Auto-Enrollment Significantly Drives Equity in Retirement Savings

Vanguard research forcefully shows modern plan design features like automatic enrollment promote retirement savings participation across racial and ethnic backgrounds.  

Automatically enrolling participants into workplace retirement plans significantly promotes savings equity among different racial and ethnic groups, according to new research by Vanguard.

When examining a sample of 14 large defined contribution plans across nine plan sponsors, Vanguard found that automatic enrollment had the most significant influence on the participation rates of lower-paid employees, especially Black and Hispanic employees: The participation rates of lower-income Black and Hispanic employees were 2.5 times higher in companies that automatically enrolled employees into their plan, according to the report.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Six of the plans that Vanguard analyzed have an automatic enrollment design, with initial default rates ranging from 2% through 5%, and the remaining eight plans have a voluntary enrollment design.

Participation rates for those in voluntary enrollment plans varied significantly across races, but participation rates among those in auto-enrollment plans were much more consistent across the board.

For example, Black employees in voluntary enrollment plans had a 52% average participation rate, whereas white employees in voluntary enrollment plans had an average participation rate of 73%. The difference is much smaller for those automatically enrolled, as Black employees had a 90% average participation rate, and white employees had a 92% average participation rate.

Participation Rates

All employees
Automatic enrollment
Voluntary enrollment
All Employees
81%
92%
68%
Asian
88%
94%
80%
Black
72%
90%
52%
Hispanic
73%
90%
57%
White
83%
92%
73%
Source: Vanguard, 2024

“By far, I think the biggest takeaway from this is that … automatic enrollment is a benefit, [or] a tide, that lifts all boats,” says David Stinnett, a principal of strategic retirement consulting at Vanguard. “With this report, we’re no longer speculating. This study forcefully shows that how you use modern plan design can significantly drive better outcomes and be much more equitable in those outcomes.”

Total savings rates of employees across all racial and ethnic groups earning an income of $75,000 or less differed significantly between those who were automatically enrolled and those who voluntarily enrolled. For instance, the average savings rate for Hispanic employees in a voluntary enrollment plan was 4.9%, whereas the average savings rate for the Hispanic employees in an auto-enrollment plan was 8.3%.

However, Vanguard also found that participants in automatic enrollment plans were significantly more likely to have taken a hardship withdrawal. Stinnett argues that this trend is likely due to the fact that the automatic enrollment plans considered have more lower-compensated employees participating than the voluntary plans.  

Employees in a voluntary enrollment plan are likely also facing financial hardships, but Stinnett says since they may not be participating in a plan, they are taking withdrawals from sources other than their retirement plan and addressing that hardship elsewhere. 

“I think you could make the case that it’s better for [workers] to be in the plan, because at least then they have a balance to take out, and if they’re in the plan, they’re getting a match on that,” Stinnett says. “You never like to see more hardship withdrawals, but it’s not necessarily a strong critique of automatic plan designs.” 

Besides automatic enrollment, other plan design features such as offering professionally managed allocations and advice services can also promote equity in retirement savings.  

Within Vanguard’s sample, 58% of participants had a professionally managed allocation, 52% were pure target-date investors and 6% were using managed account advice.  

Vanguard found that the rising use of professionally managed allocations is influencing extreme portfolio allocations, such as a 100% allocation to equities. The research showed only 4% of participants using professionally managed allocation had their entire account balance allocated to equities. As Black and Hispanic investors were more likely to have a professionally managed allocation—many being pure target-date investors—they were also less likely to hold an extreme equity allocation.  

Stinnett adds that increased access to low-cost advice and digital robo-advice services is a positive step from an equity perspective. 

“There are periods of volatility in the marketplace, and it’s very comforting when all of your wealth is in the plan and you know that you have professional assistance in how your saving behavior and investing behavior is going,” Stinnett says. 

For the 59% of plan sponsors that have already adopted these modern design features studied, Stinnett says this research should be validating, as auto-enrollment and other features are driving better outcomes.  

“For those plan sponsors who have yet to adopt [these features], I think [the research] serves as even more encouragement that you should be in your committees discussing, debating and considering these modern plan design features,” he says. 

Americans Are United in Support for Social Security

Voters agree that federal funding for Social Security needs to be addressed, but it is unclear if politicians will listen and act, say experts at a NIRS webinar.

There have been almost weekly changes to the list of issues and topics affecting the 2024 national elections in the U.S., but one topic has solid support from voters: keeping Social Security robust and solvent.

Regardless of the outcome of November’s elections, Americans have expressed strong support that Congress, the next president and leaders in Washington should work together to shore up Social Security and address its financing challenges, said Tyler Bond, the research director at the National Institute on Retirement Security, during the firm’s “Americans’ Views of Social Security” webinar on Tuesday. 

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

“There’s a clear majority that strongly agrees with that sentiment, and that level of support is consistent across party affiliation,” said Bond. “Whether you’re Democrat or Republican or an independent, the public wants Congress and the administration to act on Social Security.”

Bond was citing findings from NIRS’ “Retirement Insecurity 2024: Americans’ Views of Retirement” report released in February, which found that 90% of Americans say it is important for the next government leaders to solve the Social Security financial shortfall. Bond said the findings cut across not only party affiliation, but also gender, age and income. 

Social Security has been batted around by top politicians in the run-up to November—with both sides accusing the other of potentially making cuts to the program. A May report by the Social Security Board of Trustees forecast that the combined asset reserves of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund should have enough revenue to pay all benefits and associated administrative costs until 2035.

Shore It Up 

NIRS’ report found that 87% of Americans said Congress should act now to shore up funding rather than waiting another 10 years to find a solution. Additionally, 87% said they believe the program must remain a priority no matter the state of federal budget deficits, with 55% strongly agreeing and 32% somewhat agreeing.

Many Americans are willing to pay their share to keep the program, with 58% agreeing that the government should increase the amount workers and employers contribute to Social Security, according to NIRS. When it comes to expanding Social Security, about half (52%) expressed agreement. 

“I think it’s fair to call Social Security perhaps the most beloved programming in the history of American public policy,” said Rebecca Vallas, the new CEO of the National Academy of Social Insurance. “We’re living through what feels like an incredibly polarizing time in American politics. It feels like Americans may not agree on anything right now, but people do actually agree on Social Security.” 

Political Risks 

Although Americans are committed to Social Security, Congress may not be quick to address the financing crisis due to the divided political landscape, said Jason Fichtner, chief economist at the Bipartisan Policy Center and executive director of the Retirement Income Institute, Alliance for Lifetime Income. He said that 10 years ago he believed Congress might act fast, but now he’s not as optimistic.

“Unfortunately, our politics seem more divided than ever,” Fichtner said. “We always talk about market risk, inflation risk, sequence of return risk, longevity risk—we’ve all got to start talking about political risks. Who is going to be in office going into the next several years, especially getting to 2033 and trust fund depletion? Could it be a party or a base that does not want to compromise and is willing to push us over the cliff? I hope not.” 

Fichtner said he can no longer guarantee to people that Social Security is not going to have some sort of financing crisis in 2033. The default is a 20% reduction across the board for everybody, and he said whether that will happen is a toss-up.

“We need to keep pressure [on],” said Fichtner. “Surveys like [the NIRS’] do help put pressure on Congress to act. It shows that the people want them to act. Now we’ve just got to start showing that at the ballot box and the voting box.” 

Conducted by Greenwald Research, information for the study was collected from online interviews from October 10 through 25, 2023. A total of 1,208 individuals aged at least 25 completed the survey. The final data were weighted by age, gender and income to reflect the demographics of Americans aged 25 and older. The sample was selected using Dynata, an online sample provider.

«