"Broken" Premises

 Perhaps because of the recent full moon, the nation’s 401(k) “haters” were out in force.

Yes, last week we were “treated” to a Bloomberg op-ed with ideas on how to “fix” America’s broken retirement savings system, a back-handed compliment (of sorts) on SECURE 2.0 in Forbes from Teresa Ghilarducci, and the trifecta was completed with an academics op-ed in the Washington Post alleging that the current retirement system is “built for the rich.” 

Most of the criticism was focused on the same old myopic view on taxes and tax preferences—all flavored through the prism of a highly biased preference for the involvement of the federal government in such matters, rather than the private sector.

Key Points

So, let me take a couple of minutes to make a few points that always seem to be glossed over:

1. Tax deferral is not tax avoidance. Those contributions and earnings will be taxed (though generally outside the 10-year budget scoring window Congress uses).
2. The ability to save for retirement on a pre-tax basis is a powerful incentive—even, and perhaps especially, for those that academics argue have no rational reason to do so (because, on a net basis, they have no federal income tax liability). 
3. Tax preferences encourage not only plan participation (though it does that), but also the creation/existence of retirement plans—in which lower income workers are 12-15 times more likely to save than on their own. 
4. Non-discrimination tests and legal contribution limits work (as designed) to keep an effective balance between the benefits of higher-paid and other workers. In fact, actual data proves that while higher-income individuals have higher account balances, those balances are in rough proportion to their incomes. They are not “upside down.” 

Now, with those elements in mind (we’ll return to them throughout), what did the “haters” have to say?

The ‘Fixes’

Well, the Bloomberg editors’ “fix” to the system they claim is “broken” involves: (1) making access universal (but wait, what about Social Security?)—with a 3% auto-default rate with an opt out (they cite the UK’s NEST opt-out rate of 8%, though the opt-out rate for comparable state-run IRA programs in the U.S. is three to five times larger); (2) making it “simple” (the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP was cited), ostensibly with an abbreviated fund menu—or perhaps just because it’s a government solution; (3) making it “portable” (actually, they want it centralized, presumably with the federal government, so that it never has/get to be moved/rolled over), and (4) they want it to be “progressive,” which basically means shifting the current deferral of taxes to a straight-up government match to “the lowest earners.”[i]

There’s really nothing new here—the solution seems to be, more or less, a “nationalization” of retirement savings—with a program focused on helping those at the lower end of the income scale, but completely ignoring the vast sea of middle-income savers—for whom Social Security alone likely won’t come close to replicating their retirement income needs. 

The Washington Post op-ed was crafted by Daniel Hemel, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and a visiting professor at New York University School of Law. He seems quite angered at the bipartisan support for SECURE 2.0 (actually the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2022) as some kind of sell-out by Congress to the financial services industry. He has an issue with “mega-IRAs,” but he also takes aim at Roth contributions, the extension of the required minimum distribution timeline, the non-tax refundability of the Saver’s Credit, as well as the scaled increase in the catch-up limits—all of which are characterized as either a giveaway to the rich, a budgetary “gimmick”—or both. He offers no solutions to any of this—though he does suggest that a focus on a strengthened Social Security would be a better use of their time (I, for one, would support that). Nor is there an acknowledgement that somewhere along the way this system “built for the rich” has somehow managed to wind up with roughly two-thirds of its participants in tax brackets that by most measures would fall significantly lower than that label would encompass. Groups for which this “broken” system is a lifeline beyond the baseline of Social Security and the pension benefits they never had. 

And then, just ahead of that article, Teresa Ghilarducci, a familiar critic of 401(k)s, pens an article ostensibly focused on the provisions of SECURE 2.0 (even taking the time to try and explain why it garnered such strong bipartisan support) on her way to pointing out why her proposal (now labeled the Ghilarducci/Hassett/EIG retirement proposal) is superior. Now, most of us would think that legislation—any legislation—that passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a margin of 414-5 would have to be on something as innocuous as naming a post pffice—that it would advance so many aspects of retirement security instead is a testament to the importance of the issue(s), and the potential to make strides in addressing them. 

