State “Capital”

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

This past week I had the opportunity to attend the National Financial Capability Study Roundtable, where a variety of researchers (including EBRI’s Sudipto Banerjee) presented, discussed, and challenged a variety of research papers on topics ranging from financial literacy and retirement planning to financial advice, and from financial literacy and financial behavior to “Prohibition, Price Caps and Disclosure.” Taken as a whole, the day’s discussions focused on ways to better understand and measure the factors that appear to influence individual behaviors regarding their finances.

Simply stated, financial literacy is generally described as the ability to understand finance. More recently, some have begun to focus on financial capability.¹ Research has shown that people with higher levels of financial literacy approach retirement with much higher levels of wealth. However, a growing body of research also suggests that most Americans have limited knowledge about concepts such as inflation, compound interest, and risk diversification at a time when they face an increasingly complex financial planning process alongside an expanding set of saving, investment, and decumulation options.

Drawing on data from the National Financial Capability Study (NFCS),² designed by the FINRA Investor Education Foundation (an ASEC-member firm), Dr. Banerjee’s report³ noted that the chances of having a bad financial behavior decreases with age, and that the chances of exhibiting a bad financial behavior go down with education and income. Interestingly enough, full-time and part-time workers, homemakers, sick or disabled, and unemployed or laid-off individuals were all more likely to have bad financial behavior than self-employed people.

That said, the report specifically examined the role of where you live—specifically the state in which individuals live—in explaining financial literacy and behavior. It also ranked all U.S. states in terms of financial literacy and financial behavior of its residents.

Financial literacy and financial behavior are strongly associated with an individual’s age, income, education and other demographic characteristics. The study shows that, after controlling for the effect of these individual demographic characteristics, most bottom-ranked states had a statistically significant effect on their residents’ financial literacy and almost all states have a statistically significant effect on their residents’ financial behavior. However, the chance of exhibiting “worse” financial behavior increased as the financial behavior ranking dropped.

According to the report, this suggests that there might be factors shaping individual financial literacy and behavior other than individual demographic characteristics–and they might be influenced by the state in which people live.

Notes

¹ The National Financial Capability Study identifies four key components of financial capability as (1) making ends meet, (2) planning ahead, (3) managing financial products, and (4) financial knowledge and decision-making. The report is online here.

² The National Financial Capability Study is available online here.

³ Banerjee’s paper, including the state rankings, is online here.  See also “How Do Financial Literacy and Financial Behavior Vary by State?” in EBRI Notes, November 2011, online here.

“Opportunity” Costs

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

When I was 16, my family moved from a small town in Southern Illinois to the suburbs of Chicago. It was a move that was to change my life in ways I could not have even imagined at the time. Had that move not occurred, I’d likely have wound up at a different university, might well have chosen a different major, and almost certainly would never have stumbled across the college internship doing pension accountings that has, many years later, brought me here today.

As you might expect, those possibilities were not obvious to me at the time of that move. But looking back, the reality is that that move greatly expanded the life choices—and thus, the opportunities—available to me at a particularly critical point in my life.

At EBRI’s Research Committee meeting this past week, Research Director Jack VanDerhei shared the updated findings of the EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating (RRR), TM which will be published later this month. The Retirement Readiness RatingsTM measure the percentage of simulated life paths in retirement that are at risk of inadequate retirement income. Simply stated, a household’s simulated lifepath in retirement is considered to be at‐risk in the baseline version of the model if its aggregate resources in retirement are not sufficient to cover their aggregate minimum retirement expenditures.(1) Previous research by EBRI has demonstrated that one of the most important factors contributing to retirement income adequacy for the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers is eligibility to participate in employment-based retirement plans.

In fact, the updated version or the RRR shows that the number of future years workers are eligible for participation in a defined contribution plan makes a tremendous difference in their at-risk ratings. For example, according to the simulation results, Gen Xers with no future years of eligibility would run short of money in retirement more than half (60.7 percent) of the time—a circumstance that would effect fewer than 1 in 5 of those in that demographic with 20 or more years of future eligibility.

And, bear in mind, that’s the kind of difference in outcome that results from mere ELIGIBILITY, thanks to their likely participation when a program is available, boosted by design enhancements like automatic enrollment and contribution acceleration.

