5 Things Plan Sponsors Should Know Before Hiring an Advisor

About a year ago, I was asked by an advisor if we had ever written anything about the potential pitfalls of hiring a relative as a plan advisor.

We hadn’t, as it turns out, in no small part because some things just seem (painfully) obvious to me – but it resulted in a column that, as I tried to point out at the time, was applicable to more than just familial relations.

In recent weeks I have received similar requests: one from an advisor looking for something on the hazards of “tying” bank business to providing services to a retirement plan, and another looking for validation of the wisdom of using a qualified 401(k) advisor on a plan rather than a part-timer.

Now, as someone who has been involved with ERISA and its fiduciary strictures his entire professional life, the responses to these questions are nearly self-evident. But let’s face it: Many, perhaps most, plan fiduciaries haven’t had that much exposure.

Before making a decision to hire an advisor – or for that matter, any decision involving the plan – here are some key considerations that plan fiduciaries should bear in mind.

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 or invest those assets.

If you’re an ERISA fiduciary, you have specific legal responsibilities.

There are several specific duties under the law, but the primary one is that the fiduciary must run the plan solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits and paying plan expenses.

Note the words “solely” and “exclusive purpose.” Now consider a plan fiduciary who decides to hire a service provider based on services they provide outside the plan. Would that be a decision solely in the interests of participants? For the exclusive purpose of providing benefits?

ERISA fiduciaries must avoid conflicts of interest.

ERISA fiduciaries must also avoid conflicts of interest – meaning, according to the Labor Department, “they may not engage in transactions on behalf of the plan that benefit parties related to the plan, such as other fiduciaries, services providers or the plan sponsor.”

That means that a plan sponsor must not cause the plan/participants to pay for services if it results in free and/or discounted services for the employer/plan sponsor. Oh, and that’s even if the price the plan/participants pay is deemed reasonable.

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

It’s one thing to find yourself in a job for which you are not immediately trained, or perhaps even qualified, but there’s no beginner track for ERISA fiduciaries. You’re not only directed to act for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits, but to do so at the level of an expert. The DOL has said that “Unless they possess the necessary expertise to evaluate such factors, fiduciaries would need to obtain the advice of a qualified, independent expert.”

There’s nothing that says that a relative can’t meet that standard, nor should providing other, unrelated services to the organization preclude a firm from consideration for offering services to the plan. And, of course, there is nothing that says a part-time advisor couldn’t provide a full-time level of service and attention.

On the other hand, as an ERISA fiduciary you need to be sure that they do, in fact, meet that standard.

As an ERISA fiduciary, your liability is personal.

ERISA holds plan fiduciaries to a high legal standard. Indeed, at least one federal court has described it as “the highest known to the law.”

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 you, as an ERISA fiduciary, 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 a brother-in-law, a banking relationship, or an individual who is only committed on a part-time basis is, in fact, an expert in such matters, that they bring real value to your plan and the participants and beneficiaries it serves, and that the decision to engage those services is based solely on your desire to fulfill your fiduciary obligations – for the exclusive benefit of the plan, its participants and beneficiaries.

Just make sure that you have made that determination independent of other factors, and that, perhaps particularly if those other factors are present, that your process and analysis is documented.

Your advisor-to-be will understand.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

The 3 Biggest Mistakes Fiduciaries Make

A recent Alliance Bernstein survey found that plan sponsors’ awareness of their fiduciary role, much less the responsibility, has deteriorated significantly in recent years. In fact, their survey found that less than half of plan sponsors knew they were fiduciaries.

Here are, in my estimation, the three biggest mistakes fiduciaries make.

Not knowing they are fiduciaries.

As noted above, a significant – and apparently growing – number of individuals who are, in fact, plan fiduciaries are oblivious to that reality. The reasons for that are varied, though the Alliance Bernstein survey suggests that knowledge gap is wider among those who serve on a plan committee than with those who have primary responsibility for the plan.

Of course, fiduciary status is based on one’s responsibilities with the plan, not a title. Simply stated, 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. If you are able to hire a fiduciary, you’re almost certainly a fiduciary.

Speaking of committees, if you’re responsible for selecting those who are on the committee(s) that administer the plan, you’re a fiduciary. Not to mention if you happen to be on a committee that makes decisions regarding the plan’s assets…

Not knowing the liability that comes with being a plan fiduciary.

ERISA fiduciaries are personally liable, and may be required to restore any losses to the plan or to restore any profits gained through improper use of plan assets. That’s right, the legal liability is personal (you can, however, buy insurance to protect against that personal liability – but that’s not the fiduciary liability insurance some have in place, nor is it typically covered by your standard corporate director liability insurance).

What does that liability mean? Consider that, in the Enron case, the outside directors and committee members settled for about $100 million, most of which was paid by the fiduciary insurer. However, the individuals also had to pay approximately $1.5 million from their own pockets.

And all fiduciaries have potential liability for the actions of their co-fiduciaries. So it’s a good idea to know who your co-fiduciaries are – and to keep an eye on what they do, and are permitted to do.

Thinking that they can outsource their fiduciary liability.

Even when they aren’t fully aware of their liability exposure – and certainly once they are – plan fiduciaries have a strong interest in shielding themselves from the consequences of that exposure.
They often think that by hiring another plan fiduciary – and frequently that’s a financial advisor –  they have managed to absolve themselves from that responsibility.

As it turns out, ERISA has a couple of very specific exceptions; more precisely, ways in which you can limit – but not eliminate – your fiduciary obligations. One exception has to do with the specific decisions made by a qualified investment manager – but even then, the plan fiduciary remains responsible for the prudent selection and monitoring of that investment manager’s activities on behalf of the plan.

The second exception has to do with specific investment decisions made by properly informed and empowered individual participants in accordance with ERISA section 404(c). Here also, even if the plan meets the 404(c) criteria (and it is by no means certain it will), the plan fiduciary remains responsible for the prudent selection and monitoring of the options on the investment menu.

It is important to remember that 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. Fiduciaries who are concerned that they fall short of that standard – and let’s face it, many, perhaps most, are placed in those roles without training – may want to look to the counsel of the Department of Labor, which has said that “[l]acking that expertise, a fiduciary will want to hire someone with that professional knowledge to carry out the investment and other functions.”

