"Expected" Values

Over the past several years, a growing amount of attention has been focused on the decumulations of defined contribution plan balances in retirement. Much of that focus has, of course, been driven by concerns that those individuals won’t have enough resources accumulated to fund those retirements. More recently, there has been a sense that one way to help provide a different perspective on these retirement savings would be to provide participants with an estimate of what their current or projected savings would produce in terms of a retirement income stream.

In May 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) focusing on lifetime income illustrations. Under that proposal, a participant’s pension benefit statement (including his or her 401(k) statement) would show his or her current account balance and an estimated lifetime income stream of payments based on that balance.

As noted in a recent EBRI Notes article[i], there appears to be little empirical evidence on the likely impact of such a lifetime income illustration on defined contribution participant behavior. In an attempt to provide some additional evidence with respect to potential defined contribution participant reaction to lifetime income illustrations similar to those proposed by EBSA, EBRI included a series of questions in the 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey that would provide monthly income illustrations similar in many respects to those provided by the EBSA’s online Lifetime Income Calculator.

Of course, any such projection is necessarily required to make a number of critical assumptions—including future contribution activity, future rates of return, future asset allocation, and future annuity purchase prices. Moreover, the estimates we provided were different in several aspects, notably:

• Rather than using normal retirement age for the calculation, we asked their expected retirement age.
• Since the age of the spouse was not known for married respondents, only the single life annuity income illustration was used.
• Given that the information was being provided to the respondent during a phone interview, only the projected monthly income (based on the projected account balance given the respondents’ reporting of their current balances) was provided.

What we found was that fewer than 1 in 10 (8 percent) of the defined contribution participants said the monthly amount was much less than expected, though another 1 in 5 (19 percent) said it was somewhat less than expected[ii].

However, more than half (58 percent) thought that the illustrated monthly income was in line with their expectations.

Considering those results, it is perhaps not surprising that the vast majority (81 percent) of the respondents indicated that they would continue to contribute what they do now after hearing the projected monthly income amount, while 17 percent replied that hearing this information would lead them to increase the amount they are contributing. Similarly, the vast majority (89 percent) did not believe this information would impact their expected retirement age.

They may not have been much surprised by the results, but the vast majority of respondents said the retirement income projection was useful; more than 1 in 3 (36 percent) respondents thought that it was very useful to hear an estimate of the monthly retirement income they might expect from their plan, and another 49 percent thought it was somewhat useful. Moreover, the utility of the projection appeared to transcend the results; 90 percent of those whose illustrated values were lower than expected found the estimates somewhat or very useful, and nearly as many (86 percent) of those whose values were equal to what they expected also found the estimates somewhat or very useful. Even among those who felt the values were higher than expected, 79 percent found the estimates somewhat or very useful.

I’ve heard from several in the industry since the results were released who were surprised – that the survey respondents weren’t surprised. It is, of course, possible (as the article explains) that these respondents’ current participation in employment-based plans has already provided them the education and information necessary for an appreciation both of the projected total and the monthly income estimate, and thus a greater alignment of those projections with their expectations. It could also be that, having given some thought to the subject of savings and retirement over the course of the interview, they had more realistic expectations.

Of course, whether those expectations about living on those amounts in retirement will turn out to be realistic remains to be seen.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

[i] The EBRI March 2014 Notes article, “How Would Defined Contribution Participants React to Lifetime Income Illustrations? Evidence from the 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey,” is available online here.

[ii] There were some interesting differences by income level; combining the “much less” and “somewhat less” categories, we found that 42 percent of those in the lowest quartile for illustrated monthly income indicated that the value was less than expected, versus only 9 percent of the highest quartile.

Bargain Based

My father had many admirable personality traits, but he also had his quirks. He was buying in bulk at warehouse stores well before it was “cool” to do so (and before many of the current generation of such stores existed), and he was an earlier adopter of generic food brands. And, yes, sometimes he bought generic food and paper stocks in bulk. While the quality of such offerings has doubtless improved dramatically over the years, I still shudder at the memory of my first sip of generic cola.

My childhood encounters with generic products notwithstanding, I’ve generally not been as particular about generic drugs. Oh, sure, when you have a migraine, there’s still something to be said for the confidence (if not reality) in reaching for the name brand pain reliever. But when it comes to prescription drugs, if there’s a cheaper, generic alternative, I’m generally amenable to the switch.

A greater sensitivity to cost is, in fact, one of the aspects of consumer-directed health plans (CDHP) touted by proponents, who contend that providing participants with an account and subjecting their health insurance claims to high deductibles will induce enrollees who would likely be spending more of their own money (than might be the case with traditional health coverage) to make more cost- and quality-conscious health care decisions. On the other hand, CDHP skeptics caution that these individuals lack the kind of information they need to make good decisions—and, worse, might make cost-centric choices that aren’t the best health care choices, and might even prove to be less cost-efficient (and even more expensive) over the longer term.

Using data from a large employer that implemented a CDHP, fully replacing traditional managed-care health insurance with a health savings account (HSA), new research[i], conducted through the EBRI Center for Research on Health Benefits Innovation (EBRI CRHBI)[ii], found that moving to the HSA-eligible plan reduced the number of brand name prescriptions filled. However, it also found that the move reduced the number of generic prescriptions filled. Previous EBRI research showed that while prescription drug use went down, it also resulted in decreased use of maintenance medications for chronic disease and a worsening of adherence.

As the EBRI report explains, while reductions in prescription-drug utilization can result in pharmacy expenditure savings for employer plan sponsors, increases in downstream medical costs may eclipse those benefits. In view of the potential for these kinds of unintended offsets, it notes that CDHPs and other plan designs that raise patient cost-sharing for prescription drugs might want to consider some alternative strategies that can bolster adherence and mitigate the potential impact.

Sometimes less is more – but only after you take into account all the costs. And sometimes you find that “less” is no bargain.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

[i] “Brand-Name and Generic Prescription Drug Use After Adoption of a Full-Replacement, Consumer-Directed Health Plan With a Health Savings Account” was published in the March EBRI Notes, available online here.

[ii] The following organizations provide the funding for EBRI CRHBI: American Express, Ameriprise, Aon Hewitt, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Boeing, Deseret Mutual, Federal Reserve Employee Benefits System, General Mills, Healthways, IBM, JP Morgan Chase, Mercer, and Pfizer.

