NIRS: Women Must Save More than Men

Women remain at a higher risk for retirement insecurity as compared with men, according to a research brief issued by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS).

The Issue Brief contends that risk can be reduced by ensuring women have the combination of a traditional pension, supplemental 401(k)-type individual savings, and Social Security—also known as the three-legged stool.

“Shattering the Retirement Glass Ceiling: Women Need a Three-Legged Stool,” points out that women need to accumulate more retirement assets than men because they often live longer, but acquiring enough assets is more difficult because women still have lower wages and less access to retirement plans during their working years as compared to men.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Specifically, the research found that that a woman with a salary of $50,000 must save $1,000 more per year than her male counterpart to achieve equitable retirement income because of her longer life expectancy. Yet according to a 2007 study, full-time female workers made just 76.2% of their male counterparts’ wages—meaning less money for savings, NIRS said in a press release.

The Issue Brief also suggests that defined benefit (DB) pension plans provide benefits and protections that are especially important for women. NIRS’ study indicates that women are more likely to live above the poverty line in retirement when they have income from pensions, but just 23.3% of women have their own pension, as compared to 42% of men.

Among women dependent on their husband’s retirement plan, those whose husbands have a DB plan might be better off than women whose husbands have only a defined contribution (DC) plan, because DB plans have special protections for spouses, NIRS said.

The report notes that supplemental DC savings plans such as 401(k) accounts offer portability of assets, which is important for women as they might move in and out of the workforce more so than men.

The Issue Brief is available here.

Marsh Settles Bid-Rigging Charges with Conn.

Marsh&McLennan Cos. Inc. agreed Wednesday to pay $2.4 million to settle bid-rigging and client-steering charges leveled by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Business Insurance reported that the settlement brings the broker a step closer to putting its four-year-old bid-rigging scandal behind it, and it comes a little more than a year after the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Blumenthal could proceed with his attempt to seek damages for harm to the state’s economy as part of his original 2005 bid-rigging lawsuit.

Marsh was accused in multiple lawsuits of making arrangements whereby brokers entered into agreements with insurers to receive undisclosed compensation and engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the market for commercial liability insurance.

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

In January, the broker reached a $7-million settlement with nine states (see “Marsh Agrees to $7M Settlement of Bid-rigging Charges). In 2005, Marsh agreed to a settlement with then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer over similar allegations. The Marsh parent company agreed to set up an $850-million fund to compensate clients.

«