and expenses associated with their plan, two thirds of the roughly 600 employers surveyed (and these were not limited to clients of Transamerica) said no, and half of those strongly disagreed with that proposition (smaller firms were somewhat more likely to disagree strongly). Now, that’s a startling statement in view of the characterization of the current state of 401(k) fees by many in Congress and most in the media—not to mention a few in the industry itself.

Asked if those in their firm who were responsible for overseeing the retirement program had a “clear understanding of the fees and expenses associated with the retirement plan,” nearly all—94%—at least somewhat agreed with that proposition. Nearly three-quarters of those at (277) larger firms strongly agreed with that statement, as did nearly half of the smaller firms (271). Could it be that these employers weren’t interested in receiving additional disclosures because they felt they already understood?

Moreover, strong majorities of employers felt that their workers had a similarly clear understanding of the fees associated with their account; one in five strongly agreed with that statement, while roughly half were willing to say they “somewhat agreed” with the proposition. Those results, of course, stood in some contrast with workers, where only about a quarter were willing to say they were aware of fees that may be charged to their account (admittedly, nearly as many weren’t sure, while about half said they were not aware).

These are the kinds of results that tend to work legislators, consultants/advisers—and journalists—into a lather. The “common wisdom” is, of course, that retirement plans are being gouged; that retirement plan sponsors are complacent, if not complicit in the theft; and that plan participants are oblivious to it all.

We may draw some comfort from the reality that most retirement plan fees are drawn from the expense ratios applied to the various funds, ratios that are generally disclosed, if somewhat imperfectly, to plan fiduciaries and participants alike (we may not yet know the apportionment, but the gross amount is certainly ascertainable). And yet, most advisers would likely view the Transamerica Center results with scepticism, if not downright cynicism. I can hear many of you saying to yourself right now, “They may THINK they know what they’re paying, but they really don’t.”

That said, don’t YOUR clients know what they are paying?

It’s hard to know exactly what inferences to draw from the research. Perhaps the plan sponsors are being misled or maybe misinformed; perhaps they do have a workable, if imprecise, idea of the plan costs. Improbable as this might seem, they might even happen to be a uniquely well-informed segment of plan sponsors. We may know what they are thinking, but we do not know what they think they are paying, much less how realistic that assessment.

Regardless, more disclosure is surely coming and—whether they think they know and don’t, or think they do and are correct in that assumption—IMHO, it’s hard to imagine that those disclosures won’t be a positive contribution to the exercise of their fiduciary responsibilities.

Here’s hoping it keeps us all thinking, rather than leaving us all guessing.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Cynic’s “Cull”

I have always taken seriously the notion that news and information should be presented “straight”, and without commentary.

But there are times when it’s hard not to just scratch your head and say “huh?” or laugh out loud at some of the stuff that comes across our news desk.

Here’s a (somewhat cynical) sampling from just the past couple of weeks:

CONFIDENCE MIEN? A nationwide survey by Citi and conducted by Hart Research Associates found that 44% of investors report being confident in their ability to retire in financial security as they had planned (said another way, that’s nearly half who DO feel that confident) . More than a third (36%) said they might need to adjust their plans (so, do two-thirds not see any need to do so?), and (a mere) 16% said they are not confident in their ability to retire in financial security. Must be a lot of rich uncles out there…MORE

“NOTHING” DOING. Throughout one of the most stressful and volatile markets in memory, the vast majority of participants did exactly what they always do – nothing (though admittedly sometimes that’s the best thing to do). MORE

OUTSIDE INFLUENCES? Those with a workplace retirement plan are (also) more likely to be saving OUTSIDE of work (66% versus 57%, according to Transamerica). MORE

AVERAGE SAYS? Morningstar says that the 3.8% average target-maturity fund return in the first quarter was slightly below the 4% return during the fourth quarter of 2009 (what does an average of so many disparate offerings tell you, anyway?). Read MORE

FAMILIAR PHASES? MetLife reports that just over a third of plan sponsors say they are unfamiliar with at least some of the particular mechanics of how stable value works. (So apparently two-thirds are familiar with ALL of the mechanics?). Read MORE

CONTROL GROPE? Controlling benefits costs is now the top benefits objective for employers, edging out employee retention for the first time since 2006, according to MetLife. (Is that because costs are so high, or because these days folks aren’t worried about keeping workers?) MORE