Security "Blanket"

“How do they expect to retire on THAT?”

In the several days since the 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey(1)  hit the streets, I think I’ve heard that question more than any other. “That” in this case is the widely cited finding of the survey that 36% of respondents have less than $1,000 (aside from home equity and defined benefit plan) saved – and that’s up from 20 percent in that category in 2009 and 28 percent a year ago(2).

So, how does that group expect to retire?

We can’t know for certain, but there are several things that might offer a better understanding. First, many of those probably AREN’T expecting to retire on that, at least not any time soon; many are young (about half of the 25-34 age group are in this savings range).

Second, they may not be “expecting” to retire; about 16 percent of those with less than $15,000 set aside say they’ll “never” retire, compared with 7 percent of total respondents).

Most of the individuals in this group are, as you might expect, lower-income.  More than 60 percent reported household income of $25,000/year or less. 

Even if they are expecting to retire some day, they may have concerns about that reality. This group of low/non-savers, for the very most part, had NO retirement account – 80 percent of the 36 percent were in that category. Respondents with no retirement account not only tended to have much lower confidence levels, they were also more likely to think they needed to be saving 50 percent of their current paycheck to achieve a financially comfortable retirement – a perception that might be a reality for this group, based on their reported savings.

Finally, while the trend line for this particular group isn’t encouraging, it’s worth noting that Social Security was cited as a major source of income for nearly two-thirds of the current retiree respondents to the 2014 RCS (as it has been over the history of the RCS), even though current workers tended to have lower expectations for the primacy of Social Security benefits in their retirement income stream. One need only look to the replacement rates that Social Security is projected to provide to appreciate the significance of that program as a retirement income source for many, particularly low- and middle-income workers(3). In fact, a recent EBRI analysis of data from the HRS indicates that Social Security provides more than half the total household income for more than half those ages 65-74, as it does for roughly two-thirds of the households over that age (4).

Indeed, one might well wonder how people expect to live on savings of less than $1,000 in retirement. However, the data suggest that many – already are.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1) The 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey is available here.

(2) The RCS is, of course, a snapshot at a point in time. It’s important to keep in mind that the savings reported are not necessarily what those respondents will have a year from now, or certainly a decade hence. It’s also important that projections about future retirement security consider not just where things stand at a static point in time, but, as EBRI’s Retirement Savings Projection Model (RSPM) does, the impact of future events and changes in behavior.  More information on the RSPM is online here. 

(3) See “Annual Scheduled Benefit Amounts for Retired Workers With Various Pre-Retirement Earnings Patterns Based on Intermediate Assumptions, Calendar Years 1940-2090.”

(4) See “Income Composition, Income Trends, and Income Shortfalls of Older Households” online here.

”Background” Check

We’ve never invested in a vacation home, but for a number of years now, my family has made relatively regular trips to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. And while we’ve visited many places over the years, Gettysburg remains special, both because there are places that we know, and have visited many times, and because there are (still) things to discover. Over time we’ve also shared that experience with friends and members of our extended family, and their participation adds an additional, fresh perspective, even to sites we have visited many times before.

On March 18, EBRI and Greenwald & Associates will release the results of the 24^th annual Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS). With a perspective longer than many retirements, it’s likely to garner a lot of attention, as well it should. The focus tends to be on retirement confidence (or the lack thereof), specifically at the extremes—those “very” and “not at all” confident in their prospects for a financially comfortable retirement.

Attention will also likely be given to what can be done to improve the levels of confidence. Previous iterations point to some consistent factors: having more retirement savings is perhaps the most obvious connection to retirement confidence, as is participation in a workplace retirement savings plan (which, as you might expect, is linked to having more retirement savings). The RCS has also found that something as fundamental as having taken the time to do a calculation of retirement needs has a positive effect on confidence, even though those who had done such an assessment tend to set higher savings goals.

For this year’s RCS, as we do every year, we make it a point to ask a battery of consistent questions, to develop trend lines that allow us to see how attitudes change over time, throughout a wide variety of market and regulatory cycles, not to mention the advent of transformative technologies such as the Internet. Of course, we also include certain topical questions to get a current sense of worker—and retiree—responses to things such as prospective tax law changes, plan design features like automatic enrollment and contribution acceleration, and the use of various technologies in retirement planning. We’ve asked not only how much they have saved, but how much they think they should have saved, and—more recently—how much they think they should be saving now to provide that financially secure retirement.

Perhaps most importantly, we pose those questions to both current workers and current retirees, so as to gain a unique and informative perspective on the realities of retirement from those already living it, alongside the expectations of those for whom retirement remains a future event.

There’s a particular spot on the Gettysburg battlefield where we always try to take a family picture—the background doesn’t change, but it’s interesting to watch how much we’ve changed over the years.

Similarly, the RCS provides an invaluable and consistent background—along with a fresh and interesting perspective of today’s environment, as well as insights on future trends—that can help us all better prepare for a more financially secure retirement.       

- Nevin E. Adams, JD 

Note: The results of the 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) will be available at 8 a.m. ET on Tuesday, March 18, at www.ebri.org.  Information and findings from prior surveys are available at www.ebri.org/surveys/rcs.

Pet "Smart"

I’ve had both cats and dogs in my family over the years, and while each of our individual pets has had a unique personality, there are some attributes that seem to apply to each species, regardless of the individual animal. One of the most obvious is their approach to food.  For example, you can leave your cat alone in an apartment for a weekend with a supply of food and water sufficient to last for a few days, and odds are when you return home, there will still be some left.  But leave your dog alone in the same apartment with the same additional allotment of food and water, chances are it won’t last 30 minutes.  And in those circumstances, if you have both a cat and a dog in that apartment, odds are the latter will eat the former’s food as well.

Animal psychologists have a variety of explanations for why dogs and cats approach food the way they do, generally citing either a confidence of its future availability, or a concern that if it’s not consumed now, it will disappear.

Experts have long been worried about how quickly individuals would spend through their savings in retirement, whether those rates of spending would too rapidly deplete savings, and if those rates would be sufficient to sustain a reasonable post-retirement lifestyle.