Well, Ms. Ghilarducci seems to think that while SECURE 2.0 is perhaps better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick (my words, not hers), but she claims the fixes it provides are too little (and probably too late), compared with her solution (if bipartisanship in the U.S. Congress is quickly dispensed with, she takes great pride in her alignment with conservative economist Dr. Hassett) that would build a TSP-like program for—well, everybody—or at least those who don’t already have a retirement savings plan at work. This particular article doesn’t go into the details of her solution, but we’ve seen (and written) about it before. Mind you, she’s not really worried about what you and I might consider middle-income workers—her focus is on the lower end (less than $52,000 median household earnings). It calls for a government (rather than an employer) match—but one that is only 3%. Now, that’s a number that has appeared in previous proposals she has put forth—and Jack VanDerhei, while at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, projected that it comes in well under where the status quo brings that same group in the current system.[ii]

‘Broken’ Premises

Now, those of us who actually work with real people know that this so-called “broken” system works amazingly well—for those who have access to it—including, most especially, those at the lower end of the income scale. The academics routinely target the well-off in their criticisms, but ignore the needs of middle-income households for whom Social Security will almost certainly not be… enough. And completely discount/ignore the role that the current tax preferences play in fostering the formation and maintenance of these retirement plans. 

Indeed, underneath all of the criticisms, the real issue seems to be that—as we’ve noted repeatedly—not enough working Americans have access to that system. What these critics don’t seem to appreciate is that, rather than closing that gap by encouraging more plan formation and participation, these random op-eds—often based on myopic views and faulty premises—only serve to undermine that goal. But then, perhaps there’s a reason… 

There are plenty of success stories out there—I’ll bet every single one of our 35,000+ readers know one, ten, a dozen, perhaps hundreds… it’s past time we started telling them.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Weirdly, as a throw-in they suggest that folks should be able to “tap their accounts for the occasional emergency expense”—which they claim would “save billions more that would otherwise go toward interest on often-predatory payday loans.”

[ii] My thinking is that, like earlier proposals, her math works because she assumes that any balances not actually withdrawn by the individual (and perhaps their spouse) would be absorbed into the “pool” and used to fund other payouts.

Trading Places

Back in 2003, when then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer launched his investigation into mutual fund trading practices, two distinct areas were highlighted: late trading, which was illegal on its face (particularly so when facilitated by the fund companies themselves), and market-timing, which, as we were reminded in a parenthetical comment in nearly every story regarding the scandal, was not (though nearly every fund prospectus claimed to discourage such patterned trading and promised to take steps to deter it).

That distinction was frequently glossed over in the coverage that followed—and the settlements that ensued. When all was said and done, a large number of chastened fund complexes had forked over a large amount of money (much of it to the coffers of the Empire State) and agreed to adopt new controls and procedures designed to ensure that the wrongdoing they never admitted to doing never happened again. So much commotion was raised, in fact, that the Securities and Exchange Commission was roused from its slumbers—just in time to adopt a “solution” to the problems resulting from the not-illegal-but-nonetheless-apparently-troubling practice of market-timing. Of course, the solution—initially set forth by a trade group that represents the mutual fund industry—was already available to those fund companies. But now, thanks to the codification in SEC Rule 22c-2, even the most casual mutual fund investor—including those who do so only via their 401(k) plan—has been forced to be aware of redemption fees—and we’re not just talking about cases of quick in-and-out, round-trip trades, either.

Setting aside what, IMHO, is still an absurd result, it’s all old news by now. Been there, done that, bought the T-shirt….

Here We Go Again

That’s why it’s been interesting to watch the debate over market-timing once again raise its ugly head—this time among the participants of the federal government’s own Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP. Apparently, there are a couple of thousand participants (out of a universe of 3.8 million in the TSP) who are trading “frequently”—and the TSP is taking steps to rein them in.

