Nevin's Data "Points"

You may have missed it, but there was a bit of a “dust up” in our industry last week. It started on July 7 when The Wall Street Journal ran a front-page story titled “401(k) Law Suppresses Saving for Retirement” (a story that is still, as I write on Saturday morning, on WSJ.com’s most popular listing). And, no, that article wasn’t talking about discrimination testing rules, the imposition of annual contribution limits, talk of a mandatory limit on loans, or the imposition of mandatory annuitization of distributions. Rather, it was talking about…automatic enrollment. The report claimed that “40% of new hires at companies with automatic enrollments are socking away less money than they would if left to enroll voluntarily,” citing data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). The problem, according to the report, was that “[m]ore than two-thirds of companies set contribution rates at 3% of salary or less, unless an employee chooses otherwise.” Well, duh. That, as they say,...

It should come as no surprise that the vast majority of plan sponsors who have adopted automatic enrollment have chosen to default that initial deferral at 3% of pay. No, that’s not the level at which most plans match deferrals, and it’s certainly not a level of deferral likely to produce sufficient retirement savings. It is, however, the starting deferral rate attributed to such programs under the auto-enroll safe harbor provisions in the Pension Protection Act (PPA). Coincidence? I think not. Ironically, that same safe harbor provision requires that employers either go back and automatically enroll all eligible participants (giving them the ability to opt-out), or be able to establish that they did at some point (see “ The Pension Protection Act: This Changes Everything ”). Most providers, certainly pre-PPA, were unable to provide the requisite proof of those prior enrollments—and thus it would seem that most employers seeking the protections of that auto-enroll safe harbor woul...

With our PLANADVISER National Conference just one week away, I found myself turning back to my notes from the PLANSPONSOR National Conference in June. Some of these came from presentations, others originated from the audience, and still others arose in the dozens of side conversations at breaks and such in between the official conference sessions. Some, honestly, are something of a synergy among the three. See if they don’t get YOU thinking… You may not be responsible for the outcomes of your retirement plan designs, but someone should be. How you spend your weekend is a microcosm of retirement. “Free money” isn’t. Retirement income is a lot less of a problem when you have saved a pile of money. You can lead a horse to water, after all—but you can’t make him think. No one expects taxes to be lower in retirement any more. Auto-enrollment is still viewed as a very paternalistic type of event. When it comes to fee comparisons, eventually there will be better sources of information, b...

We have long lamented the reality that only about half of this nation’s workers have access to some kind of workplace-based retirement vehicle, and with good reason. Well, we now have bills introduced in the Congress, both House and Senate, that will, eventually, require that every American business that hires 10 or more workers offer them the ability to save for retirement (see Auto-IRA Bill Introduced With Employer Mandates , Auto IRA Bill Introduced in the House ). Now, my first reaction was “it’s about time.” After all, we can talk about inadequate savings rates, inefficient asset-allocation decisions, and egregious revenue-sharing arrangements—but workers with access to the opportunity to save are surely better-served than those without. And any number of studies have shown that those without access to those programs save less—when they save at all—than those who have the opportunity to participate. But honestly, the more I read through the bill 1 summary (and that’s MUCH easi...

Having been born in the Midwest, lived a quarter of my life in the South, and now another sixth in the Northeast, I can tell you—people are different. However, having worked for huge firms and considerably smaller ones, I can also tell you that, when people come together in groups, they are not as different as you might think (or hope, as the case may be). There is a “common wisdom” in our business that suggests that all plan sponsors are, more or less, alike; that large plans are the inevitable early adopters of trends that, sooner or later, trickle down to plans of all sizes. Consequently, those who make their living trying to discern trends and patterns frequently focus on the behaviors in evidence at larger programs—figuring that, in three years or so, those same characteristics will emerge across the spectrum. There’s some logic to that perspective, IMHO. Plan fiduciaries frequently draw comfort and solace from the experience of others, and smaller programs can hardly be faulte...

One of the more well-known Aesop’s Fables is the story of “The Ant and the Grasshopper.” In the story, the ant works hard all summer long, storing up food for the winter that it surely knows is coming. The grasshopper, though he too knows that winter is coming, decides instead to fritter the summer months away—going so far as to make fun of the ant for working so diligently. Of course, winter does finally arrive, and the grasshopper finds himself stuck in the cold, and hungry. He quickly remembers his “friend” the ant—and hops over to his anthill and proceeds to ask for a handout. There have been certain animated retellings of this fable over time—in most of those, the grasshopper comes to see the error of his ways and appeals to the ant for a morsel of food in a contrite manner. And, in those “happier” versions of the fable, the ant has enough to share—and does—and everyone seems to live happily ever after. But in the original version of the story, the grasshopper approaches...