My kids have the chance to learn from my past—to ask about the availability of a workplace retirement savings plan during their job interviews—and to take early advantage of that opportunity.

After all, it’s hard to take advantage of an opportunity you don’t have.

Notes

(1) In EBRI’s RRR,TM aggregate minimum retirement expenditures are defined as a combination of deterministic expenses from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (as a function of income and age) and some health insurance and out‐of‐pocket health‐related expenses, plus stochastic expenses from nursing home and home health care expenses (at least until the point such expenses are picked up by Medicaid). The resources in retirement will consist of Social Security (status quo benefits for the baseline version of the simulation), account balances from defined contribution plans, IRAs and/or cash balance plans, annuities or lump-sum distributions from defined benefit plans (unless the lump‐sum distribution scenario is chosen), and (in some cases) net housing equity (in the form of a lump‐sum distribution at the point that other financial resources are exhausted). This version of the model is constructed to simulate “basic” retirement income adequacy; however, alternative versions of the model allow similar analysis for replacement rates, standard‐of‐living, and other thresholds. More information on the RRR is available in the July 2010 EBRI Issue Brief online here.

Confidence Intervals

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

Last week, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) released a report that included responses from more than 70 percent of America’s Fortune 100 companies—a report that indicated that those employers could “save hundreds of millions of dollars a year under the new health care law by simply terminating health insurance for their workers and dumping these employees into taxpayer-funded health care exchanges” (see the committee’s report, online here).

This, of course, follows recent arguments challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) before the United States Supreme Court—with a ruling anticipated by the end of June. At which point, regardless of the outcome, healthcare reform seems likely to remain an issue for the 2012 political campaign.

What remains to be known is what that will mean for employment-based health coverage(1)—and American’s confidence in their health care system.

Last year, EBRI’s Health Confidence Survey(2) noted that, in 2011, 57 percent of individuals with employment-based coverage were extremely or very confident that their employer or union would continue to offer health coverage. That was down from 68 percent in 2000, but most of that erosion occurred between 2000 and 2002.

Indeed, other than a one-year dip in 2010 (to 52 percent), the percentage who were extremely or very confident has remained just below 60 percent. And, for the very most part, individuals who had such coverage were satisfied with it (60 percent of those with health insurance coverage are extremely or very satisfied with their current plan, and 29 percent were somewhat satisfied—see this EBRI analysis, online here.

The 2011 HCS(3) did highlight some areas of concern. While more than half (56 percent) said they were extremely or very satisfied with the quality of the medical care they have received in the past two years, just 18 percent were extremely or very satisfied with the cost of their health insurance, and only 15 percent were satisfied with the cost of health care services not covered by insurance. Moreover, the 2011 HCS also found that individuals have a low level of confidence that they can afford to purchase health coverage on their own—even if their employer or union gave them the money to do so.

This year’s Health Confidence Survey (HCS) will be fielded in July, allowing time for the Supreme Court’s ruling to come to light, so that survey respondents can better assess and reflect on its impact on their circumstances. In this, the 15th annual HCS, the issues of health care cost, coverage, quality, and confidence in the future of the employment-based system are, if anything, more important than ever—and the need for a clear understanding of the American public’s attitudes on health care never greater.

Endnotes

(1) The Congressional Budget Office recently revised its estimates of the number of people projected to have employment-based coverage in the future. In a recent blog post, Paul Fronstin, director of EBRI’s Health Education and Research Program, said: “As the CBO notes in a footnote for its 2019 estimates, as a result of PPACA, about 14 million fewer people are expected to have employment-based coverage (about 11 million individuals will lose access to employment-based coverage, and another 3 million will decline employment-based coverage and enroll in health insurance from a different source), while about 9 million will newly enroll in employment-based coverage under PPACA.” (see Fronstin’s blog, online here).

