Preparing for the Storm

If you live (or were travelling to) the upper east coast of the U.S. this week, odds are you spent some time making preparations for what looked to be (and by the time you read this likely is) a big winter storm.

We don’t always get that much time to prepare, of course – and sometimes when we do, those big storms don’t turn out to be very big after all. But you can generally count on lots of frenzied weather forecasters predicting snow-mageddon (even if they do offer some caveats), and at least one shot of the inside of a local grocery showing empty bread and milk aisles. Because, after all, who could go 48 hours without bread and milk?

Life is full of surprises – and though most of those are unaccompanied by a friendly meteorologist to help us anticipate them, one might well wonder why we let them “sneak” up on us without making better preparations.

Perhaps the most obvious is the topic of retirement preparation. Any day now the queen mother of retirement confidence assessments – the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) – will likely, as it has for more than a quarter-century now, tell us that Americans are, writ large, uncomfortable, uncertain, and unprepared for retirement. Nor is this some external assessment based on an objective evaluation of retirement preparations and needs. Rather, this survey, as are most of the industry survey progeny it has since inspired, is a self-reflection by survey respondents. Respondents including some who do not save, and others who do not save “enough,” and many, probably most, who haven’t even tried to guess at how much “enough” might be. Most will likely be concerned about their prospects for a financially secure retirement – but apparently not concerned enough to do very much about it.

Indeed, if history is a fair guide, I think it’s fair to say that the media coverage will likely rival that of an impending environmental apocalypse. Despite the researchers best efforts to provide some perspective on the findings, you can almost certainly count on an obsession as to how many haven’t yet accumulated $1,000 in savings – albeit without regard to their age, their income, or whether they have the encouragement and incentives of a retirement plan at work. If the report finds a drop in confidence, it will almost certainly be cited as a lack of confidence in a system that isn’t working. If, on the other hand, the report finds a surge in confidence – well, then you can expect reports that talk about how unfounded the confidence is.

As complicated as weather forecasting can be, it pales in comparison to trying to figure out what the financial “weather” for the next 30 years is going to be. Little wonder that those already in retirement tend to be more confident than those with decades of preparation still ahead. Still, what all too often gets lost in our criticisms of the current system is just how well it works.

Perhaps only three-of-four eligible to participate in such programs choose to do so, but on an employer-by-employer basis, participation rates north of 90% are not impossible to find – and that’s before the adoption of mechanisms like automatic enrollment, where those kinds of rates are common. Target-date funds have, in incredibly short order, gained the favor of plan sponsors and participants alike – with as yet incalculable benefits for those retirement investments. Those, and a whole new generation of retirement income alternatives are coming to market – alternatives that, unlike the prior generation, will benefit from the scrutiny of plan fiduciaries trying to make sure that a lifetime of accumulation isn’t decimated in a single moment. These innovations have come to light, and to market, because of the employer-sponsored system. By comparison, what kinds of innovations have been brought to those disciplined enough to set aside money in a retail IRA?

In the real world, a lucky few know how to save and invest properly; somewhat more have access to the counsel and advice of a trusted adviser. But for most of us, the workplace retirement program is our first and only “investment” account. It is the one place where even those with relatively small balances can have access to professional advice, alongside the opportunity to gain the purchasing power of a group.

None of which would be possible without the involvement of their employer, the funding of that company match, and the tax incentives that underpin a structure that gets workers of modest means to do what never seems to come naturally to human beings – to prepare for the storm before it’s upon us.

For those of you in the path of this storm, stay safe – and I look forward to seeing hundreds of you in Las Vegas at the 16th Annual NAPA 401(k) Summit!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

this post originally appeared here.

Is the Prudent Man Standard Good Enough?

It’s often said that ERISA’s prudent man rule is the highest duty known to law. But is that enough?

Don’t get me wrong – any law that holds human beings to the standards of an expert in any field is a pretty high standard, and one that can be difficult to meet even with the ablest of expert assistance.

I started thinking about this recently when a friend was asking my advice on what he should do regarding the options in his new 401(k) plan. I did what I often do, outlining the pros and cons of various alternatives, helping him to make what I considered to be a well informed – or at least better informed – decision.

I had stepped through all the options and considerations with his plan, a pretty standard combination of automatic enrollment provisions. But then, after asking questions throughout, when I was finished, he didn’t ask what I thought he should do. Instead, he asked what I had done with my own retirement savings.

The process of stepping through my decisions with my friend wasn’t without its limitations. It wasn’t an apples-to-apples comparison, for one thing; my plan didn’t have the same options available to him, nor were our specific financial and familial situations identical.  But it got me to thinking...

Plan fiduciaries have long been reluctant to superimpose their judgments on the participants whose benefit they are charged with overseeing, and with good cause. The financial decisions attendant to participating in a plan (including the decision to participate in the first place) are fraught with the potential for significant disruption, particularly in view of the panoply of personal circumstances that ought to be considered. And while there are doubtless situations in life for which we must do so – the imposition of our best judgments for loved ones not old enough, or no longer able, to do so – most of us have our hands full just keeping up with our own slate of critical determinations.

While we have made significant strides in implementing “automatic” plan designs that help participants get off to a better start than they might have if left to their own devices, it still seems that most fiduciaries gravitate toward the “first, do no harm” standard generally associated with the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath.

A higher standard might arguably be the so-called “Golden Rule,” which sets as its marker that you do to others how you would like them to do to you. How might that apply to retirement plan designs?

• If you, as a participant, wouldn’t think of setting aside only 3% of pay, even as a starting point, why would you let others do so?
• If you, as a participant, wouldn’t think of contributing to a level that doesn’t give you the full benefit of that company match, why would you let others do so?
• If you, as a participant, would (and do) willingly accelerate your rate of contribution annually, why do you let others pass up that opportunity?
• If you take advantage of a qualified default investment alternative to help ensure that your investments are diversified and rebalanced on an ongoing basis, and particularly if you use that as a default option for new hires, why wouldn’t you do the same for current hires?
• If you think overinvestment in company stock is dangerous, why do you let participants do it?
• If you think participants need help making retirement planning decisions, why don’t you accommodate it?

I realize the answers to some, and perhaps all, of these questions are complicated. “My boss wants us to” is surely the answer in some cases, while “Because I am worried I/we will get sued” comes up frequently. The answer I hear most from plan sponsors is, “I don’t know enough about their individual situations to make the right decision,” though one might also reasonably reply, “Because I’m not required, even as an ERISA fiduciary, to do so.”

But as I said, my conversation about a friend’s new 401(k) got me to thinking about the prudent man standard, and how it’s generally applied to plan design standards.

After all, can it really be in the best interests of plan participants, if it isn’t good enough for you?

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

End Note
The original prudent man rule dates back to the common law, specifically the 1830 Massachusetts case of Harvard College v. Amory. From that case came the notion that trustees were directed “to observe how men of prudence, discretion and intelligence manage their own affairs, not in regard to speculation, but in regard to the permanent disposition of their funds, considering the probable income, as well as the probable safety of the capital to be invested.” In the absence of specific directions in the trust agreement, the trustee was to invest as he would invest his own property, taking into account the needs of beneficiaries, the need to preserve the estate (or corpus of the trust), and the amount and regularity of income.
ERISA’s prudent man rule goes further, requiring that a fiduciary must perform its duties “with the care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, that a prudent man acting in like capacity and familiar with such matters would use…”

6 Assumptions That Can Wreck a Retirement

The future is an uncertain thing, and planning for uncertainty inevitably involves making some assumptions.

