Millennials face a unique set of
obstacles when saving for retirement, says a new study by Schwab Retirement
Plan Services.
Every generation has its reasons not to save for retirement. For
Millennials, more than any other, an unwillingness to sacrifice things they believe improve their quality of life and crushing student debt top the
list. Schwab’s research echoes other studies of Millennial savings behavior,
which find that they’re confused about the process, or squeezed by student loans, and generally need more financial education and support.
Millennials face several
obstacles to meeting their retirement savings goals, which disproportionately
affect this group more than any other. Moreover, although this younger
generation believes they would benefit from help, they are using professional
investment advice far less than their older counterparts. Forty-four percent
are not saving more because they want to treat themselves to things like
occasional dinners out and vacations, more than Gen Xers (34%) and Boomers
(29%).
More than a third of
Millennials (37%) can’t set aside more money for retirement because they are still
paying off student loans. About half (49%) feel they are clueless when it comes
to their best investment options, and only a third (34%) are extremely or very
confident in their ability to make the best 401(k) investment decisions on
their own.
While three-quarters (76%)
claim they would like help managing their 401(k), only 22% are likely to seek
out professional investment guidance, and just 7% are currently receiving it.
Catherine Golladay, vice
president of participant services and administration at Schwab Retirement Plan
Services, admits that managing a 401(k) can often be intimidating for young
people with little to no investing experience. “Our survey found that six in 10
Millennials wished there was an easier way to choose the right investments for
their 401(k),” she says. The firm’s recommendation, that receiving investment
advice early on can ease anxiety and boost confidence, can be a clarion call to
retirement plan advisers looking to support these Millennial plan participants.
Schwab Retirement Plan Services
based its findings on online interviews between May 26 and June 3 of 1,000 401(k)
participants working for companies with at least 25 employees.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
More SEC Rules on Alternatives Transparency Are Coming
The SEC this week voted to propose rules to enhance
operational transparency and regulatory oversight of alternative trading
systems—and the activities of brokers using them.
Retirement specialist financial advisers in the defined
contribution (DC) marketplace and investment consultants for defined benefit (DB) plans have in recent years viewed alternative
investments with curiosity—motivated by a variety of interests but often to hedge
against significant 2008-style losses or to boost portfolio yields in a difficult interest-rate
environment.
DC specialists will know alternative strategies are not
exactly an intuitive fit for retirement plan investment menus—but they do present
an opportunity to diversify retirement portfolios, especially
when folded into asset-allocation solutions such as target-date funds. Built into a 40-Act structure,
named for the Investment Company Act of 1940, alternatives can be effectively liquefied
and packaged for tax-qualified DC plans covered by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
regulations.
Against this background the SEC on Wednesday dropped notice of
pending
regulations that could potentially expand transparency and access to alternative
investments. The rulemaking seeks to eliminate “dark pools” of assets that are used
commonly in the alternatives world—given the interest in many alternatives
managers in keeping their trading strategies secret, at least for short periods
of time, to prevent copy-cats and other potential problems. Specifically, the SEC
wants to add to reporting requirements for alternative trading systems (ATSs) that
trade stocks listed on a national securities exchange, often called “NMS stocks.”
SEC Chair Mary Jo White says the proposed changes, as
currently envisioned, would represent a “critical step forward in delivering
greater transparency to investors and enhancing equity market structure,”
adding that investors and other market participants need “more and better
information about how alternative trading systems work.”
White says the proposal would require an NMS stock ATS to
file detailed disclosures on newly proposed Form ATS-N about its operations and
the activities of its broker/dealer operator and its affiliates. These
disclosures would include information regarding trading by the broker/dealer
operator and its affiliates on the ATS, the types of orders and market data
used on the ATS, and the ATS’ execution and priority procedures.