The Washington Post has reported that 2,018 participants who sold holdings in an international fund on October 24 had transferred in just a few days earlier (10/19). And, of that group, 323 participants were trading $250,000 or more. Moreover, during the previous 60 days, those 323 traders had made 5,804 exchanges in the international fund worth $1.9 billion, according to TSP officials (one participant has traded more than $1 million back and forth a number of times). These participants aren’t trading in mutual funds, of course, so the SEC’s 22c-2 strictures don’t apply.

Moreover, an analysis by fedsmith.com (a Web site devoted to federal workers) claims that those who bought in on 10/19 did so at $25.13/unit, and those who sold on 10/24 did so at $25.32/unit, making 19 cents per unit in just a few days. A feat that looks pretty good until you consider that, at 10/31, that particular TSP fund closed at $26.31.

But the TSP’s issue isn’t with the money these folks are making on those transfers. Rather, they are concerned about the cost impact of that activity on the folks who don’t trade; higher broker fees and transaction costs—especially in the international fund, where it's more difficult for the TSP's investment manager (BGI) to match buy and sell orders. They have—rightfully as fiduciaries, IMHO—expressed concern that a (relatively) few participants are driving up the costs for the vast majority who, like their counterparts in the private sector, never trade. Those trading costs stand out in the TSP, which enjoyed a total expense ratio of 3 basis points (that’s not a typo) in 2006. The trading costs for their international fund that year? Eight basis points (again, no typo). Now, those expense ratios may be a “problem” that your average 401(k) would love to have, but we’re talking about a $235 BILLION dollar fund. So, in crafting a recommendation to deal with this situation, the TSP’s chief investment officer looked to—mutual fund practices in the 401(k) industry and the SEC’s mandate under Rule 22c-2. Ultimately, unable to come up with a transaction fee that would be big enough to cover the trading costs, the TSP has decided to impose limits on the number of trades per month. Those limits—two per month—should be enough to satisfy anybody who isn’t trading funds for a living. Moreover, the TSP has imposed NO restriction on transfers from any of the funds to the G fund, the TSP’s most conservative option, to address the concerns of participants who might want to move their balances out of the way of some economic tsunami. More importantly, IMHO, it sends a message both to those participant-traders and to “everybody else.”

I also was struck by the TSP’s comparison of their solution with that adopted by the mutual fund industry. Though we frequently bemoan the bane of participant inertia, our industry has long been concerned about participants that would fritter away their day—and their balances—trading their retirement savings. That was the mantra against daily valuation in the first place, why we fretted over day traders in the middle of the tech-bubble, and, now, why a relatively few market-timers (setting aside for a minute that the incidents taken to task by regulators involved the complicity and/or active acquiescence by the fund companies; let’s face it, we all know the odds are against participant timers) have managed to burden an entire industry with an additional layer of costs, another complicated message, and random restrictions.

I can understand why the fund managers are in favor of these impediments. I’m (still) not altogether sure why the rest of us have been so willing to go along.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD


Footnote:

In the interim, a group calling itself TSPSHAREHOLDERS.ORG has launched a web site and a petition campaign to block the new transfer policies – and they have just under 3,000 signatures on that petition (one can’t help but wonder if it’s the SAME 3,000 that have been doing the frequent trading). They have some issues with the calculation of trading costs – and they claim that the big trading surge last October resulted in a “tracking error” (basically a difference between the price at which transfers were credited and the real cost of the transaction) – and they claim that the tracking error accounted for 56 basis points in the favor of those who stayed in the fund (see http://tspshareholder.org/newsletters/Vol2_No2.html).

Now, what’s missing in that analysis, of course, is the reality that that tracking error COULD have cut the other way – and those left sitting in that investment fund could just as easily have been stuck with a loss. But then, that’s how free markets work. Some people win and others don’t (what’s also more than a bit ironic, IMHO, is that up until the past couple of years TSP participants could only transfer once a quarter).