Here are six that, done improperly, can wreck your retirement.

How Long You’ll Live

The good news we are living longer – but that means that retirements can last longer, and medical costs can run higher. But while we’re living longer, studies indicate that we tend to underestimate how much longer we will live.

The Social Security Administration notes that a man reaching age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 84.3, a woman turning age 65 today can expect to live, on average, until age 86.6.

But those are just averages. About one out of every four 65-year-olds today will live past age 90, and 1 out of 10 will live past age 95.

How Long You’ll Work

Perhaps the most important assumption is when you plan to quit working; today most Americans are doing so at 62, though 65 seems to be the most common assumption – and while using 70 (or later) will surely boost your projected outcomes (it both gives you more time to save, and reduces the time that you will be drawing down those savings), it may not be realistic for many individuals.
Indeed, the 2016 Retirement Confidence Survey from the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) notes that the age at which workers expect to retire has been slowly rising. In 1991, just 11% of workers expected to retire after age 65. Twenty-five years later, in 2016, that number had more than tripled; 37% of workers now report that they expect to retire after age 65, and 6% say they don’t plan to retire at all. At the same time, the percentage of workers who say they expect to retire before age 65 has dropped by half, from 50% in 1991 to 24% in 2016.

However, the RCS has consistently found that a large percentage of retirees leave the workforce earlier than planned – nearly half (46%) in 2016, in fact. Many who retired earlier than planned say they did so because of a hardship, such as a health problem or disability (55%), or changes at their employer such as downsizing or closure.

The bottom line: Even if you plan to work longer, the timing of your “retirement” may not be your choice.

How Fast You’ll Withdraw

For years, financial planners had touted the 4% “rule,” a rule of thumb for how much money can be withdrawn from retirement savings every year (generally adjusted for inflation) without running out of money. There’s no real magic to the 4% rule, of course – it’s just the math that allows for a systematic withdrawal of funds roughly timed to coincide with the expected lifespan of the individual. Portfolio returns can impact this, of course, so much so that that factor, coupled with the increased longevity, has these days led some to call instead for a 3% rule.

But whatever formula you use, it’s important to remember that while a low rate of withdrawals might help preserve your portfolio, it might not produce a very comfortable living.

How Much You’ll Earn on What You Save

Let’s face it – if you could predict future market returns, you probably wouldn’t have to be worrying about retirement. But as we all know – and have seen proven time and again over the past couple of decades, markets frequently defy even the expectations of experts.

There are bad investments that can cost you money, and good investments that can help your account grow faster.

So, what should a non-expert assume? It’s generally best to be conservative – one of the biggest mistakes individuals make is assuming outsized returns on their savings. But make sure that assumption is consistent with how your savings is invested. For example, if you have all your savings invested in a money market fund, it’s highly unlikely (some would say impossible in the current environment) for you to actually get an 8% return.

How Much More Things Will Cost

Twenty or 30 years from now, prices are likely to change, and for many, those prices will increase. Consider that, overall, the average inflation rate for 2016 was 1.3%. In 2015, inflation climbed 0.7% with an average running pace of 0.1%, with gasoline prices plunging that year. It’s not that all prices will always go up – but they often do, and might increase faster than your income.

There’s a calculator that you might find interesting at http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/.

How Much Differently You’ll Spend

This has two components. Some costs (notably medical) frequently increase in retirement, particularly with the longevity trends noted above. Others – such as commuting costs, and even the “cost” of saving – decrease.

But think – 10 years ago would a “fit bit” have even been on your radar, much less your arm? New products and services continue to emerge – some will make your retirement budget more manageable – others may well strain it.

With all the uncertainty and variables to consider – there is one key assumption about retirement saving that you can, to some extent, control – and that’s “How Much You’ll Save.” Because what really matters in achieving financial security for retirement is how much you save (including the amount of the employer match, if any), and some help in making solid, reality-based assumptions.

Chances are, your 401(k) plan has some resources that will help you do the calculation. If not, or if you’d like a “second opinion,” try the free Ballpark E$timate at choosetosave.org. Even better, if you don’t know what you’re doing, get help – and if there’s a professional advisor working with your 401(k) plan, that’s a great place to start.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

3 Ways to Get Your Automatic Enrollment Plan Out of its Rut

Inertia is a powerful force in nature, and in human behavior. Even the most proactive and engaged plan designs (and plan designers) can, over time, slide from being in a groove to being in a rut.

Here are three ways to reinvigorate automatic plan designs.

1. Auto-enroll all Eligible Participants

Over the past decade a growing number of plans have embraced automatic enrollment, in the process not only simplifying and streamlining the process, but also expanding the number of individuals who are saving for retirement. These days, new hires, regardless of their age, are routinely defaulted not only into the plan itself, but also into some type of qualified default investment alternative, whether it be a managed account, target-date fund, or balanced fund.

However, those who have been employed for some time are often not accorded that convenience. Instead, perhaps because they are presumed to have previously made a decision not to participate, it is assumed that if they were to have changed their mind, or have changed circumstances, they would take it upon themselves to enroll on their own. Or perhaps in some cases, the very success of automatic enrollment gives pause because adding all those existing workers to the plan (along with matching employer contributions) brings with it financial consequences.

Regardless, and certainly if the plan has had automatic enrollment in place for new hires for a time, the better way, it seems to me, is to offer the same opportunity to all eligible workers.

2. Auto-escalate Employee Contributions

While there is evidence that this is changing, for nearly as long as there have been automatic enrollment plans (and it goes back to the early 1980s at least), the default contribution rate has been 3%. Now, regardless of how that became the default of record, eventually becoming ensconced in the auto-enroll safe harbor of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, there’s one thing on which nearly everyone will agree: a 3% rate of savings is almost certainly not enough.

Having embraced the automatic enrollment design (and, with luck, extended that to all eligible workers), you can make automatic enrollment better by helping participants save more by automatically increasing their rate of savings by 1% or 2% per year. There is some evidence that, with a three- to four-year lag, plans that have adopted automatic enrollment do move on to add auto-escalation as an option. But think of the missed retirement savings and security in the interim.

3. Reenroll at Least Once – and Maybe More

A common practice in moving from one recordkeeper to another has been to “map” similar fund options from the old platform to comparable (if not identical) funds on the new platform. In recent years, this mapping process has been improved by not just copying over existing fund choices (which may not be optimal, and may not have been reviewed or updated in a long time), but by reenrolling everybody in the plan to an age-appropriate asset allocation fund, such as a target-date fund.

Reenrollment has some logistical and communications issues, of course. It is a bit like moving every year, and if not nearly as complicated (or costly) as actually changing recordkeepers, it can be challenging to explain, particularly to participants who themselves have slipped into a rut. And you might well be advised to leave participants who have voluntarily elected to opt out of the reenrollment once (or twice) where they elected to be.

