Retiring at Age 65 May Be Going Extinct

Only 12% of those not retired expect to ever completely retire.

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.

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

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.

Sponsors Should Ask for Indemnification in Provider Contracts

Indemnification clauses cover costs when being sued—but don’t eliminate fiduciary responsibilities.

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.

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

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.”

«