Working
Americans expect to retire at an average age of 68—a full decade later than
when current retirees left the work force, according to Northwestern Mutual’s “2015
Planning & Progress Study.”
Notably, 62% of working Americans believe they will work past the traditional
retirement age of 65 out of necessity, with 79% of this group saying they won’t
have saved enough to retire comfortably, and another 79% saying they are not
certain that Social Security will take care of their needs. Just over half,
53%, are worried about rising costs like health care.
Many
Americans are uncertain about retirement in general, with 43% saying they have
not spoken to anyone about retirement and 35% in the dark as to what percentage
of their current income they will need when they retire.
Only 12%
expect to ever completely retire from the workforce—a dramatic contrast to the
79% of current retirees who do not perform work of any kind. The findings
indicate that Americans are developing a very different view of retirement,
Northwestern Mutual says.
In addition,
working Americans are less optimistic about what life will be like in
retirement than current retirees. Only 68% of future retirees expect to be
happy in retirement, while 80% of current retirees say they are contented. Only
52% of future retirees expect to maintain their quality of life in retirement,
compared with 61% of current retirees who report they have achieved this.
And only 54% of future retirees think they will be able to focus on health and
fitness, compared with 74% of retirees.
However, among the 38% who expect to continue working by choice, not necessity,
enthusiasm abounds. Two-thirds (66%) say they plan on continuing to work
because they enjoy it, 60% will work in order to earn additional
disposable income, and 49% will keep at their jobs to stay active.
Retirement
plan advisers and plan sponsors need to help people prepare for retirement
early, says Rebekah Barsch, vice president of planning at Northwestern Mutual: “With
life expectancy increasing, planning for retirement is essentially like
preparing for a vacation that could last decades. Thinking through all the
considerations early on is the best way to help ensure you have everything you
need to enjoy your well-earned retirement journey.” (See also: “Bank of America Merrill Lynch Launches Longevity Training.”)
If retirement plan participants are guided on saving adequately and saving
early on, they may not have to continue working well past age 65, Barsch says.
The “2015
Planning & Progress Media Study” can be uploaded here.
Retirement
plan sponsors should ask for indemnification clauses when they enter into
contracts with service providers and retirement plan advisers, experts say.
Indemnification
clauses are promises by the service providers that if they do something wrong
that causes harm to the plan sponsor or causes a third party to sue the
sponsor, the service provider will cover their legal costs, explains Fred
Reish, chair of the Financial Services ERISA practice at Drinker, Biddle &
Reath in San Francisco.
However,
while it is important for plan sponsors to realize that indemnification clauses
are helpful protections, they are not “exculpatory provisions” that eliminate
sponsors’ fiduciary liabilities, Reish says. Sponsors still need to take steps
to meet their fiduciary responsibilities when entering into a contract with a
service provider. “You don’t offload your fiduciary responsibilities with an
indemnification clause,” he says.
Sponsors
should also be aware that when asking a service provider for an indemnification
clause, the provider might say that as a general policy, it doesn’t offer such
clauses—or it might ask the plan sponsor to reciprocate and indemnify the
provider in return, Reish says. Sponsors will then need to determine if they
are comfortable indemnifying their providers or working with a provider that
doesn’t offer indemnification, he notes.
NEXT: Negotiating indemnification clauses
Retirement
plan sponsors inevitably will need an Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) attorney’s help in negotiating indemnification clauses because their
terms can vary widely, according to Reish. “Does it just cover the settlement
amount of a lawsuit or attorney fees and the cost of hiring experts, or are the
terms broader whereby the indemnification agreement covers any reasonable
amount that needs to be paid in relation to a lawsuit?” Reish notes. “Does the
indemnification clause cover any kind of mistake that is made, or is it limited
to certain kinds of mistakes?”
It
is vital for a plan sponsor to ensure the indemnification clause covers not
just the plan sponsor, but also related persons, says Kishka McClain, a partner
with Venable LLP in Washington. “That includes the company, its officers,
directors, employees, agents, stockholders and affiliates,” McClain says.