But if as a plan sponsor/fiduciary you have liability for the fund choices participants have made (and, outside of a 404(c) safe harbor, you do), wouldn’t you want to take advantage of the opportunity to help participants invest their retirement savings in a fund that is overseen by professionals, rebalanced on a regular basis and invested with some sensitivity to their retirement timing?

Or, as the foregoing suggest, at least have a process in place that not only reminds them of the advantages – but nudges them toward a better result.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

See also:

• Is Automatic Enrollment Still Going… or Slowing?
• 3 Things You Should Know About Automatic Enrollment
• Are Auto Engagements Over?

What Does the Super Bowl Portend for Your Portfolio?

Will your portfolio fly with the Falcons, or might it be pummeled by the Patriots?

That’s what adherents of the so-called Super Bowl Theory would likely conclude. The Super Bowl Theory holds that when a team from the old National Football League wins the Super Bowl, the S&P 500 will rise, and when a team from the old American Football League prevails, stock prices will fall.

It’s a “theory” that has been found to be correct nearly 80% of the time — for 40 of the 50 Super Bowls, in fact.

Granted, for most of 2016 it might have looked as though it would be right again, following the AFC’s (and original AFL) Broncos 24-10 victory over the Carolina Panthers, who represented the NFC.

It was an usual break in the streak that was sustained in 2015 following Super Bowl XLIX, when the New England Patriots (yes, those same Patriots) bested the Seattle Seahawks 28-24 to earn their fourth Super Bowl title. It also “worked” in 2014, when the Seahawks bumped off the Denver Broncos, a legacy AFL team, and in 2013, when a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback rescued a victory by the Baltimore Ravens — who, though representing the AFC, are technically a legacy NFL team via their Cleveland Browns roots. Admittedly, the fact 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 Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers — were NFL legacy teams.

However, consider that in 2012 a team from the old NFL (the New York 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.

Steel ‘Curtains’?

On the other hand, 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.

There was the string of Super Bowls where the contests were all between legacy NFL teams:

• 2006, when the Steelers bested the Seattle Seahawks;
• 2007, when the Indianapolis Colts beat the Chicago Bears 29-17;
• 2009, when the Pittsburgh Steelers took on the Arizona Cardinals, who had once been the NFL’s St. Louis Cardinals; and
• 2010, when the New Orleans Saints bested the Indianapolis Colts, who had roots back to the NFL legacy Baltimore Colts.

Sure enough, the markets were higher in each of those years.

As for 2008? Well, that was the year that the NFC’s New York Giants upended the hopes of the AFL-legacy Patriots for a perfect season, but it didn’t do any favors for the stock market. In fact, that was the last time that the Super Bowl Theory didn’t “work” (until this past year).

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 that year. However, the S&P 500 climbed 2.55%. Of course, Super Bowl Theory proponents would tell you that 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 (the one that nobody except Patriots fans remember because it was overshadowed by Janet Jackson’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction”) failed to anticipate a fall rally that helped push the S&P 500 to a near 9% gain that year, sacking the indicator for another loss.

Bronco ‘Busters’

Consider also that, despite victories by the 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 2003 victory, 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 (see below). And, not having entered the league until 1976, regardless of when they began, can the Seahawks truly be considered a “legacy” NFL squad? Bear in mind as well, that in 2006, when the Seahawks made their first Super Bowl appearance — and lost — the S&P 500 gained nearly 16%.

As for Sunday’s contest, the Patriots have been here before (to put it mildly), the Falcons just once — and that back in 1999 (in fact, the entire Falcons roster put together has fewer Super Bowl appearances than Tom Brady alone). The Patriots will be wearing white (11 of the last 12 Super Bowl winners were wearing white jerseys, according to CBS News — guess who the exception was? HINT: Their jerseys were green). The Patriots are a slight (3 point) favorite, but then a year ago, the Panthers headed into the game favored by 6.

All in all, it looks like it will be a good game. And that — whether you are a proponent of the Super Bowl Theory or not — would be one in which regardless of which team wins, we all do (but my portfolio is with the Falcons)!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Editor’s Note: 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.

Why You Shouldn’t Hire Your Brother-in-Law as Your Plan’s Advisor

Last week an advisor reached out to me looking for an article on a topic that comes up with remarkable frequency.

Specifically, this advisor was dealing with a situation where a client was considering hiring their brother-in-law as the plan advisor, and wondered if we had ever written an article dealing with that situation. It’s not the first time I have been asked that, though sometimes it’s a cousin, a friend, a friend’s cousin, or a cousin’s friend.

When that situation comes up – and come up it will – this is what I would tell them:

If you’re a plan sponsor, you’re an ERISA fiduciary.

If you have discretion in administering and managing the plan, or if you control the plan’s assets (such as choosing the investment options or choosing the firm that chooses those options), you are a fiduciary to the extent of that discretion or control. Ditto if you are able to hire individuals to control those assets – including your brother-in-law.

Plan decisions you make as an ERISA fiduciary – including hiring those who provide plan services – must meet certain criteria.

As an ERISA fiduciary you have a legal obligation to act solely in the interest of plan participants and their beneficiaries and with the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to them. Does hiring your brother-in-law meet that test? Would it look that way to a judge?

As an ERISA fiduciary, you’re expected to be an expert — or to hire help that is.

You may not have been told this when you were given this responsibility, but when you, as an ERISA fiduciary, act for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits, you are legally bound to do so at the level of a hypothetical expert. Lacking that level of expertise, the Labor Department says that “a fiduciary will want to hire someone with that professional knowledge to carry out the investment and other functions.” Like your brother-in-law?

As an ERISA fiduciary, you’re expected to fire help that isn’t expert.

The flip side of hiring an expert is being able to terminate that relationship if they aren’t fulfilling their obligations. Think how awkward Thanksgiving dinner will be if you fire your brother-in-law. Think how awkward it will be standing in front of a judge if you should have – and don’t.

Your liability as an ERISA fiduciary is personal.

There are any number of things that can go wrong in running a workplace retirement plan. That’s why it’s important to hire experts – and to keep an eye on them. But don’t forget that ERISA fiduciaries can be held personally liable to restore any losses to the plan, or to restore any profits made through improper use of the plan’s assets resulting from their actions.

It is, of course, possible that your brother-in-law is an expert in such matters, that he brings real value to your plan and the participants and beneficiaries it serves, and that your decision to engage his services is based solely on your desire to fulfill your fiduciary obligations.

If so, by all means proceed – just take care to make sure – as you should with any such hire – to document the rationale behind that decision.

Your brother-in-law will understand.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Your Money’s Worth

It’s time to put your money where your mouth is.

In just a few weeks, many of you will be at the NAPA 401(k) Summit in Las Vegas. This will be my third Summit since joining the organization, though I have been to, and spoken at, a good number of them over the years.

This year, as in years past, the steering committee, agenda team and NAPA leadership have been hard at work for months, developing the program, fleshing out the agenda, lining up speakers, and this year assigning session “owners” to make sure that you get maximum bang for your buck in terms of information and session quality.

