Missing Retirement Plan Participants Fare Better Than Those Who Cash Out

Despite intense DOL activity surrounding missing retirement plan participants, at least those participants’ retirement savings are preserved, say executives at Retirement Clearinghouse. And, focusing on a solution to retirement plan cashouts may actually help plan sponsors find missing participants.

Finding missing participants is now a major focus of retirement plan sponsors due to enforcement actions by the Department of Labor (DOL) that some believe are unfair without clear guidance for what plan sponsors can do.

However, a bigger problem for helping participants preserve their retirement savings is cashouts upon termination.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

An auto-portability simulation done by Retirement Clearinghouse in 2016 shows that in just more than 30 years, total cashouts could reach $282 billion, and rollovers to other qualified plans would be only $14.7 billion among 8.4 million participants.

Tom Hawkins, vice president of sales and marketing at Retirement Clearinghouse in Charlotte, North Carolina, points out that missing participants have preserved their retirement savings, while participants cashing out have not. A simulation by Retirement Clearinghouse shows that preserving a $5,000 retirement savings balance can result in $70,000 of savings at retirement.

Participants who have cashed out have effectively removed themselves from the defined contribution (DC) system, as if they’d never enrolled, and may also be throwing away their employers’ matching contributions, if that option is part of their plan.

A blog post by Retirement Clearinghouse CEO Spencer Williams explains what it means by “throwing away their employers’ matching contributions.” Typically, these matching contributions are viewed by employees as a tangible, high-value benefit, and by employers as a means to attract and retain the best talent, and improve plan participation and deferral percentage metrics. Cash-outs cause large amounts of employer-matching dollars to go up in smoke, transforming these vested benefits from retirement savings into consumption expenditures, after taxes and penalties are deducted from the payout,” he says.

Using data from its auto-portability simulation as well as findings from a missing participant survey by Boston Research Technologies and Retirement Clearinghouse, Hawkins says far more cashouts occur than participants who go missing. Each year, 14.8 million participants will change jobs. Of these, six million will eventually cash out. (41% of the total). By comparison, only one million participants will remain in their former employer’s plan (14.5% of the total). Of these, about 243,000 (11.3%) will have stale addresses and be considered missing.

He also notes that most 401(k) cashouts are unnecessary. Hawkins cites research done by Boston Research Technologies and Retirement Clearinghouse in 2015, Mobile Workforce Study, which interviewed 5,000 retirement plan participants and found of all people who cashed out their retirement plan balances, only 37% had done so for true financial emergency. Hawkins notes that among other reasons, those who cashed out not for a true financial emergency did so because they had not been educated about the high cost of a cashout and it was the easiest choice since many found the rollover experience difficult.

Focusing on participants cashing out

Currently, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), DC plan sponsors are allowed to automatically force out participant account balances less than $5,000. For amounts between $1,000 and $5,000, the amounts must be placed in a safe harbor individual retirement account (IRA).

Retirement Clearinghouse, offers an automatic portability solution which uses the demographic data from that rollover, sends it to recordkeepers to see if there is a match in their system and if one is found, automatically rolls over the employee’s IRA account to his new plan.

Neal Ringquist, executive vice president of sales for Retirement Clearinghouse in Charlotte, North Carolina, says having retirement savings in an employer plan is a better choice. Retirement Clearinghouse found that for balances less than $5,000, in the first year after a job change, 55% of participants cashed out, but over seven years for those that remained in the DC system, including the percentage of accounts rolled into an IRA, more than 80% eventually cashed out. “Retaining assets in a DC plan system preserves accounts better,” he says.

Hawkins adds that Retirement Clearinghouse also did research that found participants placed in a safe harbor IRA default investment fund, faced higher fees without a good outcome.

Hawkins points out that the problem of missing participants is a pain point for plan sponsors because it presents a long-term liability for the plan, adds to costs, presents a fiduciary risk and pressure from the DOL to operate in an uncertain environment, with lack of clear guidance. Participant cashouts create no pain point for plan sponsors. However, if plan sponsors care about the retirement readiness of their participants and feel a responsibility to help, cashouts are “a disaster of biblical proportions” for participant retirement savings outcomes.

Retirement savings portability can benefit missing participants, and can also benefit those who cashout; it reduces cashouts by two-thirds among smaller balance participants, according to Hawkins.

Ringquist adds that using auto-portability solutions preserves retirement savings for both missing participants and those who cash out, AND can help plan sponsors find missing participants. “A survey done by Warren Cormier of Boston Research Technologies found 67% of missing participants can be matched to current plan accounts,” he says.

Why Is It Recommended to Save 15%?

Most retirement experts currently recommend saving 15% of annual income. “There is mathematical backing to what we suggest,” says Roger Young, senior financial planner at T. Rowe Price.

There seems to be a consensus among those in the retirement plan industry that individuals should save 10% to 15% of their salaries in order to have a secure retirement. From where did this suggested savings rate come?

Katie Taylor, vice president of thought leadership at Fidelity in Boston, says the firm used to suggest a 10% savings rate, but after delving more into the numbers, it now suggests a 15% savings rate—including both employee savings and contributions from employers.

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

Roger Young, senior financial planner at T. Rowe Price in Owings Mills, Maryland, says his firm also suggests a 15% savings rate. “There is mathematical backing to what we suggest,” he says.

According to Young, the 15% suggestion is something T. Rowe Price has analyzed, starting with a model of what amount of income people need to replace in retirement. Its model factors in what individuals are currently spending, what they are likely to spend in retirement, taxes in retirement and the fact that individuals may stop saving once they’ve retired.

“We assume people need to replace 70% of their income in retirement, which could be different based on whether spending habits change. Then we look at how much income Social Security will replace, which could also vary heavily by income and marital status,” Young explains. “We also assume a beginning withdrawal rate of 4% per year. There is a lot of back and forth of opinions on whether this is reasonable, and though it is not a failsafe number, we believe it is reasonable.”

Other assumptions T. Rowe Price makes is that the pre-retirement investment return is 7% before taxes and income grows over time. “We tried not to be too aggressive in our assumption about what people can save early in their career, so our suggestions assume people start to save at age 25, starting with 6% of income and increasing over the years,” Young says.

T. Rowe Price comes to a suggestion of what multiple of income individuals need to have save by a certain age, and what percentage of income they need to save to get to that multiple.

For example, according to a T. Rowe Price Retirement Perspectives article, a 35-year-old would be on track if she’s saved about one year of her income. Most 50-year-olds would be on track if they’ve saved about five times their income. If considering a household, use the older partner’s age and the total income and total retirement savings of the household. The firm’s modeling suggests individuals can get to these numbers by saving 15% of income each year.

Similarly, according to a Fidelity Viewpoints article, after analyzing reams of national spending data, Fidelity concluded that most people will need somewhere between 55% and 80% of their pre-retirement income to maintain their lifestyle in retirement. However, Taylor notes that, realizing Social Security will provide much of that income for many, Fidelity concluded that 45% of that replacement income will come from people’s personal savings.

“Fidelity has done modeling, and in our point of view, a goal of saving 10 times final income is applicable for people who make $50,000 to $250,000 per year, which covers between 85% and 90% of workers based on our market share of participants,” Taylor adds.

The Viewpoints article gives a hypothetical example, “Consider Joanna, age 25, who earns $54,000 a year. We assume her income grows 1.5% a year (after inflation) to about $100,000 by the time she is 67 and ready to retire. To maintain her preretirement lifestyle throughout retirement, we estimate that about $45,000 each year (adjusted for inflation), or 45% of her $100,000 preretirement income, needs to come from her savings. (The remainder would come from Social Security.) Because she takes advantage of her employer’s 5% dollar-for-dollar match on her 401(k) contributions, she needs to save 10% of her income each year, starting with $5,400 this year, which gets her to 15% of her current income.”

Fidelity’s estimate is assuming individuals save for retirement from age 25 to age 67. If people start saving later or have a gap in savings, the 15% annual savings rate will need to be increased to reach the goal. For example, a chart in T. Rowe Price’s Perspectives article shows that if a 40-year-old has not saved any of her income for retirement, she will need to save 22% per year to reach the appropriate income replacement goal.

Is 15% the right savings rate for everyone?

Of course, as with every recommendation, there are caveats.

People who make more than $250,000 at retirement age may need to save more than 15% of income to have the lifestyle they want in retirement, notes Taylor. And, people who make less than $50,000 at retirement age may need to save less, in part because Social Security will replace a higher percentage of their pre-retirement income.

Young agrees that low-earners could save a lower percentage of income; however, he warns, “A low-earner now may not always be a low-earner. As salary goes up so does lifestyle/spending, and a lower savings rate may not work so well.”

Young also points out that the more an individual is saving today, the less they are spending, so this may decrease the multiple of income they need to save. As a simple example, he says someone who is saving 10% of income is keeping 90%, while someone who is saving 20% of income is keeping 80% and therefore spending less. “Spending in retirement is a function of what a person is spending before retirement, which is why someone saving more may need a lower multiple of income replacement,” he explains.

While individuals with incomes in the lower range may have difficulty finding enough money to save, those who are very high earners may have difficulty finding vehicles for their savings, Taylor notes. But, if they’ve maxed out contributions to their employer-sponsored defined contribution (DC) plan, they can look to other tax-advantaged accounts, such as health savings accounts (HSAs).

Young says high-earners should be given more advanced financial advice. “They should sharpen their pencils a bit and not rely on a rule of thumb,” he says.

Although people are different and have different situations, as for the 15% recommended savings rate, Young says, “We don’t want to give people false confidence and want to err on the side that will suggest the right percentage for most people.”

«