A recent analysis[i] of activity within the EBRI IRA database[ii] found that just over 16 percent of traditional and Roth IRA accounts had a withdrawal in 2011, including 20.5 percent of traditional accounts.  The report notes that this percentage was largely driven by activity among traditional IRAs owned by individuals ages 70½ or older where the individuals were required by law to make withdrawals from their tax qualified accounts or pay significant tax penalties.

Significantly, for those at the RMD age, the withdrawal rates at the median appeared close to the amount required by law to be withdrawn, though some were significantly more. And while the highest 25 percent did appear to be taking out amounts in excess of those required by law, the report notes that some of these accounts could be the focus of the owners’ withdrawals instead of other accounts owned by them.

A separate EBRI analysis[iii] of the University of Michigan’s Health and Retirement Study (HRS) found that at age 61, only 22.2 percent of households with an individual retirement account (IRA) said that they took a withdrawal from that account, but that the pace slowly increased to 40.5 percent by age 69 before jumping to 77 percent at age 71.  That EBRI analysis also found that the percentage of households with an IRA making a withdrawal from that account not only increased with age, but also spiked around ages 70 and 71, a trend that, the report explains, appears to be a direct result of the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules in the Internal Revenue Code.

IRAs are, of course, a vital component of U.S. retirement savings, holding more than 25 percent of all retirement assets in the nation, according a recent EBRI report. A substantial and growing portion of these IRA assets originated in other employment-based tax-qualified retirement plans, such as defined benefit (pension) and 401(k) plans.

While the median withdrawal rates evident in the proprietary EBRI IRA database suggest that many individuals are highly likely to maintain the IRA as a source of income throughout retirement, further study is needed to see if these rates hold up over time as their owners age further into retirement, and to evaluate whether those rates, in conjunction with other resources, are adequate to provide a reasonable, if not comfortable, post-retirement lifestyle. 

In the months ahead, we’ll not only be looking at this withdrawal behavior over time, but, as part of EBRI’s Center for Research on Retirement Income (CRI), we’ll be examining how IRA owners with a 401(k) plan draw down those assets across accounts, leveraging the unique ability of EBRI’s databases to link individuals’ IRAs and 401(k) accounts.

After all, it’s not just pets that consume more wisely when they have confidence in the future of that next meal.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] See “IRA Withdrawals, 2011” online here.
 

[ii] The EBRI IRA Database, an ongoing project that collects data from IRA plan administrators, contains information for2011 on 20.5 million accounts with total assets of $1.456 trillion.  In this particular analysis, only withdrawals from the accounts identified as traditional or Roth IRAs in the database are examined, a total of 15.3 million accounts with $1.11 trillion in assets.  More information on the database, and EBRI’s research centers is online here.

[iii] See “IRA Withdrawals: How Much, When, and Other Saving Behavior” online here.

Silver Linings

We all know people who manage to find the bright side of things, no matter how dire the situation—the folks who can spot a silver lining in every cloud. Then, of course, there are those who have an uncanny ability of discerning the cloud in every silver lining. In my experience, those in the former category know, and acknowledge, their inclination to accentuate the positive.  

However, I’ve generally found that those in the latter category don’t view themselves as negative or pessimistic. Rather, they are inclined to see their perspective on the world as “realistic.” 

A recent EBRI analysis[1] found that current levels of Social Security benefits, coupled with at least 30 years of 401(k) savings eligibility, could provide most workers—between 83 and 86 percent of them, in fact—with an annual income of at least 60 percent of their preretirement pay on an inflation-adjusted basis. Even at an 80 percent replacement rate, 67 percent of the lowest-income quartile would still meet that threshold. Those projections improve even more when you assume automatic enrollment and an annual contribution acceleration of 1 percent in 401(k) plans.

A more recent analysis[2] using EBRI’s Retirement Security Projection Model^® (RSPM) found that, due to the increase in financial market and housing values during 2013, the probability that Baby Boomers and Generation Xers would NOT run short of money in retirement improved—slightly (between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, based on the EBRI Retirement Readiness Ratings (RRRs). For early Boomers (those on the brink of retirement), the analysis found that more than half (56.7 percent) were projected not to run short of the funds they need to cover projected retirement expenses. On the other hand, nearly half are projected to run short (though not “out” of money, since Social Security benefits would continue to be paid).

In 2012, EBRI estimated that the national aggregate retirement income deficit number, taking into account current Social Security retirement benefits and the assumption that net housing equity is utilized “as needed,” was $4.3 trillion for all Baby Boomers and Gen Xers.[3]

Now, certainly compared with some of the figures[4] one hears bandied about these days, those might be considered relatively encouraging numbers. Some might even consider them optimistic, a “silver lining” in a looming retirement “crisis”⁵ cloud.

What the EBRI data show is that, based on current trends and savings patterns, many individuals will fare better financially in retirement than the headlines suggest—and a large number will not. Despite the clarion calls for action, and some shifts in the underlying dynamics, this is not a new issue for America:. If a crisis looms, it is surely one of the most widely anticipated, long-standing, and debated issues of the past half-century.

EBRI data and modeling have previously quantified the kinds of plan design and policy changes that can help—and hinder—those results. The true “silver lining” is that there is yet time for many of those currently at risk of running short of funds to remedy that situation[6]. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[1] See “The Role of Social Security, Defined Benefits, and Private Retirement Accounts in the Face of the Retirement Crisis”  online here. http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_01_Jan-14_SpslCvg-RetPlns1.pdf#page=8

 

[2] See “What Causes EBRI Retirement Readiness Ratings™ to Vary: Results from the 2014 Retirement Security Projection Model,^®” online here. http://www.ebri.org/publications/ib/index.cfm?fa=ibDisp&content_id=5351

[3] See “Retirement Income Adequacy for Boomers and Gen Xers: Evidence from the 2012 EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model,” online here. http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_05_May-12.RSPM-ER.Cvg1.pdf      

 

[4] See “Whether Forecasts” online here. https://ebriorg.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/whether-forecasts/

5 For some perspective on the existence of a retirement “crisis,” see Dallas Salisbury’s keynote address at the Pensions&Investments West Coast Defined Contribution Conference online here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbmcQa8sbss&feature=youtu.be 

6 Particularly those who Chooseto$ave®org for your future!  Check out the resources at www.choosetosave.org, including the Ballpark E$timate.                                                      

 

"Off" Putting

I’ve never been very keen on going to the dentist.  As important as I believe dental hygiene to be, I’ve come to associate my visits with the dentist with bad things: some level of discomfort, perhaps even pain, a flossing lecture from the hygienist, at the very least.  Most of which is readily avoided by doing the things I know I should be doing regularly – brushing, flossing, a better diet.  And knowing that I haven’t done what I should have been doing, I have good reason to believe that my visit to the dentist will be a negative experience – and so I put it off.