Doing so may not insulate you from all liability – but turning to experts is not only prudent, it surely minimizes the likelihood of making big mistakes.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Why the Match Matters – to Employers

It has been heartening in recent weeks to see a number of employers announce plans to expand and increase benefit programs, offer bonuses, and increase the employer match. Better still, a recent survey indicates that more positive changes could lie ahead.

A decade ago, the headlines were filled with stories about a number of large firms announcing that they were cutting, and in some cases eliminating altogether, the employer match. While the vast majority of employers didn’t reduce those matches, it was nonetheless a stark reminder that those defined contributions are “defined” annually, not in perpetuity.

The Match Matters

There are a number of things that we know about the importance of the employer match; there’s the obvious (though sometimes glossed over) impact that an employer contribution means in terms of retirement security in simple dollars, for one thing. Indeed, the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) has estimated that if future employer contributions were eliminated for Gen Xers, their retirement readiness rating would decline from 57.7% to 54.6% – and that doesn’t consider what might happen to employee contributions as a result.

And then there’s the reality that those who it save in a retirement plan at work appear to save at/near the level matched (though the amount of the match matters less than the existence of the match), suggesting that it provides a savings target of sorts for workers.

There’s little question that the match does good things for workers and their retirement security – but, let’s be honest, the employer match that is “free” for workplace savers is anything but for the employers that provide it. Here’s why it’s worth the money.

Better Finances Mean Better Work

A 2017 Mercer study found that on average, people spend about 13 hours per month worrying about money matters at work – about 5 hours at the median, suggesting that some spend a lot more time than others thinking about such things.

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

Little wonder that more than 8 out of 10 (82%) finance executives surveyed by CFO Research with Prudential Financial, Inc., believe that their companies benefit from having workforces that are financially secure – and nearly as many believe that employers should assist employees in achieving financial wellness during their working years.

Better Benefits Attract Better Workers

Okay, every time somebody talks about the reasons to offer a retirement plan, “attract and retain qualified workers” is on, if not at the top of, that list. Thinking about that next generation of workers? Well, the 2018 Millennial Benefit Trends Report from Pentegra found that, asked if they take into account whether a job offers benefits when considering applying – well, pretty much everyone (96.77%) said yes. And, asked to rate five general benefits categories in order of importance, “401(k) Retirement Savings” easily outpaced the others, with about 4 in 10 rating it “extremely important.”

The CFO Research survey noted above also found that nearly two-thirds (63%) say that employee satisfaction with benefits is important for their company’s success, and 65% believe that employee benefits are critical to attracting and retaining employees.

Better Benefits Keep Workers

By far, the finance executives surveyed consider higher employee satisfaction (59%) and increased retention (53%) as the most important benefits of a focus on financial wellness.

State Street Global Advisors’ 2016 research suggests that there is a noteworthy interplay between people’s happiness with their working life and their financial well-being. In fact, reports indicate that financial wellness actually influences an employee’s happiness at work.

Poor Savings Postpones Retirements

A report by Prudential (aptly titled “Why Employers Should Care About the Cost of Delayed
Retirements”) found that a one-year increase in average retirement age results in an incremental cost (the difference between the retiring employee and a newly hired employee) of over $50,000 for an individual whose retirement is delayed.

Moreover, the report notes that it results in an incremental annual workforce cost of about 1.0%-1.5% for an entire workforce. This represents the incremental annual cost of a one-year delay in retirement averaged over a five-year period. Prudential notes that for an employer with 3,000 employees and workforce costs of $200 million, a one-year delay in retirement age may cost the employer about $2-3 million.

It’s been great to see so many employers announce enhancements to their benefits programs, cash bonuses and – most particularly – increases to their 401(k) matches. However, every year tens of thousands of employers commit to helping their workers save for retirement by committing to making a company match – and they have done so in good times and times that weren’t so good.

It’s a commitment that makes a huge difference – and one that shouldn’t be taken for granted.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Are Stocks Swayed by the Super Bowl?

Will your portfolio soar with the Eagles, or get 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 51 Super Bowls, in fact. Though last year’s big comeback by the AFC Champion Patriots (who once were the AFL’s Boston Patriots) against the then-NFC champion Atlanta Falcons — alongside the 2017 market surge — surely places its validity in question. Not to mention 2016, and the AFC’s (and original AFL) Broncos 24-10 victory over the Carolina Panthers, who represented the NFC.

It was an unusual 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). 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. 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 (thus, no matter who won, the markets should have risen):

• 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” (well, until this past year – oh, and the year before THAT).

Patriot Gains

Times were better for Patriots fans in 2005, when they bested the NFC’s Philadelphia Eagles (yes, it’s a rematch this year of sorts) 24-21. Indeed, according to the Super Bowl Theory, the markets should have been down that year – but the S&P 500 rose 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 probably nobody except Patriots fans remember because it was overshadowed by Janet Jackson’s infamous “wardrobe malfunction” with Justin Timberlake - who, as it turns out, is back to perform in this year's Super Bowl) 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 (couldn’t resist).

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 (that have now returned to the City of Angels) 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 Eagles (just) twice – but not since 2004 (when they lost to the Patriots) and before that in Super Bowl XV against the Oakland Raiders — but are 0-2 in those appearances.

On a separate note, despite (technically) being the home team, the Patriots will (again) be wearing white jerseys. Not that they’re superstitious or anything, but 12 of the last 13 Super Bowl winners were wearing white jerseys — and, according to CBS, not only were the Pats in white the last time they beat the Eagles, they are (only) 2-2 when wearing blue jerseys in the Super Bowl, and 3-1 when in white (Bears fans at least will recall what happened when the Patriots wore red in Super Bowl XX).

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!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD
 
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.

5 Things of Which Plan Fiduciaries Need to Be Aware

Whoever said ignorance was bliss surely wasn’t talking about fiduciary litigation.

While I’ve had the opportunity over the past decade and change to peruse plenty of filings and findings related to excessive fee suits, the recent amended filing in a case against New York University (NYU) included something new – a long list of statements and acknowledgements by plan fiduciaries that, according to the plaintiffs, “displayed an alarming lack of understanding of basic terms and principles in investment management and fiduciary best practices.” Indeed, one of the plan committee members was called out for their “remarkable unawareness of basic facts” relating to the plan.

