Vanguard: Mistakes Remain, But Participants Are Better Users of TDFs

When constructing their own retirement portfolio, about 10% of participants still hold extreme allocations—either 0% or 100% equities.

Vanguard reports that more than half of 401(k) participants are now invested in a single target-date fund (TDF), compared with only 13% just a decade ago.

Vanguard’s “How America Saves 2018” suggests target-date funds continue to reshape the investment patterns of retirement savers, driving increased diversification and deterring errant, emotional trading.

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

Looking ahead, Vanguard researchers estimate that 77% of the participants on the firm’s recordkeeping platform will be invested in a single TDF by 2022.

As the data shared by Vanguard show, when constructing their own retirement portfolios, about 10% of participants still tend to hold extreme allocations—defined as either 0% or 100% equities in a retirement-focused portfolio.

“With the advent of TDFs, three-quarters of all participants now have broadly diversified portfolios—up from only half 10 years ago,” Vanguard’s report states. “The rate of participants holding concentrated stock positions fell by half during the same time frame. TDFs also help investors ‘stay the course’ with their investment plans, with only 2% of TDF investors executing a trade in 2017.”

The publication of the report comes alongside something of a reinvigoration of the target-date fund research topic in the financial services trade media. As the Great Recession of 2008 and 2009 recedes further in the rear-view mirror, providers seem increasingly concerned about investor complacency—and on the optimal way to shape their risk glide paths for TDF product users who are approaching and entering retirement. Providers in 2018 are also more prone to discuss the way workplace demographic shifts are morphing their approach to risk management and product presentation.

“Target-date funds have revolutionized investing for millions of Americans, providing a ready-made, diversified portfolio for retirement savers,” observes Martha King, managing director and head of the Vanguard Institutional Investor Group. “Many participants lack the time, willingness and expertise to build and manage their retirement portfolios, and TDFs offer a professionally managed investment option at a very low cost.”

According to the “How America Saves” report, over the past decade, plan sponsors have implemented “thoughtful plan designs to influence and improve employee retirement savings.” The dramatic rise of TDFs—and subsequent portfolio construction benefit—has been driven by the adoption of automatic enrollment, which has tripled in the last decade to nearly half of plans.

“Plans with automatic enrollment have a 92% participation rate, compared with a participation rate of just 57% for plans with voluntary enrollment—meaning more employees are saving for retirement,” the report explains. “Not only are sponsors using higher default rates, but of those plans with automatic enrollment, two-thirds have also implemented automatic annual deferral rate increases. Importantly, automatic increases have helped to narrow the spread between deferral rates for participants in voluntary plans vs. automatic enrollment plans to just 0.3 basis points [bps].”

Vanguard’s data further show, when both employee and employer contributions are taken into account, the average savings rate of 10.5% has held fairly steady over a 15-year period.

“More people are participating in their employer-sponsored 401(k) plan than ever before and saving at a healthy rate of about 10%,” adds Jean Young, senior research analyst in the Vanguard Center for Investor Research and lead author of “How America Saves.” “After over a decade of leading this research, it’s gratifying to see that meaningful advances in plan design have such a tangible, positive impact on retirement savings for participants.”

The full Vanguard analysis can be downloaded here.

(b)lines Ask the Experts – Are 415(m) Plans Subject to the Premature Distribution Penalty?

“Are 415(m) plans subject to the 10% premature distribution penalty for early distributions from a retirement plan?”

Stacey Bradford, David Levine and David Powell, with Groom Law Group, and Michael A. Webb, vice president, retirement plan services, Cammack Retirement Group, answer:

 

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

Before we get to our response, we should probably explain what a 415(m) plan is to everyone. As detailed in a prior Ask the Experts column, a 415(m) plan is a plan for public employers that is utilized for contributions that cannot be made to a 403(b) or other qualified plan, including a defined benefit (DB) plan, due to the application of the contribution/benefit limits under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 415.

 

To find out if distributions from 415(m) plans are subject to the 10% premature distribution penalty in the event that a participant takes a distribution prior to age 59 1/2 (and does not qualify for another exception to the penalty, such as termination of employment in the calendar year in which an employee turns age 55 or older), we would consult IRC Section 4974(c), which identifies the types of plans that are subject to the penalty, as follows:

(c) Qualified retirement plan. For purposes of this section, the term “qualified retirement plan” means—

(1) a plan described in section 401(a) which includes a trust exempt from tax under section 501(a),

(2) an annuity plan described in section 403(a),

(3) an annuity contract described in section 403(b),

(4) an individual retirement account described in section 408(a), or

(5) an individual retirement annuity described in section 408(b).

Such term includes any plan, contract, account, or annuity which, at any time, has been determined by the Secretary [of Labor] to be such a plan, contract, account, or annuity.

 

Notice the absence of 415(m) in the list of plans here? That is why such plans are not subject to the 10% penalty. This makes sense, given that these plans are nonqualified plans, similar to 457(b) deferred compensation plans in many aspects—even though nowadays governmental 457(b) plans have to be funded—and 457(b) plans are also not subject to the 10% premature distribution penalty. However, there is sometimes talk about changing that.

 

 

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.

 

Do YOU have a question for the Experts? If so, we would love to hear from you! Simply forward your question to Rebecca.Moore@strategic-i.com with Subject: Ask the Experts, and the Experts will do their best to answer your question in a future Ask the Experts column.

«