Policy Proposals Could Help Hispanic Workers’ Retirement Outcomes

A report from the Urban Institute shows Hispanics face steeper retirement income challenges than other ethnic groups.

Hispanics are among the fastest-growing population groups in the nation, nearly quadrupling between 1980 and 2014. Although the Hispanic population is relatively young, the number of Hispanics ages 65 and older will also surge in coming decades. Census Bureau projections indicate that the number of older Hispanics will more than triple over the next 25 years and will account for 15 percent of the older U.S. population by 2040.

A report from the Urban Institute finds many older Hispanics face steep financial challenges because of employment histories marked by low-earning jobs that do not generally offer retirement benefits.

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

Shortfalls in earnings and workplace retirement plans earlier in life likely account for much of the financial hardship that many older Hispanics face in retirement, especially those born outside the United States. In 2013, median earnings for men ages 25 to 64 employed full-time were 26% lower for U.S.-born Hispanics than non-Hispanic whites, and 47% lower for foreign-born Hispanics. The earnings shortfall for U.S.-born Hispanic women ages 25 to 64 working full-time, relative to non-Hispanic whites, was much smaller at 15%, but still substantial.

In addition, working Hispanics are much less likely than non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks to be offered retirement plan coverage by an employer or to be enrolled in a plan. In 2014, only 32% of Hispanic men ages 25 to 64 employed full-time participated in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, compared with 54% of non-Hispanic white men and 47% of non-Hispanic black men. The comparable rates for women employed full-time were 38% for Hispanics, 57% for non-Hispanic whites, and 50% for non-Hispanic blacks.

However, the fact that Hispanics tend to work longer than other groups promotes their retirement security.

NEXT: Various policy options may improve Hispanics’ retirement security

The Urban Institute also found educational differences partly account for these racial and ethnic disparities in retirement incomes, retirement wealth, earnings and retirement plan coverage. In 2014, 45% of Hispanics ages 65 and older lacked a high school diploma, including 55% of foreign-born Hispanics, compared with 27% of non-Hispanic blacks and 11% of non-Hispanic whites.

However, Hispanics’ generally limited education does not fully explain their financial shortfalls in retirement. Even after the Urban Institute controlled for education, age, marital status and English-speaking ability, researchers found that older U.S.-born Hispanics received 20% less income than non-Hispanic whites, and foreign-born Hispanics received 28% less income. Researchers also found that, among men employed full-time, U.S.-born Hispanics earned 7% less than non-Hispanic whites and foreign-born Hispanics earned 14% less.

The Urban Institute says more research is needed to better understand why Hispanic workers in the U.S. tend to earn less than non-Hispanic whites, and why they are less likely to participate in employer-sponsored retirement plans.

However, the Urban Institute’s projections suggest that retirement incomes will grow over the next three decades for both U.S.-born and foreign-born Hispanics. Compared with median age-70 income for people born in the 1940s, who are reaching age 70 in the 2010s, researchers project that median age-70 income for people born in the 1970s will be 42% higher for U.S.-born Hispanics and 38% higher for foreign-born Hispanics.

The Institute suggests various policy options might improve retirement security for Hispanics. Workforce development initiatives and efforts to promote education could enhance skills and raise earnings, boosting future Social Security benefits and allowing more Hispanics to save for retirement. Policy initiatives that promote retirement savings, such as state mandates requiring employers to offer automatic payroll deductions that would fund retirement accounts, could help narrow racial and ethnic disparities in retirement savings. Social Security reforms that increase benefit progressivity or create a meaningful minimum benefit would raise retirement incomes for people with low lifetime earnings. Finally, support for family caregivers and better financing options for paid long-term services and supports could help the many older Hispanics with disabilities and cognitive impairment receive the care they need and ease the financial burdens on their families.

The report examines Hispanics’ retirement security, using nationally representative household survey data from multiple sources, including the American Community Survey, decennial censuses, Survey of Income and Program Participation, and Health and Retirement Study. The analysis also used the Urban Institute’s Dynamic Simulation of Income Model (DYNASIM4) to project the financial security of future generations of older Hispanics.

