‘Standing,’ Still

 Our industry has long fretted over how 401(k) participants will respond to volatile markets. And perhaps not surprisingly, these days the headlines are, generally speaking, full of “stay the course” assurances.   

That said, as recently as a month ago the headlines—even OUR headlines read things like “Light 401(k) Trades in July Even as Wall Street Posts Strong Month, Hot July Brought Cool 401(k) Traders, July Brings Much-Needed Calm to 401k Trading Activity, 401(k) Trading Light in July Despite Market Gains.” As though this is a surprising result.

In fact, as long as I can remember, our industry (or at least its headline writers) has long been somewhat amazed that participants have been as “resilient” in the face of volatile markets as they have—consistently—been over time. We’ve rationalized that ostensibly rational behavior in different ways, at different times. In 1987 (before there was daily trading in 401(k)s) it was said that the markets had come back before participants (via those once-a-quarter transfer windows) had a chance to respond. In 2001-2002, we told ourselves that our brilliant education programs (not to mention the ubiquitous “stay the course” messages) had an impact. In 2007-2008, we comforted ourselves with the notion that there was nowhere (else) to go (granted, that wasn’t really comforting). 


Today—though it’s not really mentioned—I’d like to believe that it has something to do with the shift to professional asset allocation products[i]; target-date funds and managed accounts. After all, haven’t we told participants that the purpose of these platforms was to leave the business of investing to the professionals?

But whatever rationale we may want to apply, the reality has always been that there’s not much trading activity in 401(k) accounts, even during periods of extreme volatility and concern. This is routinely borne out by annual reports from Vanguard and Fidelity, and more frequently tracked (on a monthly basis) by Alight[ii]. Inevitably the commentary commends those who “stay the course,” because those who do transfer monies tend to “lock in” their losses, selling low and buying high. Those who do transfer serve as cautionary tales—perhaps even reassuring the participants who, once again, failed to do anything.      

The reality is that participants, generally speaking, aren’t really qualified to make these kind of investment decisions, particularly during periods of extreme volatility. Let’s face it, even the best self-directed investors typically have a day job that doesn’t allow the time or inclination to keep up with the markets, or the trends that underlie them (not to mention that some of those great investing ideas at 10:00 AM fade by the time that fund trading actually occurs at the market close). The advent of daily valuation allowed us to make quick, if not always wise, decisions—but, thankfully, most don’t. 

The bottom line is that while the counsel provided participants during times like these is generally “stay the course”—that counsel is valid only if the course you’re on was correct in the first place. 

  - Nevin E. Adams, JD

[i] Indeed, Vanguard notes that in 2021, only 3% of all pure target-date fund investors made an exchange, a rate nearly five times lower than all other investors.

[ii] The Alight 401(k) index recorded 7.5 times normal trading on Feb. 22 as Russian troops massed near the Ukraine border, 2.9 times normal trading the next day, and 6 times normal trading on Feb. 24 when the invasion began.  But “normal” is “when the net daily movement of participants’ balances, as a percent of total 401(k) balances within the Alight Solutions 401(k) Index™, equals between 0.3 times and 1.5 times the average daily net activity of the preceding 12 months.” Vanguard’s assessment of 2021 activity is that only 8% of participants traded, and just 4.3% did in 2022 (through June 30) while Fidelity says just 5% did (and 85% of those only did so once). Principal reported 2.44% traded, according to a MarketWatch report.   

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Do Roth and 401(k) Pre-Tax Holders Really Spend Differently?

Image
An interesting—and somewhat counterintuitive—report came out last week, one that cast doubt on the “common wisdom” regarding Roth versus traditional pre-tax savings. The assumption underlying the research [i] was that those who had not yet paid taxes on their savings (the traditional pre-tax savings) would be hesitant to tap into those savings and trigger taxes, certainly more so that individuals that had already paid those taxes. Instead, the research suggested that the opposite occurred; that individuals who had saved on a pre-tax basis actually withdrew more/sooner—but with a twist.  This they hailed as good news. They noted that the research suggests investing in a CT (current-taxed, or Roth) plan could help ease concerns about outliving funds—because they spend at a lower rate (though they saw this as a negative for those who saved on a deferred tax (DT) basis).  They even managed to find a silver lining in the “cloud” of faster spending by the pre-tax crowd beca
Read more

Is the 401(k) Really a ‘Horrible’ Retirement Plan?

Image
  A recent “news” post about a blog post finds some curious “faults” with the 401(k). The news item carried the provocative title “ ‘Rich Dad’ Robert Kiyosaki Reveals Why the 401(k) Is a ‘Horrible’ Retirement Plan .” It originally ran on GoBankingRates.com, but was subsequently picked up in syndication on Yahoo Finance (at least). For the uninitiated, Robert Kiyosaki is one of those “I’ll help you get rich the way I did” types, providing that road map via books (notably “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”) and seminars. He offers comparisons to decisions made by his dad (poor dad) in contrast to those of the father of his best friend (rich dad).  Suffice it to say that his dad worked hard and saved the old-fashioned way—which is NOT his advice to you. That’s included previous pearls of wisdom like “ Why Saving Money is the Wrong Way to Prepare for Retirement .” Apparently rather than saving for retirement, we’re supposed to “look for an investment that will pay for your desired standard of living. Ma
Read more

Shifting the 401(k) ‘Balance’?

Image
A week or so ago, I came across an announcement that IBM was making changes to its 401(k). More specifically that, effective next year they were going to replace their matching contribution in their 401(k) with an employer contribution to a cash balance plan. [i] In the days that followed, the news was picked up in a couple of different trade publications—the implication being that this might be signs of a new shift in plan design. Heck, even Teresa Ghilarducci weighed in , championing the “evolution” to a defined benefit structure from the “flawed” 401(k). She never misses an “opportunity.” Readers here are likely familiar with the basic concepts of a cash balance design. Technically a defined benefit plan, it’s generally referred to as a “hybrid” because it also has a number of participant-friendly aspects that it shares with a defined contribution plan, notably an account balance (though it’s a “notional” one) that is shared with participants. The benefits accumulate
Read more