(Re) Solving the Retirement Crisis

Several weeks back, I was invited to participate in a group conversation on retirement and the future.

The group of 15 (they’re listed at the end of the document that summarized the conclusions) that Politico pulled together was diverse, both in background and philosophies, and included academics, think tanks, advocacy groups, and the Hill. It was conducted under Chatham House rules, which means that while our comments might be shared, they wouldn’t be specifically attributed. That latter point was helpful to the openness of the discussion, where several individuals had opinions that they acknowledged wouldn’t be supported by the groups they represent.

The conversation touched on a wide range of topics, everything from the key challenges to the current system, the private sector’s role in addressing these problems, the individual’s role (and responsibility) for securing their own retirement, government’s role and the potential for current congressional proposals to have an impact.

In view of the diversity of the group – the complexity of the topics – and the 90-minute window of time we had to thrash things about – you might well expect that we didn’t get very far. And, at least in terms of new ideas, you’d be hard-pressed to say that we discussed anything that hadn’t come up somewhere, sometime, previously. But then, this was a group that – individually, anyway – has spent a lot of time thinking about the issues. And there were some new and interesting perspectives.

The Challenges

It seems that you can never have a discussion about the future of retirement without spending time bemoaning the past, specifically the move away from defined benefit plans, and this group was no exception. There remains in many circles a pervasive sense that the defined contribution system is inferior to the defined benefit approach – a sense that seems driven not by what the latter actually produced in terms of benefits, but in terms of what it promised. Even now, it seems that you have to remind folks that the “less than half” covered by a workplace retirement plan was true even in the “good old days” before the 401(k), at least within the private sector. And while you can wrest an acknowledgement from those familiar with the data, almost no one talks about how few of even those covered by those DB plans put in the time to get their full pension.

Beyond that. there was a clear and consistent understanding in the group that health care costs and concerns were a big impediment to retirement savings, both on the part of employers and workers alike. People still make job decisions based on health care – on retirement plan designs, not so much. And when it comes to deciding whether to fund health care or retirement – well, health care wins hands down.

College debt was another impediment discussed. Oh, individuals have long graduated from college owing money – but never so many, and likely never so much (though you might be surprised what an inflation-adjusted figure from 20 years ago looks like). It is, for many, an enormous draw on current income – and one that has a due date that falls well before when retirement’s bill is presented for payment.

Women have a unique set of challenges. For many, the pay gap while they are working is exacerbated by the time out of the workplace raising children. They live longer, invest more conservatively, and ultimately bear higher health care costs – and increasingly find themselves in the role of caregiver, rather than bringing home a paycheck.

For many in the group, financial literacy still holds sway as a great hope to turn things around. There are plenty of individual examples of its impact, though the current research casts doubt on its widespread efficacy. Surely a basic understanding of key financial concepts couldn’t hurt (though don’t even get me started on the criteria that purports to establish “literacy”) – but it’s a solution that is surely at least a generation removed from the ability to have a widespread impact.

On a related note, the group was generally optimistic about the impact that the growing emphasis on financial wellness could have, both in terms of encouraging better behaviors, and a heightened awareness of key financial concepts. The involvement of employers, and employment-based programs seems likely to enhance the impact beyond financial literacy alone.

Resolving Recommendations

Ultimately, the group coalesced around four key recommendations:

The significance of Social Security in underpinning America’s retirement future – and the critical need to shore up the finances of that system sooner rather than later. The solution(s) here are simple; cut benefits (push back eligibility or means-testing) or raise FICA taxes. The mix, of course, is anything but simple politically – but time isn’t in our favor on a solution.

The formation of a national commission to study and recommend solutions. I’ll put myself in the “what harm could it do?” camp, particularly in that, to my recollection, nothing like this has been attempted since the Carter administration. We routinely chastise Americans for not taking the time to formulate a financial plan – perhaps it’s time we undertook that discipline for the system as a whole.

Requirements matter – but don’t call it a mandate. Since it’s been established that workers are much more likely to save for retirement if they have access to a plan at work (12 times as likely), but you’re concerned that not enough workers have access to a retirement savings plan at work, there was little doubt that a government mandate could make a big difference. There was even less doubt that a mandate would be a massive lift politically. And not much stomach in the group for going down that path at the present.

Expanded access to retirement accounts. While the group was hardly of one mind in terms of what kind of retirement account(s) this should be, there was a clear and energetic majority that agreed with the premise that expanding access is an, and perhaps the – integral component to “securing retirement” for future generations.

