Data and Research February 27, 2018

Millennials Need Help to Save Adequately for Retirement

A report from the National Institute on Retirement Security shows that 66.2% of working Millennials have nothing saved for retirement.

Reported by

The retirement outlook for many Millennials is dismal, according to a new report from the National Institute on Retirement Security, “Millennials and Retirement: Already Falling Short.”

The report finds that 66.2% of working Millennials have nothing saved for retirement. While 66% of Millennials work for an employer that offers a retirement plan, only 34.3% are participating in the plan.

The Institute also found that only 5% of Millennials are saving adequately for retirement, which it recommends to be between 15% and 22% of salary.

There is a significant gap between Millennial Latinos and other racial and ethnic groups in terms of participation in retirement plans. Only 19.1% of Millennial Latinos and 22.% of Latinas participate in a retirement plan. By comparison, 41.4% of Asian men and 40.3% of Millennial white women participate in a plan.

Just over four in 10, 40.2%, of Millennials said employers’ eligibility requirements, such as having a minimum tenure on the job or working a minimum number of hours, have kept them from participating in the plan. However, when they are eligible to participate, 90% of Millennials enroll in the retirement plan.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Twenty-one percent of Millennials are worried about their retirement security. Nearly half, 47%, are worried they will not be able to retire when they would like to, and 67% are concerned they will outlive their savings. More than nine in 10, 92%, say the nation’s retirement system is under stress and needs reform.

The Institute says that Millennials face more challenges than older generations, specifically higher life expectancy, lower income replacement from Social Security and less likelihood that they have a pension. They also have faced depressed wages, high unemployment and structural changes to the U.S. economy, most notably the Great Recession. Thus, the Institute says, they will need to save more than older generations.

The National Institute recommends seven steps to help improve the retirement outlook for Millennials:
  • Expand defined contribution plan eligibility for part-time workers
  • Reduce waiting periods for workers to become eligible to participate in a retirement plan
  • Increase auto enrollment
  • Increase employer matches and default contribution rates
  • Provide education to increase awareness of the benefits of employer matches
  • Promote and educate Millennials about the Savers’ Credit
  • Protect and strengthen Social Security
The National Institute on Retirement Security’s full report can be downloaded here.
Compliance February 27, 2018

Original Case Against NYU 403(b) Plans Going to Trial

In addition, a federal judge dismissed a third complaint against NYU—naming its adviser as a defendant—as a duplicative action.

Reported by

A federal court judge has denied a motion for summary judgment in a case alleging New York University (NYU) allowed excessive fees in two 403(b) plans by retaining high-cost and poor performing investment options and by using multiple recordkeepers instead of a single provider.

In a one-page, hand-written order, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, said, “No reply is necessary on this matter. It is clear that the remaining issues in this case implicate questions of fact. The questions of whether NYU’s actual processes and controls were prudent cannot be resolved on motion given the state of the factual record (including contradictory experts’ views on the topic).”

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

Forrest had previously pared down the complaint, only moving forward certain claims of breaches of fiduciary duty of prudence under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Forrest also dismissed a new complaint brought by plaintiffs and the same attorneys, in which the plans’ adviser Cammack Retirement Group was added as a defendant. While procedurally positioned as a new case, the amended complaint “is a blatant attempt to replead an existing action,” Forrest wrote in the order dismissing that complaint.

Plaintiffs argue further that NYU and the new complaint’s defendants have divergent interests because NYU cannot be held liable for the “entities or persons” that caused the plan’s losses.  But, Forrest found that the argument that NYU “may argue at trial that it has no responsibility or liability for the imprudent acts of the committee or its members,” does not mean that it does not in fact have responsibility or liability; in fact, she said, plaintiffs are likely to strongly counter that argument at trial. “Speculation that, at trial, NYU would blame the committee but the committee would blame NYU does not warrant two duplicative actions. Ruling otherwise would suggest that the suits in which entities, their subdivisions, and employees are co-defendants—of which there are many—should be split,” Forrest wrote.

She also found that while two new claims are against defendant Cammack only, that is not enough to make the entire case a new and separate action. “Those claims should have been brought by joining Cammack earlier in the Sacerdote I litigation. In addition, the Court has granted class certification to plaintiffs in Sacerdote I; as plaintiffs noted, there is a “unity of parties-in-interest” between the two cases,” Forrest wrote.

She noted that the plaintiffs in Sacerdote I who may recover encompass the same set of employees that could recover in the new case. Also, resolution of the claims in the new case relies on the same set of facts as resolution of Sacerdote I.

“The allegations in both cases rely on the management of the Plans—accordingly, the set of facts underlying each case is the same. Any new claims … are, to a large extent, repackaged versions of claims dismissed by the Court in Sacerdote I. While several claims are new in theory, they merely rephrase previously brought claims and, more importantly, are based on the same set of facts at issue in Sacerdote I,” Forrest wrote.

«