PSNC 2017: The Effect of Choice on Regret Aversion and Trust in Sponsors’ DC Plans

Enhanced active choice (EAC) is an effective communication tool that can be used to increase trust in the plan sponsor and improve DC plan enrollment and participation rates.

Day One of the 2017 PLANSPONSOR National Conference kicked off with an engaging discussion by  Punam A. Keller, Ph.D., Charles Henry Jones third century professor of management, Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth.

According to Keller, increasingly, a significant number of adult Americans do not trust the government and the financial industry to help secure their retirement. The absence of trust puts more onus on the individual and plan sponsor to manage retirement funds. Current enrollment nudges such as opt-outs and opt-ins are insufficient to prompt trust in plan sponsors.

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

Keller comes from three perspectives. She said she cares very deeply about employee well-being. “You can get pretty much anything done if you find the right team. But, often, it’s not that they don’t have the right ability—other factors may hinder productivity, such as a lack of engagement and loyalty,” she told attendees. “Emotional stuff can drag you down.”

Keller is also a marketing professor, but her focus is on social marketing; she uses marketing techniques and tools for social causes. Finally, she is a behavioral scientist. “I don’t just want to change attitudes, but I want to effect behavioral change.”

How does all this apply to defined contribution (DC) retirement plans? Keller said lower trust in plan sponsors and providers requires a change in nudge features and contended that enhanced active choice (EAC) is an effective communication tool that can be used to increase trust in the plan sponsor and increase DC plan enrollment and participation rates. “EAC bestows control, reduces procrastination, and increases trust and enrollment,” she said.

NEXT: The difference trust makes, and what is EAC?

“If you can’t connect with who you were when younger—i.e., what was I wearing, what’s up with the hair, what was I thinking—how can you relate to a future self you haven’t even experienced?” Keller noted.

She added that we operate at a level of satisfying emotions, not savings and compounding interest.

Polarized trust in government administration reduces trust in government mechanisms such as Social Security; lower expected returns may decrease trust in agents and certainty of outcomes; and the most vulnerable populations are the least likely to trust financial institutions and instruments, Keller has found.

People with low trust think about desirability, i.e., why they should I do it, versus those with high trust who think about how to do it. People with low trust deliberate—question what decision to make and whether they have enough information to make a decision—while those with high trust just implement a suggestion.

EAC includes no default, but a compulsory choice. Keller said this works only with “ought” behaviors—we know we ought to save for retirement—certain outcomes—we can’t say if you save for a lifetime, it will guarantee a secure retirement lifestyle, but we can say it can improve your retirement lifestyle—explaining the desirability of the new option and the cost of the old option.

Active choice allows employees to check one box, “I will enroll” or “I will not enroll.” Keller explained that, with EAC, the choices given are, “Yes, I want to enroll, knowing it will help me enjoy a comfortable retirement,” and “No, I don’t want to enroll, even though this could help keep me from living a lifestyle of poverty in retirement.”

Keller said the problem with automatic plan features is they don’t teach the participant about decisions and taking responsibility. But EAC can be used with auto plan features and will make participants accountable for future decisions. For example, even if a plan is using with auto-enrollment, it can use EAC to get participants to increase deferral rates. EAC can also be used to decrease plan leakage by making clear what will be the cost effect of the decision to take a loan or hardship withdrawal.

EAC is about regret aversion.

NEXT: Case studies

Keller shared with conference attendees some case studies of how EAC has worked.

For example, plans and highlights can increase participation for motivated employees. One company used videos of employees talking about why they save, using people varied in income and age. It also gave employees a list for enrolling, telling them how much time each step would take and what they need to prepare for each step such as Social Security numbers for beneficiary designations. The plan saw an increase in enrollment of about 10%.

Another firm reframed its communication about a benefit. Instead of just saying the job pays an end-of-year bonus of $2,000 but you will save $2,000 in transportation cost each year, the firm added in, “This would be equivalent to getting $2,000 in extra earnings and you can allocate this income to other things.” This reframing increased enrollment about 22%.

Another firm created a brochure titled, “Give yourself a bonus today.” Keller explained that brochure was designed to build trust through optimism; it expressed empathy with no jargon; it included white space to encourage reflection; there were no lifestyle images that could sway emotions in another direction; it gave guidance with step-by-step instructions; it focused on participants’ needs; it did not overwhelm participants with more information than was necessary; and it did not talk down to participants or use an institutional tone of knowing what’s best for them. The brochure resulted in a 25% increase in voluntary enrollment in the firm’s 457 plan, as well as a more than 600% increase in the use of auto-deferral escalation.

