EBSA’s Lisa Gomez Calls Auto-Portability Key to Retirement Security

The assistant secretary pointed to the start this week of the comment period on proposed auto-portability guidance.

Assistant Secretary of Labor Lisa Gomez, the head of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, highlighted the automatic portability of workplace retirement savings as being among the key areas on which the Department of Labor is seeking feedback in order to improve retirement security in the U.S.

EBSA guidance on the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022’s Section 120, known as the automatic portability transaction regulation, hit the Federal Register Monday, initiating a 60-day comment period that will end March 29. The proposal provides an exemption for auto-portability providers to transfer forgotten retirement savings into a new workplace-retirement plan, with the goal of limiting lost or difficult-to-locate funds for individuals.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Gomez pointed to the provision as one of several into which EBSA is digging this year, with the goal of protecting worker savings.

“When changing jobs, one of the biggest decisions that you have to make is whether to roll your savings over to a different [plan sponsor’s] plan or an IRA,” Gomez says. “It’s an important decision, depending on how much you have saved, and particularly important today, when the greatest part of a person’s savings is often in their retirement account.”

Gomez noted that the provision ties into the recently proposed retirement security rule, often called the fiduciary proposal, because it addresses a pivotal moment in workers’ financial lives when they are between jobs and may be rolling over funds. That proposal, which has received industry and policymaker backlash arguing that enough regulations already exist, seeks to bring one-time rollover advice under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act’s fiduciary standards.

“Whether and how [participants] roll over their money can be the biggest financial decision that someone can make,” Gomez says. Through the retirement security rule, she says, EBSA and the DOL “want to ensure that no matter who a person goes to and no matter how they are looking to invest their money,” that adviser will be acting in the saver’s best interest.

In its newly published guidance, EBSA notes the issuance of earlier guidance on auto-portability transactions, in 2018, in response to a request by the Retirement Clearinghouse for prohibited transaction exemptive relief for its automatic portability framework. RCH, which received that relief, went live in November 2023 with a program in which the country’s largest recordkeepers automatically transfer unclaimed retirement savings into an employee’s new account.

Focus on Disclosures

When it comes to EBSA’s focus areas, Gomez notes that the department is guided by its goals to ensure people have access to “robust health and retirement benefits” and that they understand and can put those benefits to use.

To that end, she emphasized a recent request for information from the department, along with the IRS and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, seeking input on reporting and disclosures for ERISA-governed retirement plans. Gomez says EBSA is seeking commentary from people in the industry who “do this every day,” as well as advocates and participants themselves.

Their commentary will add to the responses, already being reviewed, to a summer 2023 request for information on simplifying and consolidating reporting and plan disclosures. The end goal of all this activity, she says, is a system workers can understand.

“We are focused on making things more understandable and accessible for the participant,” she says. “We are thinking about things like, How do people digest information better? What [has the industry] done to improve disclosures? How do you reach members of certain communities in different ways?”

Gomez also pointed to recent guidance provided by EBSA and the IRS on plan sponsors offering emergency savings via retirement plans. She believes the use of these pension-linked emergency savings accounts, known as PLESAs, which allow penalty-free withdrawals, may help people feel better about contributing to a workplace retirement plan.

“One thing that I hear frequently is that people who have access to workplace retirement accounts may not be participating because people get worried about tying their money up,” she says. The emergency savings account can help people pay for unexpected items like “the transmission going on your car, or a housing bill, or anything that comes up that people will feel more comfortable that they can access funds to pay for.”

Although offering PLESAs is voluntary, Gomez says EBSA is hopeful plan sponsors will see their benefits, and the regulator has tried to address outstanding questions in the recent guidance.

Some plan sponsors have already noted that, while they are in favor of emergency savings programs, they prefer to keep them separate from retirement accounts.

Communication Is Key

Gomez says her time in private practice has helped shape her focus on participant communication. She notes that, when working at New York labor law firm Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, she became familiar with workers’ concerns and with issues in plan descriptions or communication.

“This whole relationship of offering these benefits is one in which the workers who are in these plans work hard and have money that could be going in their pockets, as far as wages going into these retirement plans,” Gomez says. “The employers and plan sponsors are also spending money going into these retirement plans. If they are offering a plan, but the people don’t understand them, there’s lost opportunity there.”

EBSA offers to assist people with their benefits via a toll-free number and website called Ask EBSA.

More Than Half of Plan Sponsors View In-Plan Retirement Income as ‘Too Complex,’ Survey Finds

Plan sponsors expressed concerns about administrative complexity, cost and lack of quality choices when it comes to offering in-plan retirement income solutions, a Greenwald Research study found.

Both participants and plan sponsors agree that the ability to access in-plan retirement income solutions is a huge benefit. However, concerns about the complexity of these income options and the fees that come with them may prevent many plan sponsors from actually incorporating them into their defined contribution plans, new research found. 

A survey conducted by Greenwald Research, which included responses from both plan participants and plan sponsors, found that 59% of plan sponsors view in-plan income options as “too complex.” 

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

Greenwald’s survey asked respondents about “retirement income options,” which includes any option designed to generate income in retirement, both insured/guaranteed and non-guaranteed. 

Nearly one in three sponsors reported concerns that associated fees will mean higher costs for their companies, while 30% said they are worried about the additional administrative work that offering income options would require. Some sponsors also reported concerns about ensuring participants have enough choices of retirement income options.  

At the same time, 72% of employees expressed concern that their retirement income sources may not be simple and easy to manage. This concern increased in 2023 from 2022, when 62% of employees said they were concerned about complexity. Despite this, 37% of participants said complexity is not an issue if there is someone who can explain it to them or if it is explained clearly in written materials.  

The Three Cs 

Lisa Greenwald, the CEO of Greenwald Research, says the main barriers to plan sponsors offering retirement income solutions comes down to the “three Cs”: complexity, cost and choice.  

“I think sponsors and their advisers and consultants are always keenly focused on cost,” Greenwald says. “I think there’s a real lack of awareness of what the cost might be, because so few have gotten to a point to even have been exposed to costs. … There’s also focused concern on cost for younger, early entrants paying for something they may or may not use in the future.” 

Greenwald says the issue of choice comes into play, as she said many advisers told her in interviews that they feel many of the current options are “not fully baked” and that there are not enough “good choices” in the market currently.  

In terms of the number of retirement income options that employers should offer, three in four participants said in the survey that their employer should offer more than one choice. The survey found that participants with graduate degrees are significantly more likely to want at least three retirement income options in the plan.  

Question of Defaults 

Greenwald adds that the strategy of incorporating a retirement income solution into the default investment, such as a target-date fund, is something on which plan sponsors and participants have split opinions.  

“Some of the concerns we’ve heard from sponsors, advisers and participants [is that] automatic [defaults] feel very paternalistic,” Greenwald says. “There’s also some real concerns we’ve heard about retirement income and decumulation being even more complex than accumulation, and it’s going to be harder to find a one-size-fits-all solution because retirement income is more complicated.” 

In addition, while four out of 10 participants said their company currently offers retirement income options, fewer than one-quarter of these employees actually utilize these options, according to the survey. However, Greenwald points out that there may be some “messiness” with these statistics, because there is a major lack of understanding of what the industry means by “retirement income,” and she says it is possible many participants are incorrectly stating that they have retirement income options when they actually do not.  

“That said, … there’s a real concern about uptake rates and that even if these are available, without automatic enrollment or [a] default, it might not get the uptake that [the plan sponsor] hopes or expects,” Greenwald says. 

She adds that some participants want nothing to do with their employer once they retire, which is sometimes an impetus for wanting to take money out of their retirement plan and not selecting one of these retirement income options.  

Negative Reputation Around Annuities 

The study also found that about 48% of participants would be reluctant to use an in-plan retirement income option because of the reputation of annuities. Greenwald says participants are mainly concerned about liquidity and having access to their account balance. Many participants also associate annuities with a high cost, even though an in-plan annuity is expected to be less expensive than a retail annuity.  

“We’re hearing from sponsors that they find [in-plan annuities] compelling and want to learn more about how annuities have evolved and how annuities that may be put in one of their DC plan options are different than retail annuities,” Greenwald says. “I think the [skepticism] around annuities could be overcome, but it will all lead to low or slow uptake.” 

As a whole, almost all plan sponsors surveyed said they believe a comprehensive retirement income planning program would increase participants’ comfort level with income options, the amount participants are willing to contribute and participant utilization of in-plan options.  

Greenwald’s study included online surveys conducted from September 26 to October 23, 2023, of 1,003 plan participants aged 30 to 70, as well as surveys of 503 plan sponsors representing companies with at least 50 employees.  

«