PSNC 2014: Setting a Goal

On the first day of the PLANSPONSOR National Conference (PSNC) in Chicago, current and former PLANSPONSOR of the Year winners and finalists shared how they define success for their employee base and the challenges they have in working towards their retirement plan benchmarks.

In this very regulated industry and with plan sponsors often playing multiple roles, at times sponsors are simply reacting  to regulations rather than looking ahead,  but these plan sponsors have the drive to continually try to move their plans forward. Plan sponsors on the panel believe in helping participants with financial literacy, and they do not focus on teaching about the nuances of investing participants’ retirement savings.

Richard Hartman, corporate benefits manager for retirement plans for American Woodmark Corporation, a 2014 PLANSPONSOR of the Year finalist in the Corporate 401(k) $50MM-$1B category (see “American Woodmark Corp.”), said “We try to design the plan to make it easy for participants to land where they should be–adding or tearing down any barriers along the way.”

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

Landsman Development Corporation, a 2014 finalist in the Corporate 401(k) under $50MM category (see “Landsman Development Corp.”), takes a paternatlistic view towards its participants, many of whom are low-salary earners and non-English speakers. James Goff, the president and CEO of Landsman says, “We meet as a group three times per year to talk about financial education. Education is very meaningful.” In order to opt out of the plan’s 2% automatic enrollment, particpants need to meet with Goff. The same is true with taking money from the 401(k) plan.

Robert Tomaschko, director of compensation, retirement & HRMS at Land O’Lakes, Inc., a 2012 PLANSPONSOR of the Year winner (see “Land O’ Lakes, Inc.”), believes in the value of helping participants. “We don’t offer brokerage windows—they have a low uptake and do not fit our plan. We look to build sustainable income and we feel we have an optimal view—long term investing. ”Regarding educating employees about leakage from retirement plans, Tomaschko says “Keep it simple. Tell participants they need to set aside money, if they have another resource to tap before their retirement plan, do it.”

“We have a roadmap and we’re looking out three to five years. We are putting in a Roth option mostly for the Millennials and we plan to partner next year with a financial wellness group” Tomaschko says.

Tim Atkinson, chair of the City of Austin Deferred Compensation Committee, the 2014 PLANSPONSOR of the Year winner in the public defined contribution category (see “City of Austin”), says the city has quite a few limitations due to its multiple plans, yet participation is approximately 67%. In the coming year, Atkinson will be concentrating on a reduction of fees and plan simplification in general. Atkinson believes education is the best dollar spent.

PSNC 2014: Success is in the Eye of the Beholder

Dallas Salisbury fields a lot of questions about how to define retirement plan success in his role as president and CEO of the Employee Benefits Research Institute (EBRI).

One of the most common questions, in Salisbury’s view, is also the most problematic: “What’s the number?” Plan sponsors, providers and policymakers alike come to EBRI wondering what lump sum retirement plan participants must reach to be adequately prepared for retirement, he explains, or they ask for the average salary deferral percentage or income replacement ratio that’s going to guarantee plan success. Yet, as Salisbury stressed during the keynote address of the 2014 PLANSPONSOR National Conference, plan success is the result of myriad factors inside and outside a plan and can seldom be captured in a single metric.

“Just as individuals have very different reasons for investing in the 401(k) plan related to life stage, health, family situation and so many other factors, this comes through to the plan sponsors, who also have a wide variety of goals,” Salisbury says. “Helping plans define and monitor plan success is one of the great challenges currently facing retirement plan professionals.”

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

To ask for a single number is to assume a one-size-fits-all mentality, Salisbury says, and also overlooks the diversity of outcomes that can occur for different participants in the same plan. He points to a recent EBRI analysis that shows only about 17% of U.S. workers in the lowest income quartile who will require long-term, chronic illness care in retirement will be able to cover 100% of the cost of such care if current savings and cost trends hold. For workers in the highest income quartile, that figure jumps to 86%.

“So you have to ask yourself, is this success for the U.S. retirement system?” he explains. “Well, it’s successful for some.”

These numbers suggest that simply relying on income replacement ratios can be a misleading indicator of retirement readiness across a plan or even an entire retirement system, Salisbury says. A bottom-quartile worker with a relatively high income replacement ratio could struggle with expenses in retirement as much or more than a high-wage worker with a lower replacement ratio, he says. Additionally, the replacement ratio says little about the participant’s ability to meet ballooning health care costs and other moving variables.

“In that respect, generalized retirement income replacement ratios don’t tell anyone much of anything,” Salisbury continues. “We like to turn the question back on them and ask, 'Who are you thinking about? Which segment of the plan’s participant population are you considering, and why? What element of plan success do you want to measure?'d”

One of the first steps in achieving more meaningful plan outcome measures, Salisbury says, is to realize the same number can mean very different things to different individuals. He points to a data from the University of Michigan’s Health and Retirement Study and the Investment Company Institute, among others, which define plan success as a function of whether participants are “saving optimally.”

“They compared household net worth with the amount each household needed to save over a working life cycle to preserve its living standard and consumption in retirement,” Salisbury explains. “The authors found that about 80% of households in their samples had accumulated as much as or more wealth than their optimal targets.”

This seems like a great overall readiness number for the U.S. retirement system, he says, but one must be careful to put the number in perspective.

“Do you think Pennsylvania Avenue’s gutter is better to live in than K Street?” Salisbury asks. “Well sure, because it’s in front of the White House and in a better neighborhood. Well, that’s how to understand the success measures in these studies. They basically say, if you’ve spent your life living in one gutter, and then you’re able to move to a nicer gutter when you retire, still homeless in both cases, you have now so dramatically improved your lifestyle you have actually over saved and under consumed. The test is, are you as poor as you always were?”

Salisbury says he travels often to industry conferences and hears a lot of support for this type of analysis, “including from a large number of Senators and Representatives in Congress.” He is quick to add that this analysis is by no means wrong, but it shows the dangers of looking to a single metric to define plan or even system-wide success.

“It does tell us something about the workforce entering retirement, but not everything,” Salisbury explains. “Unfortunately, it’s become a main backdrop for our policy debate. There is very broad consensus that this is the right number, the right study and the right analysis.”

«