However, it’s not as though the postponement makes the situation any better; if anything, the delay makes the eventual “confrontation” with reality worse. 

That’s what retirement planning is like for many: They know they should be saving, know that they should be saving more, but they hesitate to go through the process of a retirement needs calculation because they are leery of the “pain” of going through the exercise itself, or perhaps even afraid that their checkup will confirm their lack of attentiveness to their fiscal health.  And, like the postponed dental visit, putting it off not only does nothing to rectify the situation, the passage of time (without action) may even allow the situation to worsen.

Indeed, the Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS)[i] has previously found that workers who have done a retirement needs calculation tend to be considerably more confident about their ability to save the amount needed for a financially comfortable retirement than those who have not done so, despite the fact that those doing a calculation tend to cite higher retirement savings goals.  In the 2013 RCS, 31 percent who have done a calculation, compared with 14 percent who have not, say they are very confident that they will be able to accumulate the amount they need, while 12 percent who have not done a calculation, compared with 3 percent who have, report they are not at all confident in their ability to save the amount needed for a financially comfortable retirement.

Next week we’ll commemorate America Saves Week[ii], an annual opportunity for organizations to promote good savings behavior[iii] and a chance for individuals to assess their own saving status.  Not because saving is something you should do once a year, or that reconsidering your financial goals and progress is well-suited to a particular week on the calendar, but because it IS something that should be done regularly in order to be effective.

Over time, I have found that when I make (and keep) regular dentist appointments, those visits are much less painful, and considerably less stressful than the times when I have gone “too long” between appointments.

Similarly, regular savings checkups – like those inspired by events like America Saves Week – can be a lot less “painful” than you might think.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

You can assess your savings plan here.

For a list of six reasons why you—or those you care about—should save, and specifically save for retirement now, see “Sooner or Later“:

---

[i] Information from the 2013 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) is available online here. Organizations interested in underwriting the 2014 RCS can contact Nevin Adams at nadams@ebri.org.  

[ii] America Saves Week is an annual event where hundreds of national and local organizations promote good savings behavior and individuals are encouraged to assess their own saving status. Coordinated by America Saves and the American Savings Education Council, America Saves Week is February 24–March 1, 2014, a nationwide effort to help people save more successfully and take financial action. More information is available at www.americasavesweek.org.

[iii] Organizations interested in building/reinforcing a workplace savings campaign can find free resources at www.asec.org  including videos, savings tips, and the Ballpark E$stimate® retirement savings calculator, courtesy of the American Savings Education Council (ASEC).

Model "Hones"

After a winter filled with predictions of winter weather that never quite measured up to the forecasts, the nation’s capital (and the Southeast) finally got a taste of what those in the Midwest and Northeast have been contending with for weeks.  Not that there haven’t been close calls here, but up until this week, the multitude of factors that have to come together to produce a significant snowfall here—hadn’t.  Much to the discomfiture of those who ply their trade making such predictions, it should be noted.

While Mother Nature can be notoriously fickle, technologies like Doppler radar are able to discern with greater precision real-time activity which can be fed into sophisticated computer models that draw on the experience of the past to extrapolate a series of potential outcomes—some deemed more likely than others.  Projected outcomes that, despite the recent experience here, do an increasingly accurate job of helping each of us plan our daily commute or that vacation a couple of weeks hence.

Arguably, predictions about retirement readiness are even more complicated than weather forecasting, though there are certain similarities.  Done properly, they require a foundation in knowing the actual resources available to individuals—and an ability, through the use of sophisticated computer models, to forecast the impact of current behaviors on future outcomes.  Those models must also consider the likelihood and timing of certain external factors, and their impact on resources, and to project if (or when) those resources will run short against lifespans and circumstances as unique and variable as the American population.

Of course, those computer models require updating on a regular basis to properly account for changes in assumptions (and realities).  A recent EBRI Issue Brief[1] noted that, due to the increase in financial market and housing values during 2013, the probability that Baby Boomers and Generation Xers would NOT run short of money in retirement increased between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points (when aggregated by age cohort), based on the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) Retirement Readiness Ratings (RRRs).[2]

EBRI’s analysis, which analyzes the major factors that cause retirement outcomes to differ, and their impact, found that, among other things, eligibility for participation in an employer-sponsored 401(k)-type plan remains one of the most important factors for retirement income adequacy.  In fact, Gen Xers in the lowest-income quartile with 20 or more years of future eligibility in a defined contribution plan are half as likely to run short of money as those with no years of future eligibility.

Not surprisingly, the report also noted that the risks of a long life and high long term-care costs drive huge variations in retirement income adequacy—and suggested that annuities and long-term care insurance could mitigate much of the variability in retirement income adequacy at or near retirement age.

Of course, while a broad-based forecast is sufficient for the local weather, and a broad-based sense of the nation’s retirement readiness is powerful fodder for purposes of setting public policy goals, individual forecasts—in order to be accurate—require more customized inputs.[3]  

Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[1] “What Causes EBRI Retirement Readiness Ratings™ to Vary: Results from the 2014 Retirement Security Projection Model®” is available online here.

[2] EBRI’s proprietary Retirement Security Projection Model^® (RSPM), unlike many other models, takes into account a combination of deterministic expenses from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (as a function of age and income) as well as health insurance and out-of-pocket, health-related expenses, plus stochastic expenses from nursing home and home-health care (at least until the point such expenses are covered by Medicaid).  A chronology of the EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model^® is available online here.  