(2) The HCS is co-sponsored by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, and Mathew Greenwald & Associates, Inc., a Washington, DC-based market research firm. The 2011 HCS data collection was funded by grants from 12 private organizations. Staffing was donated by EBRI and Greenwald & Associates. HCS materials and a list of underwriters may be accessed at the EBRI website: http://www.ebri.org/surveys/hcs/2011/  If your organization would like to help underwrite the 2012 HCS, please contact Ken McDonnell, at (202) 775-6367, or e-mail: mcdonnell@ebri.org or Paul Fronstin at (202) 659-0670, or e-mail: fronstin@ebri.org

(3) Additional information from the 2011 HCS is online here.

What’s Next?

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

In just a couple of weeks, tens of thousands of students (including a daughter of mine) will graduate from college. For most, it’s a journey of joys, trials and tribulations, an education, not just from a textbook or a professor’s wisdom, but the insights that one can only get from actually living through a different stage of life. Those students set out upon that journey years ago, and, doubtless following careful deliberation and the counsel of friends, families, and a few trusted advisors, a course was set. A course that many “adjusted”—by choice and sometimes of necessity—over the course of the last few years, but a course for their future, nonetheless.

Now the question is—what will they do next?

As parents, we spend a lot of time, energy, and money trying to help our children make good choices, but at a certain point, most of us step back, grit our teeth (and sometimes close our eyes), and hope that they do. Those decisions aren’t always the ones we would make—but, ready or not, they are made, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

Similarly, this industry has expended a lot of time, energy, and money over the years to try and help individuals make good decisions about preparing for retirement. A growing number of individuals are now entering this new stage in their lives, and we ask ourselves, “Are they ready?”

In answer to that question, we can look at their individual situations and make certain projections about that readiness, based on their health, their gender, their income levels pre-retirement, and their likely levels of spending post-retirement, among other things.(1)   But what will ultimately matter is what they do next—and that’s a factor not just of how much savings they have (or think they have) at the point of retirement, or the amount of other resources they may have available then (and thereafter), but how those resources are now invested, how they are invested over time, and how—and when—those resources are spent.

The factors that influence those decisions, as well as their results and potential consequences will, of course, continue to be a key focus for EBRI(2)  in the years to come—just as EBRI’s nonpartisan gathering, analyzing, and modeling the impact of behavioral, plan design, and regulatory influences has provided critical insights on those individual preparations for nearly 35 years now.

It matters because knowing what this generation does “next” is likely to be an important part of helping the next generation do better.

Endnotes

1) See the July 2010 EBRI Issue Brief for more information on the EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating,™ online here.  The 2010 update uses the most recent data and considers retirement plan changes (e.g., automatic enrollment, auto-escalation of contributions, and diversified default investments resulting from the Pension Protection Act of 2006) as well as updates for financial market performance and employee behavior (based on a database of 24 million 401(k) participants). Results will be updated next month, in our May EBRI Notes.

2) More information on the EBRI Center for Research on Retirement Income is available online here. For information about becoming a Research Partner, contact Nevin Adams, at nadams@ebri.org

“After” Math

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

Last week, EBRI Research Director Jack VanDerhei(1) testified before the House Ways & Means Committee on the subject of “Tax Reform and Tax-Favored Retirement Accounts”, a hearing described as considering “…the current menu of options for retirement savings—both with respect to employer-based defined contribution plans and with respect to IRAs.” According to Committee Chairman David Camp (R-MI), the hearing was to “…explore whether, as part of comprehensive tax reform, various reform options could achieve the three goals of simplification, efficiency, and increasing retirement and financial security for American families.”

That hearing preceded by just a day Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad’s (D-ND) unveiling of his Fiscal Commission Budget Plan (see link here).  That plan(2) referenced the original Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission’s “Illustrative” Tax Reform option under which the exclusion for employment-based health insurance would be eliminated, capping its value for five years and then phasing it out over 20 years, while retirement savings accounts would be consolidated, with a cap on tax-preferred contributions.(3)

While the prospects for actual legislation ahead of the November election seem unlikely, it is clear that concerns about the nation’s budget deficit will keep tax reform—and the tax status of workplace benefit programs—front-and-center in the weeks and months to come.

Appropriately enough, next month EBRI will host its 70th policy forum, titled “’After’ Math: The Impact and Influence of Incentives on Benefit Policy.” At this semi-annual policy forum, panels of experts will deal with a variety of pertinent and timely issues, including the potential impact of changes to current tax incentives for employee benefits, and the “true cost” of tax deferrals.