We’ve taken your feedback on topics and format, expanded the peer-to-peer networking, and added a brand new component called “super” sessions. We’ve got some amazing keynote speakers, enhanced our plan sponsor panel, and, for the first time ever, incorporated a new networking opportunity called “Summit After Dark” which will include some incredible entertainment in world-class environs. Sure, you’ve been to the Summit, sure you’ve been to Vegas – you may even have been to Vegas for the 401(k) Summit. But I promise you this one will be different, “better” in terms of focus, depth of information, and interaction, and certainly bigger. While we try to remind folks that it is the only retirement plan advisor conference developed by plan advisors for plan advisors. The proof of that is, quite literally, in the program that has been developed for you.

What’s (Really) Different

Beyond all those important reasons, there are two other major considerations for you in attending this year’s NAPA 401(k) Summit. First is the issue of tax reform. This is something that we have been writing about on NAPA Net for months now, but with the 2016 election having given control of Congress and the White House to a single party, the odds for significant change – change on the order of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 – is significantly higher than we might have otherwise expected. Those consequences could be enormous on workplace retirement savings in the months to come – they certainly have been in the past. You will want – and need – to know what is afoot, and there is no better place for you to do that than the NAPA 401(k) Summit, particularly with the insights you’ll get from our “From the Hill to the Summit” keynote.

The other consideration is related, but it is not something we generally push. While the number of quality advisor events has certainly declined over the years, I know you still have several to choose between. For some, that choice is based on location, for others timing, and for still others cost. For some, of course, it can be all or more than one of the above – all
are valid considerations.

But among all the things that really set the NAPA 401(k) Summit apart – one thing stands out, this year more than most. Quite simply, it is that – and unlike every other advisor conference out there – your NAPA 401(k) Summit registration helps support the activities of NAPA – your advocacy, information and education organization – not the bottom line of some corporate media organization or some private equity firm.

That’s right – in addition to the insights, information, networking that you may get at some other events, your attendance at the NAPA 401(k) Summit is a unique investment in your future – and the future of your profession.

It is, quite simply, a great way – perhaps the best way – to put your money where your mouth is.

I hope to see you in Vegas! Register today (if you haven’t already) at www.napasummit.org.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

The ‘Free’ Retirement Money Many Overlook

People often talk about the significance of the “free” money associated with the company match in retirement savings – but there’s another source of “free” money that is often overlooked.

I’m talking about the so-called Saver’s Credit, more precisely the Retirement Savings Contributions Credit. It’s a credit, not a deduction – a dollar-for-dollar reduction of tax liability.

Income Limits

For those who qualify, in addition to the customary benefits of workplace retirement savings, it could mean a $1,000 break on their taxes — twice that if married and file a joint return. In fact, for a moderate income saver, it can offset 50%, 20% or 10% of retirement plan or IRA contributions up to $2,000 ($4,000 if married filing jointly), depending on adjusted gross income.

Speaking of which, the Saver’s Credit can be claimed by:

• married couples filing jointly with incomes up to $61,500 in 2016;
• heads of households with incomes up to $46,125 in 2016;
• married individuals filing separately; and
• singles with incomes up to $30,750 in 2016.

Additionally, in order to claim the credit, individuals must be 18 years or older, must not be a full-time student, and cannot be claimed as a dependent on another person’s return.

5 Things You May Not Know

Here are five things you may not know about the Saver’s Credit:

• It applies to a variety of retirement savings. The Saver’s Credit can be taken for contributions to a traditional or Roth IRA (including myRA), a 401(k), SIMPLE IRA, SARSEP, 403(b), 501(c)(18) or governmental 457(b) plan, as well as voluntary after-tax employee contributions to qualified retirement and 403(b) plans.
• There are two deadlines for contributions. To qualify for the Saver’s Credit, contributions must be made to 401(k)s, 403(b)s, 457s or the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan by the end of the calendar year. However, taxpayers have until April 18, the due date for filing a 2016 tax return, to set up a new individual retirement arrangement or add money to an existing plan for 2016.
• Rollover contributions aren’t eligible for the Saver’s Credit. Eligible contributions may be reduced by any recent distributions (for 2015, distributions received after 2012, and before the due date of the 2015 return, including extensions) from a retirement plan or IRA (a list of these distributions is available here.)
• You have to file Form 1040, Form 1040A, or Form 1040NR to claim the credit. The Saver’s Credit is (still) not available via the 1040-EZ form (though there have been legislative attempts to remedy that situation). However, if you use tax software, such as TaxAct or TurboTax, it should calculate the credit for you if you report your retirement contributions. Look for a completed Form 8880 in the attachments that your tax software provides.
• You only get the credit if you file for it. Just 24% of American workers with annual household incomes of less than $50,000 are aware of the credit, according to the 15th Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey.

However, it’s not too late to save and get “credit” for doing so – make sure the participants you work with, and plan sponsors you work for – are aware.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

See also:

• What’s Wrong With the Saver’s Credit?
• 7 Things You May Not Know About the Saver’s Credit (and 4 You Should)
• Save Twice with the Saver’s Credit

 

"Things" Remembered

It is something of a tradition this time of year to look back, to reminisce about past events and lessons learned, and sometimes to look ahead. Here are some insights – nearly 80 – from columns past that should help lay the groundwork for a productive and prosperous 2017.

3 Things Retirement Savers Can Learn from Pokémon Go

Here are some things that will help you in Pokémon Go and saving for retirement.

4 Things You Should Know About Social Media

Whether you are fully engaged in social media, just thinking about how to get started, or somewhere in between, here are four things to keep in mind.

4 ‘Sure’ Things About Saving for Retirement That Aren’t

Sometimes life takes unexpected turns, upending even the most “certain” outcomes. These so-called “sure” things sometimes turn out to be anything but that – and those that have relied on those assumptions, these “conventional wisdoms” as “givens” can wind up being disappointed – and ill-prepared for financing retirement.

4 Things That the ‘Common Wisdom’ About Millennials Gets Wrong

To judge by the headlines, if there’s anybody in more trouble when it comes to retirement planning than Boomers, it’s Millennials. But are they really?

4 Things That Make Me Go ‘Huh?’

Ours is a business where surveys and trends often shape not only perceptions, but policy – though sometimes the conclusions drawn, and even the premise itself – make me go “huh?”

4 Things Plan Sponsors Are Scared of – and 3 More They Should Be

Halloween is the time of year when one’s thoughts turn to trick-or-treat, ghosts and goblins, and things that go bump in the night. But what are the things plan sponsors are scared about?

4 Things Plan Fiduciaries Have in Common With the Second Continental Congress

There are things that today’s investment/plan committee share with, and can learn from, the experience of those forefathers who crafted and signed the document declaring our nation’s independence.

Oliver’s ‘Twist’: 5 Takeaways

I’ve long enjoyed John Oliver’s take on the world. He has a gift for bringing humor to subjects that aren’t generally seen as funny, and in the process not only helps make complex topics more approachable, he gives voice to the frustration that millions surely feel at the world around us. That said, when he decides to weigh in with his style of biting commentary on your profession – well, let’s just say that you’re likely to be in for a bumpy ride.