[3] Fortunately, individuals who want a sense of their retirement readiness can check out EBRI’s BallparkE$timate,^® along with the other materials available at www.choosetosave.org

"Common' Sense

At a time when the nation’s legislative wheels seem mired in partisanship, the last week of January turned out to be a busy one for retirement plan proposals.

First the president unveiled his myRA concept in the State of the Union (along with a reference to an automatic IRA proposal previously included in the White House’s annual budget), followed a day later by introduction of the Retirement Security Act of 2014, a bipartisan proposal by Sens. Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Susan Collins (R-ME). A day after that, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, formally introduced the Universal, Secure, and Adaptable (USA) Retirement Funds Act of 2014, an updated version of his 2012 proposal.

All three were intended to expand and improve the retirement savings of Americans—although, as you might expect, the three take quite different approaches. Consider that the myRA calls for the development of a “new retirement savings security” to encourage savings in a kind of Roth IRA, while Sen. Harkin’s proposal would require employers above a certain size to offer a whole new type of retirement savings plan (and would impose some new threshold enrollment and withdrawal requirements on existing 401(k)s, as well). As for the Nelson/Collins proposal, it seems to be largely focused on lowering or removing certain current regulatory and administrative barriers to smaller employers offering retirement plans.

Despite their varied approaches to the commonly-stated goal of expanding retirement savings, all three do have one other key commonality: All look to leverage the success of the work place and systematic payroll deductions in fostering retirement savings. Of course, that’s a foundation whose worth previous EBRI research has documented:¹ the impact that eligibility for a work place retirement plan can have on retirement readiness,² as well as the additional help that automatic-enrollment designs can provide.

It remains to be seen whether the legislative proposals will go anywhere—and the potential impact of myRA on motivating new savers is also uncertain. Just this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced a proposal on defined benefit pension smoothing—not to provide any kind of help for retirement, but as a way to pay for a three-month extension of unemployment benefits.

But as America Saves Week nears, the activity on Capitol Hill serves as an additional reminder that a good place to start—any time, with or without the incentives of legislative change—is to Choose to Save. ®³

Nevin E. Adams, JD

¹ The January EBRI Notes, “The Role of Social Security, Defined Benefits, and Private Retirement Accounts in the Face of the Retirement Crisis,” is available online here.

² See “The Impact of Automatic Enrollment in 401(k) Plans on Future Retirement Accumulations: A Simulation Study Based on Plan Design Modifications of Large Plan Sponsors,” online here, and “Increasing Default Deferral Rates in Automatic Enrollment 401(k) Plans: The Impact on Retirement Savings Success in Plans With Automatic Escalation,” online here.

³ You can find a wide variety of tools and resources—including the popular and widely recommended Ballpark E$timate—at http://www.choosetosave.org/

Motion "Sensers"

I’m not sure exactly when I was introduced to the concepts behind Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of motion.  While behavioral finance has laid claim to the concept of (and means of combatting) inertia in benefit plan design, Newton’s first law of motion (sometimes called “the law of inertia”)—first published in the late 1600s—reminds us that (in layman’s terms), an object at rest remains at rest; or perhaps more precisely, an object continues to do whatever it happens to be doing unless a force is exerted upon it.

However, the one I remember most from earlier days is the third law of motion—the notion that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  To this day, I have a “Newton’s cradle” at my desk.

While Newton’s laws were intended to explain the motion of objects, they do seem to have application in matters of human interaction as well.  One need only look at the increasingly strident levels of partisanship on Capitol Hill to appreciate the stridency of “equal and opposite” reactions.

A recent EBRI publication[1] noted that recent decisions by some employers to eliminate health benefits for spouses who were eligible for coverage through their own employer could represent a “tipping point” in employment-based health benefits.  While the report noted that in 2012, 7 percent of employers did not cover spouses when other coverage was available to them, it also cautioned that as of late 2012–early 2013, another 8 percent of large employers were reporting that they planned to exclude spouses from coverage when other coverage was available.

These decisions come at a time when employers are wrestling with how to control the rising cost of providing health benefits to workers, in part due to the requirements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (PPACA).[2]  In fact, one large employer that recently made the decision to drop spousal coverage under those circumstances specifically said, “since the Affordable Care Act requires employers to provide affordable coverage, we believe your spouse should be covered by their own employer.”

EBRI’s analysis indicates that the costs of covering spouses may well represent a tempting cost reduction target for some.  The report notes that, in 2011, policyholders spent an average of $5,430 on health care services, compared with $6,609 for spouses, and—even adjusting for factors such as gender, age, and overall health status—found that spouses still have health care costs that are roughly 7 percent higher than policyholders.

The report cautions, however, that while “first-mover” firms may save money in the short run by eliminating working spouses from their plan, those costs could come back to them over time as other employers embrace that approach—basically returning policyholders to their coverage who heretofore were covered as spouses in other programs.

Ultimately, any savings from those moves will depend upon each firm’s composition of couples and their respective employment statuses.  Indeed, given prevailing levels of cost sharing, the report notes that employers might end up worse off under a change in spousal coverage policies, particularly since employers generally subsidize employee-only coverage more than they subsidize family coverage.

As the EBRI report reminds us, decisions about benefit plan design, like so many other decisions, should be made thoughtfully—and with an eye toward the realization that, for every action there can be an equal, opposite, and sometimes greater, reaction.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[1] “The Cost of Spousal Health Coverage” is available online here.

[2] PPACA requires that employers with 50 or more workers provide health coverage to workers and dependent children until they reach age 26. It does not, however, require employers to provide health coverage to spouses, whether or not they are eligible for other health insurance.

Safety "Net"

I’m one of those travelers who absolutely dreads cutting it to the last minute. Not that I haven’t been forced to do so, from time to time, but I’m generally the one chomping at the bit to get to the airport, or to hit the highway an hour before anyone else. In my defense, on more than one occasion that “cushion” has been the difference between catching a flight or not. Planning that only considers a “best” or “normal” scenario too often overlooks the unexpected—and sometimes that margin of error is all you have.

For over a decade EBRI has modeled the nation’s potential retirement savings shortfall, and the EBRI Retirement Readiness Ratings™ provide an assessment of how many Americans are at risk of running short of money for needed expenses in retirement. In contemplating expenses, that model considers the regular expenses of living in retirement, as well as uninsured medical expenses, and the potential costs of nursing home care.

