AARP Finds Most Employers not Embracing Auto-Enrollment

While they are familiar with automatic enrollment, most large employers surveyed by AARP aren’t implementing it.

The survey found that the vast majority (94%) of employers reported that they are either “very familiar” or “somewhat familiar” with automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans, and a majority (78%) of employers are familiar with automatic escalation. However, less than half (42%) of respondents said their 401(k) plan includes automatic enrollment, and even fewer (28%) reported that their 401(k) plans have an automatic escalation feature. 

When asked why they do not have automatic enrollment for their 401(k) plan, employers without automatic enrollment most frequently cited employee-related challenges such as a concern that employees would not like automatic enrollment (30%), costs (20%), contentment with the status quo (14%), and a lack of information (10%). Asked their reasons for not including automatic escalation in their 401(k) plan, the most frequent responses cited included that the company thinks employees would not like it (66%) and the company thinks employees would find it confusing (52%).  

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

Additionally, one-third of employers without automatic escalation (35%) indicated that the company is concerned about matching costs. 

The majority (58%) of employers with automatic enrollment reported that they automatically enrolled only new hires when they first adopted automatic enrollment.  Just over one-third (35%) automatically enrolled all non-participating employees who were eligible for the plan.  

Of those employers who automatically enrolled only new hires at adoption, only about one in 10 (11%) reported that they have automatically enrolled all non-participating employees at least once since adopting automatic enrollment. 

Employers were most likely to identify the following as “major reasons” that companies offer automatic features: It helps employees save more for retirement (74%), it is easier to pass nondiscrimination testing (49%), and it demonstrates that they are a socially responsible company (35%). 

Employers that automatically enroll only new hires were asked why they do not automatically enroll all non-participating employees who are eligible for the plan and employee-related challenges were again the reasons most frequently cited for limiting automatic enrollment to new hires.  

AARP commissioned Woelfel Research, Inc., to conduct a telephone survey of 806 large employers with 401(k) plans. The survey was fielded December 2009 to February 2010. The full report can be downloaded here.  

How Much Help Are Defaulted Participants Getting?

New research indicates employers could do more to help defaulted participants adequately save for retirement.

The latest in the J.P. Morgan Asset Management Ready! Fire! Aim? series of research studies found that the average starting salary for defaulted participants was $35,000 per year compared to the average $38,000 starting annual salary for all participants in its analysis, and the disparity between salary levels continued across participants’ careers. While this may indicate that defaulted participants need less replacement income to maintain their standard of living in retirement, J.P. Morgan’s past research consistently showed that lower salaries usually were directly linked to lower contributions, according to the report. 

J.P. Morgan contended that contribution rates for defaulted participants start too low and remain well below industry expectations across their entire careers. The research found that the average 5% starting contribution for defaulted participants was below the average 5.8% for all participants, and the average defaulted participant only reached an 8% contribution rate by age 50 and a 10% rate by age 65.  

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

This significantly lagged the broader group, where the average participant’s contribution rate increased to 8% by age 42 and 10% by age 55. More importantly, those levels were well below the 10% to 12% annual rate often recommended by financial advisers as necessary to achieve adequate retirement savings, J.P. Morgan said. 

“Proactive auto-enrollment and auto-escalation programs can improve participation rates, but these programs need to be set at high enough contribution levels to firmly place defaulted participants on a more prudent savings path,” the report said. 

Projected balances at age 65 were significantly lower for defaulted participants in the analysis. Aside from the low contribution levels this could also be because a sizable number of defaulted participants take loans, J.P. Morgan found, and most withdraw their entire account balances shortly after they stop working. 

J.P. Morgan also advises that effective participant communication must actively engage these participants and educate them on how critical their saving patterns are to achieving retirement success.

QDIA Selection Key to Helping Defaulted Participants 

J.P. Morgan Asset Management, in its latest Ready! Fire! Aim? research, contended that a prudently designed QDIA target date strategy can help defaulted participants secure adequate funding for retirement.  The firm analyzed which type of target-date design was most likely to help defaulted participants successfully save for retirement, based on the saving behaviors of defaulted participants it uncovered. 

J.P. Morgan said the portfolio design of many target-date strategies may be missing the mark on providing defaulted participants with an adequate level of retirement security. In its analysis, target-date funds that relied too heavily on equity performance increased potential overall volatility and exposed defaulted participants to steep market declines, especially in the crucial five to 10 years before retirement, while at the other extreme, portfolios that reduced risk purely with more conservative holdings were less volatile, but they also drastically restricted long-term performance.

“A more prudent investment approach was offered by target-date strategies that focused on investing at controlled levels of risk through broader diversification and relatively rapid reduction in equity exposure in the years leading up to retirement,” the report said. “By including asset classes such as emerging market equity, emerging market debt, direct real estate, REITs and high-yield fixed income, these portfolios reduced expected volatility without sacrificing long-term return potential.” 

J.P. Morgan concluded that the three critical selection criteria of a QDIA target date lineup should be risk-adjusted return potential, volatility management, and equity exposure, particularly at and near retirement. 

More information about J.P. Morgan’s research is available at www.jpmorgan.com/institutional.

«