5 Things the DOL Wants You to Know About TDFs – That You May Have Overlooked

Target-date funds continue to expand in usage and popularity – but there are some things the Labor Department wants you to know about TDFs that you may have overlooked.

5 Things That Retirement Calculator Won’t Tell You

Have you seen that commercial about the couple who will do just about anything to avoid doing a retirement needs calculation? Well, here are five things that individuals should know about sitting down and doing that retirement plan – that might overcome those fears.

6 Things People Who Need to Save for Retirement Need to Know About Saving for Retirement

When it comes to retirement, Americans seem to be a pretty insecure bunch. But then maybe it’s because they don’t know all the things they need to know.

6 Things You Should Know About Those Millennial Participants

During my recent vacation, I had the chance to check in with some “real” people about their retirement accounts.

6 Stocking Stuffers for Retirement Participants

In the spirit of the holiday season, here are some “presents” that I hope participants find in their retirement plan “stockings” during the coming year.

The 7 Highly Effective Habits of Highly Effective 401(k) Plans

Every so often someone puts out a list of what are said to be the “best” 401(k) plans, based on varied benefits and plan design structure criteria. But for my money, here’s what the best plans do.

10 Ways the Class of 2020’s Retirement Plans Will Be Different

Each year the good folks at Beloit College produce a “Mindset List” providing a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students about to enter college. So, in what ways will their retirement plans differ from those of their parents?

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Lamenters of the 401(k) Revolution

The 2017 media-bashing of the 401(k) is off to an early start.

The most recent is a Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) whose headline notes that “The Champions¹ of the 401(k) Lament the Revolution They Started” (the third-most read article on the WSJ site as I write this).

It’s fair to say, I think, that their regrets aren’t so much about the 401(k) itself, but their sense that the existence of the 401(k) – which transformed the notion of retirement savings in so-called savings and thrift plans by allowing regular workers to defer paying taxes on money they set aside for retirement – led to the demise of the traditional defined benefit plan.

Well, maybe.

Trust me, I “get” the affection for the promise of a DB plan. Who wouldn’t like a plan that is funded (and paid for) by your employer, invested by your employer, and at retirement, produces regular, predictable distributions without you having to do anything except making sure they know where to send the check(s)?

That, of course, assumes that you had one. Even in their heyday, DB plans not only weren’t available to everyone, they weren’t even available to most workers in the private sector. The WSJ article acknowledges that just 38% of all private-sector workers had a traditional pension in 1979 (13% do today). Where were the headlines in 1979 about fewer than 4 in 10 workers being covered by a pension plan?

And that was just being “covered.” While coverage like that in the WSJ article tends to equate coverage with receiving benefits, that’s just not the way it was. To get that full benefit from that DB plan back in their heyday, you’d likely have had to work there at least 10 years, if not 15. And while we seem to think that 40 years ago Americans worked for a single employer their whole career, that wasn’t the case in the private sector, even in the DB’s heyday (and certainly today) didn’t.²

The data show that for the very most part we have long been a nation of relatively short-tenured workers. How short? Well, the median job tenure in the United States — how long workers stay at one job — has hovered around five years for the past three decades. Indeed, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), in recent years it has ticked up, to about 5.5 years, but that’s because women are staying in their jobs longer; job tenure for men has actually been dropping.

What that means is that even workers who were “covered” by a pension plan in the private sector weren’t working with that employer long enough to get much – or any – of that promised pension benefit.

That doesn’t mean that those who were, and those who continue to be, covered by DB plans shouldn’t be grateful. But it’s time to stop lamenting the demise of DB plans – and it’s well past time to stop blaming the 401(k) as the culprit. Let’s be honest: It was changes in accounting rules, fueled by the occasional market turmoil, and exacerbated by artificially constrained interest rates over a prolonged period, done no good by the stricter (though well-intentioned) funding requirements in the ironically named Pension Protection Act of 2006. Not to mention, though some may dispute this, a workforce that, writ large, never seemed to fully understand or appreciate the value of these programs (perhaps because so many of them left before vesting).

As for those who want to blame the 401(k) for the nation’s retirement readiness – well, as has been said before, that’s a bit like blaming the well for the drought.

There is little question that the reality of the 401(k) struggles to live up to the myth of the defined benefit plan. No doubt that the voluntary design (even with auto-encouragements), sporadic availability among smaller employers, and the inherent complexity of individual savings and investment decisions provide challenges.

Regardless, and despite a plethora of media coverage and academic hand-wringing that suggests they are wasting their time, the American public has, through thick and thin, largely hung in there – when they are given the opportunity to do so.

The good news is that far many more American workers have that opportunity today than ever before. But not everyone.

And that really is lamentable.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Footnotes

1. Who are these champions? The real surprise is the article’s framing of the New School’s Teresa Ghilarducci as a former champion of the 401(k) concept (she claims to have once told unions that people only needed to save 3%, assuming 7% returns. Her position may have changed, but her math doesn’t appear to have – see “Rescuing Retirement from the ‘Rescuers’.”
2. A 2013 analysis by EBRI reveals that a defined benefit is not always “better,” at least not defined as providing financial resources in retirement. In fact, if historical rates of return are assumed, as well as annuity purchase prices reflecting average bond rates over the last 27 years, the median comparisons show a strong outcome advantage for voluntary enrollment 401(k) plans over both stylized, final average DB plan and cash balance plan designs.

A Retirement Savings Santa Claus?

One could certainly argue that many Americans act as though at retirement some kind of benevolent elf will drop down their chimney with a bag full of cold cash from the North Pole.

They behave as though, somehow, their bad savings behaviors throughout the year(s) notwithstanding, they’ll be able to pull the wool over the eyes of a myopic, portly gentleman in a red snowsuit.

A few years back — well, now it’s quite a few years back — when my kids still believed in the reality of Santa Claus, we discovered an ingenious website that purported to offer a real-time assessment of their “naughty or nice” status.

Now, as Christmas approached, it was not uncommon for us to caution our occasionally misbehaving brood that they had best be attentive to how those actions might be viewed by the big guy at the North Pole.

But nothing we said ever had the impact of that website — if not on their behaviors (they were kids, after all), then certainly on the level of their concern about the consequences. In fact, in one of his final years as a “believer,” my son (who, it must be acknowledged, had been particularly naughty that year) was on the verge of tears, worried that he’d find nothing under the Christmas tree but the coal and bundle of switches he so surely “deserved.”

In similar fashion, must of those responding to the ubiquitous surveys about their retirement confidence and preparations don’t seem to have much in the way of rational responses to the gaps they clearly see between their retirement needs and their savings behaviors. Not that they actually believe in a retirement version of St. Nick, but that’s essentially how they behave, though a significant number will, when asked to assess their retirement confidence, express varying degrees of doubt and concern about the consequences of their “naughty” behaviors.

Like my son in that week before Christmas, they tend to worry about it too late to influence the outcome.

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

We all live in a world of possibilities, of course. But as adults we realize — or should — that those possibilities are frequently bounded in by the reality of our behaviors. This is a season of giving, of coming together, of sharing with others.

However, it is also a time of year when we should all be making a list and checking it twice — taking note, and making changes to what is “naughty and nice” about our savings behaviors.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus — but he looks a lot like you, assisted by “helpers” like your workplace retirement plan, the employer match, and your retirement plan advisor.