However, we have also documented and quantified the role of Social Security, defined benefit and private retirement accounts on retirement income adequacy for Baby Boomers and Gen Xers with an eye toward replacing their preretirement wages and income. While this more traditional focus on income replacement may misstate an individual’s actual post-retirement financial situation, many financial planners work with this goal as a starting point, and it can provide valuable insights particularly when—as is the case with EBRI’s projections—it is able to leverage actual 401(k) data from the unique EBRI/ICI 401(k) database, the largest such repository in the world.

Indeed, based on a recent EBRI analysis, between 83 and 86 percent of workers with more than 30 years of eligibility in a voluntary enrollment 401(k) plan are simulated to have sufficient 401(k) accumulations that, combined with current levels of Social Security retirement benefits, will be able to replace at least 60 percent of their age-64 wages and salary on an inflation-adjusted basis.

When the threshold for a financially successful retirement is increased to 70 percent replacement of age-64 income, 73–76 percent of these workers will still meet that threshold, relying only on 401(k) and Social Security combined. At an 80 percent replacement rate, 67 percent of the lowest-income quartile will still meet the threshold; however the percentage of those in the highest-income quartile deemed to be “successful” relying on just these two retirement components slips to 59 percent, reflecting the progressive nature of Social Security.

As positive a result as that seems for many, when the same analysis is conducted for automatic enrollment 401(k) plans (with an annual 1 percent automatic escalation provision and empirically derived opt-outs), the probability of success increases substantially: 88–94 percent at a 60 percent threshold; 81–90 percent at a 70 percent replacement threshold; and 73–85 percent at an 80 percent threshold.

That’s not quite the doomsday crisis scenario portrayed by many of the headlines in vogue today, though EBRI’s projections still show that a large number of Americans—even among those eligible for a 401(k) plan for 30 years—won’t be able to replace that pre-65 salary even at the various levels modeled, based on current savings patterns.

It does, however, illustrate the impact that changes in those current savings behaviors can have—and it underscores the significant role of Social Security as a vital safety net for the nation’s retirement security.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

“The Role of Social Security, Defined Benefits, and Private Retirement Accounts in the Face of the Retirement Crisis” is available online here.

Stocks Swayed by the Super Bowl?

Will your portfolio soar with the Seahawks, or get kicked by the Broncos? 

That’s what adherents of the so-called Super Bowl Theory—which maintains that when a team from the old National Football League wins the Super Bowl, the S&P 500 will rise, whereas should a team from the old American Football League prevail, stock prices would be expected to fall—would likely predict.

Sure enough, last year’s victory by the Baltimore Ravens (who, it might be recalled, are really a legacy NFL team via their Cleveland Brown roots) coincided with a 29.6 percent gain for the S&P 500.  Moreover, the indicator has been correct 37 of the last 47 years, or nearly 79 percent of the time.

Not only has the Super Bowl Indicator consistently predicted the direction of the market, but returns when the old NFL wins and when the AFL wins are dramatically different, according to a recent report in the Wall Street Journal, which notes that the Dow has averaged a healthy 11.6 percent return in years in which the old NFL wins the Super Bowl and has declined by an average of 0.74 percent in years in which the old AFL prevailed.

Fare Way?

That the markets fared well in 2013 was hardly a true test of the Super Bowl Theory since, as it turned out, both teams in Super Bowl XLVII—the Baltimore Ravens (by way of NFL legacy Cleveland Browns) and the San Francisco 49ers—were NFL legacy, and thus an NFL legacy team would win regardless of the end result.

Of course, looking back over the years, the record is a bit, shall we say, “inconsistent.”  Consider that in 2012 a team from the old NFL (the NY Giants) took on—and took down—one from the old AFL (the New England Patriots, who once were the AFL’s Boston Patriots).  And, in fact, 2012 was a pretty good year for stocks. 

The year before that, the Pittsburgh Steelers (representing the American Football Conference) took on the National Football Conference’s Green Bay Packers—two teams that had some of the oldest, deepest and, yes, most “storied” NFL roots, with the Steelers formed in 1933 (as the Pittsburgh Pirates) and the Packers, founded in 1919. So, according to the Super Bowl Theory, 2011 should have been a good year for stocks (because, regardless of who won, an NFL team would prevail). But as you may recall, while the Dow gained ground for the year, the S&P 500 was, well, flat.

On the other hand, 2010 turned out pretty well for the markets—a year when the New Orleans Saints bested the Indianapolis Colts, though it was, after all, another Super Bowl featuring two teams with NFL roots (the Colts by way of the storied Baltimore Colts franchise).  That was also the case in 2009 when both the Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburgh Steelers shared NFL roots (the Arizona Cardinals by way of once upon a time being the St. Louis Cardinals), AND in 2007, when the S&P 500 rose 3.53 percent as the Indianapolis Colts beat the NFL legacy Chicago Bears 29-17, as well as in 2006 when the Pittsburgh Steelers defeated these same Seattle Seahawks; that turned out to be a good year for equities, with the S&P 500 closing up more than 13 percent.

Patriot Gains

Times were better for Patriots fans in 2005 when they bested the NFC’s Philadelphia Eagles 24-21. According to the Super Bowl Theory, the markets should have been down for the year. However, in 2005 the S&P 500 climbed 2.55 percent.   

Of course, the 2002 win by those same New England Patriots accurately foretold the continuation of the bear market into a third year (at the time, the first accurate result in five years). But the Patriots’ 2004 Super Bowl win against the Carolina Panthers failed to anticipate a fall rally that helped push the S&P 500 to a near 9 percent gain that year, sacking the indicator for another loss.

Consider also that, despite victories by these same (AFL legacy) Denver Broncos in 1998 and 1999, the S&P 500 continued its winning ways, while victories by the NFL legacy St. Louis (by way of Los Angeles) Rams and the Baltimore Ravens, did nothing to dispel the bear markets of 2000 and 2001, respectively.

In fact, the Super Bowl Theory “worked” 28 times between 1967 and 1997, then went 0-4 between 1998 and 2001, only to get back on track from 2002 on (purists still dispute how to interpret Tampa Bay’s victory in 2003, since the Buccaneers spent their first NFL season in the AFC before moving to the NFC).