It
is also essential for sponsors to seek out indemnification clauses for actions
where the service provider or a third-party subcontractor has discretionary
authority and the sponsor is not in control, adds Jason Roberts, a partner with
Retirement Law Group in Los Angeles. “An example would be where the service
provider subcontracts service to a custodian or a trust company,” Roberts says.
“Because the plan sponsor isn’t conducting due diligence on those third
parties, they might want to seek indemnification for any misconduct by those
third parties. Another very common issue is data throughputs. After the
recordkeeper receives data from payroll, the sponsor no longer has control over
the information and they should expect to be indemnified for the recordkeeper’s
handling of this information.”
Privacy
is another common issue that comes up in indemnification clauses for retirement
plans, Roberts says. “Recordkeepers handle a lot of sensitive and personal
information on participants. Plan sponsors should be indemnified against a
breach or intentional dissemination of that information,” he says.
The
scope of the indemnification is also important. When David Kaleda, a principal
in the fiduciary responsibility practice group at Groom Law Group in
Washington, D.C., goes over indemnification clauses in service provider
contracts for his plan sponsor clients, he makes sure the terms are broad
enough to provide ample coverage. For example, Kaleda doesn’t want the clause
to apply to “gross negligence but to regular negligence, and not just to
willful misconduct but to a material breach of the service agreement or
applicable loss.”
Next: True fiduciary protection
Aside
from seeking out indemnification clauses, plan sponsors have a fiduciary
responsibility to thoroughly vet service providers before entering into a
contract with them, says Babu Sivadasan, group president of Envestnet |
Retirement Solutions in San Francisco. “Ask questions about their experience
and their prudent fiduciary process,” Sivadasan says. “Ask about the underlying
technology supporting the fiduciary processes. Make sure they are sound. If
it’s a retirement plan adviser offering 3(38) or 3(21) fiduciary services, find
out if they are offering those services on their own or if they are relying on
a third-party administrator. Look at the skillset of all of the players.”
Kaleda
agrees that thoroughly vetting service providers is key. “Sponsors need to have
done thorough due diligence in selecting the service provider to ensure that
they are competent and, importantly, their fees are reasonable,” he says.
Sponsors also have a fiduciary responsibility to monitor their service
providers to ensure they are delivering on the services delineated in their
contracts.
Both Reish and Sivadasan also believe it is a smart move for plan sponsors to
completely offload the investment selection and monitoring process by hiring a 3(38)
fiduciary as opposed to a 3(21) fiduciary who will make suggestions but leave
the decision up to the sponsor. “Plan sponsors seeking fiduciary protection
should consider turning to a retirement plan adviser who can serve as a 3(38)
fiduciary whereby they pick their investments and prudently monitor them,”
Reish says. “That is the highest degree of protection you can get.”
In addition, “having fiduciary breach insurance is a great backstop because
even if you are wrongfully sued, it can cost you hundreds of thousands of
dollars to get out of a case,” he adds. In line with this, it is also smart for
plan sponsors to make sure their recordkeeper and third-party administrator
either also carry fiduciary breach insurance or are large enough to pay a legal
expense, Reish says.
Finally, sponsors
might consider asking an ERISA attorney to review their service provider
contracts to ensure the terms are favorable for them and that they are
indemnified wherever possible. By reviewing the entire service provider
contract along with the indemnification clauses, an attorney can detect
“whether the provider has added language to the contract that would shift
risk,” McClain says. “For example, if the service provider has included a
standard of care by which it will render its obligations, and they tie the
indemnification clause to the standard of care, that can dilute your
indemnification protection.”
Reish adds: “I am constantly amazed that sponsors will sign 20- to 30-page,
complicated contract without reading them or having their attorneys read review
them.” Plan sponsors can really benefit
from an ERISA attorney’s help in negotiating and reviewing service provider
contracts—particularly with indemnification clauses because few plan sponsors
are aware such clauses exist, Reish says. “This is not on their radar.”