'Inside' Straits

 A recent Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article asked what I view as a rhetorical question; “Do you really know what’s inside your 401(k)?” Rhetorical in that I suspect the answer from most people — certainly if they’re honest — is “no.”

Now there are many aspects to a 401(k) that bear scrutiny, but the article was focused on target-date funds (TDFs) — a mechanism that I think has been a boon for most of the novice investors (and savers) that I suspect most 401(k) participants (still) are.

You check one box (heck, these days that box is checked for you) and tap into the expertise — and ongoing expertise at that — of professional money managers to provide your retirement savings with a diversified portfolio mix. No longer do you have to concern yourself with weightings of stocks and bonds, value versus growth, domestic versus international — just leave it to the experts. 

But the WSJ article’s focus was a cautionary note — mostly concerned at the unexpected things that a collective investment trust (CIT) vehicle (now 52% of all TDF assets, according to the article) might open the door to — specifically alternative investments, notably so-called “private investments.” Which, the article points out, might undermine the cost advantages of the CIT with those alternative holdings that are more expensive, less transparent/readily valued, and illiquid.

Indeed, the author goes so far as to comment, “As far as the managers of private assets are concerned, the ‘target’ in target-date funds is you.” Of course, his concern is that the less rigorous reporting requirements of a CIT (compared to a mutual fund) would allow investors to be taken advantage of — as though they’re actually even skimming that mutual fund prospectus.

Let’s face it — target-date funds with all their simplicity (at least in the choosing) and promise have been pitched as a “do it for you” solution, and tens of millions of (too) busy, preoccupied participants have trusted their retirement savings to these vehicles assuming that the professional investment class — not to mention the plan sponsor fiduciaries that screened them — know what they’re doing.

Unfortunately, in some cases, that trust may have been misplaced.

ad space

Something not mentioned in the WSJ article is that most of the manufacturers of those vehicles several years back embraced a “through” retirement date glide path, rather than the “to” retirement date that was the original “pitch.” The latter meaning that you’d gradually move to a much more conservative asset mix at your projected retirement date. And while there is still certainly a modest shift in that direction, the shift in emphasis means that I suspect there are a lot of folks nearing retirement that have a portfolio mix that is significantly more exposed to stocks than they might expect and/or want.[i]

Some of this shift is, doubtless, a sense that individuals want to stay invested in those funds, irrespective of retirement date.[ii] Some doubtless a desire to report better returns, since I suspect most fiduciaries are (still) paying more attention to the current returns than the conceptual integrity of the glidepath.

Regardless, it is, to my eyes, anyway, a shift from the original premise — and one that I suspect many participants haven’t noticed, and one on which plan fiduciaries may not have focused. The inclusion of alternative investments (particularly when folks are talking about 20% allocations) is one thing — but the structural glide path of these options, particularly when positioned as a default investment, strikes me as even more fundamental.

That said, and as the WSJ article closes, “None of this means you should turn your back on these funds, which can give you a powerful boost toward a sustainable retirement. It does mean you’ll need to know what you own and speak up if you don’t like it. The ultimate hands-off investment is going to require you to be a lot more hands-on.”

I would say that goes double for those responsible for the selection and monitoring of these plan options.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] Note — not saying that the shift in glidepath focus isn’t legit, or even beneficial — it just seems that most folks probably missed that “memo.”

[ii] Cynics might even suggest that the shift is a function of TDF managers simply wanting to keep hold of that money all the way through the individual’s retirement, rather than handing it over to a different manager. 

'Springing' Forward?

 This past weekend most of America underwent a rather painful change — though it’s probably only just setting in.

I’m talking about the legally mandated move to Daylight Saving Time (for most of us[i]). That’s right, at 2:00 a.m. on March 9, clocks around the nation “sprang forward,” reversing course from last fall when the move was to “fall back” to standard time.

It’s a “movement” laid at the feet of none other than Benjamin Franklin who, in what’s been characterized as a “satirical” letter to the editor of The Journal of Paris in 1784 pitched “the economy of using sunshine instead of candles.” 