Indeed, the Buccaneers’ move to the NFC was part of a swap with the Seattle Seahawks, who did, in fact, enter the NFL as an NFC team in 1976 but shuttled quickly over to the AFC (where they remained through 2001) before returning to the NFC(1). 

And, not having entered the league until 1976, wherever they began, can the Seahawks truly be considered a “legacy” NFL squad?

Investor adherents to this market theory are presumed to be pulling for the NFC’s Seahawks over the old AFL (and new AFC Champion) Denver Broncos in Super Bowl XLVIII.  On the other hand, when Denver won its back-to-back Super Bowls in 1998 and 1999 (2), the Dow and S&P did pretty well; and in 2006—when the Seahawks made their only other Super Bowl appearance and lost—the S&P 500 gained nearly 16 percent. 

Regardless, it looks like it could be a good game—and whether you are a proponent of the Super Bowl Theory or not, would be one in which whoever wins, we all will!

-          Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1) In fact, Seattle is the only team to have played in both the AFC and NFC Championship Games, having relocated from the AFC to the NFC during league realignment prior to the 2002 season. The Seahawks are the only NFL team to switch conferences twice in the post-merger era. The franchise began play in 1976 in the NFC West division but switched conferences with the Buccaneers after one season and joined the AFC West.

(2) Ignoring, of course, the Super Bowls Denver lost (and the markets “won”) in 1978, 1987, and 1988 and 1989 – the latter still the widest margin of loss (55-10) in Super Bowl history)

"Left" Overs

On more than a few occasions in my youth, I would misplace some object of importance. Generally it was just something I set aside for just a moment in pursuit of some more interesting endeavor—and sometimes it was something I set down and forgot about until much later.

Regardless, being unsuccessful in locating the object, I was frequently inclined to suspect that the culprit responsible for the disappearance was my mother, who—as mothers do, spent more than a little of her existence picking up objects that had been left unattended in unsuitable places. There were, however, times when she had played no role in the “disappearance,” and she’d admonish me to look more diligently—that “it didn’t just get up and walk away on its own…”

Now, while there were times when I was certain that the object in question had done just that, once I was able to retrace my steps, to recall where I had been and when—and, inevitably, there it was.
That said, I wasn’t always happy to find things where I left them; comic books don’t hold up well in the rain, for instance, and fragile objects left in the reach of younger siblings (or pets) can have a frustratingly short shelf life.

Retirement plan sponsors, and those who support their efforts, have worked long and hard to engage participants with the management and oversight of their retirement plan balances, with mixed results. However, even the most engaged participants seem to struggle to find the time, inclination, or discipline to revisit those initial investment choices, much less to do so at the appropriate times. In fact, left to their own devices, it’s likely that many—perhaps most—retirement plan participants looking to see how their balances are invested would find them right where they “left” them at that initial enrollment meeting (though with proportions shifted by the markets in the interim).

Enter the target-date fund (TDF), a type of investment fund apportioned according to what investment professionals deem to be an appropriate age-based blend of stocks, bonds, and other asset classes for an individual within a particular target date of his or her retirement.

Though their mark was being made prior to the sanction of the design as a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, target-date fund availability and usage have soared along with the ensuing expanded adoption of automatic enrollment. Indeed, nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of 401(k) plans in the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database included target-date funds in their investment lineup at year-end 2012, and 41 percent of the roughly 24 million 401(k) participants in that database held target-date funds. Among participants who were offered target-date funds as a plan option, 60 percent held them at year-end 2012, and target-date fund assets represented 22 percent of the assets of plans offering such funds in their investment lineups.

Reflecting the growing popularity of automatic enrollment, at year-end 2012, nearly 54 percent of the account balances of recently hired participants in their 20s were in balanced funds (a significant subset of which is in target-date funds), compared with 7 percent in 1998. Moreover, at year-end 2012, 43 percent of the account balances of recently hired participants in their 20s were invested in target-date funds, compared with 40 percent at year-end 2011.

The impact of these shifts, chronicled in the extensive EBRI/ICI 401(k) database, is already manifested in the increasingly diversified portfolios of newer hires and younger participants. Beyond that initial allocation decision, the TDF design incorporates an ongoing rebalancing over time, one that shifts the underlying portfolios such that they are less focused on growth and more focused on income over time—a rebalancing that occurs automatically, and without requiring the input or involvement of the participant-investor.

That is likely to have a significant impact over time, because with retirement investments, as with life, we often plan to come back and revisit our choices more often than time (or life) allows.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

“401(k) Plan Asset Allocation, Account Balances, and Loan Activity in 2012” is available online here.
In 2011, an EBRI Issue Brief provided an informative examination of the use of target-date funds (TDFs) by a consistent group of 401(k) participants in plans that offered them in 2007 through 2009. See “Target-Date Fund Use in 401(k) Plans and the Persistence of Their Use, 2007–2009,” online here.

Penny Whys?

We tried to introduce our kids to money and financial concepts relatively early. We encouraged them to save some of their monetary gifts, let them put the money in the offering plates at church, and provided them with a modest allowance for chores commensurate with their age and abilities. For all that, they never really seemed to fully appreciate the “value of money” until they started earning a paycheck outside the home (I knew they were “getting” it, when they wanted to know who FICA was!).

Perhaps because of their early education, there weren’t massive behavioral changes. I was pleased to see their spending on gifts for family members rise with their income and, after an initial spending “spurt” (likely attributable to a sense of newfound wealth), they seemed to settle in. But what happened next was that, while they would spend money on others, they tended to hold back. In fact, what seemed to emerge was not so much a pattern of setting money aside, but a reluctance to spend; not so much saving, as hoarding. Indeed, it was interesting to see how they reacted to spending now that it was their own money.

One of the premises underlying the introduction of consumer-driven health plans is that they do a better job of “engaging” the participant/consumer in the cost(s) of their health care decisions, either in providing a finite amount of financial resources from the employer for that purpose, designing the plan so that the worker has a more direct financial involvement in the decision, or both. In fact, the 2013 EBRI/Greenwald & Associates Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey (CEHCS) found evidence that adults in a consumer-directed health plan (CDHP) and those in a high-deductible health plan (HDHP) were more likely than those in a traditional plan to exhibit a number of cost-conscious behaviors.