We’ll also talk about what 401(k)/defined contribution plans are delivering, and what individuals actually do after retirement with respect to their retirement savings, as well as optimal approaches on retirement income designs for defined contribution plans. We’ll even look around the globe for some potential lessons to be drawn from international comparisons.

It’s a day of information, interaction, and networking that you won’t want to miss.

However, seats are limited—reserve your place today. You can’t afford not to.

A copy of the full policy forum agenda, and registration information is online here.

Endnotes

1) A copy of Jack VanDerhei’s written testimony for the House Ways & Means Committee is available online here.

Video of the testimony is available in two sections, online here.

Additional information regarding the Ways & Means hearing is available online here.

2) See page 11, online here.

3) Last year an EBRI Notes article (July 2011, online  here)  analyzed the potential impact of those kind of changes on retirement savings.

Titanic Proportions

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

This weekend marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the now iconic RMS Titanic, at the time the world’s largest ocean liner. Its passengers included some of the wealthiest people in the world, as well as a large number of emigrants seeking a new life in North America. On the ocean liner’s maiden—and only—voyage, it carried 2,244 people, 1,514 of whom would perish as a result of a decision to carry only enough lifeboats to accommodate about half those on board. Despite that, the tale of Titanic’s closing hours is generally one of an orderly, “women and children first” evacuation, with the band playing on while passengers stood in line and waited their turn.

In an NPR report this week titled “Why Didn’t Passengers Panic on the Titanic?” David Savage, an economist and Queensland University in Australia, compared the behavior of the passengers on the Titanic with those on the Lusitania, another ship that also sunk at about the same time. Both involved luxury liners, both had a similar number of passengers and a similar number of survivors. But on the Lusitania, passengers panicked—and the survivors were mostly those who were able to swim and get into the lifeboats. The biggest difference in the reactions in these two similar circumstances, Savage concludes in the report, was time: The Lusitania, struck by a U-Boat torpedo, sank in less than 20 minutes, while the Titanic took approximately two and a half hours. Time enough, in the case of Titanic, according to Savage, for social order to prevail over “instinct.”

I’ve not yet seen anyone link the nation’s retirement prospects to the Titanic, though the importance of starting to save early, establishing a plan, and having a goal all fit within the moral of that example: Act while you have time, as you may not always have all the time you need, or the resources to take advantage of it. But what kind of time do Americans have?

The concept of measuring retirement security—or retirement income adequacy—is an extremely important topic, and EBRI has been working with this type of measurement since the late 1990s. When we modeled the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers in 2012, approximately 44 percent of those households were projected to have inadequate retirement income for basic retirement expenses plus uninsured health care costs; so the glass is more than half full, but just a bit. That’s a big percentage, but it’s still an improvement of 5‐8 percentage points over what we found in 2003, when the glass was, indeed, half empty. The improvement occurred despite the impact of the 2008 financial crisis, and the subsequent “great recession.”

In part, that is because the passage of time allowed more funds to be saved, but that improvement is largely due to the fact that in 2003 very few 401(k) sponsors had automatic enrollment (AE) provisions in place, and participation rates among the lower-income workers (those most likely to be at risk) was quite low. However, with the uptick in adoption of AE the past few years after passage of the Pension Protection Act (PPA), participation rates have often increased to the high 80 or low 90 percent—and that stands to make a big difference in shoring up the retirement financial security of many of those who need it the most. In fact, EBRI simulation results show that approximately 60 percent of the AE-eligible workers would immediately be better off in an AE plan than in a plan design relying on voluntary enrollment, and that over time (as automatic escalation provisions took effect for some of the workers) that number would increase to 85 percent.

The tragic loss of life on the Titanic is generally attributed to a shortage of lifeboats, while on the Lusitania, it was the lack of time to get people into the lifeboats available. For many of those looking ahead to retirement, plan design changes such as automatic enrollment and contribution acceleration look to be a real retirement life-saver, as they encourage both early action and the effective use of time.