Mr. Franklin may have been satirical, but the economic rationale for this artificial time contrivance lingers on. It was certainly a factor in 1916 when Germany saw adjusting the time as helpful to its war effort. Great Britain embraced the same logic the following year, and by March 1918[ii] the (now at war) United States was on board — well, sort of. It only lasted till the end of that war, was picked up again (briefly) during WWII (when it was called “War Time”), though afterwards it was optional (that must have been fun)[iii] — and then pretty much faded from sight until the mid-1960s.      

This decision is often laid at the feet of agriculture (more specifically farmers, who generally speaking abhor it), but that business tends to be driven by the actual patterns of the sun, rather than the artificial constraints of a clock (as anyone who has pets that expect to be fed at certain times whatever the clock may show can attest). The reality is that the science on cost savings related to these shifts remains contradictory at best. In fact, there’s a better case to be made for the negative effects these shifts have on our body’s natural circadian rhythms, with studies suggesting it has led to increased traffic accidents and even heart attacks. 

What About Retirement?

Regardless of its origins, DST remains something of an artificial constraint, founded on one set of (arguably) archaic assumptions of (certainly now) questionable validity. It’s not entirely unique in that respect. Consider, for example, the idea of a starting contribution rate of 3% for automatic enrollment plans. Now, since the enactment of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, we’ve at least had a legislative “anchor” for an assumption that is, and has long been, almost uniformly seen as insufficient (not just to achieve retirement security, but in many cases to maximize the employer match). 

But for decades before that (harkening back to a time when some marketing genius labeled it “negative election”), 3% became a de facto default rate. Sure, there was some logic (rationalization?) that it was small enough to discourage participant opt-out (and, looking at the opt-out rates for state-run IRAs with a higher default, there’s perhaps some merit to that concern) — but mostly it anchored on long-standing practice — that was, in turn, anchored on an obscure reference in an example in an IRS bulletin.[iv] One that, as it turns out, was carried over into the automatic-enrollment requirement for new plans as part of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022.

We similarly have, though perhaps not as myopically, enthusiastically embraced the use of professionally managed target-date funds as a default investment — though most seem to have surreptitiously adopted a “through” retirement glidepath that may, or may not, align with participant expectations. Managed accounts, ostensibly with a more personalized focus, stand to enhance and improve participant investment allocations — provided the fees are commensurate with the promised value. 

We seem to be stuck with DST and its implications for yet another season, despite what appears to be annual legislative attempts (promises?) to undo it. And so, probably for the rest of this week at least, most of us will be a bit “discombobulated.” 

It is worth remembering, however, that we aren’t “stuck” with the traditional defaults — that we can “spring” forward, regardless of the season — and there are plenty of good reasons — and options — to do so.

Nevin E. Adams, JD 

 

---

[i]  I’m looking at you, Arizona, Hawaii, and… Daylight Savings 2025: The US States Where Clocks Don't Change - Newsweek

[ii] Fun fact: In 1920, The Washington Post reported that golf ball sales in 1918 — the first year of daylight saving — increased by 20%.

[iii] Daylight saving time didn't become standard in the U.S. until the passage of the Uniform Time Act of 1966, which mandated standard time across the country within established time zones. It stated that clocks would advance one hour at 2 a.m. on the last Sunday in April and turn back one hour at 2 a.m. on the last Sunday in October. States could still exempt themselves from daylight saving time, as long as the entire state did so. In the 1970s, due to the 1973 oil embargo, Congress enacted a trial period of year-round daylight-saving time from January 1974 to April 1975…in order to conserve energy.

[iv] Page 8 — an example regarding "negative election" used 3%... https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-irbs/irb98-25.pdf

A Red Flag for a ‘Red Flag’ Report

  Did you hear the one about how nearly all U.S. retirement plans have “at least one regulatory or fiduciary ‘red flag’ violation”?

Well, here’s hoping you haven’t. Because this so-called “analysis” of Form 5500 filings claims to have discovered that 84% of all (that’s right ALL) retirement plans in the United States have “at least one likely Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) red flag from a regulatory and/or fiduciary violation.”

Now, having grabbed your attention, you probably won’t be surprised to find in the fine print of the press release an opportunity to “schedule a cost-free benchmarking audit.” But before you do so, you might want to take a look at the criteria this firm designates as a “red flag.”