While EAC was shown to improve outcomes for participants, Keller wanted to see if it increased trust in DC plan sponsors. So, one firm offered an EAC choice to enroll in the plan, as Keller previously explained, an EAC choice that was a little less negative for the choice not to enroll, and also the standard yes or no opt-in choice. Not only did more employees respond to the EAC choices, but they said the EAC messaging made them feel the company cared about them and that they can rely on the company if they have problems.

“We can’t ignore that emotions are a large part of how people make decisions,” Keller said. “Behavioral science techniques can help manage emotions and improve outcomes for participants.” She also noted that the studies found young employees actually like this better than older employees.

All these steps are changes in communications, so they are efficient and cost-effective, Keller pointed out. But, she warned that DC plan sponsors really need to think about whether they should use EAC with their employees. “If most employees go to payday lenders, should you really offer this, or encourage them to pay down debt first?” she said.

PSNC 2017: Washington Update

Top ERISA attorneys give their best predictions about how tax reform, open MEPs, fiduciary rulemaking and other regulatory and legislative matters will evolve under Republican leadership.

The 2017 PLANSPONSOR National Conference kicked off Wednesday afternoon in Washington D.C.’s Renaissance Hotel.

The setting, barely a mile from both the U.S. Capitol and the White House, could not have been more appropriate for the conference’s popular recurring session: The Washington Update.

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

Featured on the panel this year were Bradford Campbell, partner, Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, and former assistant secretary of labor overseeing the Department of Labor (DOL)’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) under President George W. Bush; as well as Michael Kreps, principal, Groom Law Group Chartered, and former senior pensions and employment counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions from the 110th through the 114th Congresses.

Even with those impressive credentials, both Campbell and Kreps freely admitted this is a vexing and even a bit frustrating time from the perspective of trying to get in front of potential major regulatory and legislative change. One just has to look at the example set by the ongoing fiduciary rule kerfuffle to see the challenge.

Just in the last year, the fiduciary rule’s future has seemingly flipped at least two or three times, Kreps and Campbell said, starting with the election of Donald Trump and the bicameral Republican majority in the U.S. Congress. Given the new president’s and the GOP’s rhetorical stance towards government regulation of financial markets, it was naturally assumed that the fiduciary rule would, by one mechanism or another, be prevented from taking effect.

However, the full Congress has failed as yet to pass any measures impacting the fiduciary rule implementation, and the new administration took four full months to fill the position of labor secretary. This left Alexander Acosta precious little time to begin the process of somehow removing or revising the rulemaking prior to its first implementation deadlines. Trump’s DOL managed to delay the rulemaking’s earliest compliance deadlines, from April to June, but it has given up trying to fully halt the implementation—coming imminently on June 9.

Campbell and Kreps both suggested that the future of the fiduciary rule, even now that the implementation is picking up steam, is far from set in stone. Congress could still certainly find a way to successfully move, as it has attempted to before, to repeal the rule in full and then require the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to set any new advice standards. The CHOICE Act, which has recently passed the House Financial Services Committee, for example, seeks to do just that.

NEXT: Uncertainty still reigns 

In an interesting twist of events Secretary Acosta actually addressed a House committee on the opening day of PSNC 2017, regarding his plans for reviewing and potentially overturning the fiduciary rulemaking, suggesting that the Obama administration “overlooked” key industry concerns with the tighter conflict of interest standards. Also providing some important context, an unscientific live poll of plan sponsors at PSNC showed less than 10% identified either the fiduciary rule or retirement-related tax reform as their top concern looking forward. Far more identified low savings rates and the inability of employees to retire on time as their top concerns.

Still, Campbell and Kreps warned that the fiduciary rule transition period is starting now, and it’s unlikely that the rulemaking will be dialed back within the next year or even two years—if ever.

Kreps stressed that plan sponsors don’t have as much to worry about as do advisers or service providers, but all players in the retirement planning space must take heed: “Provider-client relationships are subject to change, in terms of education practices, advice tools, call center scripts, and in many other areas. It is your express duty as a plan sponsor to monitor all of this and continue to maintain an understanding of what your service providers do and how they are compensated. You will likely see new disclosures coming in very soon.”

Campbell agreed, warning that the standards for rollover advice in particular are changing significantly, “and this will impact how participants behave around the retirement point.”

On the subject of retirement-related tax reform, similar amounts of uncertainty were voiced by both panelists, but they strenuously warned plan sponsors that “Congress could very likely make real mistakes here that would damage the private-employer retirement system.” The mandatory use of Roth accounts for at least some—if not all—contributions, rather than the traditional 401(k), is one very real possibility.

Both panelists concluded that the only likely positive development that could come out of Washington this year, from the perspective of private defined contribution retirement plans, is the opening up of the multiple employer plan (MEP) system to allow small businesses to pool their resources when starting and maintaining retirement plans. 

«