June 3, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Vanguard’s new “Enroll Now” process simplifies retirement plan enrollment and potentially increases the savings of participants.
According to the investment management firm, nearly six in
10 of the employees who joined their company’s 401(k) plan during pilot
research on the new online Enroll Now process also chose to automatically
increase their savings by a modest amount each year, which could increase retirement
savings by 40%, or $100,000, over 20 years.
Enroll Now distills the online plan enrollment process into
three critical decisions: how much to save per paycheck; whether to increase
that amount annually and by how much; and which investments to choose.
Suggested choices for each of those are determined by the employer and
are pre-populated onto a simple, interactive form. Employees can then select or
modify those choices. They can also bypass Enroll Now altogether and use the
traditional enrollment process.
Fifty-nine percent of the employees who used Enroll Now
chose to automatically increase their savings annually;
A higher average contribution rate of 8.2%, compared
with the average contribution rate of 7.5% chosen by Vanguard participants in
2013; and
A 30% increase in completion of the online enrollment
process.
Vanguard developed Enroll Now based on behavioral finance
research showing that choice overload in retirement plans—in this case, the
steps required to enroll in the plan, select a contribution rate and choose an
investment—can stifle any action at all. The aim is to offer employees
pre-selected, easy-to-make choices, making the process less overwhelming.
“With longer life expectancies and decades spent in
retirement, it is more important than ever for American workers to save
adequately for retirement. By providing participants with simple, pre-set, and
one-click decisions, Enroll Now should enable more employees to easily take
advantage of their workplace retirement benefit because they’re not overwhelmed
by having to determine how much to save and which funds to invest in,” says
Rebecca Katz, principal of Participant Strategy and Development at Vanguard,
based in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.
More than 70% of Vanguard participants with access to a
smartphone or tablet will be able to use Enroll Now on those devices.
The pilot research for Enroll Now was conducted from August
to December 2013 on one large 401(k) plan. The Enroll Now option is now being
used by more than 530 plans.
More information about Enroll Now is available here.
June
3, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – At the PLANSPONSOR National Conference in Chicago,
four leading experts debated the merits of target-date funds (TDFs) versus
target-risk funds (TRFs) and managed accounts.
These experts started with the question of what is the best
way to deliver asset-allocation options to participants.
“It’s important to make sure they are used effectively by
participants, which means adopting the best practices of pension plans,” said
Scott Brooks, managing director of the institutional group at SEI Investments.
“Twenty years ago, many pension plans managed to benchmarks completely ignorant
of liability. The defined contribution [DC] liability is the same: the
provision of retirement income for participants.” Thus, Brooks said, “whether
it’s a TDF, TRF or a managed account—any of these are a good solution.”
Secondly, the institutionalization of a portfolio is key, he said, because
“fees do matter.”
Thirdly, the offering should be “something the participant
understands,” Brooks continued. “Yesterday Elaine [Sarsynski, EVP of MassMutual
Retirement Services Division] said the average participant spends seven minutes
on the enrollment survey. Properly allocating assets needs to be done for them.”
Craig Keim, vice president, director of defined contribution
investment relationship management at T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services,
agreed: “Any asset allocation solution is better than what the participant can
do on their own with a core menu, even if it is a robust, streamlined core
menu.” Next, Keim said, plan sponsors should consider “cost and participant
involvement. These frame the question of which is better.”
Then, to figure out which fund is the right one,
look at the Department of Labor guidance on target-date funds, Keim suggested.
“It starts with analyzing plan goals, be they capital preservation, taking
participants through retirement, the risks the sponsor is trying to mitigate.
Market risk? Longevity risk? Do you offer a DB [defined benefit] plan along
your DC plan? If the fund is the QDIA [qualified default investment
alternative], then it has different ramifications.
Glenn Dial, head of U.S. retirement at Allianz Global
Investors added, “DC plans have replaced DB plans. It’s tough when you think
about picking the right TDF with the tools we have today. What did the DB plan
do? It gave participants a pretty certain expectation of the income they could
expect at retirement. So ask, ‘How do I get the most participants to an
adequate retirement income replacement ratio?’”
That doesn’t factor in savings rates, noted Natan Voris,
large market practice leader at Morningstar Investment Management. “Retirement
readiness is what we are trying to do,” Voris said. “TDFs don’t control savings
rates. We all know the best solution is for participants to meet with a
financial planner once a year, but we all know that isn’t going to happen. So
the asset-allocation choice should consider not just retirement age, as TDFs
do, but also risk tolerance. Therefore, the next step is managed accounts
charging 10 to 12 basis points that can offer a customized solution for
participants. That is the optimal investment solution.”
A member of the audience then challenged Voris about the
lack of a track record on managed accounts, and how this inevitably results in
investment committees selecting off-the-shelf solutions for fear of fiduciary
liabilities. Voris said that Morningstar always produces backward-looking data
for the consumption of the committee, but not for the participants. “We have to
provide all the data, all the research,” he said.
Dial agreed that customization is the future for asset-allocation
solutions. “We are in the third inning of a nine-inning baseball game,” he
said. “We will continue to see evolution in this space. We think custom TDFs
will continue to grow and come down market.” Combined with the growing trend to
increase savings rates, Dial said, this will have “a tremendous impact on the
type of TDF you should offer. They will probably become like managed accounts
with prices at institutional levels.”
Voris agreed that the industry is moving toward
more customization, predicting that “the gap between TDFs and custom managed
accounts will close and include holistic advice on reducing debt” in order to
boost participants’ savings rates and retirement readiness.
Further, Voris said, as asset allocation offerings will
continue to mimic more and more DB characteristics, they will include specialty
funds, such as real estate funds and emerging markets—but not in the core menu.
If the plan sponsor has selected a TDF, they should assess
it like a DB plan, Brooks said. “Select best-in-class managers and consistently
review them,” he said. “Select an asset allocation target that has the highest
probability of reaching your plan’s goal, and using a tactical approach for a
portion of the portfolio is a key piece of the puzzle.”
As to participants’ acceptance of asset
allocation offerings as the automatically enrolled QDIA, even after steep
market drops and volatility, 90% of participants do not opt out, Keim noted.
“We then look at the opt-out rate one to two years after the enrollment or
re-enrollment in the fund, and see that it is still as high as 75% to 80%,”
Keim said, which would suggest that participants like having their money
professionally managed for them.