Notes

While the lack of retirement income adequacy for the lowest-income households is a matter of concern, so is the rate at which they will run “short” of money during retirement. Indeed, as documented in our July 2010 Issue Brief (“The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating:™ Retirement Income Preparation and Future Prospects”), 41 percent of early boomers in the lowest income quartile could run short of money within 10 years after they retire.

More information is included in recent testimony by Jack VanDerhei, EBRI research director, before the Senate Banking Committee, on “Retirement (In)security: Examining the Retirement Savings Deficit” (T-171), available online here.

Planning Ahead

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

April is Financial Literacy Month, and National Retirement Planning Week, sponsored by the National Retirement Planning Coalition (of which EBRI’s America Savings Education Council (ASEC) is a member) is April 9–13. Both events serve to remind us all of the importance not only of saving, but of establishing specific goals for saving.

I was pleased, therefore, this past month to help one daughter set up her first SEP-IRA—and even more pleased to about the same time learn that my other daughter was, of her own volition, making a conscious effort to set aside what seemed to her father to be a fairly substantial portion of her modest income in savings. These are things I knew to do when I was their age, of course, but things I must admit took me a few years to act on.

It’s easy, in the normal press of life, to put off thinking about retirement, much less thinking about saving for a period of life many can hardly imagine. We all know we should do it—but some figure that it will take more time and energy than we can afford just now, some assume the process will provide a depressing, perhaps even insurmountable target, while others don’t even know how to get started (see Goals Tending, online here).

Here are five reasons why you—or those you care about—should save for retirement now:

Because you don’t want to work forever.

If you want to stop working one day, you are going to have to think about how much income you will need to live after you are no longer working for a paycheck.

Because living in retirement isn’t free.

Many people assume that expenses will go down in retirement—and, in fact, a recent EBRI Issue Brief noted “With the age 65 expenditure as a benchmark, household expenditure are lower by 19 percent by age 75, and 34 percent by age 85….” On the other hand, there are changes in how we spend in retirement as well—and they aren’t always less. That same EBRI report notes that health-related expenses are the second-largest component in the budget of older Americans, and a component that steadily increases with age. “Health care expenses capture around 10 percent of the budget for those between 50–64, but increase to about 20 percent for those age 85 and over.” And those spending shifts don’t take into account the possibility of a need or desire to provide financial support to parents and/or children.

Because you may not be able to work as long as you think.

Twenty-five percent of workers in the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey say the age at which they expect to retire has changed in the past year. In 1991, 11 percent of workers said they expected to retire after age 65, and by 2012 that has more than tripled, to 37 percent. Those expectations notwithstanding, half of current retirees surveyed say they left the work force unexpectedly due to health problems, disability, or changes at their employer, such as downsizing or closure (see “The 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey: Job Insecurity, Debt Weigh on Retirement Confidence, Savings”).

Because you don’t know how long you will live.

People are living longer and the longer your life, the longer your potential retirement, particularly if it begins sooner than you think. Retiring at age 65 today? A man would have a 50 percent chance of still being alive at age 81 (and a woman at age 85); a 25 percent chance of living to nearly 90; a 10 percent chance of getting close to 100. How big a chance do you want to take of outliving your money in old age?

Because the sooner you start, the easier it will be.

What are you waiting for? A good place to start is the BallparkE$timate,® and with the other materials available at www.choosetosave.org 

More information about National Retirement Planning Week is available online here. 

Information about the Spring 2012 American Savings Education Council (ASEC) Partners Meeting, with a focus this year on retirement planning is available online here. http://www.choosetosave.org/asec/index.cfm?fa=partners-meeting

“Generation” Gaps

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

If you think it’s complicated trying to determine an individual’s retirement funding needs, imagine trying to do so for all American workers. That was the topic of a Senate Banking subcommittee hearing last week titled “Retirement (In)security: Examining the Retirement Savings Deficit,” at which EBRI Research Director Jack VanDerhei was asked to testify.(1)

When EBRI modeled the retirement savings gap of Baby Boomers and Gen Xers earlier this year, we found that between 43 and 44 percent of the households were projected to be at risk of not having adequate retirement income for BASIC retirement expenses plus uninsured health care costs—though that was 5–8 percentage points LOWER than what we found in 2003. That’s right: In terms of that retirement savings gap, American households are better off today than they were nine years ago—even after the financial and real estate market crises in 2008 and 2009.

