Misperceptions About TDFs Giving Participants a False Sense of Security

Many think the funds are guaranteed, a study finds, so more education is needed.

AllianceBernstein’s “Inside the Minds of Participants” study found many misperceptions about target-date funds.

Regardless of whether participants invest in TDFs or not, most lack a basic understanding of how these funds work, according to the survey. Among plan participants overall, fewer than 40% have a clear idea of what the date signifies in a TDF’s name.

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

The survey found misunderstanding has increased over time. For example, in 2015, 36% of TDF investors incorrectly thought the funds were FDIC-insured. In the 2021 survey, 68% mistakenly believe that.

Fifty-seven percent of TDF investors responding to the survey said they believe TDFs are 100% invested in cash at retirement. Meanwhile, half believe the funds guarantee a person will meet their income needs in retirement, and 42% reported they believe the amounts in the funds are guaranteed never to go down.

AllianceBernstein asked participants who think the funds include guarantees why they believe that. Nearly one-quarter (24%) said the materials about the funds say they are guaranteed, 35% said they believe the year listed in the fund name means it’s guaranteed to be sufficiently funded in that year, and 21% reported that a representative said the funds were guaranteed.

“We know this is not true; it’s participants’ perceptions,” says Jennifer DeLong, head of defined contribution at AllianceBernstein.

Megan Yost, senior vice president, engagement strategist at Segal Benz, says the AllianceBernstein research is consistent with other surveys—research finding that participants invest in more than one TDF show they don’t understand how the funds work.

Many TDF investors are defaulted into these funds and take a hands-off approach to their retirement savings. Still, having misperceptions about the funds can give participants a false sense of security about their retirement savings progress or retirement readiness.

Being defaulted into asset allocation vehicles, such as target-date funds, is a good thing, because when participants are their own portfolio managers, many were allocated incorrectly, DeLong says. “In an ideal world, they would have a better understanding of TDFs, but many people are not comfortable with investing,” she adds. “It’s important to continue to educate participants so they don’t have the wrong idea about their retirement readiness.”

After the financial impact of the pandemic and now with the volatility of the markets, participants are thinking more about their financial security, so it is a great time for plan sponsors to increase education.

Because many participants are defaulted into TDFs, it shouldn’t be a surprise that not all of them understand the funds, says DeLong, but plan sponsors shouldn’t be discouraged by the lack of knowledge because these participants still have more appropriate asset allocations. “There are many participants that do understand TDFs, but plan sponsors have an opportunity to do more education, especially with the events over the past two years making participants ready to do more planning,” she says.

Educating About TDFs

Heather Balley, director of participant communications at AllianceBernstein, says lack of knowledge among participants is not specific to TDFs but to finances in general. “It’s important for individuals to understand their overall finances and where they are invested,” she says.

Yost agrees. “What we know about financial literacy is it builds over time. That’s why it’s important to continue to educate and build on baseline knowledge year after year,” Yost says. “Hopefully that strategy will help clear up some of these [TDF] misunderstandings.”

Balley says when AllianceBernstein works with clients, they first hold a strategy session about what content will be provided and through what mediums. “Education should not just be included in the benefits handbook or fund prospectuses, but perhaps there should be a video to explain what a TDF is,” she says.

Balley adds that information should be provided in easy-to-understand language. There are terms that are obvious to those in the retirement plan industry but not to lay people. These should be defined and used consistently, and pictures and imagery can also be used, she suggests.

Yost suggests that plan sponsors and advisers provide information that is fun, because a lot of investment communication is complex and uses legalese. “Plan sponsors and advisers should think about what they can do in a fun way to enhance understanding, especially if a large portion of the participant population is in TDFs,” she says. “They can share videos and do fun quizzes to help clarify misunderstandings.”

Yost adds that examples are always helpful. “If looking at one [TDF] vintage, examples can help those in that vintage understand conceptually how TDFs work,” she says. She also suggests using analogies. For example, how a plane reaches its goal depending on whether it has a longer or shorter runway. “Try to relate it to everyday life for those people who don’t think about it every day,” she says.

Yost also suggests using a date of birth chart to explain in a different way than with date of retirement which target-date year is appropriate for a person’s age.

Yost says many recordkeepers have a wealth of materials about TDFs, so plan sponsors and advisers can start by talking to recordkeepers about the resources available to them. “Materials might need to be tweaked to match the plan, but you can still provide an education overview without talking about specific funds,” she says. “Ask providers about off-the-shelf videos, interactive brochures and content on their website about TDFs.”

In addition, if a plan sponsor partners with another provider for communications (maybe for annual enrollment), it can see what resources those providers might have about retirement plans and TDFs, Yost says.

Plan sponsors can also look to their advisers to help educate participants about TDFs. “Financial wellness is a hot topic right now, and plan sponsors have been looking to providers for the retirement plan to enhance general financial information. If there’s information about TDFs on those platforms, ask if it can be shared with participants,” she says. “Also, make sure it is clear to participants where they can go for one-on-ones and unbiased advice, if that’s part of the offering.”

Balley notes that AllianceBernstein’s research uncovered different investment personality types, and plan sponsors should try targeting education based on that. “Typically, participants are bucketed by generation, but we don’t subscribe to that,” she says. “There could be a Baby Boomer that is very tech savvy or a younger participant that doesn’t even have a computer or WiFi.”

Just as sites like Amazon can send customized suggestions based on previous views, the retirement industry is on the verge of such custom communication, Balley contends. The three investment personality types were “capable” confident investors, “eager” young and unaware participants, and “conservative” cautious savers. “If plan sponsors can tailor messaging to these groups, they can turn the tide to improve engagement,” she says.

With more talk about providing lifetime income for defined contribution plan participants and lawmaker and regulator efforts to do so, there might soon be more guarantees in participants’ investments. “If plan sponsors turn to providing guaranteed retirement income investments/annuities, that might provide a good opportunity to educate participants about the difference between those guaranteed funds and TDFs,” DeLong says.

High Hopes for Legislative Progress in Late 2022

Taking a cue from the process that led to the adoption of the SECURE Act in late 2019, one retirement industry policy advocate says the odds are good for passage of retirement-focused legislation by the end of the year.

 

As the director of policy at Principal Financial Group, Lance Schoening has spent a substantial portion of his professional life in Washington, D.C., including on Capitol Hill, although he did recently return to the firm’s headquarters in Des Moines, Iowa.

While he is no longer walking the halls of Congress daily, Schoening is still tracking the latest legislative developments and engaging in advocacy for the retirement industry reforms his company believes in. During a recent interview with PLANADVISER, Schoening pointed to multiple pieces of legislation already on the table and suggested more proposals could come ahead of the midterm elections—all in time for passage during the lame-duck session at the end of the year. 

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

“I’m sure my colleagues would agree, it is gratifying to work in an area where true bipartisanship is possible,” Schoening says. “Members of Congress realize that retirement, 401(k) plans and pensions are kitchen table-type of issues for their constituents. Broadly, I think many members are focused on retirement security and financial wellness. That was proven by the success of the [Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act]. That was such a great bipartisan accomplishment.”

Among the bills Schoening is watching is the Lifetime Income For Employees Act, or the LIFE Act, for short. Its supporters, led by Reps. Donald Norcross, D-New Jersey, and Tim Walberg, R-Michigan, say the legislation would allow annuities to be part of a default investment in an employer-provided 401(k), with the stated goal of supporting workers as they seek to build a steady, guaranteed income stream during retirement.

Specifically, the LIFE Act addresses certain requirements in the qualified default investment alternative regulatory safe harbor that prevent some employers from including annuities as a component of their retirement plan’s default investment. Schoening agrees with Norcross’ and Walberg’s suggestion that the LIFE Act builds upon the SECURE Act provision that enhanced the safe harbor on which plan sponsors rely when choosing an annuity provider for their retirement plan.

While the enactment of this improved safe harbor was a significant step, Norcross and Walberg say, the LIFE Act will take the critical next step and ensure more savers have access to annuities as a matter of default.

“I think the collaboration between Congress and the private industry has been very positive in recent years,” Schoening comments. “The leading members of Congress who are very active in this area, they are very collaborative, and they are cognizant of what the private sector can bring to the table. We have been able to work with them in great detail and dynamically on policy proposals.”

Reflecting on his own advocacy work, Schoening says members of Congress, broadly speaking, now understand the pros and cons of annuity investing and the role annuities can play as part of the 401(k) plan system. For context, data provided by the Investment Company Institute shows that assets in individual retirement accounts are now in excess of $12 trillion, while defined contribution plan assets are in the realm of $10 trillion. Schoening says these figures, combined with the fact that annuities are not yet commonly embraced on retirement plan menus, show a clear need for policy innovation that addresses Americans’ need for stable sources of retirement income.

“I would say that the benefits of annuitization are being appreciated by members of Congress, and I think that’s an important thing,” Schoening says. “We are feeling encouraged and optimistic—it’s guarded optimism, of course. As the events of even just the last week have shown us, the tenor and direction of the Congressional agenda can always change very quickly. One point of optimism is that several leading members of Congress who are focused on these issues are themselves going to retire, so they have an incentive to get another policy victory sooner than later.”

Schoening’s experience suggests the staff of multiple key committees in the U.S. House are now collaborating behind the scenes and “hashing out” a way to advance retirement reform legislation.

“My impression is that they are exploring the ways that multiple committees could move in a coordinated way to create a consensus framework or a piece of legislation that could, for example, move in the lame-duck session after the midterm election,” he concludes. “The SECURE Act followed that same timeline, if you remember.”

«