Stakes Remain High as 401(k) Balances Reach Record Levels

Despite periods of volatility in the past decade, retirement plan investors have benefitted from a strong equity market and their com­mitment to investing in tax-qualified vehicles.

Fidelity Investments has released its quarterly analysis of retirement plan savings trends, showing that positive savings behaviors among employees, enhancements to workplace savings plans and strong market conditions in the closing quarter of 2019 caused average account balances to reach record levels yet again.

Fidelity’s data also shows significant balance increases during the 2010 to 2020 decade, reflecting the fact that people who have either entered the market after or remained invested since the Great Recession have been handsomely rewarded.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

As of the end of Q4 2019, the average 401(k) balance in Fidelity’s book of business rose to $112,300, a new record high and a 7% increase from the previous quarter’s balance of $105,200. The year-over-year average balance increased 17% from $95,600 in Q4 2018, Fidelity reports.

Also notable is that the average individual retirement account (IRA) balance also rose to a record $115,400, a 5% increase from last quarter and 17% higher than the $98,400 balance one year ago. The average 403(b)/tax exempt account balance increased to $93,100, up 6% from last quarter and an increase of 18% from Q4 2018.

Positive Behaviors Add to Strong Market Gains

The account growth figures are heartening, says Kevin Barry, president of workplace investing at Fidelity Investments, but even more impressive is the fact that employees’ positive savings behaviors are driving the record growth essentially in equal measure as the stock market’s momentum.

“The growth in savings levels over the last 10 years demonstrates the positive impact of taking a long-term approach to retirement, and recent Fidelity research demonstrates workers who do so have reason to feel increasingly confident about their retirement readiness,” Barry says. “However, as we enter a new decade and continue to see markets rise and fall, it’s more important than ever to remember some of the important elements of a successful retirement strategy.”

Barry says these important elements include maintaining consistent savings habits and avoiding the temptation to time the markets; ensuring one’s account has the right balance of stocks, bonds and cash; and continuing to focus on and refine one’s long-term savings goals.

Fidelity’s data shows the average employee savings rate reached a record 8.9% in Q4 2019, while the average total savings rate (i.e., employee contributions plus company match) reached 13.5%, tying the record level last reached in Q2 of last year. Over the course of 2019, 33% of plan participants increased the amount they are saving, with the average increase just over 3%.

The data further shows that, of the workers who increased their savings rates, 40% proactively took steps to do so on their own, while 60% had their savings rate automatically increased through a service within their employer’s retirement savings plan.

Long-Term Savers Shine

Fidelity’s quarterly updates consistently underscore the power of long-term investing, even for those who can only contribute modest amounts on a monthly basis.

In Q4 2019, among individuals who have been in their 401(k) plan for 10 years straight, the average balance reached a record $328,200, topping the previous high of $306,500 from last quarter. Among women in the data set, the average 10-year 401(k) balance grew to $261,000, an increase of 21% from a year ago and the first time the average balance for this group passed the quarter million-dollar mark.

The average 401(k) balance for Millennials who have been in their 401(k) plan for 10 years straight reached $149,800, another record high. Among individuals saving in 403(b)s (or other plans offered by not-for-profit employers) for 10 years straight, the average balance increased to $191,700, nearly five times the average balance for this group in Q4 2009.

No Time for Complacency

While Fidelity’s data gives industry stakeholders reason to celebrate, the promotion of positive savings behaviors among participants remains essential. This is especially true as the equity markets experience bouts of volatility, as was the case last month.

According to the Alight Solutions 401(k) index, a volatile January on Wall Street prompted 401(k) investors to increase ill-timed day-trading activities. There were five days of above-normal activity during the month, which was three more than the combined total of the last four months of 2019.

Investors transferred 0.17% of their balances as a percentage of starting balances. In what seem to be ill-timed trades, they favored fixed income on 12 of the trading days, or 57% of the trading days. Overall, asset classes with the most trading inflows in January included bond funds, which took in 77% of the inflows, followed by target-date funds (TDFs) and international equity funds.

While it makes sense that investors want to purchase safer assets when the equity markets grow volatile, the middle of such a volatility spike is often the worst time to make such trades. Indeed, U.S. bonds were up 1.9% during January—meaning many investors have presumably purchased more expensive bonds that have recently gone up in price. On the other hand, many 401(k) traders seemingly missed a chance to purchase discounted equities, as U.S. small cap equities were down 3.2% during the month, and international equities dropped 2.7%.

What Comes Next

Looking ahead, asset managers seem to agree that they do not expect a recession in the coming year, but they do expect more modest growth in the markets paired with increased volatility—which could shift opportunities to small caps, value stocks and cyclical sectors.

For example, BMO Global Asset Management says that the economic expansion of the past two decades is unlikely to be repeated and that central banks are running out of monetary policy options for the next global economic showdown. The firm’s leaders say that while the U.S. economy has slowed, they do not foresee a recession in the coming year. In fact, given the dovish shift of central banks and reasonable corporate earnings, BMO remains broadly positive on equities and neutral on government bonds due to stretch valuations and ultra-low yields, the firm says in its annual Global Investment Forum outlook report.

In its Solving for 2020 report, Neuberger Berman says it expects increased market volatility in the coming year and the possibility for a recession in 2021 and beyond. Like BMO and many others, Neuberger Berman expects modest economic growth in 2020, and that this will shift investors’ attention to focus on fundamentals and to look more favorably on smaller companies, value stocks and cyclical sectors.