One ERISA compliance specialist tells PLANADVISER the new rules would likely have less of an impact within 401(k) plans, which still do not generally offer the sort of investment options that would utilize these alternative trading systems: “Defined benefit plans, however, might. So this may be a defined benefit plan sponsor area of interest. Also, it would seem that there would be no downside to what the SEC is proposing, since I am assuming they feel there is a lack of transparency and oversight right now in these areas. For example, those securities that trade via 'dark pools.' Lastly, the companies that operate these alternative trading systems will all say the additional regulation will cost them more money to comply with. The reality is it may also result in significantly more business by further legitimatizing their trading platforms.”
Beyond the new reporting requirements, the SEC says the proposal
would make Form ATS-N disclosures publicly available on the Commission’s website,
which could allow market participants to better evaluate whether to do business
with an ATS, as well as to be better informed when evaluating order handling
decisions made by their broker.
Importantly, the SEC says the proposals also would provide a
process for the Commission to qualify NMS stock ATSs for certain reporting exemptions
under which they currently operate, and to review disclosures made on Form
ATS-N. This would provide a process for the Commission to declare Form
ATS-N filings effective or ineffective, as well as provide a process to review
amendments, the SEC says.
The SEC says Form ATS-N would
require an NMS Stock ATS to disclose the activities of its broker/dealer
operator, and the broker/dealer operator’s affiliates, “including operation of
non-ATS trading centers and other NMS Stock ATSs; products or services offered
to subscribers; arrangements with unaffiliated trading centers; trading
activities on the NMS Stock ATS; use of smart order routers (or similar
functionality) or algorithms to send or receive subscriber orders; shared
employees that service the operations of the NMS Stock ATS and any other
business unit or affiliate of the broker-dealer operator; service providers to
the NMS Stock ATS; differences in the availability of services,
functionalities, or procedures available to subscribers, as compared to the
broker-dealer operator, and its affiliates; and safeguards and procedures
established to protect confidential trading information.”
With respect to the “manner of
operations” of an NMS Stock ATS, the SEC will seek information regarding “treatment
of subscribers; types of orders; connectivity, order entry, and co-location; segmentation
of order flow and notice of segmentation provided to any persons; display of
orders and other trading interest; trading services, including rules and
procedures governing priority, pricing methodologies, allocation, matching, and
execution; procedures governing trading during a suspension, system disruption
or malfunction; opening, reopening, and closing processes, and after hours
procedures; outbound routing; use of market data; fees; procedures regarding
trade reporting and clearance and settlement; order display and execution
access; fair access standards; and market quality statistics published or
provided by the NMS Stock ATS to one or more subscribers.”
NEXT: Where’s it all going?
If approved for publication by the Commission—a likely
outcome given the SEC’s current makeup and existing commitment to conflict of interest mitigation—the proposed amendments will be
published on the Commission’s website and in the Federal Register. The
comment period for the proposed amendments will be 60 days after publication in
the Federal Register.
By way of background, the SEC explains this move is a follow up
on 1998 regulations, through which the Commission adopted Regulation ATS,
which established a new regulatory framework designed to encourage market
innovation, while ensuring basic investor protections. It gave securities
markets a choice to register as a national securities exchange, or operate as
an alternative trading system, which would be required to register as a broker/dealer
and comply with Regulation ATS.
THe SEC says that, since the adoption of Regulation ATS, the
equity markets have evolved substantially and ATSs have become a significant
source of liquidity in NMS stocks, accounting for approximately 15% of volume
in NMS stocks. “ATSs that trade NMS stocks generally operate with
complexity and sophistication similar to registered national securities
exchanges, which applicable laws and regulations require to be transparent
trading venues,” SEC adds.
Looking at the SEC and beyond, this is just the latest move
attempting to bring more clarity to the alternative investment industry, which
is coming under increasing scrutiny. In 2010, the SEC approved a rule mandating
hedge fund and private equity managers to register with the agency and be
subject to surprise examinations. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in
2011 stated that hedge
funds and private equity investments pose a number of risks and
challenges beyond those posed by traditional investments. More recently, a
participant in retirement plans sponsored by Intel Corporation filed a lawsuit claiming its
custom target-date funds were too heavily invested in private equity and hedge
fund investments, making the funds too risky.