Measuring retirement income adequacy is an extremely important and complex topic, and one that EBRI started to provide back as far as the late 1990s. Our recent projections indicate that the average individual deficit number (for those with a deficit) ranges from approximately:

• $70,000 for families, to

• $95,000 for single males, to

• $105,000 for single females.

Stated in aggregate terms, that would be $4.3 trillion for all Baby Boomers and Gen Xers in 2012. That’s a large number, to be sure, but still considerably smaller than some of the projections that have been put forth.

Here are four things that are sometimes overlooked that help explain the “gaps” in retirement projection gaps:

Some won’t have a retirement

The reality is that some people won’t make it to retirement. On an individual level, we may not know who they are, but in the aggregate we can project the impact with some precision.

You can’t ignore the impact of uniquely post-retirement expenditures.

Health care costs—and post-retirement health care costs particularly—remain a potential source of underplanning, both for retirement and retirement projections. The reality is that we spend differently in retirement than we do before retirement. Moreover, the costs of care, and particularly care such as nursing home and/or long-term care, loom large. And many won’t think or insure for that risk until it’s too late.

Tomorrow’s retirement will be funded differently.

Looking back, even only a few years, assuming that the income sources of current retirees will be available to future retirees glosses over the reality that a major shift in emphasis in retirement plan design has taken place. In the future, the proportion of retirees receiving traditional pension income will almost certainly decline, and the percentage relying on defined contribution savings (primarily 401(k)-type plans) as a primary source of post-retirement income is certain to increase. Projecting future retirement income flows based on the experience of today’s retirees is certain to miss the mark.

We’re already saving “better.”

Thanks to the growing popularity of automatic plan design trends—automatic deferrals, contribution acceleration, qualified default investment alternatives—many of today’s retirement plan participants are already saving earlier and investing more age-appropriately than ever before. There’s no reason to assume these trends won’t continue to extend and expand going forward. Projections based on pre-Pension Protection Act defined contribution trends are relying on yesterday’s news.

Endnote

(1) Video of the hearing is available online here.

Dr. VanDerhei’s testimony is available online here.

“Counter” Intuitive?

 By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

When one considers the impact of changes in tax policy on retirement plan savings, it is perhaps natural to assume that those who pay more taxes would respond to changes in the taxation of their contributions and/or savings. However, what’s probably not as obvious to many is that lower-income workers could also be significantly impacted. Indeed, as noted in the March 2011 EBRI Notes, “…behavioral economics has shown that the reaction of employees in situations similar to this are often at odds with what would have been predicted by an objective concerned simply with optimizing a financial strategy.”(1)

As part of the 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey, workers were asked about the importance of tax deferrals in encouraging them to save for retirement. Quoting from the November 2011 EBRI Issue Brief, “If one were to look at this from a strictly financial perspective, one would assume that the lower-income individuals (those most likely to pay no or low marginal tax rates and therefore have a smaller financial incentive to deduct retirement savings contributions from taxable income) would be least likely to rate this as ‘very important.’ However, those in the lowest household income category ($15,000 to less than $25,000) actually have the largest percentage of respondents classifying the tax deductibility of contributions as very important (76.2 percent).”

Additionally, asked how they would likely respond if their ability to defer those taxes was eliminated, it was the lowest-income category ($15,000 to less than $25,000) that reacted most negatively—with 56.7 percent indicating they would reduce the amount they would save in these plans (see more, online here).

As part of the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey,(2) participants were asked about their likely response to a different set of federal tax modifications included in a specific proposal. (3) Those participant responses were subsequently integrated with those of plan sponsor respondents to a 2011 AllianceBernstein survey(4) to the changes contemplated under that same proposal. The proposal author’s analysis had largely assumed status quo in terms of plan design changes (by plan sponsors) and contribution flows (by both individual participants and employers) in response to those changes.

In fact, the average percentage reduction for 401(k) participants in the two smallest plan size categories (less than $1 million and $1–$10 million in assets) were more than 1.5 times the value of the average percentage reduction for participants in any of the larger plan-size categories (regardless of the income level of the 401(k) participants). Striking as those results are, there is a ripple effect on participant savings to be considered as well.

