Investing May 2, 2018

TDFs Can Provide Retirement Income as Part of ‘Auto Retirement’

BlackRock Managing Director Anne Ackerley, in conversation with PLANSPONSOR, explains new opportunities to deliver retirement income solutions to plan participants, including through the QDIA.  

Reported by

PLANSPONOSR: Why do you believe that target-date funds (TDFs) should incorporate retirement income components?

Anne Ackerley: I’d start by saying that we need to be thinking about retirement income solutions, in part, because future retirees will face a very different environment. BlackRock research finds that current retirees aren’t spending down their retirement savings very fast. A substantial portion of retirees today have 80% or more of their savings nearly 20 years into retirement. This can largely be attributed to the fact that retirees have benefited from additional sources of retirement income, like Social Security and strong equity market returns.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

We believe the environment for future retirees will be different. The option to not spend down retirement assets will likely be off the table, so we need to help people understand how to spend in retirement.

Both plan participants and plan sponsors agree on this. Our annual DC Pulse survey found that 93% of participants are looking for guidance on how to spend their assets and 90% of plan sponsors feel responsible to help. That’s where target-date funds (TDFs) can provide a solution. Target-date funds have functioned as great products to help people save. Why not use this successful, existing product set to help people spend down their assets? We think this makes a lot of sense.

PS: Is this how you define “auto retirement”?

AA:  As we talk about it, “auto retirement” is the new frontier of auto features. Think about what has been successful in helping people save—plan design features like auto-enrollment and auto-escalation, paired with “set it and forget it” investment vehicles like the target-date fund as a qualified default investment alternative (QDIA). In other words, what’s worked has been a combination of tools and products that leverage what behavioral finance has proven to be true. People tend to be subject to inertia, so let’s make that work to their benefit, during accumulation and decumulation.

Auto retire applies these same principles to the spending phase. There will be a range of solutions. But we believe this new term calls for a combination of products, tools and technology to help participants translate a lump sum into a consistent stream of retirement income.

PS: How can plan sponsors make TDFs part of the “auto retire” framework?

AA: There are three things that plan sponsors can do to make a target-date fund part of an auto retire framework. First, when evaluating a target-date fund, they should look for one that is designed both for accumulation and decumulation of assets. Not all target-date funds are.

Second, plan sponsors need to make sure that their plans allow for periodic distributions. Very early, when 401(k) plans were first being started, plan sponsors set up their plans for a one-time lump sum. They need to go back to review their policies and work with their recordkeeper to make this adjustment.

Third, plan sponsors should think about a spending tool that can be integrated with the target-date fund. The BlackRock LifePath spending tool, for example, provides retirees with an estimate for how much they can spend in retirement each year. By putting in their age and retirement savings, a retiree immediately receives an estimate for current-year spending and its impact on their savings up until the age of 95. 

PS: How difficult is it for recordkeepers to support target-date funds that include a retirement income component?

AA:  Most plans today aren’t set up to allow for flexible distribution options. To enable that, plan sponsors can absolutely work with recordkeepers toward solutions that would allow retirees to automatically receive consistent income throughout retirement, including more frequent and periodic withdrawals.

PS: And what if the target-date fund includes a guaranteed income component in the form of annuities?

AA: The need for retirement income is going to result in a spectrum of products. The BlackRock LifePath funds, combined with a spending tool is one approach. Certainly, another could be to include some form of guaranteed income in the target-date fund. We currently offer the Lifetime Retirement Income product with annuities embedded. However, we are still in the early days of in-plan annuity use. Plan sponsors are only just starting to consider the full spectrum of options.

PS: What are the upsides and downsides of including an annuity in a TDF?

AA: The upside is that because participants have become very familiar with TDFs for the accumulation phase, we think that adjusting TDFs for retirees to help them spend their assets down is going to be a real advantage. As far as downsides are concerned, while our Lifetime Retirement Income product is straightforward, other TDFs with annuities embedded in them have been complex and require a fair amount of participant education.

PS: Are you finding that more plan sponsors are interested in retired workers remaining in the plan?

AA: Yes, particularly as more people are retiring every day. The benefit is that the employee continues to enjoy institutional pricing. And certainly the fiduciary rule, while it is going through some changes, has put a focus on what happens to assets in retirement.

More and more plan sponsors and participants are focusing on what happens in retirement. Our DC Pulse survey found that nine in 10 plan sponsors feel responsible for helping people with their retirement planning needs, and 93% of participants want more guidance. Across the industry, there is more focus on how to manage retirement income, and BlackRock believes target-date funds can offer a good in-plan solution.

Data and Research May 1, 2018

The Real Retirement Crisis: Assessing Retirement Savings Adequacy

A speaker at PSCA’s 71st Annual National Conference suggests reports of Americans retirement savings inadequacy are overblown and offers data to back that up.

Reported by

Andrew G. Biggs, resident scholar at American Enterprise Institute, told attendees of the Plan Sponsor Council of America (PSCA) 71st Annual National Conference, that for most of his 20 years in the retirement industry, if someone had asked him if Americans are undersaving for retirement, he would have said they were.

