In
the past year, there was an increase in the portion of respondents to the
annual America Saves Week survey who said they were making good or excellent
savings progress—from 35% in 2014 to 40% in 2015.
More
than half of respondents said they were “saving enough for a retirement” with
“a desirable standard of living” (55%). Fifty-two percent save at least 10% of
their income, and among the non-retired, 49% save at work.
The
survey showed that those with a “savings plan with specific goals” save more
successfully than those without a plan. Fifty-seven percent of those with a
savings plan with specific goals report making good to excellent progress
meeting their savings needs, versus 22% without a plan. Ninety percent with a
plan say they are spending less than their income and saving the difference
(compared to 50% without a plan), 82% indicate they have sufficient emergency
savings (compared to 48%), and 65% say they are saving enough for retirement (compared
to 31%).
“Making
a savings plan focuses one’s attention on how one spends and saves their
income,” noted Dallas Salisbury, president and CEO of the Employee Benefit
Research Institute, and founding director of the American Savings Education
Council. “Those with a savings plan tend to be more careful spending money,
less willing to borrow unwisely, and more likely to save conscientiously,” he
added.
“Set
a goal and make a plan” is the theme of this year’s America Saves Week,
Salisbury said during a media conference. “Individuals should decide what they
want to achieve, determine the steps they need to take to achieve that goal, and
contact a financial institution to find a product that will help them meet their
goal, or save at work via payroll deduction,” he added.
Salisbury
also said employers can help employees meet their goals by making it easier to
enroll in workplace retirement plans, and financial advisers should stress the
importance of saving to individuals.
The
survey findings were released for the 9th annual America Saves Week, a
collaboration of the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), the American Savings
Education Council (ASEC), and the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI). A
research firm interviewed a representative sample of 1,009 adult Americans from
January 29 through February 1, 2015, by landline and cell phone.
Advice has taken on new dimensions in the retirement space, according to Cerulli Associates, and is often implemented automatically and without requiring input from the recipient.
Advice in defined contribution (DC) plans is mostly delivered
through automated plan design features, according to a new Cerulli Associates report
finding that plan sponsors have increasingly embraced auto-features as a means to
improve plan performance and engage younger investors.
Once thought of as a radical approach to supporting positive
retirement plan participant decisionmaking, auto-features include automatic
enrollment and deferral escalation, Cerulli notes, as well as things such as
automated portfolio rebalancing. Plan sponsors are also paying particular
attention to their plan’s qualified default investment alternative (QDIA)—the investment
option into which plan participants are defaulted should they decline to make an
investment selection during the enrollment process. QDIAs are often target-date
or target-risk funds that automatically adjust participants’ market exposure
over time.
Jessica Sclafani, senior analyst at Cerulli, says this shift
in plan sponsor attitudes comes largely in response to the overall lack of
participant engagement in the defined contribution system. Plan sponsors are particularly concerned
about getting younger investors more engaged in the retirement planning
process.
“Retirement advice begins with auto-enrollment, which
informs employees they should save for retirement,” Sclafani says. “Auto-enrollment
is a crucial first step in auto-advice that captures the most vulnerable
population of the work force that isn’t saving at all.”
According to Cerulli’s 2014 Plan Sponsor Survey, 73% of plan
sponsors have incorporated automatic features into their plan design. Nearly
90% of this group uses auto-enrollment, with the majority of automated flows
directed toward target-date funds (TDFs), Cerulli finds. The report suggests
that widespread adoption of auto-enrollment is a step in the right direction, but
participants defaulted at a deferral rate below 5% or 6% are still unlikely
to achieve retirement security through the DC plan alone.
For this reason, Cerulli finds, plan sponsors implementing
more comprehensive and holistic automation are seeing better outcomes for plan
participants. For example, coupling auto-enrollment and auto-escalation with a
quality QDIA is an effective way to counter the strong inertia present in defined contribution
plans, Cerulli says. Under this scheme, a participant’s lack of engagement with
the plan will not prevent him from moving toward a sufficient salary deferral
and from keeping his investments well-diversified.
“Where traditional advice may be heard but not acted upon,
auto-advice ensures that the advice is implemented or actively declined,” Sclafani
adds.
Given that the participant bears the greatest responsibility in saving for retirement under a defined contribution arrangement, Cerulli says, the
implementation of auto-features reflects a “realistic versus paternalistic
approach to plan design.”
“DC providers should guide plan sponsors in exploring and
expanding the use of auto-features to better prepare participants for
retirement, and, ultimately, drive greater assets into their accounts,” the
report continues.
Cerulli’s analysis also takes a deep dive into the wants and
needs of younger investors—and their perceptions of the value of different types
of advice. Researchers liken the current trends in automation to the digital
revolution that swept through the investing industry in the early 1990s, when the
Internet made it possible for tech-savvy individuals to access real-time
capital markets information.
This caused financial services firms to start rethinking
their long-term consumer relationships, Cerulli notes. Brokerage and advisory firms
could no longer charge a premium for delivering information and no longer
represented the only option for facilitating trades.
“In contemplating how to address these changes, strategic
planning executives started to re-segment their clients, with most firms
settling on a paradigm that bucketed consumers into three categories,” Cerulli continues.
These included delegators, willing to relinquish the management
of their assets with complete discretion to a trusted adviser; do-it-yourselfers,
who consulted the Internet but made their own financial decisions, working
through direct firms such as Fidelity, Charles Schwab and Vanguard; and
validators, who resembled do-it-yourselfers but differed in that they also
sought validation for their investment decisions.
These categories largely hold true today, Cerulli says, but
a new kind of automation-supported financial consumer is emerging—which Cerulli
calls the collaborator.
“Collaborators tend to be age 35 or younger, what is often
called the Millennial generation,” the report says. “This generation seeks
a new way of interacting with financial advisers that involves greater use of
technology-mediated communications, planning for modular goals, use of
electronic registered investment adviser (eRIA) techniques for smaller
accounts, and co-planning.”
As Cerulli explains, almost two-thirds of people under 30
acknowledge that they need more financial and investment advice. Further, more
than 81% in this age group want to be actively involved in the day-to-day
management of their investments. This spells opportunity for sponsors and
advisers to work together on driving plan success, Cerulli says.
“This need to be a direct participant, coupled with the
desire for advice versus guidance, puts the requirements of the collaborator
somewhere between those of the validator and the delegator,” Cerulli explains. “Unlike
validators, collaborators do not simply want their decisions affirmed; they
want to be advised. And unlike delegators, collaborators are not content to
hand over their assets to an adviser with minimal oversight; they want to work
side by side with the adviser.”
These pressures have allowed eRIAs, also known as robo-advisers,
to appear on the financial services landscape, targeting young consumers and challenging
the way traditional firms interact with Millennials. Cerulli believes that
advisory firms should develop a more collaborative planning process with these
consumers and enhance their use of technology to communicate with them—especially
web-based dashboards and other tools.
These findings are from the February 2015 issue of “The Cerulli Edge –
U.S. Edition.” More information on obtaining Cerulli research reports is
available here.