Happy Holidays!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

P.S.: The Naughty or Nice website is still online, here.

6 Stocking Stuffers for Retirement Participants

I can remember as a kid paging through the pages of various Christmas catalogues, earmarking the pages that contained the various things that I hoped Santa Claus (or his emissaries, my parents) would take as hints.

These days such things have been replaced by online “wish lists” – and if they’re not quite as much fun to page through, they’re doubtless more effective.

So, in the spirit of the holiday season, here are some “presents” that I hope participants find in their retirement plan “stockings” during the coming year:

Automatic reenrollment for longer-term workers.

New hires, regardless of age, are these days routinely defaulted into some type of qualified default investment alternative, whether it be a managed account, target-date fund, or balanced fund. However, workers who have been in the plan for awhile are generally not accorded that courtesy. Rather, ostensibly on the premise that they have, at some previous point in their careers, made an affirmative election to be in the funds they are currently invested. Sadly, we all know that regardless of how affirmative that initial decision was, the odds that it has – ever – been reconsidered, much less reallocated, lies somewhere between slim and “are you kidding?” It’s time we gave current workers the same option we give new hires – a good swift shift into a QDIA (with an opportunity to opt out, of course).

An easy way to roll over distributions.

Okay, I know it’s gotten easier. But if it’s actually gotten easy to rollover your 401(k) balance from a former employer to a current employer – well, that would be news worth reporting (I’m sure I’ll hear from someone). We all know how difficult it can be for participants to keep up with even a single 401(k) account. How much harder is it for them to keep up with – or remember – all those stray accounts left behind at prior employers, or rolled into retail-priced IRAs? It’s better for them – and it could well be better for the plan as well.

More time to repay participant loans after job change – or portability of the obligation.

No plan sponsor wants to deal with the processing of manual loan repayments once an individual has left their employ and payroll. But we all know that a major source of leakage from retirement savings comes when a participant who has a loan outstanding from the plan changes jobs. The individual may or may not be in a position to come up with the funds to pay off that loan at termination, but likely won’t, and the ensuing “deemed” distribution inevitably becomes a real one, and that just ensures that the participant will wind up with a big tax bill (that they probably won’t be in a good position to handle, either). More time to repay that obligation – or some expanded portability – would surely go a long way. Though this one is going to require some help from lawmakers.

Automatic escalation of contributions.

Though adoption has plateaued somewhat in recent years, automatic enrollment, and automatic investment in QDIAs has surely made a significant, positive impact on retirement security. What hasn’t been quite so “automatic,” even though it was incorporated as part of the PPA’s automatic enrollment safe harbor, is the auto-escalation of contributions following that enrollment. More’s the pity. This is a chance to let participants set in motion a systematic improvement of their retirement plan fortunes – and with a minimum of effort. Participants who are auto-enrolled at 3% need to be auto-escalated… automatically.

Some kind of retirement income alternative.

It’s (still) ironic to me that we spend decades working with participants trying to help them make prudent, well-reasoned savings and investment decisions – and then, at the most critical moment (distribution), most just get pointed in the general direction of a rollover IRA or annuity. Both can be effective, of course, but can be quite the opposite as well. We shouldn’t just leave participants to their own “advices” at this critical juncture – and there is a whole new generation of options to choose from. But here we could use some help from the legislative “elves” as well.

A workplace retirement plan.

It’s easy to overlook this one, particularly for those of us who work with these programs on an ongoing basis. The sad fact is that lots of working Americans (though not the 50% that some still claim) still don’t have access to any kind of workplace retirement plan. That means no convenience of payroll deposit, no assistance from an employer match, no education and/or advice about how to properly invest their retirement savings – and, in all likelihood, no retirement savings.

And that adds up to being a big lump of coal in your retirement stocking!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Things That the ‘Common Wisdom’ About Millennials Gets Wrong

To judge by the headlines, if there’s anybody in more trouble when it comes to retirement planning than Boomers, it’s Millennials. But are they really?

Consider this:

Millennials are saving for retirement – likely earlier, and at higher rates than you did when you were their age.

I’ve seen a number of surveys that suggest that Millennials are, in fact, saving earlier – and saving at higher rates than their Boomer parents. A recent Natixis survey says that on average, Millennials first enrolled in a retirement savings plan at age 23, while Boomers didn’t until 31.

Another – this one by Ramsey Solutions – finds 58% of Millennials are actively saving for retirement, and they began saving at an average age of 23. Consider also that, of the Millennials who are actively saving, 39% set aside up to 9% of their income for retirement — $5,000 of the average annual Millennial household income of $55,200.
This higher and earlier rate of saving exists despite high levels of college debt – which, at least one study claims isn’t having a large impact on their decision to save (though it certainly does affect their spending).

Sure, some of that is plan design – automatic enrollment was a relative rarity when their parents were coming into the workplace. And some of it is that – at least supposedly – their parents didn’t need to save because they had defined benefit pension plans to secure their retirement. But, even for those who were covered by those plans (and many weren’t) – the DB promise was of little value at a time when 10-year cliff vesting and 8-year workplace tenures were the order of the day.

But the reality is that younger workers have long had other, shorter-term financial needs to address. The Boomers certainly did. And despite the challenges of the 2008 financial crisis, a sluggish economic recovery, and the overhang of college debt, Millennials seem to have their head in the right place.

Millennials are likely better invested for their retirement than you are – “then” and now.

Okay, as with saving for retirement, surely some of this is plan design – notably the default investment in target-date funds (TDFs) or some other qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) – and their more recent hire date. While data shows that TDF use varies with participant age and tenure, a recent report by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and the Investment Company Institute, younger participants were more likely to hold TDFs than older participants.

In fact, at year-end 2014, 60% of participants in their 20s held TDFs, compared with 41% of participants in their 60s. Of course, recently hired participants were more likely to hold TDFs than those with more years on the job: At year-end 2014, 59% of participants with two or fewer years of tenure held TDFs, compared with about half of participants with more than 5 to 10 years of tenure, and fewer than 30% of participants with more than 30 years of tenure.

One more positive trend: less investment in company stock. The EBRI/ICI data found that at year-end 2014, only about a quarter (26.9%) of recently hired participants in their 20s who were offered company stock invested in that option. In 1998, more than 6 out of 10 in that age bracket had done so.
They might just be the beneficiaries of good plan design. But that is something that plan fiduciaries might want to keep in mind the next time the concept of reenrollment comes up.

Millennials probably aren’t changing jobs any more often than you did.

Do Millennials change jobs more frequently than their elders? Sure. But they didn’t invent the phenomenon; for a variety of reasons, younger workers have long been more inclined (or able) to pull up stakes and seek new opportunities.

Still, there is a pervasive sense that Millennials are more inclined to change jobs than those in previous generations (setting aside for a moment the reality that as newer hires those decisions might not have been completely within their control). In fact, while it didn’t single out Millennials specifically, a recent report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a paper innocuously titled “Effects of Eligibility and Vesting Policies on Workers’ Retirement Savings.” The report took issue with current workforce dynamics, and challenged the applicability of current vesting and eligibility standards under ERISA as being ill-suited to the current day when the “median length of stay with a private sector employer is currently about four years,” going on to state that ERISA’s rule permitting things like a 6-year vesting policy “may be outdated” (the headlines covering this particular report were much more “strident,” as you might expect).

