Having Both a 401(k) and an IRA Leads to Higher Retirement Savings

The ratio of the combined 401(k) and IRA balance to the average 401(k) plan balance was 2.48.

In a new Issue Brief—“Having Both a 401(k) Plan and an IRA: How Much Does This Change the Retirement Asset Picture?”—the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) examined how much better off investors who hold both types of accounts are.

By the end of the study, EBRI found that the ratio of the average combined 401(k) plan and individual retirement account (IRA) balance to the average 401(k) plan balance was 2.48, and the average combined balance to the average IRA balance was 2.53 times higher.

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

However, EBRI found that many individuals failed to make contributions to both accounts in all the years studied. Accounts were closed when individuals changed jobs, or assets were rolled over as individuals retired.

Finally, maintaining just a 401(k) plan generated as much in balances as the amount generated by individuals who owned both accounts at some points in the period studied.

EBRI found that those who owned both types of accounts owned their IRA for 5.5 years, compared with four years of owning a 401(k).

EBRI said it conducted this study because it wanted to have a more “complete picture of the amount of retirement assets workers or retirees have accumulated.”

The institute found that the growth of the average 401(k) plan balance was higher than the growth of the average IRA balance. The average 401(k) balance in year three was 1.6 times higher the initial balance and, by year six, 2.24 times higher. By comparison, the growth of IRA balances was 1.35 and 1.58, respectively.

EBRI says it is not surprising that 401(k) balances grow at a faster rate, given the fact that these plans are more likely to receive contributions than IRAs and have higher annual contribution limits than IRAs. In addition, there is often a company match in a 401(k). EBRI also said the growth of the average combined balances of those maintaining both a 401(k) and an IRA throughout the study was close to the 401(k) plan growth: 1.55 times the initial year value by year three and 2.15 times in year six.

In conclusion, EBRI says, “any reporting on retirement assets that focuses on the average balance of only 401(k) plans or IRAs does not create a complete picture of the amount of retirement assets workers or retirees have accumulated. Many individuals hold multiple 401(k) plans and IRAs—especially as they grow older and move from job to job. By combining the EBRI/ICI [Investment Company Institute] 401(k) Database of 27 million plan participants with the EBRI IRA Database of 19 million accountholders, a unique perspective on the relative amount of assets held by those having both account types can be provided. Indeed, maintaining both account types throughout the entire study period resulted in an average amount of combined assets that was about 2.5 times larger than the average 401(k) plan balance and a median combined balance that was approximately 3.5 times the median 401(k) plan balance.

“This study shows the potential of what can be accumulated in total if workers are able to maintain both account types throughout their working lives, or large portions of them,” the report continues. “It also shows that this potential is not always met, as workers change jobs, stop contributing or take money out of [or] close their accounts, resulting in retirement asset leakage.”

Another Lawsuit Scrutinizes Use of Active TDF Suite in 401(k) Plan

Prime Healthcare Services is one of the latest targets of an ERISA 401(k) excessive fee suit.

A participant of the Prime Healthcare Services Inc. 401(k) Plan has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Prime Healthcare Services and its 401(k) plan committee alleging they failed to fully disclose the expenses and risk of the plan’s investment options to participants; selected and retained high-cost, poorly performing investment options; and allowed unreasonable expenses for recordkeeping.

A considerable amount of space in the complaint is dedicated to challenging the plan’s offering of the Fidelity Freedom Funds target-date fund (TDF) suite. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants failed to compare the actively managed Fidelity Freedom Funds to the passively managed Freedom Index Funds TDF suite and consider their respective merits and features. The complaint says the actively managed TDF suite was riskier and more expensive than the index suite.

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

In addition, the plaintiff says the defendants’ violation of their Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties was exacerbated by the fact that they chose the Fidelity Freedom Funds as the plan’s qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) for as long as it was an option on the plan investment menu. The fact that plan participants were defaulted into the TDF suite meant that it held a large amount of participants’ assets, the complaint states.

The lawsuit delves into the underlying investments and glide path of the TDF choices, and says the active suite allocates approximately 1.5% more of its assets to riskier international equities than the index suite. The active suite also has higher exposure to classes such as emerging markets and high yield bonds.

The fees charged by the active suite are many multiples higher than the index suite’s “industry-leading low costs,” the complaint states. “While the Institutional Premium share class for each target year of the index suite charges a mere 8 basis points [bps] (0.08%), the active suite has expense ratios ranging from 47 basis points (0.47%) to 75 basis points (0.75%).”

The lawsuit also claims that using a start date of January 1, June 30, or December 31, 2014, the index suite has outperformed the active suite to date.

The lawsuit calls out what it says are “additional objectively imprudent investment options.” These include the Invesco Real Estate Fund, the T. Rowe Price Mid-Cap Value Fund, the Oakmark Equity and Income Fund, and the Prudential Jennison Small Company Fund. The Prudential option was replaced in mid-2019, but the lawsuit says the defendants “were far too late in eliminating this fund as an investment option.”

A Prime Healthcare spokesperson told PLANADVISER: “The allegations are baseless. Prime Healthcare will vigorously defend itself and is confident it will prevail. This is unfortunately a very common opportunistic lawsuit that certain plaintiff lawyers have been filing against many large employers.”

«