Nevin's Data "Points"

Earlier this year, I commented that it would be interesting to see how expanded access to hardship withdrawals might impact that activity. Now we have some answers. There’s more than a little irony in a legislative body that has long bemoaned both the paucity of retirement savings and the nefarious impact of “leakage” (pre-retirement withdrawal of retirement savings) opening those floodgates a little wider – but mostly the new law, and clarifying regulations [i]  seemed to provide plan sponsors a bit more flexibility in administering these programs, some welcome latitude in helping their workforce navigate choppy financial waters. What remained unknown was – would participants take advantage – or, more precisely, would they abuse the privilege. The first sign – and it was a bit of an eye-opener – came from Fidelity who, in a white paper , claimed to have seen a shift in participant behavior. Not in the percentage of participants taking loans and hardships over...

It has become something of an article of faith in our industry that “leakage,” the distribution of money from retirement accounts prior to retirement, is bad. Bad, of course, in the sense that those “premature” withdrawals, via hardship withdrawals, loans or the so-called “deemed distributions” that result when a termination occurs when a loan is outstanding, reduce individual retirement savings. So when the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College published a paper last week entitled “The Impact of Leakages on 401(k)/IRA Assets,” it really wasn’t a question of “if” there was an impact, it was a question of how much. The answer, according to the paper: a reduction in wealth at retirement of a jaw-dropping 25%. Now by any measure, a 25% reduction in retirement wealth is a massive problem — and one that would, if valid, call for the kind of countermeasures touted by the Boston College researchers. But consider the findings published recently by the non-partisan Employ...

While each situation is different, in my experience leaving a job brings with it nearly as much paperwork as joining a new employer. Granted, you’re not asked to wade through a kit of enrollment materials, and the number of options are generally fewer, but you do have to make certain benefits-related decisions, including the determination of what to do with your retirement plan distribution(s). Unfortunately, even in the most amicable of partings, workers have traditionally lacked the particulars to facilitate a rollover to either an individual retirement account (IRA) or a subsequent employer’s retirement plan—and thus, the easiest thing to do was simply to request that distribution be paid to him or her in cash. Over the years, a number of changes have been made to discourage the “leakage” of retirement savings at job change: Legal thresholds for mandatory distributions have been set; a requirement established that distributions between $1,000 and $5,000 on which instructions a...

“401(k) breaches undermining retirement security for millions,” was the headline of a recent article in the Washington Post .(1) No, we’re not talking about some kind of data hacking scandal, nor some new identity theft breach. Rather, those “breaches” are loans and withdrawals from 401(k)s. Providing the impetus for the article is a new report by HelloWallet(2) that indicates that “more than one in four workers dip into retirement funds to pay their mortgages, credit card debt or other bills.” While the article primarily deals with the potentially negative aspects of loans and withdrawals, it also touches on some broader concerns—and does so with some factual inaccuracies. For example, the article incorrectly states that “in 1980, four out of five private-sector workers were covered by traditional pensions;” in fact, only about half that many actually were at that point (a correct statement would be that 4 out of 5 covered by a plan at that time were in a traditional pension, whi...