Really? The data show that median job tenure in the private sector in the United States has hovered around 5 years for the past three decades. Indeed, according to the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), in recent years it has ticked up, to about 5.5 years (though that’s attributed to women are staying in their jobs longer; job tenure for men has actually been dropping).

So, if those vesting and eligibility standards were outdated for today’s workforce, then they have been so for – well, as long as ERISA has been in place.

Millennials are thinking about retirement. Probably more than you were at their age.

Millennials have never known a time without a 401(k), nor have they lived during a period when a personal responsibility for saving hasn’t been part and parcel of the education around their benefits package. They’ve been worried about Social Security’s sustainability from the time of their first paycheck (what they probably don’t appreciate is that their parents also worried, and arguably – in the early 1980s – with better reason).

While they certainly have options their parents didn’t, they also have their own set of challenges – some unique, but many unique only in that they are young(er). They have tools and innovative plan design, apps and the aptitude to use them, and in many cases access to professional guidance.

They may not know how much they need to save for retirement, they may not yet feel that they can afford to save for retirement, they may not even know how to save for retirement – but you can bet they know they need to.

And, in more cases than they are genuinely credited, with access to workplace retirement plans, the help of good plan design, and professional retirement planning advice, likely already doing so.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

See also:

• 6 Things You Should Know About Those Millennial Participants
• How the Class of 2020’s Retirement Plans Will Be Different
• 5 Retirement Myths About Millennials

5 Things the DOL Wants You to Know About TDFs – That You May Have Overlooked

Target-date funds continue to expand in usage and popularity – but there are some things the Labor Department wants you to know about TDFs that you may have overlooked.

When the Labor Department published its “Target Date Retirement Funds – Tips for ERISA Plan Fiduciaries” in 2013, I was pleased to see it, and to discover that it could be read ¹ (and understood) in about 15 minutes.

But in preparation for a recent webcast on the topic, I took a fresh look at that document, and found some nuggets that I hadn’t really picked up on the first time around.

It’s Not Just About Fees and Performance

As part of a reminder about the importance of establishing a process for comparing and selecting TDFs, the Labor Department specifically references considering prospectus information, such as information about performance (investment returns) as well as investment fees and expenses.
However, in that same topic point, the agency says that plan fiduciaries should consider how well the TDF’s characteristics align with eligible employees’ ages and likely retirement dates, “as well as the possible significance of other characteristics of the participant population, such as participation in a traditional defined benefit pension plan offered by the employer, salary levels, turnover rates, contribution rates and withdrawal patterns.”

‘To’ Versus ‘Through’ Matters

Considering what can be some pretty significant outcome differences in glidepaths between “to” (those that build to a specific target retirement date) and “through” (those that assume a glidepath to death), I’ve always found it curious that the Labor Department’s tips don’t make more of what seems a pretty big structural difference in these offerings.

While the “to” and “through” focus is covered in “Target Fund Basics” in the piece, under the bullet regarding “understand the fund’s investments,” the Labor Department’s information sheet notes that “some funds keep a sizeable investment in more volatile assets, like stocks, even as they pass their ‘target’ retirement dates,” going on to explain that “these funds” are generally for employees who don’t expect to withdraw all of their 401(k) account savings immediately upon retirement, but would rather make periodic withdrawals over the span of their retirement years. That approach is contrasted with the “to” version that the Labor Department says are “concentrated in more conservative and less volatile investments at the target date, assuming that employees will want to cash out of the plan on the day they retire.”

But what’s key here is the closing sentence: “If the employees don’t understand the fund’s glide path assumptions when they invest, they may be surprised later if it turns out not to be a good fit for them.”

Indeed.

Higher Costs Can Be Justifiable

It should come as no surprise that the Labor Department’s tips include an admonition about the need to be attentive to the impact of fees on retirement savings, and the structural layering typically associated with TDFs that can imbed layers of fees as well.

However, rather than merely condemning options that carry higher fees, here the Labor Department notes that, “If the expense ratios of the individual component funds are substantially less than the overall TDF, you should ask what services and expenses make up the difference,” going on to note that added expenses may be for asset allocation, rebalancing and access to special investments that can smooth returns in uncertain markets that “may be worth it.”

Custom TDFs Could Be Viable Alternatives

The Labor Department tips note that “a ‘custom’ TDF may offer advantages to your plan participants by giving you the ability to incorporate the plan’s existing core funds in the TDF,” and that “nonproprietary TDFs could also offer advantages by including component funds that are managed by fund managers other than the TDF provider itself, thus diversifying participants’ exposure to one investment provider.” It does acknowledge that there are some “costs and administrative tasks involved in creating a custom or nonproprietary TDF, and they may not be right for every plan.”

This “tip” was actually pretty plainly spelled out in one of the headlines – and yet, I remember thinking at the time that this wouldn’t be a very popular approach for most. But times are changing, technology continues to advance, and for advisors looking to differentiate themselves in the development of what is likely to become the largest plan investment, custom TDFs would seem to be a more viable solution than ever.

You Might Have to ‘Break Up the Set’

A TDF is, of course, a plan investment, and like any plan investment, if it fails to pass muster, a plan fiduciary would certainly want to remedy that situation, including removing the fund if necessary. That said, TDFs are frequently, if not always, pitched (and I suspect bought) as a package. While each fund in the family is reviewed separately, and certainly should be, breaking up the set certainly carries with it a series of complicated consequences, not the least of which are participant communication issues and glide path compatibility. Not that those can’t be overcome – and not that those complications would be deemed sufficient to retain an inappropriate investment on the plan menu – but it doesn’t take much imagination to think about the heartburn that might cause a plan sponsor.

However, as the Labor Department’s tips remind us, should a TDF’s “investment strategy or management team changes significantly, or if the fund’s manager is not effectively carrying out the fund’s stated investment strategy, then it may be necessary to consider replacing the fund.” That’s right – “the” fund. Similarly, the Labor Department cautions that “if your plan’s objectives in offering a TDF change, you should consider replacing the fund.” Again, note the use of the singular, not the plural.

Finally, one item not included in the piece – but arguably one that applies to every fiduciary situation – is that if you lack the requisite expertise to make the decisions as the prudent expert the law requires, you should engage the services of someone who has that expertise.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

See also:

• 5 Things You Should Know About Target-Date Funds
• Target-Date Fund Misperceptions Abound

Footnote

1. The key bullets outlined in the DOL tips are simple and straightforward – and to my eyes pretty much fiduciary common sense. They included suggestions/admonitions to: (1) establish a process for comparing and selecting TDFs; (2) establish a process for the periodic review of selected TDFs; (3) understand the fund’s investments – the allocation in different asset classes (stocks, bonds, cash), individual investments, and how these will change over time; (4) review the fund’s fees and investment expenses; (5) inquire about whether a custom or non-proprietary target date fund would be a better fit for your plan; (6) develop effective employee communications; (7) take advantage of available sources of information to evaluate the TDF and recommendations you received regarding the TDF selection; and (8) document the process. 