WORK “OUT?” A recent report from Hearts & Wallets suggests a growing number of Americans now think of retirement not as when their portfolio reaches a certain level of assets, but when they are no longer able to find full-time employment (here’s hoping the former doesn’t come up before the latter is able to support that “decision.”). MORE


“FREE” FALL? (Still) leaving money on the table; Hewitt Associates notes that more than quarter of participants did not contribute enough to their 401(k) to receive their full employer match in 2009. MORE

STABLE, VALUED? Who needs diversified; While Hewitt Associates notes that premixed portfolios (including target-date and target-risk funds) now (finally) make up the largest portion of employees’ asset allocations (24.7%). The second-largest allocation was in GIC/stable-value funds (17.1%). MORE

KID "STUFF". More than four in 10 so-called “sandwich generation” parents (41%) continue to provide at least some financial support to their young adult children, according to the 2010 Families & Money Survey by Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. The biggest worries for mid-life parents are not being able to retire (29%), outliving their retirement money (22%) as well as not saving enough (22%). A distant fourth - the worry that their children won’t become financially independent (11%). (Personally, I’d be worried about not being able to retire BECAUSE my kids might not become financially independent). MORE

“UNDER” COVERED. A Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) report on the new health care reform law released Friday estimated that 1.4 million fewer Americans will be enrolled in employer coverage as a result. That’s a net number, by the way. The report goes on to note that about 14 million people may lose employer-provided coverage due to a variety of reasons, including more low-wage workers moving to an expanded Medicaid program and some employers, especially smaller companies and those with low average salaries, being “inclined to terminate” coverage (of course, no one knows exactly how this will play out (I suspect this is a conservative estimate), but IMHO 14 million losing their current employer-based coverage, while (ostensibly other) employers will be picking up (another) 13 million seems like a lot of disruption). MORE

So – what do you think? Did I miss any?

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

'Nothing' Doings

I wouldn’t for a second suggest that the current financial/economic crisis that we are enmeshed in isn’t “real,” or that the efforts to remedy it thus far aren’t well-intentioned, but it’s hard to shake the feeling that the words put forth to explain the situation—and thus the solutions put forward to redress that situation—are being done by folks desperate to be seen to be doing something, but not quite (at all?) sure what that something should be. And, IMHO, that inclination won’t diminish with a new Administration eager to prove itself. Let’s face it—even when doing nothing might be the best medicine (and I, for one, am at that point), we tend to believe that “something should be done.”

Meanwhile, we have retirement plan participants, most of whom—again—appear to be riding this one out. Oh, there are signs of change on the fringes—some modest reductions in average deferral rates, slight upticks in hardship distributions, and, on particularly volatile days in the market, a bump in transfer activity. Still, for the very most part, participants appear to have taken the “stay the course” message to heart. Nor are they sleeping through the crisis; all the major providers are reporting a significant increase in call center volumes—but participants appear to be doing little more than assessing the damage and checking on their options. That, of course, is widely taken to be a good thing.

I’ve always thought it was interesting that we bemoan the negatives of participant inertia (or sometimes try to turn that negative into a positive via “automatic” solutions)—except when it manifests itself during times of market turmoil. At those times, it’s the rare industry pundit who doesn’t applaud the “wisdom” and calm shown by participants. It’s that one time when “doing nothing” is not a problem to be solved, but an indication of prudence.

“This time” may be different, of course—and the call center inquiries may well suggest that participants are making an active decision to stay put, though it seems to me more likely that those inclined to make a change simply aren’t sure what to do. Human beings may, like an object at rest, tend to remain so—but with this much turmoil still going on after all this time, in my experience, people feel better if they can actually DO something.

"Action" Steps

So, here are some things participants can do:

Get started on rebalancing by changing the investment elections of new contributions, rather than transferring existing balances. It will take longer to realign the entire account, but at least you aren’t realizing those as-yet-unrealized losses.

Increase your current deferral rates. When you think about just how much cheaper those retirement plan investments are compared with a year ago, it’s hard to pass up that kind of bargain. More so if you aren’t yet saving at the maximum level of the match.

Consider automated rebalancing. The vast majority of providers now have in place mechanisms that will, on some preset frequency (monthly, quarterly, annually), automatically rebalance individual accounts in accordance with your investment elections. It’s a good way to keep things in balance without having to worry (or remember) about the best time to do so.

Those 12/31 statements are now only about a month away—but there’s no reason to wait till then to start taking proactive steps on the road to portfolio “recovery.”

- Nevin E. Adams, JD