A new EBRI study uses the EBRI-ERF Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM), and with a database of tens of thousands of 401(k) plans and millions of participant accounts, to provide baseline analysis. That analysis indicates that the cumulative impact of reported plan sponsor modifications and individual participant reactions would result in an average percentage reduction in 401(k) balances of between 6–22 percent at Social Security normal retirement age for workers currently ages 26–35. That analysis also indicates that an even larger average percentage accumulation reduction would result for participants in small plans.(5)

Those participant and plan sponsor responses may be counter-intuitive to some—but it’s the type of response, and impact, that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Endnotes

(1) See “The Impact of Modifying the Exclusion of Employee Contributions for Retirement Savings Plans From Taxable Income: Results from the 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey,” online here.

(2) See “The 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey: Job Insecurity, Debt Weigh on Retirement Confidence, Savings,” online here.

(3) It’s not the first time EBRI has undertaken such an analysis, of course. EBRI has looked at preliminary evidence of the impact of these “20/20 caps” on projected retirement accumulations under a set of assumptions—see “Capping Tax-Preferred Retirement Contributions: Preliminary Evidence of the Impact of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Recommendations,” online here, and “Tax Reform Options: Promoting Retirement Security,” EBRI Issue Brief, No. 364, November 2011, online here. EBRI also provided testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on the issue, online here.

Research Director Jack VanDerhei also submitted testimony to the Senate Finance Committee on “The Impact of Modifying the Exclusion of Employee Contributions for Retirement Savings Plans From Taxable Income: Results From the 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey,” online here.

(4) AllianceBernstein, 2011, “Inside the Minds of Plan Sponsors” Research.

(5) That integration of sentiment with EBRI’s extensive 401(k) database and modeling capabilities provided a unique perspective on the full potential impact of these changes on cumulative savings amounts, which was outlined in our recent March 2012 EBRI Notes article, “Modifying the Federal Tax Treatment of 401(k) Plan Contributions: Projected Impact on Participant Account Balances,” online here.

“Good” Vibrations

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

Last week the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Mathew Greenwald & Associates, Inc., unveiled the 22^nd annual Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS).

Among the things we have learned after doing this survey for more than two decades: People’s confidence about retirement frequently seems out of line with the financial resources they indicate they have on hand to fund it. Of course, most (56%) of this year’s respondents admit neither they nor their spouse have made even a single attempt to determine how much they need to achieve that comfortable retirement—so it shouldn’t be too surprising that, asked how much they think they need to have saved in order to provide for a comfortable retirement, many hold forth a number that seems lower than some might expect.

While we spent a fair amount of time this week discussing the results with reporters, one question that came up repeatedly was “Why do you do this survey?  What do you hope people take from it?”

The survey itself is meaningful both for the kinds of issues it deals with and the trends it measures: Questions that, as in this year’s RCS, deal not just with confidence as a “feeling” but also the criteria that underlie and influence that sentiment. It looks at the perspective both of those already in retirement, as well as those still working and heading toward that milestone. It also (with a perspective based on two decades of conducting this particular survey) offers insights on how those feelings and factors have changed over time.

Those good reasons notwithstanding, this past week EBRI reminded reporters that the RCS has found that people who have taken the time to do a retirement needs assessment are generally more confident than those who haven’t done so, and not necessarily because they find that they are in better shape than they’d thought. In fact, most report that they set higher savings goals AFTER they had done the assessment—and were THEN more confident in their situation. That is why EBRI joined many others in 1995 to establish the American Savings Education Council (ASEC), and then the ChoosetoSave^® program and the BallparkE$timate.^®  Millions of Americans have used the BallparkE$timate^® at www.choosetosave.org to help them climb the hill to savings and greater financial security, and—according to the RCS—a more realistic view of the future.

There’s something to be said for knowing the size and extent of what was previously unknown, particularly when it comes to setting a financial goal as complex as planning for retirement can seem.

If the annual publication of the RCS does no more than remind individuals of the importance of taking the time to do so, then it’s not only good information—it’s information that does some good.

Full results of the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS), along with the press release and seven related RCS Fact Sheets,  are now available online here.