Too Much Employer Stock Could Be a Bad Thing

According to a nationwide survey from Schwab Stock Plan Services, equity compensation accounts on average for nearly 30% of employees’ net worth, and almost three-quarters of employees surveyed also own company stock outside of their equity compensation plan.

According to a nationwide survey from Schwab Stock Plan Services of 1,000 equity compensation plan participants who receive stock options or restricted stock awards and/or participate in employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs), equity compensation accounts on average for nearly 30% of employees’ net worth.

Millennial employees have a greater share of their net worth in equity compensation than do their Gen X and Baby Boomer counterparts (42%, compared to 24% and 19%, respectively). Almost three-quarters (73%) of employees surveyed also own company stock outside of their equity compensation plan, and most (44%) in their workplace retirement plans.

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

Maintaining a high proportion of company stock may be a conscious choice, as 81% of employees say either they have rebalanced their investment accounts in the past 12 months (55%) or their account automatically rebalances itself (26%), and approximately two-thirds of them say they take their equity compensation or ESPP into account when rebalancing.

“Markets are uncertain, so participants should understand the risks of having too much of their net worth concentrated in company stock,” Marc McDonough, senior vice president, Schwab Workplace Financial Solutions, tells PLANSPONSOR. “Generally, our rule of thumb is to have no more than 10% to 20% of an investment portfolio in company stock, but everyone’s financial situation is unique. It’s important to identify how equity compensation fits into your overall plan and manage your portfolio accordingly, ideally with the help of a financial professional.”

Needing advice

To make sure employees’ investment are diversified, McDonough suggests plan sponsors should, at a minimum, ensure that education is available for their employees and they know where to go with questions. “People tend to look at their finances holistically. Plan sponsors should also consider offering their employees a financial wellness program that supports that holistic view. These programs are a great vehicle to help employees understand a range of financial issues, including how much of their net worth is tied to equity compensation and how to properly balance their overall portfolio,” he says.

Schwab’s survey found most respondents recognize the value of financial advice, but it also reveals contradictions between that recognition and their reported behavior. Three-quarters say they would be very or extremely confident in their ability to make the right decisions about their equity compensation if they had the help of a financial adviser, and yet employees are more likely to get advice on how to manage their equity compensation through independent research (37%) than from interacting with a financial adviser (24%) or asking their employer (16%).

Workplace financial wellness programs are another source of guidance that can help employees understand and effectively manage financial complexities, offering direction in areas like equity compensation, budgeting and debt. According to the survey, 61% of those who are offered such a program take advantage of it. Those who participate say their program is helpful in a number of areas including planning for retirement (90%), using equity compensation to reach financial goals (84%), investing skills (83%), balancing equity compensation with other investments (82%), and developing a financial plan (82%).

The survey suggests that employees who are offered a financial wellness program but elect not to use it might not fully understand the breadth of services this type of program can provide. Their top reasons for not availing themselves of this resource are believing they don’t need advice (40%) and focusing on more immediate financial issues, like debt (27%).

“One of the most beneficial aspects of such programs is helping workers to create a financial plan that can balance short- and long-term priorities and show them the next step forward. Plus, people with a financial plan tend to exhibit more positive saving and investing behaviors overall,” McDonough says.

(b)lines Ask the Experts – 403(b) Treatment of Payment to Employee After Retirement

“I work with a plan sponsor at a private high school.

“The school has a contractual agreement to pay a former administrator who retired last year $15,000 in 2018. Is the payment considered to be ‘compensation’ for retirement plan purposes, and is the plan sponsor thus obligated to withhold elective deferrals from this amount (the administrator was making elective deferrals to a 403(b) plan) and make the plan’s matching contribution with respect to those deferrals? The employee is a highly compensated employee if that makes a difference.”

 

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

Stacey Bradford, Kimberly Boberg, David Levine and David Powell, with Groom Law Group, and Michael A. Webb, vice president, Retirement Plan Services, Cammack Retirement Group, answer:

 

Though the Experts have tackled this issue in the past, it is worth revisiting since plan sponsors are often confused as to what to do when such payments are made following termination of employment. The key to the treatment of the payment is the type of payment that it is and its timing. To address the first issue, if the type of pay is severance (i.e., payments to a former employee for NOT working) it is NOT compensation for purposes of a qualified retirement plan or a 403(b) plan. Thus, if the $15,000 in question here is severance, NO 403(b) salary deferrals would be withheld, and NO 403(b) matching contribution would be made, REGARDLESS of timing.

 

However, if the compensation is simply earnings that otherwise would have been paid to the employee had he/she continued employment, such as a back pay award or payment of unused sick/vacation/PTO, then the timing of the payment would generally determine whether the payment could be included as compensation for 403(b) plan purposes. If the amount is paid to the employee no later than the later of 2 ½ months following employment termination and the end of the limitation year (typically calendar year), then it is possible that such 403(b) deferrals could be made from such pay. In the case of your administrator’s $15,000, if this amount had been paid during the first 2 1/2 months of 2018 (if the plan’s limitation year is the calendar year), then it would be possible for 403(b) deferrals to be made. If not, then it is not possible for 403(b) deferrals to be made from this compensation.

 

Of course, whether 403(b) deferrals should be made from such a payment, as well as whether a matching contribution should be made, will be dependent on the plan document’s definition of compensation and whether it allows such deferrals post-termination at all (some do not). Is the category of pay which is represented by this $15,000 included in the plan document definition of compensation, or excluded?  If the payment is made within the required time period, the plan language will ultimately determine if non-severance pay such as this $15,000 is included for 403(b) plan purposes.

 

Note that it is irrelevant for this purpose whether the individual is a highly compensated employee, though any matching contribution would need to satisfy applicable nondiscrimination testing.

 

 

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.

«