Data & Research September 18, 2015

Student Loans Hindering Millennials' Retirement Savings

One-third of Millennials say student loan debt has either delayed them from saving or kept them from saving as much as they would like.
Reported by

Student loan debt is putting Millennials in a bind when it comes to retirement savings.

A survey conducted in April by the Investor Protection Institute (IPI) found half of Millennials (49%) have college-related debt, including 20% with debt of $1,000 to $20,000, 16% with $20,000 to $50,000 and 13% with $50,000 or more. More than two out of five millennials (43%) report having additional non-college debt of $1,000 to $20,000.

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

Just 38% of the respondents are already saving and investing for retirement. A nearly equal percentage (34%) says that, as a result of college debt, “I have either delayed starting to save/invest for retirement or been able to save/invest much less than I had hoped.”

Forty percent of Millennials say they are “concerned” about their delay in saving and investing for retirement, compared to only 7% who say they are not concerned. More than half (56%) say they worry “about having to work longer as a result of having a late start on saving/investing for retirement.” In addition, more than half (52%) say they do not expect Social Security to be around when they retire and that they will bear the full weight of financing their retirement.  

More than one-third (34%) of Millennials expect to use a combination of financial professionals and their own planning aided by technology to save/invest for retirement.

“In a still tight economy where wages have not improved significantly in recent years, many graduates find themselves with hefty college loan debts and relatively modest means with which to satisfy them. Our message to these young people is very simple: As hard as it is to save, the earlier you start saving the more likely you will be able to support yourself in in the future. These are the years that will make the difference between comfortable and lean golden years. Saving and investing for your retirement should not be viewed as optional,” says Don Blandin, president and CEO of the IPI.

More survey results are online at the IPI’s website.

Compliance September 18, 2015

Participant Could Get Relief for Difference in Document and SPD

A court found a pension plan’s SPD materially conflicted with the plan document, so a participant who expected to receive certain benefits can seek relief.
Reported by

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that a pension plan’s summary plan description (SPD) failed to provide all the information required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) about eligibility for supplemental benefits, so a participant who relied on the SPD and expected those benefits may be due relief.

In its opinion, the court noted that under ERISA, the SPD must be “written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant, and shall be sufficiently accurate and comprehensive to reasonably apprise such participants and beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plan.” In addition, the SPD must include, “the plan’s requirements respecting eligibility for participation and benefits; a description of the provisions providing for nonforfeitable pension benefits; and circumstances which may result in disqualification, ineligibility, or denial or loss of benefits.” 

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

Citing the Supreme Court decision in CIGNA Corp. v. Amara, the 6th Circuit said that under ERISA Section 502(a)(3), a material conflict between the SPD and plan document can give rise to a claim for equitable relief. The Supreme Court ruled that under ERISA 502(a)(1)(B) conflicts between the terms of the SPD and plan document must be resolved in favor of the plan document, but it suggested that conflicts could be addressed under ERISA 502(a)(3) which allows a plan “participant, beneficiary, or fiduciary ‘to obtain appropriate equitable relief’ to redress violations of ERISA.”

NEXT: Case specifics

The Chrysler Group LLC Pension Plan provided for supplemental benefits to be paid to early retirees who had 30 years of service and commenced payments within five years of retirement. However, while the plan document stated that vested, terminated participants “who met the eligibility for early retirement at the date his employment terminated, shall not be eligible to receive and early retirement supplement,” the SPD said “You do not need to be actively employed at retirement to be eligible for a supplement.”

Participant Randy D. Pearce was offered an early retirement incentive in 2008, which he denied. Afterwards, Chrysler terminated him for misuse of a company vehicle. Pearce applied for benefits thinking, after reading the SPD, that he would get his accrued pension benefits as well as the supplemental payments. However, he did not get the supplemental payments and after filing several appeals, he filed a lawsuit. A district court granted summary judgment to Chrysler for some claims and dismissed Pearce’s 502(a)(3) claim as futile.

However, the 6th Circuit reasoned that since the SPD offered no indication to Pearce that his eligibility for supplemental benefits was further contingent on his employment status at the time of retirement, “a conflict between the SPD and pension plan exists because the SPD misleads or fails to state addition requirements contained in the plan.” The court noted that, in the plan document, retirement seems to be defined as the time a participant requests benefits.

The court goes on to point out a specific problem with the SPD language: While the one sentence says the participant need not be actively employed, the SPD does not explain if it is distinguishing “active” employees from “inactive” employees or if it is simply stating that a participant’s employment status is irrelevant. “Given the appropriate lens through which we review SPD terms, it is easy to understand how Pearce, a non-attorney, would have understood the latter meaning,” the court wrote.

The 6th Circuit remanded the case back to the district court for further review.

«