Changing Jobs Can Be Hard on Millennial Retirement Balances

Millennials change jobs more frequently, giving them more opportunities to cash out of their 401(k) plans and cut into future retirement savings, says Spencer Williams of Retirement Clearinghouse.

This demographic, ages 24 to 32, is looking for more meaningful work, which is part of the issue, according to Williams, chief executive officer of Retirement Clearinghouse, in Charlotte, North Carolina. While previous generations came out of college with a clearer sense of where they could build a career, Millennials change jobs a little more frequently while they search for the right career path.

At the same time, the steadily increasing adoption of auto enrollment in 401(k) plans means that by the time they are 30, they might have been auto-enrolled in three accounts. “Three small account balances is not a good thing,” Williams tells PLANSPONSOR. The problem is that each small account (on average, the balance is $3,000) is like waving free money in front of the Millennial plan participant, he contends.

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

Cash-outs of course are not unique to Millennials, points out Warren Cormier, founder and president of Boston Research Group. They behave similarly to other age groups. “The reason they have a particular problem with hyperbolic discounting is that even if they change jobs because they want to, they’re into a loss aversion,” he tells PLANSPONSOR. This means that the loss of the job carries much more of a psychological impact than any potential future gains.

When several thousand dollars is suddenly in front of them at the time of this job loss, the emotional tendency is to reach for the cash to offset the loss a plan participant has experienced, Cormier says. 

Williams says Millennials should be stopped from using hyperbolic discounting to minimize the importance of this sum. The hyperbolic discount is a term used in behavioral finance to explain how people view money or rewards: the tendency is to choose a smaller reward that comes sooner over a larger one that takes place in the future.

In other words, a small account balance that is immediately accessible is seen as more desirable or more attainable than one that will be available decades in the future, at retirement. Younger plan participants tend to see retirement as an event so distant that it may hold little meaning.

Williams says plan sponsors and advisers should aim to give Millennials information about the consequences of cashing out at the time of the job change, admittedly a difficult time to get their attention.

Cashing out of the plan is about the worst thing Millennials can do, Williams says. Second-worst is leaving a small balance in the previous employer’s plan, because the money is still at risk of being cashed out. “By far, 70% of the cash-outs happen within 180 days of someone changing jobs, but there is a delayed effect,” he says. “If the money is not consolidated into a new plan, it’s still at risk.” After the initial period, about 25% of cash-outs occur in months seven through 18 (5% of cash-outs take place at random).

According to Williams, at the end of a first job, a Millenial’s account balance is likely in the range of $3,000 to $6,000, assuming three years on the job with a 3% deferral rate matched at 3%. This amount could more than double after another three years if it is consolidated  and put it into the new employer’s plan, he says, assuming continued contributions, matches by the new employer, some market growth and perhaps a raise.

“We know there is a cash-out curve,” Williams says, with small amounts most likely to be cashed out and large amounts the least likely. “At $20,000, the cash-out rate drops in about half,” he says.

Using a two-punch approach, Williams explains that the first punch is asking Millennials to assess how much the cash-out will cost them. “Your $5,000 is really [worth] $3,000, because you’re going to pay taxes and penalties,” he explains. “Second punch,” he says, “is that the $5,000 is really $50,000 at retirement. For Millennials, those numbers really stand up for that age group [because of their investing time horizon].”

Using a trick of behavioral finance, Williams says that using a multiple of 10—equating $5,000 to a future $50,000—creates an aha! moment for people contemplating a cash-out. “We stop them from discounting the value of that $3,000,” he explains. 

Unfortunately, the most effective way to break through the tendency to make emotional decisions is also the most expensive, Cormier feels: Direct intervention. “Put them in front of a live counselor or set them up with a phone interview,” he recommends. “That is more labor intensive. But if you leave it to rules of thumb or sending a paper document, it has less of an impact.”

Adopting a point of view that wants to prevent cash-outs can benefit everyone, Williams says. Plan sponsors might want to consider asking how many new hires come to them with an account balance of zero? Usually, the answer is 100%, he says. Wouldn’t plan sponsors be better off participating in a system where new hires came with $5,000 to place in the plan? “Plan sponsors get that in a New York second,” he says. It is to their benefit for separating employees to roll over their small-account balances into a new plan. “The balances are static, and the former employees are not going to tell you when they move.”

Williams feels that everybody loses in a cash-out: The participant, the plan sponsor, the future plan sponsor and even the plan itself, he contends. “We are involved in missionary work to help plan sponsors understand that retaining those small balances in their accounts is a problem,” he says. “A $5,000 balance is really not what they’re building those plans for.”

Plan sponsors that proactively help their separating employees roll over assets into a new plan can participate in a system that benefits everyone, Williams says. “It’s a win all the way around.” 

What Is the Definition of Compensation and Why Does It Matter?

We've all been in a "don't shoot the messenger" situation where you have to be the bearer of bad news even if you did nothing to cause the problem.

That’s precisely the situation that our client, Nancy, found herself in when she took over as director of Human Resources and Employee Benefits at a prominent local company. We sat across from her at her new stately desk as she explained how her predecessor failed to check a box in the payroll system that withheld employee elective 401(k) deferrals from bonuses and how that little unchecked box was going to potentially cost her new boss big bucks. Now, Nancy found herself in the unenviable position of explaining how this happened in the first place. 

In our experience, this is a very common error made by payroll managers and it is generally very costly to the company. To make matters worse, the large majority of 401(k) administrators do not catch these mistakes because their recordkeeping systems aren’t always in perfect sync with your payroll data and they may not even take responsibility for checking the data you give them. So how do you know whether you’re currently administering your plan’s definition of compensation properly?

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

The Governing Documents

The first step to uncovering the actual definition of compensation for your company’s qualified retirement plan is to review the plan documents—more specifically the summary plan description (SPD) as well as your company’s adoption agreement with a prototype plan, volume submitter plan, or individually drafted plan Document. 

For example, the plan document and SPD may say:

Eligible compensation for computing contributions under the Plan is the taxable compensation for a  Plan Year reportable by your Employer on your IRS Form W-2, excluding reimbursements or other expense allowances, fringe benefits, moving expenses, deferred compensation, any payments made to an Employee performing Qualified Military Service in lieu of wages the individual would have received from the Employer if the individual were performing service for the Employer, and welfare benefits and including salary reduction contributions you made to an Employer sponsored cafeteria, qualified transportation fringe, simplified employee pension, 401(k), 457(b) or 403(b) plan.

This is an example from a Fidelity SPD.
 

Sound simple enough?

 

Roles and Responsibilities  

Due to the complexities surrounding the administration of a 401(k) plan, the majority of plan sponsors hire third-party vendors to provide recordkeeping, third-party administration (TPA) services, trustee, and/or investment advice to their plan while trusting that the vendors will do their best to run the plan compliantly. Much to the plan sponsor’s surprise and dismay, it remains the responsibility of the plan sponsor to ensure that all data, processes and procedures are accurate. To explain, many plan sponsors assume that because they are sending payroll and participant data to a vendor who is serving as the plan's TPA and recordkeeper, that the vendor is verifying that the data is accurate and correctly follows the rules set forth for the plan in the plan document. The vendor often contends that it is the plan sponsor's responsibility to follow the rules and send precise data. Therefore, if neither the plan sponsor nor the vendor has thoroughly checked the data for accuracy, there is a good chance that something could go wrong.    

It Happened - Now What?  

If upon review of any of the provisions of your plan document, you find that you are out of compliance because the plan is not adhering to the strict definitions set forth in the plan document, there are steps you can take to correct and fix the problem. First, you should contact an ERISA attorney who can provide you with specific case law surrounding your issue. The next step may be to examine the self-correction methods made possible through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Voluntary Correction Program (VCP). The VCP suggested correction method for missed deferrals, in Nancy's case on bonus compensation, is to make a qualified nonelective contribution for the employee that compensates for the missed deferral opportunity. The formula for calculating the missed deferral opportunity is 50% of what should have been deferred plus employer match (if applicable) plus lost earnings (IRS 401(k) Plan Fix-It Guide, correction number 6). In most cases, the plan sponsor can rely on the vendor to calculate the correction amount if they are able to provide the vendor with the necessary participant data.   

The silver lining to Nancy’s story is that her company caught the issue before an official IRS or Department of Labor (DOL) audit occurred giving them the opportunity to self-correct. In 2013, the DOL collected $1.69 billion in fines, voluntary fiduciary corrections and informal complaint resolutions. With audits on the rise, it is anticipated this dollar amount will continue to climb. Even though it may seem daunting to become an expert on all of the provisions of your plan document, with the right assistance and investigation into the proper processes and procedures, you can keep you and your company running in the right direction.

Grinkmeyer byline headshots

Trent A. Grinkmeyer, AIF, CRPC; Valerie R. Leonard, AIF; and Jamie Kertis, QKA, AIF  

Trent Grinkmeyer, Valerie Leonard, and Jamie Kertis are Registered Representatives and Investment Adviser Representatives with/and offer securities and advisory services through Commonwealth Financial Network, Member FINRA/SIPC, a Registered Investment Adviser. Fixed insurance products and services offered through Grinkmeyer Leonard Financial or CES Insurance Agency. Grinkmeyer Leonard Financial, 1950 Stonegate Drive, Suite 275, Birmingham, AL 35242. (205) 970-9088.   

This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal or tax advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions of the authors do not necessarily reflect the stance of Asset International or its affiliates. The persons portrayed in this example are fictional. This material does not constitute a recommendation as to the suitability of any investment for any person or persons having circumstances similar to those portrayed, and a financial adviser should be consulted.

Tags
Reported by
Reprints
To place your order, please e-mail Reprints.

«