Now, one must take care in accepting the assertions in litigation at face value, and it’s too early to say if they – along with a response by the defendants – will carry the day with a judge. Still, it’s hard, more than a decade after the first of the so-called excessive fee cases were filed, to believe that there remain multi-billion dollar retirement plans in operation with committees – and as here, with the involvement of an investment advisor – that don’t know – well, the things that the long-standing practices of these committees suggest are still in place.

The job of a plan fiduciary isn’t all about fees, of course, though it’s certainly been a focus of these excessive fee lawsuits. Still, it seems to me that there are some things that plan fiduciaries of any plan size should be aware, and of which responsible plan fiduciaries should have a working knowledge.

Said another way, a plan fiduciary could be in trouble if you don’t:

• Know how much your plan pays in fees. And to whom. And for what.
• Know how many (and which ones) of your plan’s investment choices are offered in retail class shares. And if institutional class shares are available, and under what circumstances/conditions.
• Know how much of your plan’s investments are in funds that belong to your recordkeeper. And why.
• Know what revenue-sharing is (and where it goes).
• Have a basis for determining that the fees paid by the plan/participants are “reasonable.”

That’s not an exhaustive list, of course though, at least with regard to fees and expenses, I think it covers the key issues, certainly the ones that have arisen in litigation. Remember that plan fiduciaries – who have personal liability for their actions – are charged with “paying only reasonable plan expenses.” And, as noted above, plan fiduciaries – and those who guide them – have had at least a decade to see the writing on the wall on these excessive fee lawsuits.

Arguably, that can’t be done without first knowing what those expenses are, and having some basis of comparison/evaluation to ascertain if they are, in fact, reasonable in view of the services provided.

Particularly if you don’t want to be caught “unawares.”

- Nevin E. Adams, JD
 
See also:

• Your Plan Might Be an Excessive Fee Litigation Target If…
• 4 Things Before You Get to That RFP…
• What You Can Get with an RFP

Awesome 'Sauce'

Earlier this year I went to an event in our nation’s capital called “Awesome Con.”

As event names go, it’s a bit corny, but if it evokes a reference to Comic-Con, well that’s the point. Awesome Con is a mixture of cosplay (dressing up like your favorite comic book, gaming, or anime characters), celebrity meet-and-greets, and forums where like-minded individuals can not only learn, but debate plot lines, scientific trends that affirm (or refute) science fiction, and sit in on panels by some of the industry’s leading minds (and artists). No, I didn’t dress up – but I very much enjoyed getting to meet (and get autographs from) Marvel Comic’s Stan the Man Lee (see photo), Doctor #10 (David Tennant), and Eliza Dushku (of Buffy the Vampire Slayer fame), among others).

To be honest, I didn’t attend my first – the first – 401(k) Summit with that kind of anticipation. I had accepted an invitation to speak at an event – not that unusual – but at what was then a pretty unusual event – a conference for advisors who worked with retirement plans. What was even more unusual is that it was sponsored by ASPPA, a group I hadn’t previously associated with advisors. But what a remarkable event it turned out to be, both in terms of content, and the opportunity to meet and network with individuals like Fred Reish (our industry’s own Stan Lee?), and so many great advisors, many of whom would go on to be part of the group that would, a decade later, form the National Association of Plan Advisors.

A lot has happened since that first 401(k) Summit, most significantly the formation of NAPA itself. And a lot has happened to the NAPA 401(k) Summit since then – so much so that we now refer to it proudly, and with justification, as the nation’s retirement plan advisor convention. In an era where many advisors have chosen to cut back on such things, the NAPA 401(k) Summit continues to grow and expand.

This growth is both a function of the quality of the content and presenters – not to mention that of the attendees. Everybody is at the top of their game at the NAPA 401(k) Summit, and it shows. From those relatively humble, but promising beginnings, it has emerged as the must-attend event for advisors who are committed to the business of retirement plans.

As we reminded attendees last year, as important and impact-filled (and fun) as the NAPA 401(k) Summit is, it is much more than “just” a conference. This year more than most we’ve had the opportunity to see the impact that NAPA has on critical issues like the fiduciary regulation – creating and pushing for innovative solutions like the level-to-level fee exemption – and tax reform – pushing back against Rothification as a means of paying for corporate tax cuts, and outlining a set of retirement policy principles for tax reform ahead of the first reform proposals. And yes, in state capitals like Nevada, which is contemplating its own fiduciary standard, or in Oregon, Connecticut, and California, where state-run alternatives for private sector workers could be problematic.

But here’s the thing that many don’t appreciate. The NAPA 401(k) Summit is responsible for a significant amount of funding for our advocacy efforts on behalf of retirement plan advisors. That’s right – your registration fee doesn’t go to some private equity firm’s bottom line, nor does it simply act to keep a conference company in the business of organizing conferences – it supports advocacy efforts on your behalf, on Capitol Hill, with regulatory agencies, and – these days – in state capitals as well.

I know that April (still) seems a long ways off – but this year more than most the NAPA 401(k) Summit is that advisor experience you won’t want to miss. Even if you have been attending for years, you’ll get more from it than you can imagine – and your support will mean more to the benefit of the nation’s retirement system and retirement security than you may expect.

Join us. Your voice, more than ever, is needed. It’s going to be… Awesome.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

Debt ‘Limits’ – Causation, Correlation or Coincidence?

You have to wonder what the Wall Street Journal has against automatic enrollment.

The latest instance of finding the cloud in this silver lining arose in a recent Journal article by Anne Tergesen, “Downside of Automatic 401(k) Savings: More Debt” (subscription required). The article, based on the findings of a recent academic study, says that automatic enrollment has “pushed” millions of people who weren’t previously saving for retirement into those plans – but quickly cautions that “many of these workers appear to be offsetting those savings over the long term by taking on more auto and mortgage debt than they otherwise would have.”

This “crowding out” concern – that automatic enrollment would stretch already strained financial resources, particularly among lower-income workers – has long been a sticking point for those advocating caution regarding automatic enrollment.

The Study

So did the study – drawn based on what the researchers termed a “natural experiment” created by the decision of the U.S. Army to automatically enroll civilian workers into their retirement savings plan at a point in time – validate this concern? Well, the researchers found “no significant change” in debt levels of those automatically enrolled four years after hire – excluding auto loans and first mortgages.