 

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

However, he’s been looking at the research and claims that indicate there is a retirement crisis in America and suggests they are understating what Americans will have for retirement income and overstating what they will need. “The outlook is more positive than what the stories tell,” he said.

 

Biggs said retirement planning is about maintaining a person’s standard of living from work to retirement, and keeping consumption smooth over time. Total retirement savings in public- and private-sector retirement plans, individual retirement accounts (IRAs), annuities and Social Security income is about $48 trillion. According to Biggs, academic studies report a retirement savings gap of around $1 trillion; the Center for Retirement Research (CRR) estimates it at approximately $6 trillion and the National Institute for Retirement Security (NIRS) says it is $14 trillion.

 

Biggs argued that the Current Population Survey (CPS) on which many research studies are based is a “terrible source of information about retirement income.” This is because it counts regular payments, such as monthly Social Security benefits or monthly payments from annuities, or pensions as income, but if someone takes irregular payments, such as withdrawing from a defined contribution (DC) plan only when funds are needed, that is not counted as income. “The CPS only captures 58% of retirement income that Americans actually report to the IRS,” he says.

 

Data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Census Bureau shows that the percentage of households receiving income from private retirement plans doubled from 1984 to 2007. According to IRS data, poverty in retirement is falling. “That is success,” Biggs said.

 

In addition, the Social Security Administration reports that one-third of retirees depend on Social Security for 90% of their retirement income. However, according to Biggs, research from economists Josh Mitchell and Adam Bee, using IRS data, shows only 18% of Americans are highly dependent on Social Security for retirement income, and only 12% receive 90% of income from Social Security. These economists find that a typical retiree has 114% of replacement income five years before claiming Social Security.

 

Biggs also noted that some studies say if retirees don’t have annuity payments, they will spend their money down and not have enough to last through retirement; however, government research shows that for people who retired in the 1920s, their net worth increased over time. “This is because people tend to spend less in retirement—they’re not buying houses or expensive cars,” Biggs said. “Most retirees are savers. They’re not drawing down retirement savings, but building up their assets. There are exceptions, but this is the trend.”

 

There is also the claim that health costs eat up retirees’ savings, but Biggs pointed out that the Consumer Expenditure Survey found health outlays are essentially flat over the years in retirement. Other surveys show the median household spends only $7,000 in long-term care. “Medicare does pay some, and other benefits may pay some,” Biggs said. “If health care costs were going through the roof, we would see more retirees file for bankruptcy, but the data shows more employees than retirees file for bankruptcy.”

 

According to Biggs, Federal Reserve data shows retirement savings are at record levels. Americans saved an average of 6% in 1975, but in 2013 was 8%. Biggs said this may seem small, but “if you go through life saving 8% versus 6%, you will have 33% more retirement income.”

 

He also noted that there are now two parties contributing to Americans’ retirement savings, the employee and the employer, where before it was only the employer. “Everyone talks about the good old days of DB [defined benefit] plans and the retirement crisis is because of the switch from DB to DC,” Biggs said. “But, at the peak, only 39% of Americans participated in a DB plan and a Congressional study found only 10% of those who participated in a DB plan actually received a benefit from it. Whether one gets money from a DB plan depends on vesting and funding.”

 

Biggs noted that Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) requirements caused many corporate plan sponsors to move away from DB plans, and that is why there are still so many public-sector DB plans—no ERISA requirements. He also points out that “even the smallest estimates of underfunding of government DB plans are bigger than the largest estimates of undersaving by households.” He adds, “This does not tell me we need to shift retirement savings from households’ hands into the government’s hands.”

 

Biggs does not say that attempts to overcome the retirement savings “crisis” are necessarily bad, but they need to be considered. For example, a study of Federal employees automatically enrolled in the Thrift Savings Plan showed savings did increase, but debt increased even more. “We try to get the poorest to save for retirement, but do they need to?” he queried.

 

“We need a better analysis of retirement savings issues and to rely less on interest group studies,” Biggs said. “If today’s workers are saving well and today’s retirees are doing well, then my gut says tomorrow’s retirees will be ok.”

 

Biggs suggested some things that do need to be done to improve retirement savings adequacy:

Fix the big problems – Social Security, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and state and local retirement plans are facing insolvency. Biggs suggests Social Security be enhanced for the poor.

Pick the low- hanging fruit – He recommended making auto enrollment universal and raising the default deferral rate, but considering exempting low-income employees from auto enrollment.

Addressing expanding retirement plan coverage for employees – Biggs said multiple employer plans (MEPs) will help, but wonders whether we should embrace state-run auto-IRAs or a federal alternative for employees without DC plans.

 

“If there’s a case for the auto-IRA, it is for lower-income people to use that in order to delay claiming Social Security,” Biggs said. “Even if you’re in the category of someone whose projected longevity is lower, there is still a lot of uncertainty, so I think there is value in insuring yourself from poverty at the point of life when you have fewer options, so I think that is a case for delaying Social Security claiming.”

«