From their press release, “Abernathy-Daley defines red flag violations as either ‘infractions, fineable offenses, fiduciary failure, or plan malpractice’ and are separated into two main categories: Regulatory Infraction Red Flags (RIRF) and Egregious Plan Mismanagement Red Flags (EPMRF).” 

As if the industry needed any more acronyms — much less made-up ones. 

With regard to the former, the press release identifies the following “selected RIRF infraction categories”: 1) loss from fraud or dishonesty; 2) not offering qualified default investment alternatives (QDIA); 3) an insufficient fidelity bond; and 4) not 404(c) compliant. With a straight face the firm claims that at least 328,833 retirement plans had at least one of these RIRFs, representing approximately 43% of the total plans. 

We’ve got no numerical breakdown by category, but someone should notify these folks that there’s no legal requirement that a plan be 404(c) compliant nor that they offer a QDIA.  These are safe harbor options available to any plan that desires them and that is willing to take on the conditions that accompany them — but it’s hardly a violation of any kind not to.

As for losses from fraud or dishonesty — well, to the extent such things are actually discoverable on the 5500, it’s likely the plan already knows the issue (and has already resolved the matter). Ditto the allegedly insufficient fidelity bond — and well, considering the categories compiled here, it would be useful to know what they deemed “insufficient.”

And then there’s the “Egregious Plan Mismanagement Red Flags” (EPMRFs). Hope you’re sitting down. Those are defined as “red flags that may not necessarily result in a fine, but represent failure of: The plan administrator in their fiduciary duty to the plan sponsors, and The plan sponsors in their fiduciary duty to their employees.”

More to the point, these “infractions” (their word choice, not mine) were detailed as “1) Not including automatic enrollment; 2) No corrective distribution of excessive contributions; 3) No 404(c) with participant-directed accounts; and 4) Failure to transmit payments on time.” Once again, we don’t have a breakdown of how many in which category, but they claim that at least 584,113 retirement plans had at least one EPMRF, representing approximately 76% of the total plans.

Once again, though — neither automatic enrollment nor 404(c) compliance is legally required (unless it’s a plan adopted after Dec. 29, 2022, and those won’t yet have shown up in the Form 5500 data). And again, if you’re able to find evidence of corrective distributions and/or failure to transmit payments on time on the Form 5500 — well, that’s only because the issue has been found, acknowledged, and likely corrected.

Look, an advisory firm can set out whatever standards it deems appropriate, affix clever (if arguably misleading) names (and acronyms) to practices that fall short of those individual standards, and even issue a press release proclaiming that it has found the vast majority of plans in existence are found “wanting” based on those standards — doubtless in hopes that it will be picked up and shared uncritically by the media (and read by potential clients).

That said, the deliberate choice to position practices that are clearly neither required nor necessary as some kind of “regulatory and/or fiduciary violation” — strikes me as a “red flag” violation of another kind.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

The Biggest 401(k) Rollover Mistake

  Readers of these columns know that for years I held off rolling over my old 401(k) balances.

Oh, I had rational reasons for (not) doing so; the institutional pricing of a particular fund in one, the low fees in another, the managed account option in a third—but the reality was that the process of rolling over your accumulated savings has been—and in many cases remains—painful.

Rollovers are a big deal. Vanguard reports that annual contributions to IRAs ($701 billion as of 2020) far exceed all DC plan contributions, largely due to rollovers ($618 billion in 2020), while the Investment Company Institute claims that investors now hold an estimated $13.5 trillion in IRAs—“approximately $3 trillion more than in DC plans, despite the fact that 45 million fewer Americans own IRAs than participate in DC plans,” according to the report

Two things, in particular, stayed my hand over the years—trying to time the liquidation of funds (I know, but I’m human), and worrying about the timing I’d be out of the market while a hardcopy check found its way to me through the United States Postal Service. As it turned out—and much to my disappointment—both remained relevant issues as I consolidated my retirement savings.

