Client Service March 5, 2021

When Asked About Benefit Trade-Offs, Participants Show Preference for Guarantees

The 2020 PLANSPONSOR Participant Survey also shows that company matches really matter to retirement plan participants.

Reported by

The 2020 PLANSPONSOR Participant Survey shows that if retirement plan participants are given a choice between two benefit options, in most cases, they are just about evenly split between them. However, it does show a slight preference among participants for guarantees and amply demonstrates that company matches matter.

For example, if the participant was offered the choice between a one-time $5,000 bonus or a one-time $5,000 contribution to their 401(k) account, 54% would choose the former and 46% would choose the latter.

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

There seems to be a higher preference, however, for a higher employer contribution to the plan, even if it means waiting during a vesting period, as 62% said they would choose a 6% employer contribution that is vested after five years, but only 38% would go with a 3% contribution that is immediately vested.

Participants also indicate a slight preference for a more favorable health care plan, with 51% saying they would take a $250 per month reduction in health insurance premiums and 49% preferring a $250 per month increase in employer contributions to their 401(k).

Contributions by the employer do, indeed, matter. Fifty-four percent would prefer a $3,000 annual contribution to their 401(k) from their employer, even if it required the employee to put $6,000 of their own money into the account. By comparison, 46% would just take a $1,500 annual nondiscretionary contribution from their employer that didn’t require them to make any contribution of their own.

Participants also indicate they would slightly prefer being offered a 401(k) plan over a higher salary. Fifty-two percent said, if given the option, they would prefer to work for a company that has a 401(k) plan but that pays 10% less, but 48% would prefer to work for a company without a 401(k) plan that pays 10% more. The results change, ever so slightly, when it becomes a question of a 20% difference in pay, with 52% choosing the hypothetical option of working for a company without a 401(k) but that pays 20% more, and 48% going with the choice of working for a company with a 401(k) but that pays 20% less.

Preference for Guarantees

When it comes to performance, participants also show a preference for guarantees over the possibility of losing money. Fifty-eight percent said they would take a guaranteed 3% annual return over a market-based return that might greatly exceed 3% but that could also lose money (42%).

“Women have a much stronger preference for guarantees than men,” says Brian O’Keefe, vice president, research and surveys, at Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), parent company of PLANADVISER and PLANSPONSOR magazines. “If you look at the splits by gender, responses to most scenarios are pretty consistent between men and women. However, women are far more likely to favor guarantees than men. Additionally, women are consistent in their preference for guarantees. The percentage of women favoring a guarantee of 2% or 3% is basically the same, while the percentage of men willing to accept the guarantee increases as the guarantee increases.”

In addition, O’Keefe continues, “lower-income respondents also have a strong preference for guarantees. As household income increases, the percentage of people preferring guarantees drops. This is not all that surprising.”

On the same note, 60% would prefer guaranteed, lifetime, tax-free monthly payments of $200 a month starting by at least age 60 over a one-time $10,000 contribution made to their 401(k) account today (40%). Fifty-one percent would be willing to pay higher fees in hopes of receiving above-average returns, but slightly less (49%) would go with the opposite, that is, paying lower fees but accepting below-average returns.

The online questionnaire was completed in September by 1,163 individuals, ages 23 and older, 220 of whom were unemployed.

Compliance March 5, 2021

The Importance of EBSA Disaster Relief Notice 2021-01

The prescheduled phase-out of the coronavirus disaster declaration had created a ‘compliance conundrum,’ which the DOL has now addressed by issuing additional guidance.

Reported by

A new commentary shared with PLANADVISER by a team of attorneys at the Wagner Law Group provides helpful interpretive information about the recently published Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) Disaster Relief Notice 2021-01.

The Wagner attorneys note that this disaster relief is related to actions taken early on in the coronavirus pandemic by the Trump administration. As they recall, on March 13, 2020, then-President Donald Trump issued a formal proclamation declaring a national emergency concerning the novel coronavirus disease outbreak. The proclamation was accompanied by a separate letter which determined that a national emergency existed nationwide, beginning March 1, 2020, as a result of the COVID-19 outbreak. 

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

In response, and acting pursuant to Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 518, the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued guidance of their own, titled “EBSA Disaster Relief Notice 2020-01.” In a related move, the Department of Treasury joined the IRS and DOL in jointly issuing a document referred to as the “Notice of Extension of Certain Time Frames for Employee Benefit Plans, Participants, and Beneficiaries Affected by the COVID-19 Outbreak”

Similar to what had been allowed regionally in earlier cases of natural disaster, these joint 2020 notices provided relief for certain time-sensitive and mandatory reporting and compliance actions related to employee benefit plans governed by ERISA. As the Wagner attorneys explain, the relief provided under the 2020 notices continues until 60 days after the announced end of the emergency, but the one-year reprieve period created under ERISA Section 518 technically ended on February 28, 2021. 

“This had created a compliance conundrum, which the DOL has now addressed by issuing additional guidance,” the Wagner attorneys note.

As the attorneys explain, this latest development is just another piece of evidence underscoring how extraordinary the last 12 months have been.  

“Even with widespread bipartisan support, it can be difficult to draft legislation to address all possible contingencies,” the attorneys observe. “In the wake of the events of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted ERISA Section 518 and Internal Revenue Code [IRC] Section 7508A, which generally allow the secretaries of labor and the Treasury to disregarded a period of time of less than one year in determining employee benefit deadlines when a plan, sponsor, administrator, participant, beneficiary or other person is affected by a presidentially declared disaster.”

The Wagner attorneys explain that ERISA Section 518 was later amended to permit the secretary of labor to allow extensions of these deadlines in the case of a public health emergency declared by the secretary of health and human services. 

“The premise with respect to these provisions, whether a terrorist attack or public health emergency, was that a one-year period would be enough to address any extraordinary circumstances,” the attorneys note. “Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic has exceeded the limits of the one-year period of extension, thereby creating a significant administrative problem for employee benefit plans.”

The Wagner attorneys say the DOL is aware of both the complexity of this approach and the ongoing nature of the pandemic. They say the DOL has committed to acting “reasonably, prudently and in the interest of workers and their families” during this challenging time. For their part, the attorneys say, plan fiduciaries should make reasonable accommodations to prevent the loss or undue delay of benefits and should take steps to minimize the possibility of individuals losing benefits because of a failure to comply with pre-established time frames.

“Since the time frames for certain participants to act could have ended today or could have ended earlier this week, action for most health and welfare plan sponsors should be a priority item,” the Wagner attorneys suggest. “Plan sponsors will need to understand the new interpretation of the extension as applied to its participants.”

The Wagner commentary makes clear that these developments probably will have a greater direct impact on health and welfare type plans relative to retirement plans, but the lessons are still important for all ERISA fiduciaries.

«