Where Are Financial Wellness Benefits Headed?

According to EBRI, employers are looking for a wider range of benefits.


Workers may be getting more from their employers in coming years. Among employers currently offering financial wellness benefits, 80% expect to provide even more next year, while only about 20% expect to remain at the same level, according to Craig Copeland, director of wealth benefits research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

Copeland shared the data in a Tuesday webinar that presented early results from EBRI’s 2023 Financial Wellbeing survey fielded in July and August. The full report will be released later this month. The firm surveyed full-time benefits decisionmakers at employers with at least 500 employees, covering more than 250 companies. The research found that, unlike previous years, the top financial wellness concern for employers was driven in part by inflation.

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

“The high cost of living was an important aspect that employers were looking to help with. That came out on top,” Copeland told the virtual audience. “When we’ve done this for the last five years, retirement preparedness or health care costs have been the main focus. But given the persistence of high inflation, employers have really tried to step up in our financial well-being programs.”

Respondents to the survey listed the five most widely offered benefits as:

  • Employee discount programs/partnerships (60%);
  • Basic money management tools (55%);
  • Financial investment/investing education, seminars or webinars (55%);
  • Financial planning education, seminars or webinars (53%);
  • Tuition reimbursement and/or assistance (50%);

But rising prices do not just hit participants. The price of financial well-being options remains the main challenge for employers as they consider adding benefits and expanding programs, Copeland said. Even so, benefits decisionmakers reported their employers are likely to step up and provide more money for these programs.

“Because [programs] are gaining in popularity, we see that 70% either expect their budget to increase somewhat or increase significantly,” he said. “It’s interesting that the other 30% expect budgets to stay the same. No one is expecting their budget to go down.”

Among eligible employees, the use of benefits was still low. One-third of employers had at least 50% of employees participating or engaging in benefits, but the majority saw between 26% and 50% of eligible employees actually taking advantage of these programs.

“It’s still pretty much on the low side of eligible employees,” Copeland said. “However, when you ask what the employer expected the take-up to be, 60% of the employers are saying that it’s actually more than what they had expected. 33% said it’s about what they expected. Only about 5% to 6% said that it is less than expected.”

When comparing the approach taken by firms of different sizes, Copeland said larger employers showed more hesitation to provide workplace benefits, whereas when smaller employers were interested, they were more likely to be in the process of implementation.

“[Employers with] 10,000 or more employees were a little more hesitant of offering [financial wellness benefits],” Copeland said. “It looks like they’re being a little more restrictive or not as expansive in their benefits, compared [with] what smaller employers are offering.”

Vanguard Says Sweeps, Auto Enrollment Still Key in Combatting Savings Gaps

Retirement readiness is strong among many workers, but large gaps remain for plan sponsors and advisers to address.


Retirement savings research driven by new modelling methods from the Vanguard Group shows some good results for higher-income earners but a daunting retirement readiness gap for lower-income workers that needs continued attention from the industry.

The Vanguard report released Tuesday found that lower-income workers spend significantly more of their pre-retirement income than those in the middle- or higher-income ranges and therefore face a greater shortfall for retirement readiness, even after accounting for Social Security. The researchers found the following results by annual income:

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

  • $22,000: 96% of income spent before retirement (25th percentile)
  • $42,000: 83% of income spent before retirement (50th percentile)
  • $61,000: 68% of income spent before retirement (70th percentile)
  • $173,000: 43% of income spent before retirement (95th percentile)

The result of that income spend-down, Vanguard found, is a greater need for participants to self-finance retirement beyond Social Security for those in the 50th percentile or lower of income brackets.

Addressing that shortfall is still possible, according to Dave Stinnett, head of strategic retirement consulting at Vanguard, if the retirement industry can continue to get more workers saving in tax-deferred retirement plans, and at higher rates.

Advisers and plan sponsors can help workers save adequately by adopting best practices in retirement plan design: automatic enrollment, annual automatic escalation of savings rates and default investment into a portfolio of stocks and bonds appropriate for retirement goals,” Stinnett said in an emailed response. “Advisers have opportunities to help accelerate this progress.”

Automate It

The retirement industry may see auto-enrollment as a well-known tactic, and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 will make it mandatory for new workplace plans in 2025. But Stinnett noted that, at the end of 2022, 42% of employer-sponsored DC plans on Vanguard’s recordkeeping system had not yet adopted automatic enrollment.

In the meantime, workers not participating in available plans can be brought in through re-enrollment campaigns, he noted.

“Plan sponsors can also amplify the impact of these design features by conducting re-enrollment campaigns that periodically default nonparticipants into the plan,” he wrote.

Finally, Stinnett points to automatic portability as a way for workers to keep their savings in tax-deferred workplace plans when moving jobs. One industry effort run by the Portability Services Network LLC—a collection of the country’s six largest recordkeepers—has begun a process this month to increase the use of auto-portability among member providers.

Vanguard’s research was based on a proprietary, internal tool using the asset manager’s capital markets forecasts and data on household balance sheets, savings rates and spending patterns to estimate retirement readiness across age groups.

The Vanguard Retirement Readiness Model was then combined with analysis of savers’ “sustainable replacement rate,” the percentage of pre-retirement income a worker can replace throughout retirement in 90% of market and mortality scenarios. That, as compared with the average retirement spending needs across generations, led to the projected savings gap.

Mixed Results

Overall, Stinnett noted, the model showed that younger generations have benefitted from defined contribution plan design, improved financial education and increased savings behaviors. But findings were mixed, with varying outcomes across 12 different income and generational cohorts.

For instance, among late Baby Boomers (ages 61 to 65), high-income workers are on track to meet their retirement spending needs, while low- and middle-income workers are off track. Millennial savers at the 50th income percentile, however, showed a greater chance of sustainable retirement income, according to Vanguard.

The asset manager created its baseline analysis assuming retirees depend on Social Security and financial assets from workplace retirement savings plans. Other factors that may increase or reduce retirement readiness include, according to Vanguard: access to home equity; working longer; investing in better-or-worse-than-expected capital markets; and experiencing a reduction in Social Security payments.

Beyond plan sponsors and advisers working to help participants meet retirement needs, the researchers also suggested changes policymakers—and individuals themselves—can make to create better outcomes.

«