Ramanis, reporting to Greg Tschider, will work alongside
Nancy Worth to oversee recordkeeping and compliance, operations and client
services for both the DailyAccess and Verisight brands. She is tasked with broadening
inter-company communications and aligning senior management across Verisight’s
operations, consulting and client services teams.
In this role, she will unify Verisight’s and DailyAccess’
processes, setting the stage for continued growth and efficiency while
maintaining the relationship management and service that clients have come to
expect from both organizations.
Asked how this leadership position will affect the
onboarding of clients of The Newport Group, which Verisight recently acquired,
Verisight said it is not able to discuss the details of that transaction at
this time.
The company told PLANADVISER there are no new initiatives
planned at this point. However, it anticipates introducing positive changes
under Ramanis’ management, “as our goal is always to find ways to enhance our
overall level of client service, maximize our resources, and improve our operating
efficiencies.” The company said it will continue to offer plan sponsors and
employers a full spectrum of service offerings, such as Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) consulting and fully bundled solutions, including
trust services for clients of all sizes, types and complexity.
“Laura is an important addition to our executive team,” said
Tschider, in a press release. “Her extensive experience, as well as her
reputation throughout the industry, makes her a perfect choice to help
Verisight usher in the new era of growth that began with our acquisition of DailyAccess earlier
this year. We also anticipate that she will be instrumental in coordinating our
brands and leadership team while reinforcing continuity across the
organization.”
Most recently, Ramanis served as the managing senior partner
for Mercer’s New England business and sales leader for the Northeast from 2011
to 2014. In these capacities, she was responsible for driving revenue growth
and coordinating sales efforts from multiple lines of business, including
Health & Benefits, Retirement, Talent, Investments and Administration. In
addition to her leadership responsibilities, Ramanis led cross-discipline
engagements and managed global client relationships for large, complex
organizations. She also served as executive sponsor for several key accounts.
Ramanis joined Mercer in 2000 and held a variety of roles
within the organization, including serving as the retirement business leader in
New England and a managing partner in the organization’s Cincinnati and
Minneapolis offices. Prior to her service at Mercer, Ramanis spent several
years as client relationship manager with Towers Watson in Chicago.
She
holds a Bachelor of Science in marketing from the Kelley School of Business at
Indiana University.
Can Delayed Social Security Claiming Be Incentivized?
Reduced benefits for life doesn’t sound like much of a deal, but that’s
what most people opt for when they decide to take Social Security
benefits early.
Can
incentives change the minds of these early claimants? The Social Security
Administration thinks they might. In “Incentivizing Delayed Claiming of Social
Security Retirement Benefits Before Reaching the Full Retirement Age,” authors
Melissa A. Z. Knoll, a research psychologist with the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau, and Anya Olsen, a social science research analyst
with the Office of Retirement Policy, Office of Retirement and Disability
Policy, Social Security Administration, take a look at the psychological and
behavioral research, and explore some ideas to change the current incentive
structure to encourage people to delay taking benefits before the full retirement
age.
Nearly
half of retired workers claim retirement benefits as early as possible, and
almost all claim at some point before their full retirement age. Because
Americans are living longer but retiring earlier, often with inadequate
savings, the timing of benefit claiming can be crucial to financial well-being
in retirement. Claiming benefits before the full retirement age results in
permanently reduced benefits, so many researchers argue that delaying claiming
is often the best decision economically. In fact, delaying the start of benefits is now recognized as an important way to enhance retirement security.
It
would follow, the authors say, that delaying benefit claiming can aid in the
financial security of older Americans, and they cite the National Commission on
Fiscal Responsibility and Reform (2010)—also known as the Simpson-Bowles
Commission—as urging the Social Security Administration (SSA) to provide information
to the public “with an eye toward encouraging delayed retirement” and to do so
by considering “behavioral economics approaches.”
Changing
Reductions in Benefits
SSA’s
current structure to incentivize delayed retirement benefit claiming involves
decreasing monthly benefits if they are claimed before the full retirement age
and increasing monthly benefits if they are claimed after it; however, the size
of the annual increases in benefits after the full retirement age are larger
than the size of the annual decreases in the months before it. That incentive
structure results in a number of interesting distributional outcomes and
presents an opportunity to introduce policy changes that may affect those
outcomes, the researchers say.
They aim to shift
that reward structure so that individuals are more incentivized to delay
claiming in the months and years before reaching their full retirement age.
The
paper notes that individuals who delay claiming after their full retirement age
receive an 8% annual increase to their unreduced monthly benefit through
delayed retirement credits. In comparison, individuals who wait to claim until
at least three years before their full retirement age receive an approximate
6.7% reduction to their unreduced monthly benefit for each year until they
reach their full retirement age, while claiming one year earlier, from age 63
to 62, results in an additional 5% benefit reduction.
An
individual might not view this 5% benefit change as large enough to encourage
them to claim benefits beyond age 62, the researchers note, and the prospect of
earning an 8% increase in benefits through delayed retirement credits for
delaying benefit claiming after reaching the full retirement age may be too far
in the future for it to be a realistic incentive for the 40% of both men and
women who currently claim at the early eligibility age. Psychological research
has shown that individuals tend to display a present bias, or a tendency to
overweigh the value of rewards they can receive immediately.
Increasing
the benefit for delayed claiming before the full retirement age would make the
monthly change (and therefore, annual change) in benefits from age 62 to 63
(and from age 63 to 64 for those with a full retirement age of 67) larger than
in subsequent years. The paper says it is important to note that making the
size of the increase larger for each month an individual delays claiming past
age 62 is akin to increasing the size of the monthly reduction in benefits over
the same period.
