Retirement Plan Participation Continues to Improve

However, average deferral rates have declined slightly from their peak of 7.3% in 2007, Vanguard finds.

In large part due to automatic retirement plan design features, aggregate participation rates are higher than ever and continue to rise, according to Vanguard’s 15th anniversary edition of its How America Saves report.

Since this year marks the 10th anniversary of the Pension Protection Act (PPA), Vanguard’s report includes findings that reflect the impact of the law on improving plan construction and participant investing behaviors in defined contribution (DC) plans over the past decade. For example, among its provisions, the PPA enabled the automatic enrollment of workers into 401(k) plans at a default savings contribution rate, as well as the auto escalation of workers’ contribution rates on a periodic basis. As of year-end 2015, 41% of Vanguard plans had adopted automatic enrollment, up from just 10% of plans a decade ago. Of those plans, 70% featured automatic annual increases.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Last year, 63% of new Vanguard participants were hired under automatic enrollment, versus 12% in 2006. In 2015, three-quarters of eligible employees participated in their employer’s plan, up from two-thirds ten years ago.

The PPA also sanctioned the use of target-date funds as a qualified default investment alternative. Target-date fund use has nearly doubled since the passage of the PPA, with 90% of Vanguard plan sponsors offering target-date funds at year end 2015. In aggregate, 98% of participants now have access and 70% of participants use target-date funds.

“Target-date funds are, without question, a game changer and one of the most important elements of the 401(k) evolution,” says Jean Young, lead author of How America Saves. “As defined contribution plans evolved, it was clear that many workers were not going to serve as their own investment manager. As a result of the rise of target-date funds, we’ve seen dramatic improvements in the portfolio construction of 401(k) participants.”

NEXT: Improvements can be made

Looking ahead to the next decade of the post-PPA era, How America Saves data points to key areas needing improvement. In particular, the rise of automatic enrollment has had an inverse effect on deferral rates. Nearly three-quarters of plans default at participant at savings rates of 4% or less. Automatic enrollment boosts participation rates, but it can lead to lower contribution rates when default deferral rates are set at insufficient levels.

According to the report, high-level metrics of participant savings behavior remained steady in 2015. The plan participation rate was 78% in 2015. The average deferral rate was 6.8% and the median was essentially unchanged at 5.9%. However, average deferral rates have declined slightly from their peak of 7.3% in 2007.

The rising adoption of automatic enrollment also results in a growing number of smaller balances. In 2015, the average account balance for Vanguard participants was $96,288; the median balance was $26,405. In 2015, Vanguard participants’ average account balances declined by 6% and median account balances fell by 11%.

“Plan sponsors—and the industry as a whole—must bear the responsibility to continue the significant progress impelled by the PPA, including driving improved savings rates for all participants,” says Martha King, managing director of Vanguard’s Institutional Investor Group.

This year’s How America Saves report is here.

T. Rowe Price Agrees to Remedy Proxy Voting Errors

The firm will compensate certain clients for a proxy voting error the firm made in connection with the leveraged buyout of Dell, Inc. in 2013. 

T. Rowe Price Group announced that it will pay up to $194 million to compensate certain clients for a proxy voting error the firm made in connection with the 2013 leveraged buyout of Dell, Inc.

The issue stems from a procedural error impacting T. Rowe Price mutual funds, trusts, separately managed accounts, and sub-advised clients holding, in aggregate, approximately 31 million impacted shares.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

According to the firm, at the time of the 2013 Dell buyout, T. Rowe Price’s investment team “held a strong view that the merger consideration of $13.75 per share offered by Dell significantly undervalued the company.” Several of the investment company’s funds, trusts, and clients subsequently filed a petition with the Delaware Court of Chancery to seek a fair value appraisal for their Dell shares.

“Due to a proxy voting error, though, voting instructions for our clients’ shares were ultimately submitted as ‘For’ the merger, rather than ‘Against,’” T. Rowe Price officials admit. “On May 11, 2016, the court ruled that this voting error rendered T. Rowe Price’s fund, trust, and client shares ineligible to pursue fair value. On May 31, 2016, the court ruled that Dell’s fair value per share was $17.62 and not $13.75, a difference of more than 28%, validating the firm’s original investment thesis.”

Based on the court’s May 31, 2016, ruling, T. Rowe Price will start to make payments to affected clients to compensate them for the difference in valuation, plus statutory interest, resulting from the denial of appraisal rights.

“As a result, T. Rowe Price expects to record a one-time charge of approximately $194 million in its second quarter of 2016, which is expected to reduce net income, after tax, by about $118 million—or approximately $0.46 in diluted earnings per share of common stock,” executives explain. “The company will fund the payments from available cash.”

T. Rowe Price funds and portfolios that will receive payments include the Equity Income Fund, Institutional Large-Cap Value Fund, Science & Technology Fund, Equity Income Portfolio, Equity Income Trust, U.S. Equities Trust–Large-Cap Value, and U.S. Large-Cap Value Equity Fund–SICAV.

“Since this situation began, our focus has been on securing fair value from the Dell buyout for our clients,” the firm adds. “The court’s determination that the original buyout consideration offered by Dell was too low validated our original investment view. By compensating our clients based on the court’s May 31, 2016, ruling, clients will come out ahead as compared with how they would have fared had they taken the merger consideration.”

«