Analysts agree volatility could lead to vast opportunities for liquid alternative strategies, and full equity market valuations could make private market investing more attractive. In fixed income markets, Federal Reserve and European Central Bank rate convergence may make U.S. bonds more attractive and hedging U.S. dollar risk less costly.

Rockwell Automation Must Face ERISA Challenge

Allegations in the lawsuit, which has now cleared Rockwell’s dismissal motion, echo those filed in other lawsuits challenging the actuarial assumptions used by pension plan sponsors to value alternative forms of benefits other than the default.

A new decision issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denies dismissal of a would-be class action complaint, rejecting Rockwell Automation’s allegation that a retired pension plan participant failed to adequately state a claim.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit alleged Rockwell has harmed participants, in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by incorporating outdated actuarial assumptions that resulted in certain alternative pension payments being less than the actuarial equivalent of the normal default pension benefit.

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

As is essentially standard procedure in such cases, Rockwell moved to have the complaint dismissed for failing to state a claim, but the District Court has now sided with participants and has agreed to at least allow the case to move forward to the discovery phase.

Background in case documents shows the Rockwell pension plan allows participants to choose from a variety of annuity types once they claim their pension benefit. One such optional annuity is a “certain and life” annuity, under which payments are made for the life of the participant or for at least a specified number of years. If the participant dies before receiving payments for the specified period, the remaining payments are made to the participant’s beneficiary.

According to case documents, when the lead plaintiff in this case, referred to as “Smith,” retired some years ago, he elected to receive his pension in the form of a 10-year certain-and-life annuity, with his son as the beneficiary.

Case documents show the Rockwell plan’s governing documents specify that, to calculate actuarial equivalence for the annuity that Smith elected to receive, the plan must use a specific mortality table, known as the 1971 Group Annuity Mortality (GAM) Table for Males. The governing documents further detail that the applicable discount interest rate is 7%.

According to the complaint, the 1971 GAM is nearly 50 years old and reflects life expectancies of retirees in 1970. In 1970, a 65-year-old had a life expectancy of 15.2 years, the plaintiffs suggest. However, in 2010, a 65-year-old had a life expectancy of 19.1 years, a 26% increase.

“Thus, in 2010, the average retiree receiving a single life annuity would have expected to receive more payments than a retiree in 1970,” the complaint states. “By using the 1971 GAM to calculate actuarial equivalence, the plan’s optional annuities assume that the annuitant will die sooner than average and thus receive fewer payments than is likely. This, in turn, causes the value of the optional annuity to be less than the actuarial equivalent of a single life annuity, in violation of ERISA.”

In its motion to dismiss, Rockwell contended that a plan pays actuarially equivalent benefits so long as it calculates actuarial equivalence using actuarial assumptions that were reasonable at the time they were written into the plan. “The conclusion that the defendants would like me to draw from these provisions is that Congress could not have intended to require that plans periodically review their actuarial assumptions to ensure that they are reasonable at the time benefit calculations are made,” U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman wrote in his opinion. He decided that nothing in the provisions of law the company pointed to suggests that the term “actuarial equivalent” means “actuarial equivalent as of the date the plan adopted its actuarial assumptions.”

For example, Adelman pointed out that Section 401(a)(25) does not prohibit employers from amending a plan’s actuarial assumptions to bring them up to date. It places no constraint whatsoever on an employer’s discretion to amend the plan for any reason. “And it is easy to draft an amendment that incorporates updated actuarial assumptions but does not also grant the employer discretion to manipulate those assumptions,” he wrote.

Adelman suggested that “the plan could adopt a variable standard that is self-updating, such as one of the variable standards identified in Revenue Ruling 79-90.”

Adelman also noted that plans can minimize conflict between the actuarial-equivalence requirement and ERISA’s anti-cutback rule by adopting variable actuarial assumptions that self-adjust to reflect changes in mortality and interest rates. Under Revenue Ruling 81-12, “in the case of a variable standard, any variation in accordance with the plan standard is not subject to” the anti-cutback rule. He agreed with the defendants’ contention that nothing in ERISA requires plans to use a variable standard. However, he said the point is that a plan that is concerned about having to “continually increase benefits” has the option of adopting a variable standard. Once the variable standard is adopted, the plan will not have to continually increase benefits to comply with the anti-cutback rule—only those employees who accrued benefits under the old, fixed standard would potentially be entitled to increased benefits.

The defendants also contended that, to accept the plaintiff’s interpretation of “actuarial equivalent,” the court “would have to legislate a detailed set of rules … specifying when a plan must change the actuarial assumptions it used to determine its contractually promised annuity benefits, how a plan should decide which mortality tables and interest rates to use and for which plan participants.” But Adelman disagreed, saying ERISA already contains the relevant rule: Plans must ensure that any optional annuity forms are actuarially equivalent to a single life annuity.

“This means that plans must use the kind of actuarial assumptions that a reasonable actuary would use at the time of the benefit determination. A court does not have to specify further details to enable plans to comply with the rule. They may comply by periodically consulting with professional actuaries who will review the plan’s actuarial assumptions for reasonableness and recommend whether changes to mortality tables or interest rates are needed,” Adelman wrote.

In rejecting the motion to dismiss, he found that the Rockwell plan’s actuarial assumptions do not provide actuarial equivalence and that the complaint adequately alleges that the plan did not provide Smith with an actuarially equivalent annuity.

The full text of the ruling is available here.

«