And maybe even this one.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

p.s. I'm on the left, towards the top of the picture above.  Right next to Teresa Ghilarducci!

5 Reasons Why Your Small Business Should Offer a Retirement Plan

People who don’t have access to a plan at work don’t save for retirement. Here’s why small business owners should care.

About half of private sector workers did not participate in a workplace retirement savings program in 2012, and a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that most workers who did not have coverage lacked access to such programs.

While there are many reasons that might account for those individual decisions, among those not participating, the majority worked for an employer that did not offer a program or they were not eligible for the programs that were offered. In particular, lower income workers and those employed by smaller firms were much less likely to have access to programs, after controlling for other factors. However, the majority of these workers participated when they had workplace access.

Here’s why small businesses should provide that access.

To attract and retain workers.

Okay, every time somebody talks about the reasons to offer a retirement plan, “attract and retain qualified workers” is on, if not at the top of, that list. But it’s a bit more complicated than that. The reality is that a larger employer that does not offer a retirement plan benefit sticks out like a sore thumb.

However, among smaller employers, the situation is almost a mirror image. In fact, the GAO reports that only 14% of small employers with fewer than 100 employees sponsor a plan in which workers can save for retirement.

The opportunity for smaller employers then, is to stand out from your competition precisely because you do offer a workplace retirement plan.¹ And to use plan design features such as vesting and an employer match to keep the good workers you’ve attracted, and maintain that competitive edge.

Your workers will use it.

This may seem obvious, but among the more intriguing rationales offered by small businesses for not offering a workplace retirement plan was one put forth in a 2003 Small Employer Retirement Survey by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) — that their employees are “not interested” in having a retirement plan. And I have actually had plan sponsors say to me “nobody has ever asked about a 401(k).” Well, I’ll grant you that workers are probably more concerned about their paycheck, and perhaps health care. And they may just be glad to have a paying job, and don’t want to rock the boat by pressing for benefits.

That said, the vast majority of workers who do not participate in a workplace retirement plan – 84% — reported they did not have access to a workplace retirement program. Of two key access factors — the employer must offer a program, and the worker must be eligible to participate — GAO found that the lack of access was primarily due to employers not offering a retirement program (68% reported they worked for an employer that did not offer a program, and another 16% reported they were not eligible for the program their employer offered. Indeed, the GAO report found that workers at the largest firms were only slightly more likely to participate compared to workers at the smallest firms.

Your workers need it.

You may well employ a workforce that has alternative sources of retirement income — a legacy from that rich uncle everyone’s so fond of, or maybe they have a surefire lottery strategy. Or perhaps their pension or savings from a prior employer, combined with Social Security, will be “enough.”

But EBRI’s 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey suggests that retirement confidence — and the retirement savings that ostensibly underpin that confidence are at least somewhat connected. There’s a growing body of research that suggests that financial concerns take a toll on productivity. That’s not just retirement, of course — but it’s a big part of it.

You need it (too).

It’s not unusual for a small business owner to invest heavily in the enterprise, including sinking some of their own personal retirement savings into “the business.” Whether you have or not, and no matter how much you are now able to pursue your passion, you’ll want to provide for a retirement at some point that doesn’t necessarily require liquidating your business to fund it. That’s when the benefits that your employees appreciate can pay off for you as well, including:

• The availability of pre-tax contributions that can reduce your current taxable income.
• Deferral of taxes on pre-tax contributions and investment gains until you take a distribution.
• The flexibility of a Roth 401(k) (if offered).
• The “magic” of compounding returns over time.

Oh, and there are tax advantages. 

Despite all the compelling reasons outlined above, for some it still (rightly) comes down to the bottom line. And, in addition to the benefits of offering a plan, there are some tax advantages designed to encourage you to do so.

Any employer matching contributions will be tax-deductible, as will any costs incurred by the employer in connection with offering the plan. Better yet, you may be able to claim a tax credit for some of the ordinary and necessary costs of starting a SEP, SIMPLE IRA or qualified plan.
But don’t take my word for it — here’s what the IRS has to say.

Let’s face it, there are any number of reasons to put offering a workplace retirement plan — not enough time, worries about the expense, a sense that this is something better put off to a future time.

Then again, aren’t those the same reasons often put forth to justify not saving for retirement?