Two years ago, I wrote about the “next level” in defined contribution designs: a growing interest on the part of plan sponsors in focusing on service elements like participation rates, deferral amounts, and appropriate asset allocation—a precursor, if you will, for the designs that would eventually come to a fuller fruition in the Pension Protection Act. Since then, there have been any number of industry surveys that tout the boom in automatic plan designs—as does ours. And yet, despite the pickup in automatic enrollment programs—23.1% of those 5,500 employers responding to PLANSPONSOR’s 2007 Defined Contribution Survey now have these programs in place compared with 17.1% a year ago—it has yet to manifest itself noticeably in participation rates. The average participation rate reported was 72.7%, and while that is higher than the 70.1% in the 2006 survey, it remains short of the 74.9% reported in 2005—before such programs were the hot trend(1). One explanation for the modest uptick...

It may have lacked the hoopla of a midnight Harry Potter release, but in retirement industry circles, last week’s publication of the Department of Labor’s final regulations on qualified default investment alternatives (QDIAs) was nearly as eagerly anticipated. And, like the speculation as to which Potter character would survive the latest saga, the early betting had been that stable value would not make the QDIA cut—and, in large part, that turned out to be the case. Instead, stable-value (or more precisely, capital preservation) vehicle proponents had to content themselves with a sanction as a short-term repository for contributions (up to 120 days—long enough to accommodate the 90-day period that defaulted participants have to opt out), and the assurances from the DoL that they were sure that those vehicles would find a home alongside other options in the time-focused asset-allocation products that were accorded QDIA status (ironically, IMHO, in that regard, capital preservation veh...

These days, the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) is sometimes referred to as the “Pension Destruction Act.” That’s too harsh an assessment, IMHO, but it certainly has a foundation in reality. Without question, the PPA (it was just a year ago Friday that President Bush signed the legislation into law) imposed some new—and for many plans, harsh—restrictions on funding and accounting for funding. Additionally, it did so after many of the worst offenders and abusers of the system were already “out” (legislation frequently closes the barn door after the cow has escaped), and it did so at a time when many plans seemed particularly vulnerable, and many through no real fault of their own. We may never know how many problems were averted by its passage—and by the time its new defined benefit provisions took hold, investment markets, interest rates, and contribution levels had combined to make the problems confronting pension plans much less severe than they were at the time of the law’s p...

There’s little question that automatic enrollment “works,” at least in terms of turning employees into participants—just as there is little doubt that, left to their own devices, too many employees remain on the retirement-savings sidelines. However, as I talk to advisers, third-party administrators, and plan sponsors around the country, I’m increasingly aware that the Pension Protection Act’s automatic enrollment safe harbor is more unpalatable than one might have imagined on first blush. Sure, automatic enrollment is an effective way to get people into the plan—but that 50% matching requirement on an escalated contribution (Congress apparently thought that a 50% match up to 6% of pay deferral was “normal,” rather than merely common among larger plans), particularly on participation levels escalated by automatic enrollment, is simply too expensive for many. And many, already taking advantage of the current safe harbor designs, simply don’t need the discrimination testing shield tha...

Plan sponsors (and advisers) who think the Pension Protection Act’s automatic enrollment safe harbor represents an easy solution to disappointing participation rates may have another “think” coming, according to the findings of recent industry data—Including PLANSPONSOR’s own 2006 Defined Contribution Survey. The 10th annual version of PLANSPONSOR’s assessment of the activities of nearly 5,000 plan sponsors found that the median participation rate for plans that had implemented automatic enrollment was 80%. Now, that’s certainly nothing to sneeze at, but it’s not very much ahead of the 75% median rate for the plans in the same survey that had not taken the step toward automatic enrollment—and it’s well short of the outcome that one normally sees touted alongside that option (generally in the 90-95% participation range). Our survey was based on the experience of plans that had adopted automatic enrollment prior to last summer’s passage of the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), alon...

We have long been concerned about the attention deficit of participants when it comes to their 401(k) plans. There’s the problem of getting them to pay attention to the importance of saving in the first place, and of choosing an appropriate level of savings, the challenge of helping them make sound investment decisions—and the biggest challenge of all, getting them to reconsider those choices over time. Our continued inability as an industry (I realize there are pockets of exception to this rule) to fully engage participants on the issue has, ultimately, led to the adoption of automatic plan designs that don’t require the participant to “do” anything other than write the check. I have a more radical solution to the problem: Let’s make people sign up for their 401(k)—every year. Before you spit up your morning beverage (apologies if it’s too late for that), hear me out. I will concede that signing up for a 401(k) plan can be a daunting task for a participant, and that it is already...