The first half of 2013 saw little change in saving and withdrawal activity among employer-sponsored defined contribution (DC) plan participants, an Investment Company Institute (ICI) study found.
The ICI’s survey, “Defined Contribution Plan Participants’
Activities, First Half 2013,” found contribution rates remained high during the
first half of the year. Just 1.5% of DC plan participants stopped contributing
in the first half of 2013—a slight decreased from the 1.6% measured during the
first half of 2011 and 2012.
Withdrawal activity also remained low during the first six
months of 2013, with 2.1% of DC plan participants taking any type of withdrawal
in the first half of 2013. Hardship withdrawals clocked in at 0.9% for
participants. Researchers observed the same withdrawal levels last year.
DC plan loan activity, down fractionally over last year, remains
elevated compared with rates before the 2008-09 financial crisis. At the end of
June 2013, 18.1% of DC plan participants had loans outstanding, compared with
17.9 percent at the end of March 2013, 18.2% at year-end 2012, and 15.3% at
year-end 2008.
Asset allocation strategies for DC plans remained steady as
well from January to the end of June, with 7.4% of DC plan participants changing the asset
allocation of their account balances and 6.0% altering contribution allocations.
More on the study’s findings and methodology here.
It can improve participants’ portfolio construction, asset
allocation and also participant outcomes. So what should advisers tell
reluctant plan sponsors about auto re-enrollment?
The Pension Protection Act (PPA) was a transformational
event in the defined contribution (DC) world, said Dick Davies, managing director
of defined contribution at Russell Investments, which created the opportunity
to move America’s defined contribution plans from being “good enough” to
best-in-class.
However, Davies told PLANADVISER, “we’re disappointed that
plan sponsors haven’t done more to take advantage of the protections offered in
the PPA. But it’s a great piece of legislation that really offers the potential
to dramatically improve 401(k) plans and therefore retirement outcomes for
people.”
Auto-enrollment directs new participants to a qualified
default investment alternative (QDIA) option, such as a target-date fund (TDF).
But then, after all the time and effort expended by the plan
sponsor’s investment committee to improve a thoughtful investment lineup for
entrants into the plan, the plan fiduciaries decide to leave the assets of
existing participants exactly where they were instead of directing them to the
newer core institutional portfolios. Often these portfolios were constructed
years earlier, and they remain misallocated, Davies said in a white paper, “Defined
Contribution Plan Re-Enrollment: A Fiduciary Imperative?”
Of course there will always be some participants who insist
on managing their own investments, but the majority of participants want it
done for them. This is good news, Davies said, because “QDIAs in general and TDFs
(target-date funds) specifically have offered professional portfolio management
to people using those products. Too few people are in them, but we’re making
progress,” he said.
One answer could be a re-enrollment campaign, Davies said.
Over the past few years, complete plan re-enrollment has changed from a
provocative concept to a more broadly accepted strategy. The word “re-enrollment”
may be a misleading term: more accurately, according to Davies, participants
are simply given the chance to re-select their investment options.
No other single action provides as dramatic an opportunity
to transform the investment experience of plan participants as the plan
re-enrollment. When done correctly, fiduciaries are provided safe harbor
protections through provisions of the PPA.
Some Roadblocks
The plan sponsor’s social contract with employees is
possibly the major factor that influences an auto re-enrollment. Some employers
are willing to nudge participants toward potentially better retirement
outcomes, especially when the company has a defined benefit (DB) heritage. But
other plan sponsors may be more libertarian in their philosophy, offering
choice and education to participants, but otherwise avoiding any proactive
steps to influence their employees’ participation.
Another factor that could stand in the way is the
often-mistaken belief that plan participants are as active in their
understanding as the plan committee members, who have substantial knowledge of
investments and the investment education materials. Many plan fiduciaries are
unaware of the growing body of research documenting the irrational
decision-making of many participants, as well as the fact that many
participants strongly prefer that an employer take a more active role in
guiding them to appropriate investment decisions.
One element of the PPA that is not fully appreciated, Davies
pointed out, is that plan sponsors are safeguarded if they give participants
adequate notice of moving assets into a new QDIA and adequately document that
notice. It can be a natural transition when making a change in the investment
menu or any change having to do with the recordkeeper.
“In our experience, using negative consent re-enrollment,
the magic number has been 80%,” Davies said. A majority of participants (80%)
do not select a new portfolio. They are then moved into the new QDIA, often a
TDF. Over the course of a weekend, a plan sponsor could go from 10% of plan
assets in the QDIA to 80% of plan assets in the more appropriate vehicle.
The best methods to effect the change are communication. Take
the time and invest the energy to communicate the process, and provide an
adequate notice period to comply with QDIA regulations and maintain safe harbor
protections. Documentation of the notice process is critical, Davies cautioned.
Use a positive tone when selling the benefit. No apologies
are needed: re-enrollment is a great benefit. Promote the benefit of
professional management and the advantages to participants of not having to
build, monitor and rebalance their own portfolios.
Make re-enrollment an event. A recordkeeper change, plan
merger or major redesign of an investment lineup could suggest a natural time
to re-enroll. There is no real reason to wait, Davies said. On its own, a plan
re-enrollment is enough of an event to deserve promotion and celebration.
“Defined Contribution Plan Re-Enrollment: A Fiduciary
Imperative?” is available here
for download.