A ‘Retirement Ready’ Thanksgiving List

Thanksgiving has been called a “uniquely American” holiday, and though that is perhaps something of an overstatement, it is unquestionably a special holiday, and one on which it seems appropriate to reflect on all for which we should be thankful.

Here’s my 2016 list:

I’m thankful that participants, by and large, continue to hang in there with their commitment to retirement savings, despite lingering economic uncertainty and competing financial priorities, such as rising health care costs and college debt.

I’m thankful that so many employers voluntarily choose to offer a workplace retirement plan — and that so many workers, when given an opportunity to participate, do.

I’m thankful that figuring out ways to expand that access remains, even now, a bipartisan concern – even if the ways to address it aren’t always.

I’m thankful that so many employers choose to match contributions or to make profit-sharing contributions (or both), for without those matching dollars, many workers would likely not participate or contribute at their current levels — and they would surely have far less set aside for retirement.

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

I’m thankful that more plan sponsors are extending those mechanisms to their existing workers as well as new hires.

I’m thankful for qualified default investment alternatives that make it easy for participants to create well-diversified and regularly rebalanced investment portfolios — and for the thoughtful and on-going review of those options by prudent plan fiduciaries.

I’m thankful that, as powerful as those mechanisms are in encouraging positive savings behavior, we continue to look for ways to improve and enhance their influence(s).

I’m thankful that a growing number of policy makers are willing to admit that the “deferred” nature of 401(k) tax preferences are, in fact, different from the permanent forbearance of other tax “preferences” — even if governmental accountants and certain academics remain oblivious.

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

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

I’m thankful for objective research that validates the positive impact that committed planning and preparation for retirement makes. I’m thankful for the ability to take to task here research that doesn’t live up to those objective standards – and for those who take the time to share those findings.

I’m thankful for all of you who have supported – and I hope benefited from – our various conferences, education programs and communications throughout the year.

I’m thankful for the constant – and enthusiastic – support of our Firm Partners and advertisers.

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

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

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

Here’s wishing you and yours a very happy Thanksgiving!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

4 Things Plan Sponsors Are Scared of – and 3 More They Should Be

Halloween is the time of year when one’s thoughts turn to trick-or-treat, ghosts and goblins, and things that go bump in the night. But what are the things plan sponsors are scared about?

Getting sued.

Plan sponsors will often mention their fear of getting sued, and little wonder. The headlines are full of multi-million-dollar lawsuits against multi-billion-dollar plans, and if relatively few actually get to a judge (and those that do are decided in the plan fiduciaries’ favor), they nonetheless seem to result in multi-million-dollar settlements. Oh, and not only has this been going on for more than a decade, the issues raised are changing as well.

As a plan fiduciary, you can still be sued of course; and let’s not forget that that includes responsibility for the acts of your co-fiduciaries, and personal liability at that (see 7 Things an ERISA Fiduciary Should Know).

That said, those cases seem to involve a rather small group of rather large plans. Most plan sponsors won’t ever get sued, much less get into trouble with regulators, of course. And those who do are much more likely to drift into trouble for things like late deposit of contributions, errors in nondiscrimination testing, or not following the terms of the plan.

Changing recordkeepers.

Any plan sponsor who has ever gone through a recordkeeping conversion knows that, however smooth the transition, and regardless of how much better the experience on the new platform is, moving is a lot of work. And, as with relocating your home, the longer you have been in a particular location, the harder it seems to be. Knowing that, it’s little wonder that many plan sponsors make those changes only under a duress of sorts, forced by poor service, a lack of capabilities, (relatively) high fees, or more than one of the above.

And that, of course, means that the transition, however badly needed or desired, will likely be rougher – and take longer – than desired (see 3 Things Plan Sponsors Should Know About Changing Providers).

Offering in-plan retirement income options.

While surveys suggest that plan participants are interested in the concept of retirement income solutions, and other surveys indicate that plan sponsors are concerned about participants’ abilities to manage their retirement income flows, there has been little movement in the addition to current plan designs, nor little indication that participants, given access to that option, are quick to embrace it. Plan sponsors remain concerned about the cost and operational implications, not to mention an extension of their fiduciary responsibility to a product that is neither required nor requested.

That said, new legislation has been introduced that might at least mitigate some of those concerns – were it to become law (see also, 5 Reasons Why More Plans Don’t Offer Retirement Income Options).

The ‘squeaky’ participant.

We’ve all heard (and likely experienced) the response to that squeaky wheel that every organization has, and that every plan sponsor fears, or at least dreads. Other than sheer human inertia, there is perhaps no more powerful force in freezing proposed plan changes in their tracks than concerns about the response that this individual (and the individuals whose attention they always seem to garner) might wreak on those responsible for those changes.

We all know who they are. We all know what they do. And yet they continue to be a force to be reckoned with in many organizations.

And 3 They Should Worry About

Now, arguably most of the foregoing concerns are overblown – they loom larger in the abstract than they should in reality. But loom large they do. But what about the things they should be “scared” of, but often aren’t?

Their personal liability

Most of the aforementioned concern about being sued seems borne from a concern about the damage – both reputational and financial – to their organizations. While that is certainly a well-founded and rational concern, plan fiduciaries, particularly plan sponsors, often seem oblivious to the reality that their liability is personal.

You can, of course, buy insurance to protect against that personal liability — but that’s likely not the fiduciary liability insurance that most organizations have in place. And it may not be enough.

Participants not having enough money to retire

For much of their existence, workplace retirement plans have been, and been viewed as, voluntary affairs. The focus of plan sponsors was to provide benefits that served to both attract and retain valued workers, and the retirement savings program was high on that list. A variety of discrimination tests served to provide incentives to encourage a certain rate of participation, while others worked to either foster a certain rate of deferrals, or brought with them the pain of restraining the contributions of the more highly compensated. Despite those, encouragements the focus was almost always on the amount of contribution going in, not the amount of income that would eventually come out.

That has begun to shift in recent months amidst the growing evidence that workers, fearful of outliving their savings, are contemplating extending their working careers (the data still suggests that such notions are aspirational compared to the realities) at a point in time where the costs to the employer – both out-of-pocket and organizationally – of that employment are problematic. Moreover, there is a growing sense that concerns about retirement security while employed have costs of their own on productivity, as well as health – which contributes to the costs of things such as absenteeism, etc.

Enter a growing focus on what has been termed “financial wellness” that encompasses not only a focus on financial security post-retirement, but also in taking the steps ahead of retirement that allow individuals to successfully build toward that day. It is perhaps too soon to describe this as a “fear” – but it is a concern, and a growing one for attentive plan sponsors.

Not having the knowledge of a prudent expert

ERISA’s “Prudent Man” rule is a standard of care, and when fiduciaries act for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits, they must act at the level of a hypothetical knowledgeable person and must reach informed and reasoned decisions consistent with that standard. The Department of Labor notes that “[l]acking that expertise, a fiduciary will want to hire someone with that professional knowledge to carry out the investment and other functions.”

Indeed. Because, when it comes to the former, most people do – and as for the latter, many still don’t.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD