Markets Timing

As it happens, I’ll commemorate an anniversary of my birth this weekend.

It’s not a particularly significant one—it doesn’t end in a 5 or a 0, won’t trigger any new savings opportunities or impact (catch-up, RMD trigger, forbearance of withdrawal penalties, or Social Security)—but it is a birthday, and therefore a day upon which to reflect (and to wonder anew why we don’t make more fuss about our mothers, who—let’s face it—did the real work on that day).

Traditionally, on my birthday weekend (and the 4^th of July holiday), I have taken a look at my current asset allocations and, when circumstances warranted, rebalanced. There’s no magic to those points in time. It’s not the ONLY time I look (and act)—but it happens to be a time when, whatever is going on in the market, I have a calendar-driven opportunity to take a breath and take a longer view. And, let’s face it, this year has been a bumpy ride in the markets.

The mantra in times of volatile markets is, inevitably, “stay the course”—wise counsel in most situations, particularly since the impulse in such times is often action that one comes to regret in the fullness of time. However, for some, just sitting still and “taking” what the markets choose to inflict on your retirement savings can be excruciating. 

For me, anyway, this year will be a little different. Most significantly, as I near my “retirement” threshold, I’ll actually be shifting into a different pace of accumulation. And, for the first time in my working career, I will be doing it with my retirement savings accumulated into a single place (well, technically two—one for Roth, the other for the traditional pre-tax rollovers). That said, and my birthdate notwithstanding, I still have plenty of investment runway to ride.  

That said, and while my weekend should be a bit less structured than usual, here are some things I have traditionally done—that you, or those you support, may find useful—particularly with the current market uncertainties.      

Get started on rebalancing by changing the investment elections of NEW contributions, rather than transferring existing balances. It will take longer to realign the entire account, but at least you aren't realizing those as-yet-unrealized losses.

Increase current deferral rates. When you think about just how much cheaper those retirement plan investments are now, compared to a year ago, it's hard to pass up that kind of bargain. More so if you aren't yet saving at the maximum level of the match.

Consider automated rebalancing. Most providers now have in place mechanisms that will, on some preset frequency (monthly, quarterly, annually), automatically rebalance individual accounts in accordance with investment elections. It's a good way to keep things in balance without having to worry (or remember) about the best time to do so—calendared events notwithstanding.

Better yet, consider shifting to a target-date fund or managed account. You may well be wondering why I would go to the “trouble” of manually rebalancing my 401(k) when there are professionally managed solutions available like target-date funds and managed accounts. The reality is that only one of my previous 401(k)s had target-date funds available on their menu[i]—and I have taken advantage of that regular rebalancing by professionals to some advantage.

None of this has to wait for a birthday, of course. But doing so on a regular basis can be an effective way to ensure that you get that retirement wish when you blow out the candles!

Nevin E. Adams, JD 

---

[i] Another had a managed account option (that I didn’t care for).

Closing the "Opportunity" Gap

There’s no one silver bullet likely to close the nation’s retirement plan coverage gap—but the target is pretty easy to spot.

As it turns out, the nation’s retirement plan access coverage gap is almost exclusively found among small businesses, and it’s not hard to imagine why. The failure rate for small businesses is daunting—and those who’ve managed to avoid that fate are doubtless focused on trying to avoid becoming a statistic. Under those circumstances one can well appreciate that offering benefits, much less RETIREMENT benefits, probably seems like a luxury for another time, if not another business.

A recent issue brief by Anqi Chen and Alicia Munnell of the Center for Retirement Research (CRR) at Boston College examined the issue, and drawing on previous research[i] cited the following three main barriers:

• uncertain revenues that make it hard for a firm to commit to a plan;
• employee preferences for wages and other benefits;[ii] and
• the cost associated with establishing and administering a plan (this latter included an assumption by some/many that employer contributions were required).

Indeed, surveys seeking to better understand this reluctance generally find two major obstacles: cost and complexity of administration. And that was before the recent economic downturn. 

Starter Up!

Enter the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 which, among its 90-some-odd retirement plan provisions, contains two that are squarely fixed on resolving those issues. The first of these is the so-called Starter K.  Basically, starting now—employers that have never had a plan can set up a “starter” 401(k) or 403(b) plan. There is no required employer contribution, though employees are automatically enrolled at 3% of pay (they can opt out). While this an actual 401(k)/403(b) plan, it looks more like an IRA, more specifically the type that have been established by a number of states. The limits for employee contributions start at $6,000, indexed to inflation—and there is an additional opportunity for a catch-up contribution of $1,000 for those individuals over 50. However, unlike the traditional 401(k)/403(b), there is no nondiscrimination or top-heavy testing requirements. 

All in all, it’s a straightforward, simple 401(k) design that removes the complexity (and cost) concerns that have held many small businesses back. Conservative estimates prepared for the American Retirement Association suggest that this could provide 19 million working Americans access to a workplace retirement plan that didn’t have that opportunity previously.

Credits ‘Worthy’

But perhaps the biggest incentive found in SECURE 2.0 is the greatly expanded tax credit for new plans.  Under current law, employers with less than 100 employees that adopt a new retirement plan can qualify for an annual tax credit for up to three years equal to the lesser of (1) 50% of the administrative cost of establishing the plan, or (2) $5,000. But, effective for 2023, SECURE Act 2.0 increases that percentage from 50% to 100% for employers with 50 or fewer employees (it remains at 50% for those with 51-100 employees). So, it covers 100% the cost of operating the plan, up to $5,000 (which, I’m told with some confidence is more than the cost of running those size plans). 

More than that, it also establishes a generous new tax credit for contributions made by small employers to a newly established retirement plan (other than a defined benefit plan)—a tax credit that is a set percentage of the amount contributed by the employer for employees up to a per-employee cap of $1,000 (though contributions to those that make $100,000 or more are not taken into account). Better still, that set percentage is 100% for the year the plan is established AND the following year, 75% for the third year, 50% for the fourth year, 25% for the fifth year (0% thereafter). The full amount of the new tax credit would be available to employers with 50 or fewer employees but phases out for employers with 51 to 100 employees. 

MEP ‘Step’

Oh—and for fans of multiple employer plans (MEPs), the start-up credits are available for three years to employers that join an existing MEP, regardless of how long the plan has been in existence (the MEP rule is retroactively effective for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2019).

The reality is that even today more than 30% of all private-sector American workers still lack access to workplace retirement plans and thus lack an equitable opportunity to achieve a comfortable retirement.   Further, nearly 60% of workers in the lowest income classes still lack access to workplace plans. We talk about a “coverage” gap, but it’s really an opportunity gap.     

The challenges confronting small businesses are no less—and arguably even larger now—than they’ve ever been. But, amidst all the economic uncertainty—and with the importance of worker attraction and retention more critical than ever—SECURE 2.0 offers opportunity—not only to strengthen and solidify those workplace bonds—but in the process to help give American workers the opportunity to better prepare for a secure retirement.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD 

---

[i] Specifically by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the Transamerica Institute.

[ii] Incredibly, the EBRI research, which admittedly went back to 2003, cited as a primary rationale that employees hadn’t REQUESTED the benefit.

Withdrawal Symptoms?

 There’s nothing like a global pandemic to fuel interest in, if not the need for, emergency savings. Indeed, there are a half dozen provisions[i] in the new SECURE 2.0 designed to make it easier for workers to tap into their retirement savings—two aimed specifically at emergency savings.

Though the financial impact of the pandemic (not to mention a series of natural disasters) has arguably been uneven, a report from Vanguard[ii] highlighted the longer-term impacts of the economic slowdown and inflation’s growing bite of the household budget. It's also widely acknowledged that concerns about the inability to fund an unexpected financial emergency is a source of stress for workers, undermining financial wellness.   

All that said, well before COVID-19, there have been concerns about Americans’ lack of emergency savings[iii] and, perhaps more broadly, that they were using their retirement savings accounts as that resource. Behavioral finance-types have counseled that a mental, if not physical, segregation of money by purpose is helpful, and at least one of the new SECURE 2.0 provisions seems designed to make that structure a reality by creating an emergency savings “sidecar” alongside regular retirement savings accounts. 

The first of these is found in Section 115 and, beginning in 2024 it says a participant may generally make a withdrawal of up to $1,000 per year from their retirement account for certain emergencies. The withdrawal may be taxable (unless drawn from Roth) and MAY be repaid within three years, but it will not be subject to the 10% penalty for early withdrawals. Only one withdrawal is permitted per the three-year repayment period—if the first withdrawal has not been repaid.

The other emergency savings provision (Section 127)—and the one that seems to be garnering most of the media attention is the (confusingly labeled) “Pension Linked Emergency Savings Accounts.” Beginning in 2024, it will ALLOW (not require) employers to create an Emergency Savings Account (ESA) as part of a defined contribution plan (401(k) or 403(b)). Only non-highly compensated employees may contribute to the account, though employers MAY auto-enroll such individuals in an EAS up to 3% of their compensation, and the EAS value cannot exceed $2,500[iv] (indexed for inflation). All employee contributions to this emergency savings account MUST be made on an after-tax basis—and each month participants may take withdrawals from the account (just to further complicate administration, the first four withdrawals for a year cannot be subject to distribution fees). 

Oh—and speaking of complications, those employee contributions must be treated as elective deferrals for purposes of any matching contributions. The matching contributions are treated by a plan no differently than matching contributions made on account of elective deferrals.   

Now this provision likely makes the behavioral science-types happy—it provides a separate mental (and notational) accounting—and one that doesn’t force the individual to choose between saving for retirement or saving for that “rainy day” emergency, at least in terms of foregoing a company match. 

But, aside from the obvious administrative complexities of this option (certainly for the plan sponsor/recordkeeper), it’s by no means clear that this kind of set up won’t create a kind of “Christmas club” account, with individuals withdrawing these contributions for just about any reason every year (just) long enough to get the match—and then the next year they could do it all over again. And again. The Treasury is authorized to issue regulations to prevent abuse, but there’s no telling if or when (or  what) those rules would be.  

It might be good mental “accounting”—but I’m not sure that it will be good for retirement. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD 

---

[i] While I’m focusing on only two of those provisions here, the others are Section 314 (allows for up to $10,000 of withdrawals from plans and IRAs in cases of domestic abuse, effective 2024), Section 326 (exempts from the 10% excise tax withdrawals from plans and IRAs in cases of terminal illness, effective now), Section 331 (allows for withdrawals from plans and IRAs of up to $22,000 in federally declared disasters, effective retroactively to Jan. 26, 2021), and Section 334 (allows for up to $2,500 a year of withdrawals from workplace plans to pay for long-term care, effective three years after enactment (so generally not until 2026)).

[ii] In fact, that report, published last October, and amidst growing concerns about the above factors and volatile investment markets, noted that the share of workers taking cash from their employer retirement plans through new loans, non-hardship withdrawals, and hardship withdrawals were on the rise in 2022.  Called out for special note was the rise in hardship withdrawals, which Vanguard said had reached an all-time high—though that was only 0.5% of workers tracked by Vanguard (5 million participants in 1,700 employer-sponsored retirement plans administered by the firm).

[iii] The most widely repeated likely being the Federal Reserve survey asking Americans if/how they’d handle a $400 emergency (approximately 1 in 9 said they couldn’t, and while that’s a minority, the headlines have tended to highlight the impact)—but see https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2021/what-a-400-dollar-emergency-expense-tells-us-about-the-economy.

[iv] Though there’s been some question as to whether $2,500 is “enough” (there’s language in the bill calling for a study to see if it needs to be higher).

5 New Year’s Resolutions for 401(k) Plan Fiduciaries

This is the time of year when resolutions for the cessation of bad behaviors and the beginning of better ones are in vogue. Here are three for plan fiduciaries for 2023.

Develop a plan budget.

Most financially-focused New Year’s Resolutions focus on spending (less) or saving (more)—and the really thoughtful ones do both—all tied around the development of a budget that aligns what we have to spend with what we actually spend. 

Most (many?) plans have a budget when it comes to the expenditures that require corporate funding.  Less clear is how many establish some kind of budget when it comes to what participants have to spend.  Now, granted, what they pay will vary based on any number of …variables—but an essential part of ensuring that the fees paid by the plan (for the services provided to the plan) is knowing how much—and for what. 

At some level that means not only keeping an eye on things like expense ratios, the options with revenue-sharing, and the availability of alternative share classes (or options like CITs)—but it also means having an awareness not only of the plan features, but the usage rates of those plan features.

Because when it comes to retirement plans, there often IS a direct link between spending less and saving more.

Put your fund menu on a diet.

Though it is a point often made with studies (well, one frequently cited study, actually) dealing with jellies and ice cream, a long-standing behavioral finance tenet is that more choice doesn’t lead to better decisions. So, what’s with those (still) burgeoning 401(k) investment menus? The 65^th annual Plan Sponsor Council of America’s Survey of Profit-Sharing and 401(k) Plans found that more than a quarter of plan sponsors offer 26 OR MORE options, while another 18% offered 21-25, and 27% offered 16-20.

Odds are that there are funds on the current menu that either aren’t being used or aren’t being used widely—options that contribute little other than clutter to your investment review and to the decisions of your participants.

Take a look—your retirement plan menu shouldn’t be a kitchen sink “solution.”

Check-up—on your target-date fund(s).

Flows to target-date funds (TDF) have continued to be strong—and little wonder, what with their positioning as the qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) of choice for most 401(k)s. That said, the vast majority of those assets are still under the purview of an incredibly small number of firms—with glidepaths that are not as dissimilar as their marketing materials might suggest. 

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 (don’t take my word for it—that’s coming straight from the Labor Department).  

That said, TDFs are frequently, if not always, pitched (and likely 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.

The reasons cited behind TDF selection run a predictable gamut; price/fees, performance (past, of course, despite those disclaimers), platform (as in, it happens either to be their recordkeepers, or compatible with their program)—and doubtless some are actually doing so based on an objective evaluation of the TDF’s suitability for their plan and employee demographics. 

Whatever your rationale, it’s likely that things have changed—with the TDF’s designs, the markets, your plan, your workforce, or all of the above. 

Pump up the default rate in your auto-enrollment plan.

While a growing number of employers are auto-enrolling workers in their 401(k) plan, one is inclined to assume that, a decade and a half after the passage of the Pension Protection Act, if a plan hasn’t done so by now, they likely have some very specific reasons.

But for those who have already embraced automatic enrollment, those are plans who have (apparently) overcome the range of objections; concerns about paternalism, administrative issues, cost—some may even have heard that fixing problems with automatic enrollment can be—well, problematic (though things have gotten a little easier on that front).

There has been movement here over the years—indeed the most recent PSCA survey found that two-thirds (65%) of plans with automatic enrollment set the default deferral rate high enough so that participants receive the full possible company matching contribution, up from 57.1% as recently as 2020. In fact, the most common default rate for automatic enrollment plans is now more than 6%. 

Set goals for your plan designs.

The mantra about retirement benefits has always been that they exist to help attract and retain good workers. More recently, a reimagined emphasis on financial wellness has offered some nuance to that—to provide better levels of engagement while they are working, to forestall the “distractions” (and potential malfeasance) that financial stress can engender, and ultimately to help workers retire “on time.” These goals are not inherently incompatible, but at any given point in time they require differences in communication, education, emphasis, and potentially program design.  

There is, by the way, a sense of a shift in such things. While the primary goal of participant education has historically been to increase participation rates, the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s 65^th Annual Survey of Profit-Sharing and 401(k) plans notes that in 2020 that shifted to increasing financial literacy of employees in 2020—a shift that held in the most recent survey with 77.4% of organizations now stating that as their primary educational goal. The secondary goal was increasing appreciation for the plan (likely as a retention method) followed by providing retirement planning to employees. The percent of organizations offering financial wellness programs increased to 27%, including more than half of large employers.

If you haven’t revisited those objectives in a while—or, heaven forbid, have never done so—there’s no time like the present for a reset. After all, as Yogi Berra once commented, “If you don’t know where you’re going, you might wind up someplace else.” 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

The 'Best' of 2022

I’ve been writing a weekly column (and then some) for more than two decades now. Some are easier to write (and read)—and some hold up better (and longer) than others. These are some of my (and perhaps your) favorites from 2022.

Let me know what you think in the comments below… particularly if I have missed one of your favorites…  

7 Things to Know About the New ESG Regulation

There’s a lot to unpack in that regulation (and the rest of the 236-pages that help explain its process and rationale), but here’s a few things that seem particularly important to note at the outset. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/7-things-know-about-new-esg-regulation

‘Damned’ (Even) If You Do

The flurry of lawsuits unleashed on holders of the BlackRock LifePath target-date funds is not without precedent—but it’s surely a head scratcher. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/damned-even-if-you-do

Things to Ponder

In the course of my day, I talk to (and email with) people, read a lot, and every so often jot down a random thought or insight that gives me pause and makes me think. See what you think. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/things-ponder

6 Obstacles to Retirement Income Adoption

It’s ironic that programs designed to provide retirement income pay so little attention to the realization of that objective. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/6-obstacles-retirement-income-adoption

The Sure Not-So-Sure Thing

Perhaps the only “sure” things are death and taxes after all—but the lesson for those of us still drawing a paycheck and planning for retirement is the importance of preparing for that third “sure” thing when it comes to retirement planning. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/sure-not-so-sure-thing

7 Assumptions That Can Derail Your Retirement Reality

The future is an uncertain thing, and planning for uncertainty inevitably involves making some assumptions. Here are seven that, done improperly, can—yes, derail your retirement realities. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/7-assumptions-can-derail-your-retirement-reality

5 Dangerous Fiduciary Assumptions

There’s an old saying that when you assume… well, here are some assumptions that can create real headaches for retirement plan fiduciaries. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/5-dangerous-fiduciary-assumptions

9 Things You May Not Know About the Saver’s Credit 

As I was pulling together tax information this weekend, I was reminded that, in addition to the benefits of pre-tax savings and deferred taxes on retirement savings, there’s another tax benefit—but one of which many aren’t aware. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-savers-credit

Not-So-Unforeseen Outcomes

Thanks to their mother, my kids have grown up with a variety of pets in our house—but none more bizarre than our experience with… a chicken. https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/not-so-unforeseen-outcomes

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

You Better Watch Out…

"You better watch out, you better not cry, you better not pout…”

Those are, of course, the opening lyrics to that holiday classic, “Santa Claus is Coming to Town.” And while the tune is jaunty enough, the message—that there’s some kind of elfin “eye in the sky” keeping tabs on us has always struck me as just a little bit… creepy.

That said, once upon a time, as Christmas neared, it was not uncommon for my wife and I to caution our occasionally misbehaving brood that they had best be attentive to how their (not uncommon) misbehaviors might be viewed by that big guy at the North Pole.

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

Indeed, no amount of parental threats or admonishments—in fact, nothing we ever said or did—ever managed to have the impact of that website—if not on their behaviors (they were kids, after all), then certainly on the their level of 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, panic-stricken—following a particularly worrisome “reading[ii]”—concerned not so much that he’d misbehaved, and certainly not that he’d disappointed his parents with his misbehaviors—but that as a result, he'd find nothing under our Christmas tree but the lumps of coal[iii] he so surely “deserved.”

Making a List?

Every year about this time we read survey after survey recounting the “bad” savings behaviors of American workers. And, despite the regularity of these findings, must of those responding to the ubiquitous surveys about their (lack of) retirement confidence and their (lack of) preparations don’t offer much, if anything, in the way of rational responses to those shortcomings (even) though they (apparently) see a connection between their retirement needs and their savings (mis)behaviors. 

Now, arguably with inflation fears looming ever larger, those pressures have been magnified—but this is not a new concern. Indeed, the reality has long been that a significant number will, when asked to assess their retirement confidence, generally acknowledge that there are things they could—and know they should have—done differently. Retirees routinely bemoan and regret their lack of attention to such things. Sadly, if there’s anything as predictable as the end of year regrets, it’s the perennial list of new year’s resolutions to (finally) do something about it. 

So if they know they’ve been “naughty”—why don’t they do something about it? 

Well, some certainly can’t—or can’t for a time—but most who respond to these surveys seem to fall in another category. It’s not that they actually believe in a retirement version of St. Nick, though that’s essentially how they seem to (mis)behave. They carry on as though, somehow, these “naughty” savings behaviors throughout the year(s) notwithstanding, they'll be able to pull the wool over the eyes of that myopic, portly old gentleman in a red snowsuit—and that at their retirement date, despite their lack of attentiveness during the year(s), that benevolent elf will descend their retirement chimneys with a bag full of cold, hard cash from the North Pole. Unfortunately, like my son in that week before Christmas, many worry too late to meaningfully influence the outcome.

A World of Possibilities

Now, the volume of presents under our Christmas tree never really had anything to do with our kids’ behavior. 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 truly expected it to modify their behavior (though we hoped, from time to time), but because we believed that children 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, as well as our circumstances. And while this is a season of giving, of coming together, of sharing with others, it is also a time of year when we should all be making our own retirement list and checking it twice—taking note, and making changes to what is “naughty and nice” about our personal behaviors—including our savings behaviors. To “be good,” not for “goodness” sake, but for what we all hope is the “goodness” of financial “freedom” in our lives.

Yes, Virginia,[iv] as it turns out, there is a retirement savings Santa Claus—but he looks a lot like you, assisted by “helpers” like your workplace retirement plan, your employer’s matching contributions—and your trusted retirement plan advisors and providers.

Happy Holidays!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] And it’s still online at http://www.claus.com/naughtyornice/index.php.htm.

[ii] And yes, though this was before smartphones, there was a tendency to constantly check in. That said, there do appear to be a number of apps online now that purport to fulfill a similar function. 

[iii] For those unfamiliar with that reference: https://abc7chicago.com/st-nicholas-day-saint-lumps-of-coal/4846172/

[iv] In case you’re curious as to that reference… https://www.newseum.org/exhibits/online/yes-virginia-there-is-a-santa-claus/

6 Obstacles to Retirement Income Adoption

It’s ironic that programs designed to provide retirement income pay so little attention to the realization of that objective. Still, some have said that this could be the year for retirement income—a combination of new offerings, volatile markets, and rising interest rates—and yet, it still seems that there are obstacles to overcome. 

Here are six:

1. There is no legal requirement to provide a lifetime income option.

Let’s face it, it’s a full-time job just keeping up with the plan provisions, standards, participant notices and nondiscrimination tests that are required by law. The notion that a plan sponsor would, in the absence of a compelling motivation take on extra work, and work that carries with it additional financial and fiduciary responsibility as well, doesn’t seem very realistic.

Indeed, with no legal obligation to provide this offering, and an underlying concern that providing the option does involve taking on additional liability…

2. The safe harbor for selecting an annuity provider doesn’t feel very “safe.”

I’ve never met a plan sponsor who felt that the guidance on offering in-plan retirement income options was “enough.”

I’m not saying they’re not out there—clearly there are in-plan options available in the marketplace now, and thus, logically, there are plan sponsors who have either derived the requisite assurances (or don’t find them necessary). Or who feel that the benefits and/or participant need for such options makes it worth the additional considerations. That said, industry surveys (still) indicate that only about half of defined contribution plans provide an option for participants to establish a systematic series of periodic payments, much less an annuity or other in-plan retirement income option. 

Now, over the years the Labor Department has tried to ameliorate those concerns, as recently as Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2015-02. Perhaps more significantly, among the key elements of the SECURE Act that sought to expand retirement income awareness/availability was a new safe harbor. Essentially it says that when a plan fiduciary of a defined contribution plan selects a “guaranteed lifetime income contract” to be offered under its plan, the fiduciary will be deemed to have acted prudently if it follows the steps outlined in the law. In other words, it provides a specific road map to follow[i], and if it’s followed, the new safe harbor means that the fiduciary will not be liable if the insurance company later defaults on its obligation to participants who invest in the contract. Basically, the fiduciary must obtain specified representations from insurance companies about their financial soundness (and not have any information that contradicts those representations).

Of course, that safe harbor emerged in the waning days of 2019—just ahead of COVID, the CARES Act, and a fair amount of workplace/workforce disruption. It seems fair to say that the implications of its guidance have yet to be absorbed by most plan sponsors. Will it finally be “enough?” Time will tell.

3. Operational and cost concerns linger.

While several industry providers have offered what seem to be workable, effective solutions to the “portability problem,” plan sponsors remain concerned that the cost and complexity of transitioning these offerings—either by individual plan participants, or the plan itself—would be daunting, at best.  And that doesn’t take into account the educational challenges. 

Granted, there are a host of new and newly-branded solutions in and coming to market (check out our recent Retirement Income Buyer’s Guide for some insights)—but there remains a “learning” curve, and, at least in some cases, an UN-learning curve—for plan fiduciaries, and those who advise them.   

4. Participants aren’t asking for it.

Once you’ve walked through all the objections[ii] to in-plan retirement income options, it all seems to come down to this. Despite industry surveys that suggest worker interest in the concept (if not the reality) of retirement income solutions, it never seems to get to the level of expressing that interest to those who actually make retirement plan design decisions.

Sure, most plan sponsors acknowledge that participants (certainly older, longer-tenured participants) could use the kind of help that a retirement income structure could provide, and yes, plan sponsors are (still) looking for a more secure safe harbor, and they’d certainly welcome a PPA-ish “nudge” (along the lines of QDIAs) in that direction. At the same time large employers, anyway, have expressed interest in helping workers retire “on time,” and there is apparently increasing interest in retaining participant accounts in their plans. All in all, it seems that those interests would be well-served by a prudent, well-executed solution to provide a reliable retirement income alternative. 

That said, until it becomes an articulated concern for the workers they hope to attract, retain and eventually retire from their workforce, it’s likely that the adoption rate—by plans and plan participants—will be slower than might be hoped.

5. Participants don’t take advantage of the option when offered.

The so-called “take up” rates among participants can be sliced in different ways—by provider (the options are varied, after all), by participant age, even by the involvement of the employer in positioning in the option—but however you parse it, the word I’ve generally heard to describe participant adoption rates is… “disappointing.”

Not that those dynamics can’t be influenced by plan design or advisor input, but justifiable concerns remain about fees, portability and provider sustainability. Moreover, there are significant behavioral finance impediments—be it the overweighting of small probabilities, mental accounting, the fear of losing control of finances, a desire to leave something to heirs, or simple risk aversion. It’s often not just one thing. It’s… complicated.

To its credit, the retirement income industry has pretty consistently tried to overcome the objections raised with a series of product innovations. Unfortunately, that process has tended to make the offerings more complex AND more expensive. One thing for sure—if it’s not TDF-easy/simple to use, participants won’t.

6. (Most) advisors (still) aren’t promoting it.

Plan design can surely help steer participants toward these options, but most advisors I’ve spoken with say that, for a variety of reasons (mainly cost and complexity) these retirement income options are still sold, and not bought. Beyond that, the current advisory focus seems more targeted on wealth management—a perfectly logical emphasis for those with enough wealth to warrant it, but arguably beyond the needs of many retirement plan accounts.     

As an industry, we bemoan worker inattentiveness to the sufficiency of their retirement savings accumulations—and that’s with the aid and assistance of workplace retirement savings education, defaults for decisions like contribution amount and investments, and increasingly the availability of a retirement plan advisor. 

But let’s face it: When it comes to making a decision about a lifetime income option, or even evaluating the option, most workers are—still—literally on their own.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] See Guaranteed Income: The Impact of the SECURE Act

[ii] See 7 Reasons Retirement Income Solutions Stall

7 Things to Know About the New ESG Regulation

A little more than a week ago, the U.S. Department of Labor unveiled its much-anticipated final ESG rule.  There’s a lot to unpack in that regulation (and the rest of the 236-pages that help explain its process and rationale), but here’s a few things that seem particularly important to note at the outset.

There are some (important) things that did NOT change.

First, and to my mind, foremost, the Labor Department noted that “The duties of prudence and loyalty require ERISA plan fiduciaries to focus on relevant risk-return factors and not subordinate the interests of participants and beneficiaries (such as by sacrificing investment returns or taking on additional investment risk) to objectives unrelated to the provision of benefits under the plan.

But it also included an important clarification:

“…the final rule amends the current regulation to make it clear that a fiduciary’s determination with respect to an investment or investment course of action must be based on factors that the fiduciary reasonably determines are relevant to a risk and return analysis and that such factors may (emphasis mine) include the economic effects of climate change and other environmental, social, or governance factors on the particular investment or investment course of action.”

It does away with “pecuniary” as a standard (or at least as a word claiming to be the standard).

The Trump Administration’s version defined pecuniary (a term “introduced” to the ERISA lexicon by the United States Supreme Court in the Fifth Third v. Dudenhoefer decision[i]) as “a factor that a fiduciary prudently determines is expected to have a material effect on the risk and/or return of an investment based on appropriate investment horizons consistent with the plan’s investment objectives and the funding policy established pursuant to section 402(b)(1) of ERISA.” 

However, that word choice was determined by the Labor Department to be causing “confusion” and to have a “chilling effect” — “deterring fiduciaries from taking steps that other marketplace investors would take in enhancing investment value and performance, or improving investment portfolio resilience against the potential financial risks and impacts associated with climate change and other ESG factors.”

However, and despite what some saw as an implication in the proposed regulation, the final regulation does NOT mandate consideration of ESG factors.

Quite the contrary—quoting from the Labor Department:

“The final rule makes unambiguous that it is not establishing a mandate that ESG factors are relevant under every circumstance, nor is it creating an incentive for a fiduciary to put a thumb on the scale in favor of ESG factors.” 

“Outside the ERISA context, investors may choose to invest in funds that promote collateral objectives, and even choose to sacrifice return or increase risk to achieve those objectives. Such conduct, however, would be impermissible for ERISA plan fiduciaries, who cannot sacrifice return or increase risk for the purpose of promoting collateral goals unrelated to the economic interests of plan participants in their benefits.”

It treats QDIAs just like any other investment option in the plan.

The Trump Administration in its preliminary regulation had barred funds with an ESG focus from qualifying as a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA), and then—following criticism on that front—in its final regulation modified the provision in the proposal on QDIAs to prohibit plans from adding or retaining any investment fund, product, or model portfolio as a QDIA or as a component of such a default investment alternative, if its objectives, goals or principal investment strategies include the use of non-pecuniary factors.

The new regulation removes that distinction, noting that “QDIAs would continue to be subject to the same legal standards under the final rule as all other investments, including the prohibition against subordinating the interests of participants and beneficiaries in their retirement income to other objectives. QDIAs also would continue to be subject to the separate protections of the QDIA regulation.”

That said, the Labor Department says it expects to see an increase in the number of QDIAs that are ESG funds—though, considering the number currently in the market (and there are some), that hardly seems a controversial call.

Eliminated additional disclosure/labeling requirements associated with alternative investments with collateral benefits.

The Trump era regulation imposed a requirement that competing investments be indistinguishable based solely on pecuniary factors before you could turn to collateral factors to break a tie—oh, and even then, you would have had to comply with a special documentation requirement on the use of such factors.

The final rule, on the other hand, replaces that with a standard that instead requires the fiduciary to conclude prudently that competing investments, or competing investment courses of action, equally serve the financial interests of the plan over the appropriate time horizon—and, having determined that they equally serve those goals, is not prohibited from selecting the investment, or investment course of action (like an ESG focus), based on collateral benefits other than investment returns. 

And they no longer have to document that evaluation (which, interestingly enough, turns out to be one of the cost benefits[ii] associated with the new rule). 

Participant preferences can (still) play a role in menu design.

Now, in my experience, plan sponsors (and advisors) have long considered participant preferences in menu design. Not to the subordination of prudent fiduciary standards, of course—though there have been concerns that some might not see it that way. 

Well, the new regulation contains a new and interesting provision that “clarifies” that fiduciaries “do not violate their duty of loyalty solely because they take participants’ preferences into account when constructing a menu of prudent investment options for participant-directed individual account plans. If accommodating participants’ preferences will lead to greater participation and higher deferral rates, as suggested by commenters, then it could lead to greater retirement security."

Now, notice that while such considerations don’t necessarily violate the duty of loyalty—but there is no setting aside of the standards of prudence in evaluating and monitoring those investments noted above.  More specifically, those decisions need to be evaluated “taking into consideration the risk of loss and the opportunity for gain” compared to the opportunity for gain “with reasonably available alternatives with similar risks.”   

As noted above, there’s a lot to unpack here—and we’ll continue to do so right up to the Jan. 30, 2023 effective date—and beyond.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] In that case, the nation’s highest court concluded that the responsibilities of an ESOP fiduciary must be directed toward the duty to provide benefits and defray expenses—and that any non-pecuniary interests, such as Congress' strong encouragement of employee stock ownership, did not warrant an alteration of the fiduciary standard.  

[ii] Noting that in view of the “large scale of investments held by covered plans, approximately $12.0 trillion, changes in investment decisions and/or plan performance may result in changes in returns in excess of $100 million in a given year,” the Labor Department estimates that 20% of defined contribution and defined benefit plans (149,300 plans with some 28.5 million participants) will be affected by the regulation “because their fiduciaries consider or will begin considering climate change or other ESG factors when selecting investments.” In the Labor Department’s estimation, for each plan, a “legal professional will need to review paragraphs (b)-(c) of the final rule, evaluate how these provisions might affect their investment practices and assess whether the plan will need to make changes to investment practices. The Department estimates that this review will take a legal professional approximately four hours to complete, resulting in an aggregate cost burden of approximately $91.5 million or a per-plan cost burden of approximately $613.[ii]”

That said, the Labor Department noted that plan fiduciaries “generally already undertake deliberative evaluations as part of their investment selection decision-making process and this final rule does not add burden to those deliberations; but rather, the final rule clarifies that the scope of those deliberations may include climate change and other ESG factors within the confines of paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(1) of the final rule. The Department does not intend to increase fiduciaries’ burden of care attendant to such consideration; therefore, no incremental costs are estimated for these requirements.”

Advisor Value ‘Adds’

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, at least with the best advisors—there’s usually more.

Indeed, years ago as a fiduciary of another firm’s 401(k) plan, and while I had always felt comfortable with the decisions the plan committee had made, as our little company grew to be less little, I was increasingly aware of the personal liability associated with my role, and the small amount of time I was able to dedicate to the task alongside my “day job.” 

That advisor delivered in all the ways I had hoped he would—but there was value well beyond that in terms of the structure he brought not only to our discussions, but to our process. Things like:

The Discipline to Meet

Internally driven committee meetings are frequently a casualty of whatever crisis emerges on any particular day. As human beings we are wont either to assume that nothing will happen unless we are present, or that because others will be there, our voice isn’t required.

Having a committee and not having committee meetings is potentially worse than not having a committee at all. In the latter case, at least ostensibly you know who is supposed to be making the decisions. But if there is a group charged with overseeing the activities of the plan, and that group doesn’t meet, then one might well assume that the plan is not being properly managed, or that the plan’s activities and providers are not prudently managed and monitored, as the law requires.

However, the presence of an outside advisor helps bring a seriousness both to the gathering itself and the agenda.

The Discipline to Educate

Individuals are chosen to be on these committees for a variety of reasons, some better (and some much better) than others. But the first thing our advisor did at that first committee meeting was to acquaint the members with what was expected of them. That included the requirement to act solely in the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries, the importance of process (and documenting that process), and the implications of the prudent expert rule.

It also included reminders that by being on this committee they were a fiduciary under ERISA, that that brought with it personal liability (and, in our case, how the company had chosen to insure them), and that each of us was responsible for the actions of other plan fiduciaries. 

Sure, I could have delivered all those messages—but it meant a lot more coming from that external, expert resource.

The Discipline to Establish an Investment Policy Statement

While I have known attorneys who have counseled against having a written investment policy statement (IPS), I can’t recall a plan advisor of my acquaintance who wouldn’t insist on it (I may now hear from some, of course). ERISA doesn’t require one—and some lawyers see it as a smoking gun (if you don’t follow its terms, it certainly can be). But in its best form it establishes investment guidelines for the plan—and plan fiduciaries, and plan advisors in particular, will generally find it easier to conduct the plan’s investment business in accordance with a set of established, prudent standards if those standards are in writing. And in writing crafted in the objective, cold, clear light of day, rather than in the throes of tumultuous market (or plan) conditions.

In sum, you want an IPS in place before you need an IPS in place—and in my experience any advisor worth their salt will demand that as a starting point.

The Discipline to Remove Funds

As human beings we are largely predisposed to leaving things the way they are, rather than making abrupt and dramatic change. Whether this “inertia” comes from a fear of the unknown, a certain laziness about the extra work that might be required, or a sense that advocating change suggests an admission that there was something “wrong” before, it seems fair to say that plan fiduciaries are, in the absence of a compelling reason for change, inclined to rationalize staying put.

As a consequence, you routinely see new fund options added, while old and unsatisfactory funds linger on the plan menu, a general reluctance to undertake an evaluation of long-standing providers in the absence of severe service issues, and an overall inertia when it comes to adopting potentially disruptive plan features like automatic enrollment or deferral acceleration.

Whether or not the plan has an official IPS, plan fiduciaries are expected to conduct a review of the plan’s investment options as though they do. Sooner or later, that review will turn up a fund (or two) that no longer meets the criteria established for the plan. Oh, and make no mistake—there will be someone with money in that fund, maybe even a senior executive.

Rational thought reminds us that leaving an inappropriate fund on the plan menu—and allowing participants to invest in it—is a bad thing. But human beings, including those who serve on plan committees, have a hard time walking away from a “bad” investment.

The Discipline to Document

I’ve heard it said that when it comes to ERISA, “prudence is process—but only if you can prove it.” To that end, a written record of the activities of the plan committee(s) is an essential ingredient in validating not only the results, but also the thought process behind those deliberations.

But as anyone who has ever participated in a group meeting of any kind knows, it’s hard to fully participate while taking notes. And sometimes those notes don’t make sense by the time you get around to writing them up. An advisor can help with that—and that matters because those minutes can provide committee members (both past and future) with a sense of the environment at the time decisions were made, the alternatives presented, and the rationale offered for each, as well as what those decisions were. They also can be an invaluable tool in reassessing those decisions at the appropriate time.

The current emphasis on fees and plan costs, while important, brings to mind a quote by Oscar Wilde, who once famously described a cynic as someone “who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

As an advisor, what are YOU bringing to the table?  As a plan sponsor, what are you getting from your advisor?

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Thanks, Giving

While it’s the celebration following a successful harvest held by the Pilgrims and members of the Wampanoag tribe in 1621 that provides most of the imagery around the holiday, Thanksgiving didn’t become a national observance until much later.

Incredibly, it wasn’t marked as a national observance until 1863—right in the middle of this nation’s Civil War, and at a time when, arguably, there was little for which to be thankful. Indeed, President Abraham Lincoln, in his proclamation regarding the observance, called on all Americans to ask God to “commend to his tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife” and to “heal the wounds of the nation.” 

We could surely stand to have some of that these days.   

Thanksgiving has been called a “uniquely American” holiday—and so, even in a year in which there has been what seems to be an unprecedented amount of disruption, frustration, stress, discomfort and loss—there remains so much for which to be thankful. And as we approach the holiday season, it seems appropriate to once again take a moment to reflect upon, and acknowledge—to give thanks, if you will.

I’m once again thankful that so many employers (still) voluntarily choose to offer a workplace retirement plan—and, particularly in these extraordinary times, that so many have remained committed to that promise. I’m hopeful that the encouragements of prospective legislation, if not the requirements of same, will continue to spur more to provide that opportunity. 

I’m thankful that amidst all the turmoil and strife in our political system, we’ve seen near-unanimous bipartisan support for legislation that stands to enhance the retirement of tens of millions of Americans.

I’m thankful that so many workers, given an opportunity to participate in these programs, (still) 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 for the dozen or so state IRAs for private sector workers that, despite relatively high opt-out rates, are providing millions of Americans an opportunity to save through payroll deduction.  I’m even more thankful that the employer mandates associated with these programs are encouraging employers to consider more robust workplace retirement savings programs, like 401(k)s.

I’m thankful for new and expanded contribution limits for these workplace retirement programs—and even though it was spurred by dramatic increases in inflation and the prospect for higher costs in retirement, I’m hopeful that that will encourage more workers to take full advantage of those opportunities.

I’m thankful for the Roth savings option that provides workers with a choice on how and when they’ll pay taxes on their retirement savings.

I continue to be thankful that participants, by and large, continue to hang in there with their commitment to retirement savings, despite lingering economic uncertainty, volatile markets, rising inflation, and competing financial priorities—and that their employers continue to see—and support—the merit of such programs.

I’m thankful for qualified default investment alternatives that make it easy for participants to benefit from well diversified and regularly rebalanced investment portfolios—and for the thoughtful and ongoing review of those options by prudent plan fiduciaries. I’m hopeful (if somewhat skeptical) that the nuances of those glidepaths have been adequately explained to those who invest in them, and that those nearing retirement will be better served by those devices than many were a decade ago.

I’m thankful that our industry continues to explore and develop fresh alternatives to the challenge of decumulation—helping those who have been successful at accumulating retirement savings find prudent ways to effectively draw them down and provide a financially sustainable retirement.   

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

I’m thankful for the opportunity to acknowledge so many outstanding professionals in our industry through our Top Women Advisors, Top Young Retirement Plan Advisors (“Aces”), Top DC Wholesaler (Advisor Allies), and Top DC Advisor Team lists. I am thankful for the blue-ribbon panels of judges that volunteer their time, perspective and expertise to those evaluations.

I’m thankful for the opportunity to give advisors a voice in acknowledging the best recordkeepers in the industry via our new Advisors’ Choice accolade.

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 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 for those who have supported—and I trust benefited from—our various conferences, education programs and communications throughout the year—particularly at a time like this, when it remains difficult—and complicated—to undertake, and participate in, those activities. 

I’m thankful for the involvement, engagement, and commitment of our various member committees that magnify and enhance the quality and impact of our events, education, and advocacy efforts. 

I’m also thankful for the development of professional education and credentials that allow the professionals in our industry to expand and advance their knowledge, as well as the services they provide in support of Americans’ retirement. 

I’m thankful for the constant—and enthusiastic—support of our event sponsors and advertisers—again, particularly during a period when so many adjustments have had to be made.

I’m thankful for the warmth, engagement and encouragement 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, ASPPA, NTSA, ASEA, PSCA (and the American Retirement Association, generally), 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.

I’m particularly thankful for the education, support, and availability of programs in our private retirement system that have allowed me to contemplate my own “retirement” in just a few more months.

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.

Wishing you and yours a very happy Thanksgiving!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Things to Ponder

In the course of my day, I talk to (and email with) people, read a lot, and every so often jot down a random thought or insight that gives me pause and makes me think. See what you think.

It’s not what you’re doing wrong; it’s what you’re not doing that’s wrong.

The best way to stay out of court is to avoid situations where participants lose money.

The key to successful retirement savings is not how you invest, but how much you save.

Does anybody still expect their taxes to be lower in retirement?

If you don’t know how much you’re paying, you can’t know if it’s reasonable.

Everybody wants a pension, but nobody seems to want an annuity.

Everybody’s “committed to the business”…until they aren’t.

Retirement income is a challenge to solve, not a product to build.

“Stay the course” is only good advice if you were on a good course to begin with.

Does anybody but lawyers actually read those legal “disclosures?” (that’s a rhetorical question.)

When selecting plan investments, keep in mind the 80-10-10 rule: 80% of participants are not investment savvy, 10% are, and the other 10% think they are. But aren’t.

There’s no such thing as a passive ESG fund.

“Don’t put all your eggs in one basket” applies to all life decisions.

What’s the “target date” for a “through” retirement date target fund?

92% of participants defaulted in at a 6% rate do nothing. 4% actually increase that deferral rate.

Plan sponsors may not be responsible for the outcomes of their retirement plan designs, but someone should be.

Sometimes just saying you’re thinking about doing an RFP can get results.

Hiring a co-fiduciary doesn’t make you an ex-fiduciary.

“Because it’s the one my recordkeeper offers” is not a good reason to select a target-date fund.

Given an opportunity to save via a workplace retirement plan, most people do. Without access to a workplace retirement plan, most people don’t.

Disclosure isn’t the same thing as clarity. Sometimes it’s the opposite.

Nobody knows how much “reasonable” is.

You want to have an investment policy in place before you need to have an investment policy in place.

The same provider can charge different fees to plans that aren’t all that different.

The biggest mistake a plan fiduciary can make is not seeking the help of experts.

Thanks to all who have inspired these—by thoughts, words and (mis)deeds—past, present and future.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Campaign Premises

If you have turned on a TV, walked by a radio, driven down a residential street, gotten an unsolicited text or answered a phone (or more likely let it go unanswered) in the past month, you will, of course, be aware that our nation will officially go to the polls today.

I say “officially,” but of course, our nation has been “going” to the polls—or at least casting votes—for several weeks now. And while some states (and voters) have done so in elections past, a combination of factors means that the process of voting, like so much of our lives the past couple of years, is going to be “unprecedented,” both in terms of the breadth and volume of votes cast prior to election “day”—and perhaps on that day itself.

And yes, it’s been a particularly nasty—one feels compelled to say “unprecedented”—election cycle.

Now, we all carry on as though the nation has never, ever seen anything like this—but perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it hasn’t …in our lifetimes. Students of history will, of course, remember that the nation literally split apart in the 1860s, but even before that there were the “Alien and Sedition Acts” in the late 1700s, the so-called Whisky Rebellion in 1791-94, the Sedition Act of 1918, the Alien Enemies Act in 1942—and let’s not forget from when the Tea Party of 2009 drew its inspiration. As for the outsized impact and biases of the media, hard as it may be to believe the founding fathers (not to mention elected officials throughout the 1800s) would very likely have characterized today’s voices as “restrained” (of course, they weren’t subjected to it 24/7).

Indeed, while much is made of what appears to be an extraordinary level of polarization in perspectives, the pernicious influences of social media, and the pervasive editorializing of the “news,” it remains my sense that at the level of the individual our nation is not so cleanly demarcated into “blue” and “red” as pundits would have us believe. Moreover, while we surely have our individual differences, I suspect at most levels the voting public is not as polarized in their opinions on key issues as are the individuals seeking their vote, or the process[i] that produces those individuals. 

None of that should be read as an acceptance of, or acquiescence with, the current state of affairs. Like most of you (I suspect) I find the tone and tenor of most in the public square today (both “sides”) to be both vitriolic and toxic. We have real problems to solve, crisis of which to steer clear—and some from which we need extrication in the here and now.

The issues that confront our industry—and the nation’s retirement—important though they surely are, are unlikely to be the issues that motivate your choices on the ballot this year. That said, it’s worth remembering that elections matter there as well—that the “sweep” of control often creates the biggest issues for retirement policy, be it the tumult of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the flirtation with Rothification, the ardor for financial transaction taxes (that make no allowance for retirement savings), and “equalization” of tax treatment that might well discourage plan formation. And just how powerful bipartisanship (still) can be in terms of producing thoughtful, meaningful legislation like the SECURE Act—not to mention the SECURE 2.0 (still) waiting in the legislative wings.  

As I write these words, it’s hard to imagine that we’ll know how it will all turn out by Election Day’s close. The good news, whether it be a result, or in spite of, the current level of vitriol, the American public’s interest in expressing its opinion by actually taking the time to go to the polls—or in pursuing an absentee ballot—appears to be surging. Elections do have consequences, after all—and, if the last several elections have taught us nothing else, we now know that votes—even a single vote—can matter.

Here’s hoping that—whatever your position on the issues—you take the time to vote this election. It is not only a right, after all, it is a privilege—and a responsibility.

Here’s also hoping that those who find themselves in office as a result conduct themselves accordingly.

  - Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Which can probably not be said at this point for the perspectives of those who actually made it to the ballot. But then, if they want to stay there, they can’t long ignore the voice/will of the people.

Is Retirement Saving ‘Wasted’ on the Young?

 The academics are at it again.

In a paper provocatively titled “The Life-Cycle Model Implies that Most Young People Should Not Save for Retirement” no fewer than four of them take 48 pages to make that case. The “trade press” breathlessly intoned “Most Young People Should Not Save For Retirement in Their 401k,” “Many young people shouldn’t save for retirement, says research based on a Nobel Prize–winning theory,” “Under 35? Don’t Save For Retirement Yet, These Experts Say,” “Economists Say Enjoy Your Youth and Save Later.” At least one had the temerity to offer a contrasting viewpoint (see “A New Paper Says Young People Shouldn't Save for Retirement. Advisors Disagree”), while The Street at least called it out as “This May Be the Worst Financial Advice Ever Shared.”

Like most research, the conclusion is a premise based on assumptions. Here the most basic is that this thing called a “life-cycle model” is worth considering in the first place. Now, granted, it’s the “Nobel Prize-winning theory” noted above—so mere mortals might be inclined to give it some breathing room.  But the underlying premise behind it is that individuals prefer to smooth out their consumption over their lifetimes, or—as the authors of the paper put it, assuming that “rational individuals allocate resources over their lifetimes with the aim of avoiding sharp changes in their standard of living.” Now, I don’t know about you, but my aspirations—and I consider them rational—have always been a bit higher than that.   
 

As it turns out, the authors here do anticipate some growth in income over time—indeed, that’s a contributing factor in their logic about putting off saving for retirement. Buttressing this are three basic arguments; first that since high-income workers tend to experience “wage growth” over their careers (and thus, for them “maintaining as steady a standard of living as possible therefore requires spending all income while young and only starting to save for retirement during middle age”—that’s right, it REQUIRES spending). Second, that low-income workers “receive high Social Security replacement rates, making optimal saving rates very low”—which apparently means that if you’re at a low-income level now, you’d (only?) be looking to maintain that level into retirement (and certainly, if you’re spending.  The final point has to do with what was then an artificially low interest rate environment that they claim “make a front-loaded lifetime spending profile optimal”—basically, at least at that point in time, they argue you might as well spend the money because there’s no economic advantage in saving. But what about market gains, you say? Hang on, we’ll come back to that in a minute.

‘Star’ Bucks?

Now, if you find yourself scratching you head at all that gobbledygook, it seems to boil down to this—you’ll get more “value” out of spending all of a smaller income now than you will suffer by depriving yourself—so that you can spend later when you’ll have more money to spend. Or something like that.  But to put some numbers behind those assumptions, you have to do a little financial alchemy—create some sort of “value” for consumption—something beyond a mere price tag. How much DOES that cup of Starbucks that we’re always telling people to forego actually mean to them in terms of what academics call “utility”? Indeed, that’s another required assumption here—and it’s key in terms of assessing the perceived trade-offs. 

What’s also odd here is that they actually talk about the “welfare costs” of automatic enrollment—essentially treating an individual who has been defaulted into saving as the equivalent of being scammed by a Nigerian prince. 

And for those of you wondering what happened to the “magic” of compounding those savings, the authors have a direct, but quizzical response: “…there is no power of compound interest when real interest rates are zero. While individuals could invest in risky assets with higher expected returns (which we do not model), those higher returns are merely compensation for taking on the additional risk.” So, basically, in this magical theoretical world… it’s a “wash.” 

Oh—and leakage? Well, in this world, since participation in plans by younger workers (who are particularly vulnerable to things like mandatory cash outs), they comment that, “Viewed from this perspective, leakages from 401(k) balances for young workers might be interpreted as correcting a mistake rather than a major problem in need of further government policy.” That’s right—early cash outs are a good thing (doubtless the taxes and penalties are considered a well-deserved “punishment” for the mistake of saving). 

That said, the authors do offer some caveats—they admit that they’re focused on saving for retirement, and that there may, indeed be reasons for saving earlier for non-retirement purposes. But they also admit that their model “does not account for uncertainty about future wages, employment, or health.”   They acknowledge that “if the wage profile is uncertain, or if there is a risk of future unemployment, individuals may wish to begin saving for retirement earlier in life in case future earnings do not turn out as expected.”

Ya think?

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

My 'Retirement' Account

I’ve spent my entire working career working with retirement plans—but most of it not focused on a retirement plan of my own.

In that sense, I am perhaps like many, maybe most of you. Oh, I thought about retirement (a lot, just not mine), maxed out my 401(k) (when I wasn’t co-funding college tuitions), and was at least intellectually cognizant of the potential costs of living for decades without a salaried paycheck. Much has been made of how difficult it is for younger workers to grasp the reality of retirement—but the reality is that retirement “myopia” is not limited to younger workers.

That said, and as you will hopefully have seen in the lead post today, I have announced my “retirement” —though it’s not retirement[i] in the traditional cessation of work sense. Yes, while I love what I do and the people I do it with (for the very most part)—I’ve been cranking out a daily news service (and then some) pretty much every working day (including vacations) across multiple firms and audiences since 1995.[ii] Simply stated, I am at a point in my life where I am ready (financially and spiritually) to spend less time “working”—and more time focusing on the things I want to spend time doing.

If you’ve ever left a job you love (even for one you hope to love more), then you’ll appreciate just how important it is to be leaving your work in good hands. To that end, I am thrilled to have John Sullivan coming on board. He has been a good friend and kindred spirit over the past several years. He, like I when I joined the ARA, is excited at the prospects of helping contribute and shape retirement policy, rather than merely observing and commenting upon those efforts. I’m thrilled that both he (and Brian Graff) want me to continue to contribute content and perspective to those efforts—and that I have been asked—for at least the next two years—to continue to lead the content development of the nation’s leading, largest and most significant retirement plan advisor conference, the NAPA 401(k) Summit. 

Beyond that, my plans for “retirement” (and yes, I am going to continue to describe it with quotation marks) are still emerging. Some travel, yes—some time with family, for sure—perhaps (finally) the book that I have been meaning to write for years… but was too busy writing to get around to it.   

It has been my great good fortune to have “stumbled” as a part-time college internship into a profession that I love—one that has not only provided a good living (albeit with some bumps along the way), but to which I could, with a clear and enthusiastic conscience, invest heart and soul (not to mention blood, sweat and the occasional tears) in pursuit of a noble goal—helping strengthen and support Americans’ retirement. I’m doubly fortunate to have had the opportunity to share with—and hear from—so many of you over the years.

I’m thankful for the opportunity I have been given here, and to have the opportunity to not just explain but to shape retirement policy with your support, and those of the incredible team here at the American Retirement Association. I treasure what I have learned and continue to learn, as well as the people it has been my great joy to work with and learn from over the years. 

More importantly, I look forward with great anticipation to this next phase of my career…as we all continue working for America’s retirement.

Stay tuned!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] My actual “retirement” date is still months away, of course (Feb. 28, 2023)—and with any luck at all, Congress will pass legislation sometime before the end of this year that will, once again (as it did in 2019), “complicate” my holidays. Indeed, I continue to tell folks that I am “retiring,” but not quitting. 

[ii] And working in this industry since 1978…