Mercer Suggests Areas for DC Plan Review

Plan design, investments, fees, financial wellness and the DOL’s fiduciary rule are all things defined contribution plan sponsors should consider going into the New Year.

As the New Year is a time of personal reflection, it can also be a time of reflection for defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors.

Mercer provides recommendations for DC plan sponsors given current market conditions and challenges for the coming year.

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

“Change is the only constant in today’s market. As such, it is crucial to maintain vigilance over managing DC plans. Governance should always be a key focus, but it’s not a silver bullet,” says Liana Magner, partner at Mercer. “DC plans need to evolve with changes in legislation, regulations, industry trends and the changing needs of individuals. What may have been ideal a few years ago may not be as ideal today.”

Regarding plan design, Mercer suggests that DC plan sponsors should review their participants’ behavior and assess if matching plan design is influencing the choices being made by employees. Are these the correct influences? How could the design be more effectively structured to influence the preferred behavior?

In addition, DC plan design should be evaluated regularly to ensure it is relevant for the participant base, Mercer says. To do this, employers need to understand their participants’ behavior, needs and priorities. Areas for review include: cluster analysis; assessing participants’ financial courage; reviewing how participants are using existing investment options and relative retirement preparedness. Analyzing non-participants is crucial as well, Mercer contends, so employers can better determine how they can get them to participate.

NEXT: Investments and fees

Regarding DC plan investments, Mercer suggests DC plan sponsors need to check when was the last time they reviewed their managed account provider and review if they could currently defend their choice. In particular, in the wake of the new fiduciary rule, plan sponsors should fully understand exactly what fiduciary role the managed account provider will be accepting. Understanding potential conflicts of interest and what type of advice the managed account provider will provide (particularly related to distributions) is also crucial for plan sponsors.

Mercer notes that the Department of Labor (DOL) issued guidance highlighting how DC plan sponsors need to ensure target-date funds (TDFs) remain appropriate for the plan’s participants. Plan sponsors should determine if their participant group has changed. Employers should also take stock of their current TDFs and check if they are still high quality, appropriate investments, as the market has evolved significantly.

Mercer also believes DC plan sponsors should consider, or reconsider, retirement income options. More is happening in this area with an increasing number of DC plan sponsors open to the idea of retirees taking partial withdrawals from the 401(k) plan. In addition, the proposed Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act of 2016 includes a number of retirement income-relevant provisions that will spark more conversations.

Regarding DC plan fees, Mercer says focusing on fees is important, but the discussion should be focusing on fees relative to the value of services received and the expected benefits of any additional fees incurred. All things being equal, clearly, lower fees make sense, but DC plan sponsors need to make sure to also assess the best fee structure for their specific needs and objectives.

NEXT: Financial wellness and the fiduciary rule

Employers have historically focused solely on DC plan features targeting retirement accumulation: asset allocation, auto-enrollment and other features, Mercer notes. However, today, companies need to acknowledge that employees may be dealing with other more-pressing financial needs and as a result, retirement may not be their priority. Guidance and tools are necessary to empower individuals to cost effectively manage their broader financial situations.

Along this line, employers should decide if student loan repayment plans have a place within DC plan design alongside matching employee retirement contributions, Mercer says. For many, paying back student loans is more of a concern than saving for retirement, yet focusing on student loan repayment may cause individuals to miss out on the employer’s 401(k) match.

As things stand, key provisions of the DOL fiduciary rule will be in place effective April 10, 2017. DC plan fiduciaries need to monitor whether the fiduciary rule will roll out as initially anticipated and how a plan’s vendors are changing their services to accommodate the rule, Mercer suggests. DC plan sponsors need to confirm if the services they selected will actually be the ones being provided in the future.

In addition, Mercer suggests DC plan sponsors ask which fiduciary responsibilities they should keep and which would be better served by delegating to a third party?

Finally, Mercer recommends plan sponsors should create a strategy to address and mitigate cybersecurity.

«