Nevin E. Adams, JD

1. A growing awareness of the coverage “gap” among smaller employers has led a number of states to consider a variety of initiatives that, generally speaking, include a requirement that employers above a certain size/business longevity threshold offer a payroll deduction IRA option to their employees. The Obama administration is lending its support to these efforts, with some additional regulatory clarity anticipated before the end of the year.

Under Covered

Have you heard this one? “Only about half of working Americans are covered by a workplace retirement plan.”

Sure you have. It’s a statistic that is widely cited and reported, both in the mainstream press and on Capitol Hill. It comes from a reliable, objective source (the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey) and conjures up a compelling need for action by advisors (and others) hoping and working to expand the availability of workplace retirement plans.

In reviewing the Census Bureau data, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) recently noted that, in 2011, 78.5 million workers worked for an employer or union that did not sponsor a retirement plan. That is the “less than half” number cited, and reported, with such vigor.

However, when you look at the data underlying that aggregate number, you find it includes:

• 8.9 million people who were self-employed (and thus arguably are prevented from being covered by their own inaction);
• 6.2 million who were under the age of 21 (who, being under ERISA’s mandated age coverage level, would logically not be “covered”);
• 3.9 million who were age 65 or older (and beyond “normal” retirement age);
• just over 31 million who were not full-time, full-year workers; and
• 16.8 million who had annual earnings of less than $10,000.

When you take those factors into account, it’s pretty easy to see logical reasons why so many workers are not “covered.” When you filter out the overlap between those categories — situations where workers fall into several of those categories simultaneously (for example, workers who are under age 21, have less than $10,000 in annual earnings and are not full-time, full-year workers) — there are about 42.4 million workers whose lack of coverage might logically be attributed to being in one or more of those categories. And yes, that’s more than half of the “uncovered” workers in the CPS analysis.

Not that there isn’t a gap in coverage — unpublished estimates from EBRI drawn from the March 2013 Current Population Survey suggest that approximately 20 million private sector workers earning between $30,000 and $100,000 per year don’t have access to a retirement plan at work. That’s a gap that needs to be filled, and advisors, working with plan sponsors and providers, are working to do so every day.

So yes, claiming that “fewer than half of working Americans have access to a workplace retirement plan” is technically accurate. But while it makes for a compelling headline, it represents a gap in news coverage of the issue that hinders our understanding of the real factors underlying the data, and in the process undermines our ability to address it.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Covered "Call"

Sooner or later, at just about every retirement plan conference, you’ll hear someone—and generally more than just one someone—cite the statistic that “only about half of working Americans are covered by a workplace retirement plan.”

It’s a data point that is widely and openly presented as fact—not only by those inclined to dismiss the current system as inadequate (or worse), but even by some of its most ardent champions, who see it as a call to action for expanded access to these programs. It’s drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau’s March 2012 Current Population Survey (CPS).(1) But does it tell the full story?

A recent EBRI Issue Brief notes that in 2011, 78.5 million workers worked for an employer/union that did not sponsor a retirement plan. Looking specifically at those who did not work for an employer that sponsored a plan, the report notes that:

• 8.9 million were self-employed (and were thus barred from having a plan by their own inaction).
• 6.2 million were under the age of 21 (below ERISA’s mandated coverage level).
• 3.9 million were age 65 or older (beyond “normal” retirement age).
• Just over 31 million were not full-time, full-year workers.
• 16.8 million had annual earnings of less than $10,000.

Taking those factors(2) into account, it’s not hard to see why a large percentage of the 78.5 million people who worked for an employer that did not sponsor a plan—roughly 66.8 million in 2011, based on the CPS estimates above—might not be covered by a workplace plan for reasons that have little to do with the efficiency or efficacy of the current retirement plan structure.

When you filter out the overlap between those categories—situations where workers fall into several of those categories simultaneously (for example, workers who are under age 21, have less than $10,000 in annual earnings, and who are not a full-time, full-year worker)—there are about 42.4 million workers whose lack of coverage might be attributed to being in one or more of those categories. And yes, that’s more than half of the “uncovered” workers in the CPS analysis.

Indeed, while claiming that “fewer than half of working Americans have access to a workplace retirement plan” might be technically accurate, doing so exaggerates the size of the coverage “gap”—and obscures factors that might actually help explain it.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1) A similar result can be gleaned from the National Compensation Survey from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

(2) There are other factors linked to rates of participation. For example, the EBRI Issue Brief also notes a correlation between firm size and participation. See Figure 30 in “Employment-Based Retirement Plan Participation; Geographic Differences and Trends, 2010.”