Americans Not Up to Speed on Rollovers

Forty-two percent don’t even know it is possible to keep assets in a plan once one leaves an employer.

A survey by Financial Engines found that few Americans are knowledgeable about the ins and outs of rollovers from 401(k) plans. Forty-two percent of those between the ages of 35 and 65 who left a job where they had money in a 401(k) plan were unaware that they could leave their money in the plan.

Twenty-eight percent didn’t know that some retirement plan distribution choices trigger tax liabilities and penalties, and 51% didn’t know that it is possible to move money from an individual retirement account (IRA) into a 401(k) plan.

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

“Employers spend large amounts of time and money providing employees with access to high quality and low cost investment options in their plan,” says Christopher Jones, chief investment officer at Edelman Financial Engines, noting that his firm has rolled out a new fiduciary distribution review program that provides departing employees private, on-on-one meetings about their options.

Ric Edelman, co-founder and chairman of financial education and client experience at Edelman Financial Engines, notes that 46% of respondents to the survey don’t know what they are paying in 401(k) fees, which could hinder their decision about what the right course of action is. In addition, 37% thought they did not pay any 401(k) fees.

“Not understanding your distribution options can harm your ability to reach your retirement goals,” Edelman notes. “Often, leaving the money with your old employer is the best choice.”

According to Edelman and Jones, rolling money out of a plan can result in higher, potentially less apparent costs, including taxes, IRS penalties and other costs. IRAs often feature proprietary investment options from the same provider, they say. IRA fees are often higher than 401(k) fees, and by exiting a plan, an investor is losing existing fiduciary and creditor protections, the survey report suggests.

“Big companies that employ hundreds or thousands of workers have better bargaining power to negotiate the lowest management and fund fees possible,” the survey report says. “That means more money stays in their employees’ accounts and compounds over time. Larger plan sponsors also typically offer more customized funds that are more closely monitored than individuals can access on their own through an IRA.”

Financial Engines estimates that a person who kept a $100,000 balance in a 401(k) plan rather than an IRA would have 4.7% more in their account after 10 years—or $4,600 in additional savings.

It is due to these reasons that a Callan survey this year found that 70% of plan sponsors want to retain assets in their plan. However, when switching jobs, only 26% of workers have rolled their money over to another employer-sponsored 401(k). Twenty-eight percent moved the money to an IRA, but 39% kept the money in the plan. Sixty-nine percent of workers have not consulted with an adviser about distribution options. Among those who withdrew money before retiring, 26% got no information from any source.

Financial Engines says it is important that people become more knowledgeable about rollovers, as they are changing jobs more often. Citing data from Mercer, the company notes that voluntary turnover among workers in 2018, excluding retirements, was 15.5%, up from 14% the year before. 

Among those who did work with an adviser on their distribution choices, 80% said they felt confident about their decision. Nearly 80% said it was extremely or somewhat important that financial advisers act as fiduciaries.

In conclusion, Financial Engines recommends that participants seek out advice from a financial planner before making a distribution decisions.

Edelman Financial Engines’ findings are based on a survey of 1,071 people conducted in February and March using the Qualtrics Insight Platform with a panel sourced from Lucid Marketplace.

Fog Still Hangs Over Defunct DOL Fiduciary Rule’s Influence

By the time the 5th Circuit vacated the DOL fiduciary rule expansion last year, advisory and brokerage firms had spent many millions of dollars to comply with the rule. Congressional Democrats want to know more about what’s happened since.

An open letter penned by Congressional Democrats and addressed to Gene Dodaro, Comptroller General U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), calls on the GAO to examine the broad public and industry response to the 2018 defeat in a federal appeals court of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) fiduciary rule expansion.

The twin Democratic signatories of the letter are Virginia Representative Robert Scott, Chairman of the House Committee on Education & Labor, and Washington Senator Patty Murray, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions.

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

“In the past year [since the fiduciary rule’s court defeat], DOL appears to have done little, if anything, to warn retirement savers that they are now vulnerable to professionals who, according to DOL, have no obligation to put their clients’ interest before their own,” they write.

According to the Congressional Democratic leaders, understanding the fiduciary rule expansion’s significance and the likelihood that it would soon be operational, many financial services firms took considerable action in recent years to comply in advance.

“Some firms believed that the rule included many commonsense changes that were long overdue, particularly with regard to the provision of investment advice. These firms revised their operations significantly, in some cases spending millions of dollars,” the letter states. “After being upheld a number of times in various courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit unexpectedly vacated the DOL’s rule in 2018, creating uncertainty and confusion for the financial services industry and the retirement world generally. Today, plan sponsors, financial services professionals, and investment advisers must decide whether to retain the new policies and procedures they developed, often at considerable expense, in response to the fiduciary rule.”

According to Murray and Scott, one “unclear alternative was to revert to the pre-2016 ways of doing business, restoring harmful conflicts of interest that had previously been eliminated to comply with the 2016 rule.”

“Additionally, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently promulgated a rule covering investment advice in the retail market,” the letter continues. “While the SEC rule does not immediately implicate retirement plans, Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta has indicated that DOL will collaborate with the SEC to issue a new fiduciary rule later this year, which may exacerbate the confusion. Meanwhile, plan participants may experience difficulty in understanding the various duties owed to them by those giving retirement advice and may be receiving conflicted advice.”

In light of these challenges, the Congressional Democrats are urging the GAO to address the following questions:

  • To what degree did financial services firms, plan administrators and financial advisers serving defined contribution plans, 401 (k) plan participants, and IRA investors assume a fiduciary role in response to the 2016 Rule?
  • For those firms that initiated efforts to comply with the 2016 rule prior to the Fifth Circuit’s decision, how did their product line change during this period (i.e., what new products, if any, were introduced and which products were de-emphasized to facilitate compliance, particularly with the 2016 rule’s Best Interest Contract exemption)?
  • How did their compensation structure (e.g., commission fee for service) of advisers and other staff change during this period?
  • How did the amount of sales and revenue by product type change during this period?
  • What were their aggregate compliance costs, and how did these costs vary by type (e.g., technology or training product development among other things)?
  • What was the overall effect on plans, participants, and IRA investors?
  • To what extent have those entities who assumed a fiduciary role continued to act as fiduciaries after the rule was vacated in 2018? And to what extent have those entities who assumed a fiduciary role decided not to act as fiduciaries after the rule was vacated? Why did these entities choose their specific path?
  • For the entities who continued to assume a fiduciary role after the rule was vacated and those that did not, to what extent, if any, has the rule being vacated affected their product line; the amount of sales and revenue for by product type; compensation structure; and their aggregate compliance costs, and costs by type.
  • To what extent will the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest, which was finalized on June 5, 2019, cover advice to retirement savers and what protections will it extend to retirement savers and plan participants generally? Which retirement products will be subject to the SEC’s rulemaking?

«