However,
under this incentive, the total reduction for claiming before the full
retirement age would be the same as that under current law (that is, about 25%
for individuals with a full retirement age of 66 who claim at age 62 and about
30% for those with an full retirement age of 67 who claim at age 62). Making
the suggested changes therefore would not penalize those who cannot delay
benefit claiming beyond age 62 (for example, those who become disabled or face
a work limitation, are laid off and have few job prospects, or have to care for
a disabled spouse or other family member) because the total reduction stays the
same.
Offering
a Lump Sum
Another
idea for incentivizing a delay in claiming Social Security benefits presented
by the researchers is based on the fact that Social Security is essentially an
inflation-adjusted annuity, and although economic theory suggests that
individuals, particularly those who are risk averse, should value an annuity's
protection against longevity risk, annuities are notoriously unpopular. In
response to people's apparent reluctance to purchase annuities, researchers
have explored individuals' preferences for annuities, compared with lump-sum
payments; that is, whether individuals would be willing to give up a portion or
all of a steady lifetime income stream in order to receive a lump-sum payout.
Research typically
finds a strong preference for the lump-sum option. For example, lottery winners
tend to prefer a smaller lump-sum payout to a larger annuity option. In
addition, some researchers have found that providing lump-sum bonuses to Navy
personnel increased reenlistment, as compared with installment bonuses.
Other
researchers have explored individuals' preference for a lump-sum payment
specifically in the context of Social Security. In their lifecycle model, research
in 2013 found that the average retirement age for individuals age 60 rose by
1.4 years when a lump-sum option was introduced for delayed retirement credits.
In
1999, two researchers asked study participants to choose an increase in yearly
payments for delaying claiming, from age 65 to 68, or to take a lower yearly
payment, coupled with a one-time bonus payment, to be received upon claiming
benefits at age 68. Three-quarters of participants said they’d prefer the
option with the one-time bonus, while only one-quarter chose the increased
yearly benefit. When participants were asked which option they thought the
“average American worker” would prefer, 80% indicated that the one-time bonus
payment would be a better incentive to delay claiming than the higher yearly
benefit.
Based
on this research, the authors suggest a possible incentive would be to offer a lump-sum
payment to individuals who delay claiming until after age 62. This could be
accomplished in two ways: (1) Individuals could receive a lump-sum payout in
exchange for some of their monthly benefit increases, or (2) they could receive
a lump-sum bonus in addition to their monthly benefit increases.
Bonuses
for Continued Working
Individuals
are less likely to claim benefits if they are working, so encouraging them to
delay claiming may be akin to encouraging their continued workforce
participation. Knoll and Olsen suggest that a successful incentive may be one
that encourages prolonged workforce participation.
As
delayed retirement credits were originally intended to reward individuals who
continued to work past full retirement age, there is a precedent for offering
increased benefits for increased work. As well as the increased Social Security
retirement benefits, encouraging people to work longer could enhance retirement
security through other means as well, such as giving them more time to
accumulate personal retirement savings.
One way to
incentivize work past the early eligibility age, and potentially encouraging
individuals to delay claiming past that age, would be to offer intermittent
bonuses tied to workforce participation. For example, individuals who continue
to work and do not claim benefits after the early eligibility age could receive
a bonus at each yearly interval (month 12, 24, 36, and so forth) until reaching
full retirement age.
Behavioral
economics and psychological research suggest that remitting the bonus as
individuals reach each yearly milestone, rather than rolling it into the future
benefit, could be particularly effective. Again, because of present bias, knowing
that a tangible cash benefit will become available in a few months (once wages
are reported) may lead individuals considering leaving the workforce and
claiming benefits to delay doing so.
The
bonuses would be most effective if each increased in size through the full
retirement age, as individuals prefer increasing sequences of income rather
than constant sequences, the research suggests. Establishing the optimal size
of the bonus could be challenging, the report’s authors admit, but say it would
be reasonable to base it on a percentage of annual earnings, which are reported
to SSA each year, or on a percentage of his or her unreduced monthly benefit.
A
Lottery
Finally,
Kroll and Olsen note that recent research has shown lotteries can successfully
incentivize low-income individuals to engage in savings behavior. Lotteries
take advantage of individuals' tendency to overweigh very small probabilities,
which leads to the lottery being overvalued. As such, lotteries can potentially
create a more appealing incentive than fixed or guaranteed payouts.
The
researchers suggest a lottery system could be created in which individuals who
continue to work past age 62 and have not yet claimed benefits would be entered
into an annual lottery for the chance to win a cash prize. Under that system,
only non-beneficiaries who have earned income in the previous year would be
entered into the lottery.
A
winner would be drawn annually, because earned income is tracked on an annual
basis. In order to ensure that the size of the cash prize is large enough to
create a worthwhile incentive to delay benefit claiming, the prize could be a
percentage of the individual's income in the previous year. Although this
proposal encourages delayed claiming through increased workforce participation,
a lottery could also be implemented that is directly linked to an individual's
choice to not claim benefits. That is, any eligible individual who does not
claim benefits in a given year could be entered into the lottery, regardless of
whether he or she had earned income in the previous year.
More detailed
information, including a link to “Incentivizing Delayed Claiming of Social
Security Retirement Benefits Before Reaching the Full Retirement Age,” with its
supporting research and tables, is available at the Social Security Administration’s website.