However, one of the policy concerns with those designs is that individuals would make medical decisions based on expense, rather than medical necessity. Indeed, recent research by the EBRI Center for Research on Health Benefits Innovation (CRHBI) notes that medication adherence—which has been shown to produce substantial savings as a result of reductions in hospitalizations and emergency room use—is known to be affected by out-of-pocket cost to patients.

That EBRI CRHBI study, published in a recent issue of The American Journal of Managed Care,
examined the impact of adopting a health savings account (HSA) consumer-directed health plan (CDHP) on medication adherence for individuals with five chronic conditions disease. Based on the experience of a large manufacturer that replaced all of its existing health insurance options with a CDHP-HSA, the research found that in the first year under the new plan, the number of prescriptions filled, the proportion of days covered, and the proportion of patients who were adherent declined for all conditions except asthma/COPD. While the effects diminished some in the second year for those with diabetes, the levels persisted among those with hypertension, dyslipidemia, and depression.

These findings have important policy implications, in that—notwithstanding the presence of HSAs and employer contributions—medication utilization and adherence declined when high deductibles were imposed.

As the article explains, if these reduced levels of medication adherence for chronic conditions are sustained, it is likely that they will increase medical costs and adversely impact worker productivity. Certain regulatory changes might permit some mitigation of the impact, by supporting CDHP design changes that would provide first-dollar coverage for chronic disease medications for participants using HRAs. Moreover, it suggests that employers may need to provide education and ongoing support to encourage appropriate use of account funds so that prescription drug use for chronic conditions remains a priority for their workers.

There’s an old saying that cautions against being “penny wise and pound foolish”—the tendency to conserve relatively small amounts, only to be wasteful when it comes to larger expenditures. It is, after all, one thing to set money aside for a rainy day, and another altogether to trigger a rainy day by not spending enough on the right ones.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

[1] “Findings from the 2013 EBRI/Greenwald & Associates Consumer Engagement in Health Care Survey” is available online here.

[2]  “Medication Utilization and Adherence in a Health Savings Account–Eligible Plan” is available online here.

"Whether" Forecasts

This is the time of year where, in many parts of the county, the weather—and weather forecasters—dominate the nightly news coverage, certainly when the predictions are dire.  Indeed, having had the opportunity to live in several different parts of the country, I can assure you that the bigger the projected snowfall, the more hyped the coverage.

Several weeks back, the local meteorologists were all agog about an impending snowfall in the Washington, DC area—a snowfall  initially projected at 2–4 inches of accumulation, but that was quickly revised to 3–5 inches, and then to 4–7 inches.  The local mass transportation systems sprang into action, announcing alternative schedules, state officials advised those who didn’t need to be on the roads to stay home, non-emergency federal employees in the area were granted an excused absence, while others were directed to telecommute.

As it turned out, it did snow—but not much, and certainly not in the amounts that had garnered all the attention.  Afterwards, meteorologists were quick to point out that accumulations had matched projections in some areas, although those areas were relatively small and generally far removed from major metropolitan centers.  Ultimately, more were affected by the weather forecast than the weather itself.

Dire predictions are also common about the retirement prospects for Americans.  A recent headline proclaims “Americans Are $6.8 Trillion Short On Retirement Savings,” a figure that the article proceeds to tell us amounts to $113,000 per household “for those on the eve of retirement” —that is, those ages 55 to 64.

Actually, that $6.8 trillion is the low end of a range published by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) about six months ago,[1] and is close to the $6.6 trillion estimate of the Center for Retirement Research (CRR), which we have commented on previously (see “Rely-Able?”)  The NIRS projections were largely derived by looking at self-reported retirement account balances, financial assets and net worth from the Federal Reserve’s 2010 Survey of Consumer Finances, incorporating some assumptions about defined benefit assets, and extrapolating target retirement savings needs based on a set of age-based income multipliers—income multipliers, it should be noted, that have no apparent connection with actual income, or with actual spending needs in retirement.

For public policy purposes, EBRI has long defined adequate retirement income as having the financial resources to cover basic expenses plus uninsured medical costs in retirement. Working from that definition as a starting point, along with an assumption that retirement represents the cessation of paid employment and begins at age 65[2], we have projected that approximately 44 percent of Baby Boomer and Gen-Xer households are simulated to be at risk of running short of money in retirement, assuming they retain any net housing equity until other financial resources are depleted.  Our most recent assessment of that total aggregate gap between needs and available resources is $4.6 trillion, with an individual average of approximately $48,000.[3]

That is, of course, still a large gap, though one considerably smaller than that highlighted in the article.  While it represents a lot of households—it also includes a wide range of personal circumstances, from individuals projected to run short by as little as a dollar to those projected to fall short by tens of thousands of dollars.[4]  For those seeking to understand, and perhaps craft solutions for, the current projected shortfalls, this is an important distinction, and one given short shrift by a headline’s focus on the aggregate.

A lot of science goes into making weather projections, and yet a temperature difference of a mere degree or two can be the difference between a modest rainfall or a blizzard of epic proportion.  Beyond those reality variables, imprecise modeling assumptions can distort forecasts, producing their own disruptions.

When it comes to effective retirement policy, it is, of course, important to be able to quantify just how big the nation’s retirement savings shortfall is.  It is, however, perhaps even more important to remember that whether an individual shortfall exists will be a combination of individual circumstances, as well as varying degrees of preparation, access, and needs.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[1] The NIRS report, “The Retirement Savings Crisis: Is it Worse than We Think?” is available online here.

[2] EBRI has also performed analysis on retirement ages other than 65. 

[3] EBRI recently submitted congressional testimony on “The Role of Social Security, Defined Benefits, and Private Retirement Accounts in the Face of the Retirement Crisis.”  Included in that testimony was an analysis of the probabilities of successful retirement by income quartile for both voluntary and automatic enrollment 401(k) plans.   You can read it online here.   

[4] Nearly one-half (49.1 percent) of Gen Xers are projected to have at least 20 percent more than is simulated to be needed, for example, while about 1 in 5 (19.4 percent) are projected to have less than 80 percent of what is needed. See “All or Nothing? An Expanded Perspective on Retirement Readiness,” online here.