One issue I didn’t face was one recently highlighted in a Wall Street Journal article, based on a new report by Vanguard. The headline of the former was “The 401(k) Rollover Mistake That Costs Retirement Savers Billions”—that mistake? Leaving those rollover balances in cash.

The Vanguard analysis notes that 28% of rollover investors[i] stayed in cash for at least 12 months, with minimal changes after the first three months following the contribution. More than that, the report notes that among rollovers conducted in 2015, 28% remained in cash for at least seven years[ii]—and explains that younger investors, women, and those with smaller balances are especially prone to staying in cash for years following a rollover.

Now, 28% is hardly a majority—and it pales in comparison to the number of individuals who contribute directly to an IRA who leave those balances sitting in cash. Still, the WSJ manages to find a situation where a couple who rolled over $400,000 into an IRA, and then “couldn’t figure out why they weren’t earning any money when the stock market was showing high returns.”

What seems a more common occurrence was another individual who had her $3,200 account automatically cashed out to an IRA—she was apparently unaware of the account until she got a statement from the IRA—and was dismayed to discover it was “not even in a high–yield money-market fund.”

Vanguard’s analysis is leading it to recommend a QDIA for IRAs (a cynic might wonder if the latter is leading to the former). The paper claims that such a sanctioned device would—for investors under age 55, anyway—relative to staying in cash—provide, on average, an increase of at least $130,000 in retirement wealth at age 65—$172 billion in long-term benefits to all rollover investors in retirement each year.

Let’s face it—while target-date funds were long gaining traction as a 401(k) investment, they really took off after the Pension Protection Act of 2006 provided structure and a safe harbor for their implementation as a default investment. Similarly, the Vanguard recommendation notes that “implementing an IRA QDIA today may involve offering IRA providers safe-harbor relief from fiduciary liability and permitting transactions that are at risk of being deemed ‘self-dealing’ and thus prohibited. Accordingly, it would be important to ensure that appropriate oversight and protections are in place to prevent investors from being exposed to high-cost default investment products.” 

Indeed. 

Because if there’s anything worse than the mistake of not investing your rollover—it’s not rolling it over in the first place.

 

---

[i] On the other hand, Vanguard comments that twice as many—55%—of direct contribution investors left those monies in cash.

[ii] Across all rollovers, the median time between rollover and investing was actually nine months, with 28% of rollovers that transferred in cash remaining uninvested for at least seven years.

4 Fiduciary Resolutions for 2024

A brand new year awaits us – and with the New Year comes an opportunity to assess and reassess – for some when, resolutions for the cessation of bad behaviors and the beginning of better ones are in vogue. Here are some for plan fiduciaries for 2024 – that could benefit plan outcomes for years to come. 

See if your target-date options are over-weight(ed) 

 

Flows to target-date funds have continued to be strong – and little wonder, what with their positioning as the qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) of choice for most 401(k)s. That said, the vast majority of those assets are still under the purview of an incredibly small number of firms – nearly all of which (despite marketing brochures to the contrary) appear to share very similar views as to what an appropriate glidepath is supposed to look like – and nearly all of which have embraced the notion that a target-date is little more than a speed bump along the “through” target-date glidepath. 

 

A target-date fund is, of course, a plan investment. Like any plan investment, if it fails to pass muster, a plan fiduciary would certainly want to remedy that situation, including removing the fund if necessary (don’t take my word for it – that’s coming straight from the Labor Department). Particularly in view of recent market volatility, it’s worth (re)examining the asset allocations – and perhaps most significantly those that are applied to target dates that are near-term – and ask yourself – should an individual within five years of retirement have that much invested in those options?     

 

Look, the reasons cited behind TDF selection run a predictable gamut: price/fees, performance (past, of course, despite those disclaimers), platform (as in, it happens either to be their recordkeepers or compatible with their program) – and doubtless some are actually doing so based on an objective evaluation of the TDF’s suitability for their plan and employee demographics.  

 

Whatever your rationale, it’s likely that things have changed – with the TDF’s designs, the markets, your plan, your workforce, or all of the above – and it’s probably (past) time you took a fresh look. 

