A Retirement Plan’s Default Investment Is Not for Every Employee

The retirement plan sponsor’s choice of a default investment should not reflect the full distribution of employee investor types, but rather those who would select it, a research report suggests.

Research provided through the TIAA Institute and written by Chester S. Spatt, Pamela R. and Kenneth B. Dunn professor of finance, Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon University, suggests an interesting concept: The retirement plan sponsor’s choice of a default investment should not reflect the full distribution of employee investor types, but rather those who would select it and avoid the costs of implementing a customized investment portfolio.

The research questions under what circumstances an employee would be willing to rely then upon the default portfolio and concludes that if the employee’s risk aversion is relatively low or high compared with the risk of the default portfolio, he would choose to implement his own customized investment portfolio. The research points out that the risk aversion of the employee depends on certain factors, such as the amount the employee is investing in the plan.

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

Spatt points out that the decision of how to invest retirement plan savings is, to a degree, a long-term decision (even though it can be easily changed), so the decision may be very significant for someone with a small current balance (who recently started employment, for example) due to the future cumulative effects. Yet, it is expected that younger individuals—who would have smaller balances and less investing experience—would be more likely to rely on default allocations.

Applying the suggestion that the selection of the default portfolio by the plan sponsor should reflect only those employees who will use the default, the conclusions highlight that the plan sponsor should be especially focused on setting the default for those with relatively modest funds and those who are relatively less sophisticated, the research report says.

Thoughts about TDFs

Spatt concedes that for a variety of reasons, including the investing time horizon, a retirement plan participant’s investment allocation would depend upon his age. However, he points out that target-date funds (TDFs) as the default investment may not line up with particular preferences of an individual. His anticipated retirement age could be earlier or later than that of the TDF selected, and the nature of the investment horizon that he anticipates—including whether he wants to leave assets to his heirs—may not match with the TDF allocation near retirement. “In this sense,” Spatt says, “the investor’s age would potentially influence whether the individual chooses to make his own determination rather than relying upon the default portfolio.”

Disadvantages of default investments

According to Spatt, using a default portfolio could have a number of disadvantages, such as not matching individual employee’s risk preferences or investment sophistication. But mainly, the presence of a default portfolio would encourage use of it and inhibit the extent to which the employee improves his investment decision-making expertise.

“The official sanctioning by the employer of the default portfolio and the manner in which it substitutes for the individual’s choice undercuts the incentive for the employee to develop expertise on lifelong financial security. In this sense, the presence of a default portfolio (and especially a more suitable default portfolio) is a barrier to customizing the portfolio and to learning by the investor,” Spatt says.

He adds that an important challenge confronting employees is to build their expertise in asset allocation and financial management, and the presence of a default allocation, especially one that seems credible, can discourage investors from developing this expertise. Given the differences in views about asset allocation among participants, Spatt says the development of this skill is essential for many participants.

He does note, though, that the presence of a default investment in a retirement plan can increase the incentive to participate for those who are reluctant to choose their own investment allocation.

More information and links to download research materials is available at https://www.tiaainstitute.org/publication/role-employer-default-allocation-defined-contribution-retirement-plan-design.

Workers in AB Retirement Confidence Survey Cite Desire for Income

Nearly half of workers feel confident about their retirement prospects, an AllianceBernstein survey found.

Forty-seven percent of U.S. workers are confident about their retirement prospects, up from 32% last year, an AllianceBernstein survey found. This level of confidence is at a 10-year high, the investment management firm says. In addition, 67% of workers reported feeling confident about making investment decisions, up from 53% in 2017.

Workers’ top retirement goal is a steady income, cited by 56%. Forty-six percent said they will prioritize their retirement plan savings to live comfortably.

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

“Plan participants want longer-lasting savings, and a steady income stream in retirement,” says Jennifer DeLong, head of defined contribution at AllianceBernstein. “Unfortunately, not enough U.S. workers know how to save wisely, early and continuously. While many defined contribution plans have adopted automatic enrollment in conjunction with a qualified default investment alternative, fewer include automatic escalation of savings rates starting at high enough levels. Additionally, more plans should consider offering a lifetime income solution. We believe these are key factors that could significantly improve plan participants’ retirement outcomes.”

The survey also found that 20% of workers either plan to work part-time in retirement or delay their retirement, and 17% either said they have not thought about retirement or never plan to retire. More than 90% are concerned about Medicare and Social Security, and 66% said these programs are very important.

More than 70% of retirees said their lifestyle is in line with or better than their expectations. Sixty-four percent of retirees said their standard of living has stayed the same or improved. Seventy-five percent are satisfied with their financial status, and 50% said that after paying their bills each month, they have money left over for leisure activities. Twenty-three percent of retirees said they are very comfortable. However, 33% said they are dissatisfied with their life or finances in retirement.

Ninety percent of plan participants think the investments offered in their retirement plan should align with their core ethical values. Seventy-one percent said that if they were offered socially responsible investment choices, they would select them. Fifty percent said they volunteer in their communities, and 80% donate money to charities.

Should a significant market downturn occur, 47% said they would monitor the situation but take no immediate action. However, 24% said they would move their money to different investments, and 47% said they would become more conservative investors.

Forty-nine percent said they would like retirement income certainty, and 94% said they would keep all or at least some of their money in a target-date fund that guaranteed an income stream for life.

«