In those categories, the researchers noted that automatic enrollment increased auto loan balances by 2% of income, and first mortgage balances by 7.4% of income. However, the researchers didn’t seem overly concerned about these increases, noting that they involved the acquisition of assets (and in the case of a home mortgage, an asset that might actually play a factor in retirement security) – though they did conclude that the advent of automatic enrollment seemed to leading workers to take on more debt to offset the “loss” in income to automatic enrollment savings.

On the other hand, the researchers note that it seems likely that much of the increase in first mortgage debt is caused by automatically enrolled employees being able to obtain larger mortgages due to their extra TSP balances loosening down payment constraints. And as regards their preparation for retirement, automatic enrollment clearly helps. The researchers noted that at 43-48 months of tenure, automatic enrollment increases cumulative employer plus employee contributions since hire by 5.8% of first year annualized salary.

Where’s the ‘Beef’?

So, what’s the beef about automatic enrollment? Well, despite the headline (and the subhead, “New research finds employees auto-enrolled in retirement plans borrow more than they otherwise would have, offsetting savings”), the article struggled to find anyone (including three of the authors of the research) who would say anything bad about automatic enrollment. But then, back in 2013, this same Ann Tergesen wrote about the “Mixed Bag for Auto-enrollment,” claiming that “employees who are automatically enrolled in their workplace savings plans save less than those who sign up on their own initiative.”

That article, in turn, built on – and cited – a 2011 article Tergesen jaw-droppingly titled “401(k) Law Suppresses Saving for Retirement.” In the case of the latter, Tergesen glommed on to one of 16 possible scenarios, and focused on the notion that some workers would simply rely on the mechanics of automatic enrollment’s 3% default, rather than picking the higher rate that they might if they filled out an enrollment form (encouraged by things like education meetings and incentivized by things like a company match). Remember that nothing about an automatic enrollment option requires workers to rely on automatic enrollment. In fact, under automatic enrollment, total savings actually went up, notably for lower income workers.
 
Auto Impact

The nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) has estimated that moving to automatic enrollment improves projected retirement outcomes by anywhere from 17.5% to more than 33%, depending on age and income. Indeed, the lowest income quartile saw their outcomes improve by more than 20% pretty much across the board. In fact, EBRI has previously projected that approximately 60% of those eligible for automatic enrollment would immediately be better off in those plans than in one relying on voluntary employment, and that over time (as automatic escalation provisions took effect for some of the workers) that would increase to 85%.

And while it wasn’t mentioned in the most recent Journal article, the study at hand acknowledged that automatic enrollment was “extremely successful at increasing contributions to the TSP at the left tail of the distribution while leaving the middle and the right of the distribution unchanged.” Said another way, automatic enrollment did a great job of increasing contributions among lower income workers.

All in all, while automatically enrolled workers in the study (and let’s remember this is a specific subset of the population for a limited period of time), on average had more debt in two very specific categories, it’s far from clear that this was a consequence of automatic enrollment – and it’s by no means certain, even if it were, that in the long term it’s a bad thing.

Indeed, it’s not clear that the dots connected here are causality or simply an interesting correlation.
What is clear is that automatic enrollment has been enormously successful at helping workers – particularly lower income workers – prepare for a more financially secure retirement.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

A List of 10 ‘Best of’ Lists

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 from columns past that I hope have been of value in 2017 – and will continue to be in the months ahead.

5 Things You May Not Know About Roth 401(k)s

According to a variety of industry surveys, roughly 60% of 401(k) plans now offer a Roth 401(k) option, and Plan Sponsor Council of America (PSCA) data shows that 28.6% of 403(b) plans already allow for Roth contributions. Participant take-up, which just a few years ago hovered in the single digits, is now in the 15-20% range. Here are five other things you may not know about the Roth 401(k).

5 Things People Get Wrong About ERISA Fidelity Bonds

One of the most important – and, in my experience, least understood – aspects of plan administration is the requirement that those who handle plan funds and other property be covered by a fidelity bond.

5 Things You May Not Know About HSAs

Odds are that you’ve heard that health savings accounts, or HSAs, offer individuals a “triple tax advantage” – but here are five things you may not know about HSAs.

7 Reasons Why HSAs Are ‘Hot’

Health Savings Accounts, or HSAs, are hardly a new thing – they were approved by Congress in 2003 and became law in January 2004. But they are getting a lot of attention lately – here’s why.

6 Dangerous Fiduciary Assumptions

There’s an old saying that when you assume… well, here are six assumptions that can create real headaches for retirement plan fiduciaries.

20-20 Hindsights

Here are 20 things I wish I had known when I entered the workforce.

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.

12 Ways That the Class of 2021’s Retirement Will Be Different

By the time the Class of 2021 entered school, laptops were outselling desktops, while on the technology front, in their lifetimes, Blackberry has gone from being a wild fruit… to being a communications device… to becoming a wild fruit again. But what about their retirement(s)?

The Value of an Advisor

Most of the attempts to affix a value to having an advisor tend to focus on investment returns or cost savings. Both are valid, objective measures that can have a real, substantive impact on retirement security. But here are five of the best values I’ve gotten from a plan advisor.

Why an Average 401(k) Balance Doesn’t ‘Mean’ Much

In recent days, we’ve gotten updates on average savings rates and 401(k) balances, and while for the very most part the reports have been positive and “directionally accurate,” I’ve always taken such findings with a grain of salt. Not so many in the press. Here are four things to keep in mind about those “average” 401(k) balances.

Even with the passage of time, there’s value in looking back even further. Here’s last year’s list (an 11th):

Things, Remembered – From 2016

Here are some insights – nearly 80 – from columns in 2016 that I hope have helped - and will continue to help lay the groundwork for a productive and prosperous New Year.

Here’s wishing everyone a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2018!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Are Your Retirement Savings Naughty or Nice?

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 lump of coal 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 – or more accurately, don’t behave.

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 – but 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.

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 lives, our relationships with others, and yes, our financial wellness.

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.: I am happy to report that the “naughty or nice” site is still active. I’m even happier to report that, as of this writing, yours truly was rated “super nice,” with the following notation: “Has been nice most of the year (not just near Christmas)! Makes others happy. Could share a little more, however. Politeness is sometimes very good. Can be great listener.”

‘Making’ the Lists

Several years ago, I was surprised (and quite pleased) when a friend reached out to tell me that I had made it to one of those retirement industry lists.

I was sure he was pulling my leg, of course – but after a couple of congratulatory emails from other associates, I decided to check it out, and sure enough – there I was.

At the time, I remembered being more than a bit humbled at my inclusion alongside a number of individuals who, at least in my estimation, were a much bigger deal than I. Still, the recognition was gratifying, particularly when you consider how many very special people in so many different walks of life, work hard, make a difference, have an impact, and yet never really get any kind of public acknowledgement.

As much as I like being on those lists, it has been my great good fortune over the years to have a hand not only in evaluating the composition of such accolades, but in determining the categories of recognition. The first, years ago, had to do with plan sponsors rating their providers, followed by the development of the Retirement Plan Advisor of the Year award, and Top 100 Plan Advisors (albeit at another publication). Here I have been glad to have a hand in elevating and expanding the quality and importance of our Top DC Wholesalers (the “Wingmen”), the Top Young Advisor list (our “Young Guns”), and more recently in launching the Top Women Advisor list and this year our first-ever Top DC Advisor Team list.

We’ll be publishing this year’s list of Top Women Advisors shortly – and the list of Young Guns just after the new year (voting on the latter remains open through Dec. 15 at www.napatopyoungadvisors.org). Each year we get more nominations, and yet each year the quality of the candidates rises as well. Clearly the competition, not only “out there,” but here, is fierce. And well it should be.

Each list has unique attributes, of course, and participating in the development and refinement of the criteria – making those lists – is always a learning experience, not least because it gives me the privilege of having those discussions with some of the nation’s leading experts on our panels of judges.

I am pleased and proud to be able to acknowledge the good and valuable work of so many industry professionals – including those who may not make the list, but who nonetheless are making a difference in the nation’s retirement security every day.

But as much as there is to be learned from the evolution of the objective, quantitative standards for each list, there is the learning that comes from the qualitative responses of the nominees – the individuals who not only make those lists – but who, in their words and deeds – make those lists important.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Is Your 401(k) Kinda Bullsh*t?

The headline of a recent article didn’t pose that as a question. And that should make you think.

The article, penned by a not-yet-30-year old, was mostly negative on the nation’s primary private retirement savings vehicle, but to my read, that wasn’t her fault. Rather, it was the net result of the feedback she got from a number of what we might consider the “usual suspects” who garner headlines that bash the 401(k), including (at least indirectly) the man the mainstream media credits with being its “father” (trust me, there’s more to it than that).

One of the folks she talked to was yours truly – and while I clearly wasn’t persuasive enough to overturn (completely) the cynicism with which I sensed she came to our conversation (at one point she went so far as to say, “you’re a lot more positive about the 401(k) than anyone else I’ve talked to”).

In the course of our conversation we covered a lot of ground – the origins of the 401(k), why traditional pensions have faded in the private sector, the notion that they were widespread and provided full benefits to those who were covered, the benefit of the employer match, and the innovations (like automatic enrollment and target-date designs) that have helped the 401(k) become “better” since I began saving.

Not all of that made it into the article, and some of it was worded differently than I would have explained it – but it was clear that she was listening and trying to understand, even though her article indicates she spent only two days doing her research.

That said, last week if you had Googled “401(k)”, her article came up a lot higher than anything I had managed to write in the last month (though, in fairness, I almost never use profanity in my titles, and reserve use of the “f” word for things like fiduciary).

There is good news here. The author’s cynicism (and misunderstanding of the U.K.’s pension system) notwithstanding, she’s (already) saving in her 401(k), cognizant of issues like fees and investments, and willing to press for continued improvements even as she continues to save. She sees value in having access to the advice of an ERISA fiduciary (though, perhaps since we didn’t discuss it, she doesn’t quite understand the impact of the fiduciary rule, or that it’s currently in place), and is desirous of steps that would make the 401(k) simpler and easier to use by non-experts.

Her 401(k) may still be “kinda bullshit.” But I’m pretty happy with mine. How about you?

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Familiar ‘Grounds’?

A recent report by the GAO paints a pretty bleak picture of American retirement. Is it accurate?

For the most part, the report covered familiar ground, bemoaning the “marked shift” away from the traditional defined benefit pension plan (glossing over how few private sector workers were covered by these plans, even in their heyday, and the fraction of those who received a full pension), and highlighting low savings rates, the pervasive lack of broad-based access to workplace retirement plans and the daunting challenges confronting even those who do enjoy that access.

The report also spends several of its 173 pages chronicling (with pictures) the ways in which “leakage” also undermines retirement savings. And for good measure, it invokes the findings of the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index  — which the GAO calls the “most comprehensive” — that ranks the U.S. retirement system 20th out of 25 countries surveyed (and gives us a “C” grade). Indeed, the report treads such familiar ground in such a familiar way that it hardly seems controversial.

In fairness, having seen, studied and even commented on the data, reports and surveys cited in the GAO report, the authors can hardly be faulted for their air of pessimism. As they explain in their introduction, “More and more people are retiring, and many are living longer in retirement. Health care costs are rising, Social Security is stretched to the limit, and debt — both personal and public — is a threat to financial security.” But in retreading this “familiar” ground, they also restate as fact some things that have been drawn into question — and gloss over some more recent findings that provide valuable context.

‘Over’ Looked?

For example, the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finance (SCF) is a widely cited report, and is invoked repeatedly by the GAO in its assessment of the resources available to American workers in retirement. This is a reputable and well-regarded source of consumer information, drawn from a sampling of about 6,000 households (different ones every cycle). That said, the information contained is “self-reported,” which is to say that it tells you what individuals think they have (or perhaps wish they had), but not necessarily what they actually have. Now, the GAO has previously relied on this data — and in fact recalls a 2015 report by the GAO that claimed (and was titled) “Most Households Approaching Retirement Have Low Savings.”

The rationale for the “most” in the 2015 report headline appears to come from its focus on households age 55 and older, where the GAO noted that (only) 48% had some retirement savings, and thus one might reasonably assume that the remaining 52% had no retirement savings — and that would seem to be the case. However, 23% of that 52% said they had a defined benefit plan. Now, that assessment may be inaccurate (see above), but if they do, in fact, have a DB plan, that plus Social Security might well be sufficient. So, “most” have no savings, but about half of that “most” might not need savings. Admittedly, that distinction makes for a clumsy headline.

Among those age 55-64 with no retirement savings, the median net worth was $21,000 (about half of these had no wage or salary income), while among those in the same age bracket with any retirement savings, their median net worth was $337,000. Compared to those with retirement savings, these households (those aged 55-64 with no retirement savings) have about one-third of the median income and about one-fifteenth of the median net worth, and are less likely to be covered by a DB plan. The bottom line is that, even accepting the self-reported data of these individuals, there is a considerable disparity, and one that suggests that a more targeted analysis (and dare I suggest remedy) might be more in order.

In evaluating things like retirement income and coverage, the GAO report draws on information from, among other sources, the Current Population Survey (and in some cases other reports based on that information). While it is one of the most-cited sources of income data for those whose ages are associated with being retired (typically ages 65 or older), and has also been used to provide annual estimates of employment-based retirement plan participation, a 2014 redesign of the questionnaire has resulted in much lower estimates of the percentages of workers who participate in an employment-based retirement plan. In fact, the non-partisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) has cautioned that it has resulted in historically “sharp and significant” reductions in the levels of worker participation in employment-based retirement plans.

Missed ‘Out’?

Not mentioned in the GAO report (but cited in a recent Forbes article by Andrew Biggs of the American Enterprise Institute) is an analysis by Census Bureau economists Adam Bee and Joshua Mitchell, who used IRS data to measure the share of new retirees receiving benefits from private retirement plans. Biggs notes that in 1984, only 23% of new retirees received any sort of private pension benefits, but by 2007, 45% of new retirees received private pension benefits.

As for the aforementioned ranking of the U.S. retirement system, it’s really hard to compare apples to oranges, as such comparisons inevitably do. But in the Forbes article noted above, Biggs reminds us that Mercer measures adequacy by virtue of things like tax preferences for retirement savings, ages at which participants can access their savings, whether savings must be annuitized, etc. As things to consider, perhaps — but a ranking based on subjective weightings and criteria that includes certain qualitative factors doesn’t necessarily produce an objective result.

‘Post’ Retirement

Another recent analysis, “Using Panel Tax Data to Examine the Transition to Retirement” — conducted by Peter J. Brady and Steven Bass of the Investment Company Institute and Jessica Holland and Kevin Pierce of the IRS — found that most individuals were able to maintain their inflation‐adjusted net work‐related income after claiming Social Security. Looking only at how much individuals reported as net income on their taxes the year before they started drawing Social Security benefits, compared with the three years after they began that draw, they found that, looking at working individuals age 55 to 61 in 1999 who did not receive Social Security benefits that year, three years after they started claiming Social Security (which could be viewed as a proxy of sorts for entering retirement) that median ratio of net work‐related income at that point compared to net work‐related income one year before claiming was 103% — which means, of course, that three years later, they are actually reporting (slightly) higher income levels than they were prior to retirement. Does that mean they will still be doing so a decade later? No — but why not even an acknowledgement that such results have been documented with actual IRS data?

Other Points

The GAO report does remind us that where you work matters (in 2016, 89% of workers in information services had access to an employer-sponsored plan, compared with 32% of workers in the leisure and hospitality industry), and how you work matters (“one reason lower-income workers lack access to employer-sponsored retirement plans is that they struggle to meet plan eligibility requirements related to sufficient tenure and hours worked”) in terms of having access to a retirement plan, and how much you make really matters (“…workers in the lowest income quartile were nearly four times less likely to work for an employer that offered a retirement plan, based on our analysis of 2012 SIPP data, controlling for other factors”). And it highlights the critical importance of, and the very real danger posed to the nation’s retirement security by the projected shortfalls in Social Security.

On the other hand, for some reason the GAO report cites the creation of the QDIA safe harbor as a failure of sorts, in that no surge in new plan adoption accompanied it (completely disregarding the huge boost to diversified savings and increased participation via automatic enrollment that has resulted). Ditto the demise of the MyRA, whose dismal take-up rate stood in some contrast to its shockingly high cost. It had a different — and more sympathetic — perspective on the state-run programs for private sector workers, decrying the uncertain status of such offerings after the signing of legislation that overturned the safe harbor rule from the Obama administration.

Ultimately, the GAO report makes one very simple recommendation: the appointment of an independent commission to “comprehensively examine the U.S. retirement system and make recommendations to clarify key policy goals for the system and improve how the nation can promote more stable retirement security.” All well and good.

But here’s hoping that, should such a committee be formed, it will look beyond the all-too-familiar ground that the GAO chose to tread.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

A Thankful Thanksgiving

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 list for 2017:

I am thankful that – for the moment, anyway – it looks as though retirement savings will be largely spared tax reform’s ravages (though I’m not convinced that we’re out of the woods – yet). 

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 for the strong savings and investment behaviors emerging among younger workers – and for the innovations in plan design and employer support that foster them. 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 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 those reviews are guided, in a growing number of situations, by the thoughtful input of advisors who are ERISA fiduciaries.

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

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

I’m thankful that figuring out ways to expand access to workplace retirement plans remains, even now, a bipartisan focus – 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 on-going “plot” to kill the 401(k)… still hasn’t. Yet.

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

I’m thankful 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 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 opportunity to acknowledge so many outstanding professionals in our industry through our Top Women Advisor, Top Young Advisor (Young Guns) and Top DC Wholesaler (Wingmen) lists. And thankful to have had such a tremendous response to the newest addition here - our Top DC Advisor Team list.
 
I am thankful for the blue-ribbon panels of judges that bring so much expertise and insight to those evaluations.

I’m thankful for the prospect of expanding the reach and impact of our work here to plan sponsors via the contemplated combination with the Plan Sponsor Council of America.

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 an expanding circle of dear friends and colleagues, the opportunity to write and share these thoughts — and for the ongoing support and appreciation of readers…like you.

Thanks for all you do to help make our nation’s retirements better.  

Have a VERY happy Thanksgiving!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

4 Retirement Savings Benchmarks That (Generally) Miss the Mark

Behavioral finance tells us that human beings are prone to relying on heuristics – mental shortcuts, if you will – to solve complex problems. While these may not be very accurate, survey data and anecdotal evidence suggest that participants often rely on these benchmarks.

Here are four that workers use more often than we’d perhaps like to admit.

The Company Match

Survey data and academic research have long suggested a link between the employer match and the level to which workers contribute. Indeed, there has been evidence (frequently invoked by advocates of the so-called “stretch” match) that it’s not the amount of the match that motivates, but the existence of the match at any level.

There is, in fact, evidence that a lot of people save only as much as they need to receive the full employer match (unfortunately, there’s also evidence that many don’t take full advantage – particularly lower income workers – and confusion about how much you need to save to get the full match.

There are, of course, a number of factors that go into determining the amount and level of the match; how much individuals need to set aside for their own personal retirement goals is almost certainly not one of those factors.

Saving to the level of the employer match is certainly a good starting point, but unless it’s truly extraordinary – well, it’s likely not “enough.”

The Automatic Enrollment Default

While you see surveys suggesting that a greater variety of default contribution rates is emerging, the most common rate today – as it was prior to its codification in the Pension Protection Act more than a decade ago – remains 3%. There is some interesting history on how that 3% rate originally came to be (it’s been the standard default for such programs going back to when they were still called “negative elections”), but the reality is that it has become that default because it is widely seen as a rate that is small enough that participants won’t be willing to expend the time and energy to opt out (if they even notice the withholding).

Little wonder that in automatic enrollment plans at Vanguard, more than half (55%) are contributing below the match initially, and one in five (21%) is still below that level after three years.

For those who worry that a higher default would trigger a higher rate of opt-outs, surveys indicate that the “stick” rate with a 6% default is largely identical to 3%. And though there are indications that the default savings rate is moving up from the traditional 3%, there is one thing that you’d like to think everyone knows.

Saving at a 3% rate, unless you have alternate financial resources, is definitely not “enough.”

The Pre-tax Cap

At the height of the Rothification “scare” (and make no mistake, we’re not out of those woods yet), there was a sense that existing automatic enrollment programs might be affected. Specifically, that plan sponsors wouldn’t be comfortable simply continuing to auto-enroll above whatever pre-tax cap was established by legislation ($2,400 was the rumored level at that moment) without some independent approval by the participant (setting aside the irony in turning to an automatically enrolled participant for some direction). Moreover, some providers had echoed that sentiment, saying that they would feel obliged to place that cap in the plans they recordkeep with automatic enrollment provisions — at least until plan sponsors told them otherwise. And if plan sponsors aren’t comfortable making that switch with their automatic enrollment programs — well, you can see how that Roth limit could in short order actually become a limit on retirement savings.

But one of the more unique arguments I heard against Rothification at the time was that that a pre-tax cap, whatever it turned out to be, would be viewed by workers as some kind of de facto sign from the government that the amount they would allow you to save on a pre-tax basis would be seen as a proxy for the “right” amount to save for an adequate retirement.

And just about the time you find yourself thinking, “there’s just no way anybody could be that stupid” – the sad reality sinks in.

A Guess

In the 2017 edition of the Retirement Confidence Survey, just 4 in 10 workers (41%) report they and/or their spouse have ever tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved so that they can live comfortably in retirement (the all-time high was 53% in 2000). Not surprisingly, workers reporting that they or their spouse participate in a retirement plan are significantly more likely than those who do not participate in such a plan to have tried a calculation (49% vs. 15%).

Now, over the quarter-century (and change) of its publication by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute, the Retirement Confidence Survey has produced any number of interesting, compelling, and even startling findings. And yet, the one that continues to puzzle me is not the percentage of workers who say that they have ever tried to calculate how much they need to save for a comfortable retirement – but the proportion of those who say that evaluation was based on… a guess. That’s not a finding included in this year’s RCS, but in the past, it was as much as 45%.

Several years back, those individuals were asked how much they need to save each year from now until they retire so they can live comfortably in retirement; one in five put that figure at between 20% and 29%, and nearly one-quarter (23%) cited a target of 30% or more. Those targets are larger than one might expect, and larger than the savings reported by RCS respondents would indicate.

All of which brings to mind the following; were the savings projections so high because so many workers didn’t do a savings needs calculation — or did participants avoid doing a savings needs calculation because they thought the results would be too high?

Or both.

Benchmarks can provide a ready and relevant measure of progress against goals. But if the goal is short of the need, the benchmark may be of little use.

There’s an old saying: “If you don’t know where you’re going, you’ll probably end up somewhere else.” And indeed, for many retirement savers who are relying on unreliable benchmarks, that “somewhere else” could be a pretty unpleasant destination.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

4 Reasons Why an Average 401(k) Balance Doesn’t ‘Mean’ Much

In recent days, we’ve gotten updates on average savings rates and 401(k) balances, and while for the very most part the reports have been positive and “directionally accurate,” I’ve always taken such findings with a grain of salt. Not so many in the press.

Indeed, the press coverage of those reports is generally quite negative, in the “how can people possibly retire on those small amounts” vein.

Here are four things to keep in mind about those “average” 401(k) balances.

Your average 401(k) balance may not be based on very many plans or participants.

Some reports of plan design trends and average balances may do so based on a relatively small customer base, and/or homogenous plan size. That doesn’t mean the results are without value – but let’s face it, sample size matters in discerning trends. The average 401(k) balance in a universe of 50 plans is surely less instructive than one that is a hundred times that size. In all surveys, sample size matters. And when it comes to averages, it matters a lot.

Your average 401(k) balance includes some very different people and circumstances.

Your average “average 401(k) balance” includes a broad array of circumstances: participants who may (or may not) have a DB program, who are of all ages, who receive widely different levels of pay, who work for employers that provide varying levels of match, and who live (and may retire) in completely different parts of the country. You might even have situations where ex-participants (who have zero balances in this plan, but might have balances elsewhere) are included in the mix. Those are all factors with enormous impact in terms of evaluating retirement income adequacy, and yet, because it is an average of so many varied circumstances, the result is almost never “enough” to provide anything remotely resembling an adequate source of retirement income.

This conclusion that the average is woefully inadequate as a retirement income measure is the main point, and often the only point, that is reiterated somewhat incessantly (and generally without the caveats about its somewhat tortured compilation) in the press.

Your average 401(k) balance doesn’t include the same people.

People change jobs all the time, and with astonishingly persistent regularity. High-turnover plans and plans in high turnover industries, almost by definition, will pull down averages. And when workers change jobs, they “start over” in their new employer’s plan. The bottom line is that the average 401(k) balance from a year ago almost certainly doesn’t include exactly the same participants. So exactly how valid are trendlines in average balances among completely different individuals?

Mitigating the distortions inherent with these averages, the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) makes a point of reporting on consistent 401(k) savers, specifically in its most recent analysis, participants who were part of the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database throughout the five-year period of 2010 through 2015. Their report finds that this consistent group had median and average account balances that were much higher than the median and average account balances of the broader EBRI/ICI 401(k) database. How much higher? Nearly double at the average, and consistent participants had nearly four times the median account balance of the broader group.

Makes you wonder about all those conclusions based on the averages of inconsistent participants…

Your average 401(k) balance doesn’t include the same plans.

It’s not just workers who move around – 401(k) plans change providers all the time. And when they change providers, their plan and participant balances move as well. So, if in 2015 your plan (and 401(k) balances) were being recordkept by Provider A, those balances would be picked up in their report of average 401(k) balances. Now, you change to Provider B in 2016. All of a sudden your plan’s account balances “disappear” from Provider A’s reporting – and now show up in the numbers reported by Provider B. The net effect? Well, that could mean that the average balances as reported by Provider A decrease – not because of any change in savings behaviors, but simply because a plan (and its accompanying balances) have moved to a different provider’s base.

Yes, I’d say that your average 401(k) balance is, generally speaking, mathematically accurate – and, at least in terms of ascertaining the nation’s retirement readiness, nearly completely useless.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Tax Reform – ‘Tricks’ or Treat?

A few weeks back, my wife and I went to see the updated version of It. Now, I’ve been a fan of King’s work ever since a friend shared a copy of Salem’s Lot with me, though his work doesn’t always translate as well to the big screen. “It” is a malevolent entity that emerges about once every 27 years to feed, during which period it takes on various shapes designed to lure its prey – generally children, and then it returns to a hibernation of sorts. “It”’s most notorious incarnation is, of course, Pennywise the Dancing Clown (the lovely visage below).

Ironically, tax reform too seems to be a once-in-a-generational thing. It’s been 30 years since the Tax Reform of 1986 cut tax rates1 – and cut into retirement plan saving and formation with the creation of the 402(g) limit (and its tepid COLA pace), not to mention the cost and timing issues associated with multiple iterations of the nondiscrimination testing that often produced problematic refunds for the highly compensated group. There’s little question that those changes (and others) did what they were designed to do – generate additional tax revenue by limiting the deferral of taxes. But what did those constraints do for retirement security?

Much of that damage wasn’t repaired until – well, 2001 with the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act (EGTRRA) – which, somewhat ironically, introduced the concept of the Roth 401(k).

Rothification Response

While tax reform has wrought its damage on retirement savings before, this time around a new way to raise revenue has emerged – “Rothification,” loosely defined as the limiting or elimination of the current pre-tax contribution limits.

We don’t really know what workers would do confronted with that kind of change (the surveys that are available – though not completely on point suggest that the response might be modest) – though we do know that if current participants continued to save at the same rate, retirement readiness would likely improve. There are also signs that it would be seen as a big enough change that some, perhaps many, plan sponsors would want to rethink, if not reconsider, their current automatic enrollment assumptions.

We may not know with certainty those outcomes, but there are lots of reasons to be nervous, if not downright fearful of change to retirement plans, particularly one that seems likely to give plan sponsors – and plan participants – a reason to rethink their current savings rates. Granted, surveys show that most plans already offer a Roth option, and more recent surveys indicate that most plan sponsors would continue to offer a plan even if the current pre-tax option for 401(k)s was reduced and/or eliminated (and how sad would it be if a plan sponsor decided to walk away from offering a plan just because the pre-tax savings option was clipped).

We also know that more than half of current 401(k) contributors would be affected by a $2,400 pre-tax contribution limit, based on data from the non-partisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), using their Retirement Security Projection Model® (based on information from millions of administrative records from 401(k) recordkeepers), and that the impact reaches down to some very moderate income levels.

That said, we don’t yet know – and this is significant – if the tax reform proposals that emerge this month will include some version of Rothification, nor at what level the Rothification restriction might be imposed (as it turns out, Rothification was NOT included in this first round!).

‘Pass’ Tense?

Consider the recent “unintended” consequence of a proposed tax break for pass-through entities (i.e., partnerships, S corps, and small business limited liability corporations). More than 320,000 of these entities sponsor a retirement plan (with the average size being 75 employees) – unfortunately, many of these businesses may reconsider adopting or maintaining a qualified retirement plan because of significant financial disincentives woven into the fabric of the tax reform proposal, which would establish a 25% maximum pass-through rate on that business income, versus the 35% top rate on ordinary income (as well as the favorable tax rate on capital gains income at 20%) that would be assessed when the money is withdrawn at retirement. In other words, the small business owner’s plan contributions and accumulated earnings will be taxed at 35% instead of the 25% pass-through rate and the 20% capital gains rate on accumulated earnings.

There are some things about tax reform proposals that we do know. One, that lawmakers – and sometimes regulators – often seem to operate on the assumption that employers will, and indeed must, offer a workplace retirement plan no matter what changes or cost burdens are imposed on plan administration. With an eye toward narrowing the benefit gap between higher-paid and non-highly compensated workers, limits are imposed that often outweigh the modest financial incentives offered to businesses, particularly small businesses, to sponsor these programs. This, despite the striking coverage gap among those who work for these small businesses, and the potentially burdensome administrative requirements and additional costs that the owner must absorb, alongside a pervasive sense that their workers aren’t really interested in the benefit (or, perhaps more accurately, would prefer cold, hard cash).

The debates about modifying retirement plan tax preferences – or the notion that these preferences are “upside down,” and thus may be dispensed with – are bandied about as though those changes would have no impact at all on the calculus of those making the decisions to offer and support these programs with matching contributions. In other words, while some attempt is made to quantify the response of workers to changes in their incentives, most studies simply assume that employers will “suck it up.”

Well, this week the GOP is slated to unveil its proposal for tax reform in the House of Representatives, and shortly thereafter we should see a separate GOP proposal emerge in the Senate. Those will have to be reconciled, and these days that’s no slam dunk.

It remains to be see what tax reform – with all its laudable objectives – might mean for retirement plans this time around. But here’s hoping that, if tax reform turns out to be “Pennywise,” it won’t be “pound” foolish.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Footnote

1. And the time before that was 1954… with the creation of the Internal Revenue Code.