 

Pump up the default rate in your auto-enrollment plan

 

While a growing number of employers are auto-enrolling workers in their 401(k) plan, one is inclined to assume that, a decade and change after the passage of the Pension Protection Act, if a plan hasn’t done so by now, they likely have some very specific reasons. 

 

But for those who have already embraced automatic enrollment, those are plans that have (apparently) overcome the range of objections: concerns about paternalism, administrative issues, cost – some may even have heard that fixing problems with automatic enrollment can be – well, problematic (though things have gotten a little easier on that front). 

 

With more than a couple of decades of experience under our belts (a third of that under the auspices of the Pension Protection Act of 2006), we know a couple of things. First, 3% isn’t “enough” (ironically, that is probably what accounts for its popularity – it’s small enough that it wasn’t thought to spur massive opt-outs by automatically enrolled participants). We also know (or should) that the auto-enrollment safe harbor of the PPA calls for a minimum starting deferral of 3%, which is a floor, not a ceiling. And finally, that – at least according to any number of industry surveys – a default contribution rate twice as high as the prevalent 3% would likely not trigger a big surge in opt-out rates. However, there is a great deal of difference in the retirement outcomes between the two. 

 

On an encouraging note, more than half of the respondents to the 66th Annual Survey of Profit-Sharing and 401(k) Plans now have an initial default contribution rate in excess of 3% - and nearly as many (27.6%) have a rate of 6% as do (29.2%). 

 

Give reenrolling a second thought 

 

There is a natural human tendency to apply change from a point in time forward, to apply a new approach in plan enrollment, like automatic enrollment only prospectively, to workers who join the company after the point in time at which it is effective, rather than retroactively. And sure, workers who have had their chance to enroll voluntarily may well, in their refusal to do so, have spoken their intent not to participate at a previous point in time. 

 

However, that was then and this is now. If they don’t want to participate, it’s easy enough to opt-out. But maybe they didn’t fill out that form the last time because they forgot to, because the investment menu was too complicated or intimidating, or maybe the valid reason(s) they had then no longer applied. 

 

Regardless, don’t you owe them the same opportunity that you are giving your new hires? 

 

Develop a plan budget

 

Most financially-focused New Year’s Resolutions focus on spending (less) or saving (more)—and the really thoughtful ones do both—all tied around the development of a budget that aligns what we have to spend with what we actually spend.  

 

Most (many?) plans have a budget when it comes to the expenditures that require corporate funding. Less clear is how many establish some kind of budget when it comes to what participants have to spend. Now, granted, what they pay will vary based on any number of …variables—but an essential part of ensuring that the fees paid by the plan (for the services provided to the plan) is knowing how much—and for what.  

 

At some level, that means not only keeping an eye on things like expense ratios, the options with revenue-sharing and the availability of alternative share classes (or options like CITs)—but it also means having an awareness not only of the plan features but the usage rates of those plan features. 

 

Because when it comes to retirement plans, there often IS a direct link between spending less and saving more.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Thanks, Giving

While it’s the celebration following a successful harvest held by the Pilgrims and members of the Wampanoag tribe in 1621 that provides most of the imagery around the holiday, Thanksgiving didn’t become a national observance until much later.

Incredibly, it wasn’t marked as a national observance until 1863—right in the middle of this nation’s Civil War, and at a time when, arguably, there was little for which to be thankful. Indeed, President Abraham Lincoln, in his proclamation regarding the observance, called on all Americans to ask God to “commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.” 

We could surely stand to have some of that these days.   

Thanksgiving has been called a “uniquely American” holiday—and so, even in a year in which there has been what seems to be an unprecedented amount of disruption, frustration, stress, discomfort and loss—there remains so much for which to be thankful. And as we approach the holiday season, it seems appropriate to once again take a moment to reflect upon, and acknowledge—to give thanks, if you will.

I’m once again thankful that so many employers (still) voluntarily choose to offer a workplace retirement plan—and, particularly in these extraordinary times, that so many have remained committed to that promise. I’m hopeful that the encouragements of prospective legislation, if not the requirements of same, will continue to spur more to provide that opportunity. 

I’m thankful that amidst all the turmoil and strife in our political system, we’ve seen near-unanimous bipartisan support for legislation that stands to enhance the retirement of tens of millions of Americans.

I’m thankful that so many workers, given an opportunity to participate in these programs, (still) do.

I’m thankful that the vast majority of workers defaulted into retirement savings programs tend to remain there—and that there are mechanisms (automatic enrollment, contribution acceleration and qualified default investment alternatives) in place to help them save and invest better than they might otherwise.

I’m thankful for the dozen or so state IRAs for private sector workers that, despite relatively high opt-out rates, are providing millions of Americans an opportunity to save through payroll deduction.  I’m even more thankful that the employer mandates associated with these programs are encouraging employers to consider more robust workplace retirement savings programs, like 401(k)s.

I’m thankful for new and expanded contribution limits for these workplace retirement programs—and even though it was spurred by dramatic increases in inflation and the prospect for higher costs in retirement, I’m hopeful that that will encourage more workers to take full advantage of those opportunities.

I’m thankful for the Roth savings option that provides workers with a choice on how and when they’ll pay taxes on their retirement savings.

I continue to be thankful that participants, by and large, continue to hang in there with their commitment to retirement savings, despite lingering economic uncertainty, volatile markets, rising inflation, and competing financial priorities—and that their employers continue to see—and support—the merit of such programs.

I’m thankful for qualified default investment alternatives that make it easy for participants to benefit from well diversified and regularly rebalanced investment portfolios—and for the thoughtful and ongoing review of those options by prudent plan fiduciaries. I’m hopeful (if somewhat skeptical) that the nuances of those glidepaths have been adequately explained to those who invest in them, and that those nearing retirement will be better served by those devices than many were a decade ago.

I’m thankful that our industry continues to explore and develop fresh alternatives to the challenge of decumulation—helping those who have been successful at accumulating retirement savings find prudent ways to effectively draw them down and provide a financially sustainable retirement.   

I’m thankful that the ongoing “plot” to kill the 401(k)… (still) hasn’t. Yet.

I’m thankful for the opportunity to acknowledge so many outstanding professionals in our industry through our Top Women Advisors, Top Young Retirement Plan Advisors (“Aces”), Top DC Wholesaler (Advisor Allies), and Top DC Advisor Team lists. I am thankful for the blue-ribbon panels of judges that volunteer their time, perspective and expertise to those evaluations.

I’m thankful for the opportunity to give advisors a voice in acknowledging the best recordkeepers in the industry via our new Advisors’ Choice accolade.

I’m thankful that those who regulate our industry continue to seek the input of those in the industry—and that so many, particularly those among our membership, take the time and energy to provide that input.

I’m thankful to be part of a team that champions retirement savings—and to be a part of helping improve and enhance that system.

I’m thankful for those who have supported—and I trust benefited from—our various conferences, education programs and communications throughout the year—particularly at a time like this, when it remains difficult—and complicated—to undertake, and participate in, those activities. 

I’m thankful for the involvement, engagement, and commitment of our various member committees that magnify and enhance the quality and impact of our events, education, and advocacy efforts. 

I’m also thankful for the development of professional education and credentials that allow the professionals in our industry to expand and advance their knowledge, as well as the services they provide in support of Americans’ retirement. 

I’m thankful for the constant—and enthusiastic—support of our event sponsors and advertisers—again, particularly during a period when so many adjustments have had to be made.

I’m thankful for the warmth, engagement and encouragement with which readers and members, both old and new, continue to embrace the work we do here.

I’m thankful for the team here at NAPA, ASPPA, NTSA, ASEA, PSCA (and the American Retirement Association, generally), and for the strength, commitment and diversity of the membership. I’m thankful to be part of a growing organization in an important industry at a critical time. I’m thankful to be able, in some small way, to make a difference.

I’m particularly thankful for the education, support, and availability of programs in our private retirement system that have allowed me to contemplate my own “retirement” in just a few more months.

But most of all, I’m once again thankful for the unconditional love and patience of my family, the camaraderie of an expanding circle of dear friends and colleagues, the opportunity to write and share these thoughts—and for the ongoing support and appreciation of readers… like you.

Wishing you and yours a very happy Thanksgiving!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD