Nonprofits Could Do More to Encourage Retirement Savings
Despite concerns about their employees' ability to save enough for retirement, few nonprofit 403(b) plan sponsors use targeted education or offer financial wellness programs.
Half
of nonprofit organizations (50.4%) that sponsor 403(b) retirement plans are
equally concerned about all employees saving enough for retirement, no matter
their age, according to a survey by the Plan Sponsor Council of America (PSCA).
The
next most concerning group is Millennials (18.1%), followed by Generation X
(14.4%). However, only 15.8% of survey respondents target their plan education
materials to specific age segments.
The
survey, sponsored by The Principal Financial Group, found less than one-quarter
of nonprofit 403(b) plan sponsors (23.2%) offer a holistic financial wellness
program beyond the retirement plan, which could include education about health
care, debt management, financial planning and saving for college. But, another
20.3% indicated they plan to add such a program in the future.
Only
10.6% of 403(b) plan sponsors surveyed are monitoring potential participant
outcomes by providing their participants with access to modeling and
income-stream projections offered through the plan service provider.
“When
saving for retirement, it’s important to include a desired outcome or
personalized goal within the process,” says Aaron Friedman, national tax-exempt
practice leader at The Principal. “It’s encouraging to see some plans are
already measuring potential participant outcomes, but we believe it’s something
all plans should be doing to help participants know whether they’re on track
for a more secure retirement.”
When
asked whether they consider automatic enrollment as a way to improve retirement
outcomes for participants, 47.9% of respondents answered yes, while 27.9% said
no and 24.2% were unsure. More than one-quarter of respondents (27.5%)
indicated they have an automatic enrollment feature built into their plan, and
another 8.8% said participation in their plan is mandatory.
Slightly
more than 27% percent of plan sponsors said they feel they have a
responsibility to encourage savings and are taking measures to do so, while
another 25.8% acknowledged that same responsibility but said they need to do
more to support positive savings behavior. More than one-third of respondents
(35%) reported they encourage their employees to save but do not want to “force
it,” and only 10.3% said they offer a plan and feel the rest is up to the
employee.
“It’s
no surprise the majority of not-for-profit organizations recognize the
important role they play in helping their employees prepare for retirement,” says
Bob Benish, executive director of PSCA. “We continue to see 403(b) plan
sponsors make progress in building better retirement programs, and
encouragement and education are key factors in helping participants create
positive outcomes.”
PSCA’s “Attitudes
Towards Retirement Readiness in 403(b) Plans” survey reflects responses from
381 not-for-profit organizations that currently sponsor a 403(b) plan. Full
survey results are available here.
A decision and its consequences are
often disconnected, says Warren
Cormier, founder and president of Boston Research Group, in San
Francisco.
This is particularly true when it comes to retirement planning. Rarely can people immediately discern an impact after making a decision
about their retirement plan portfolios, Cormier notes. This is where behavioral
economics can play a critical part in helping plan participants understand
their own actions, by helping providers come up with technology that uses this
understanding.
“The key is to engage the player or
plan participant by making this more personal, more consequence-driven,”
Cormier tells PLANSPONSOR. He says the use of games, or gameification, can help make
the connection between decisions and consequences for participants.
The
portion of the brain that is stimulated when people think about themselves 40
years in the future is the same portion that is stimulated when they think
about a stranger, according to an interesting finding of behavioral economics. This is yet another factor that can make it difficult for participants to comprehend the impact of their decisions and to peer into their financial future, Cormier says.
Retirement planning asks
participants to not just connect current decisions with future impact, Cormier
points out, but to somehow make a personal connection to a future self who is
basically a stranger. “We want you to defer gratification today to benefit
someone 40 years from now, that your brain processes as a stranger,” he says. It’s a
difficult leap for many people to make.
This disconnect between present and
distant future means that the use of games to engage retirement plan
participants can be an effective technique to change thinking. Another way behavioral economics has
helped retirement plan providers to bridge the gap for participants is through the use
of face-aging software that can help people create more empathy for their future selves.
“By using more of an ‘if/then’ model, you are making decisions much
more real, and you start to internalize more information,” Cormier says.
Emotional Connection
“When we do research with kids
playing video games,” Cormier notes, “the character goes into overtime, gets
more weapons, strength, or wealth because of the player’s actions, and when their
character dies or they lose the game, they talk about how they feel depressed and are emotionally
affected.” This invested feeling is not confined to young people who play
games, Cormier says. The caring and empathy occur in players of various ages.
As people are bombarded with more
information, the use of games to help engage them is also on the rise, says Charles
Berman, senior vice president at Fidelity Investments. The games may lean on
different concepts, but sites from LinkedIn to those that book hotels use
scarcity (only three left at this price!) or competition (see what your contacts
are up to!) to get people to participate or make a purchase.
The technique may seem
manipulative, but Sean Belka, senior vice president at Fidelity Investments,
sees it as a win-win. “If there is only one [of a given product] left, and I want it, then
the information that supply is limited is valuable to me,” he tells PLANSPONSOR.
The technology and the discipline
of behavioral economics work together to take what’s interesting and fun and turn it into tools and research to help participants in decisionmaking, Belka says. Fidelity
works with the Education Arcade at MIT, along with a number of other universities, to
research and create strategies that seek to understand how participants think.
People who learn differently and
want to engage differently are well served by these techniques and games, Berman
says, and the provider can create tools that address varying learning styles
and levels of engagement. The games complement a retirement plan: “Better
savings behavior is about better engagement,” he tells PLANSPONSOR.
Fidelity has rolled out a number of
tools and games that hinge on behaviorism and use peer comparisons, for
example, to motivate participants by showing them what their peers are
deferring. In a recently released game, called “In the Cards,” players choose a character
and make financial and lifestyle choices. Berman explains that the point of
the game is not to simply accumulate the greatest amount of money—instead it's about setting goals and making smarter choices.
Finding Meaning
That de-emphasis on accumulation was
a central idea of the game, Berman says. “It’s important to be responsible and
save for a certain lifestyle, while protecting against occasional challenges
such as the need to purchase health insurance,” he says.
A key part of the game is also to
allow the character to do things that are fulfilling in reality. “It’s a wider
set of choices,” Belka explains, “like, ‘Should I have a roommate, go backpacking
or get a job?’” Berman notes that most people are interested in things that are
meaningful beyond their financial value. “The act of being financially responsible is about tradeoffs,”
Berman says.
Technology, data and behavioral
economics can also be useful for reaching plan sponsors, and Fidelity is
working on leveraging data to bring better peer comparison capabilities to this constituency, Berman says. Much as peer comparisons can work for
plan participants to motivate better behavior, plan sponsors can also be sparked
to meet their objectives.
“You can look at how your plan is
doing and benchmark against companies similar in size,” he says. Predictive
modeling can shine a light on participant performance, and it can also show
institutional clients the impact of changing a default by 1%. “What’s the
outcome,” Berman asks. “What does it look like against other companies of
similar size or industry?"
The deeper neurological
explanation, Cormier says, is that most people find the best and most engaging
stories are the ones about themselves. The technology in game-playing does not
rewire people, he says, but it allows us to use the wiring that is there,
helping us to connect more emotionally to what we are doing, which is useful in
abstract financial situations, where people may in fact find they are emotionally
disconnected from a portfolio.
“Technology can help us do things
like help us relate to our future selves,” Cormier notes. People can see the
potential consequences of decisions that in real life would be a slow-motion
movie that plays out over 40 years. “With technology, you can see it in a matter
of nanoseconds,” he says.