U.S. Slips in Mercer's Retirement Rankings

A new Mercer study cites increased life expectancy and reduced estimates in funding available for Social Security as primary reasons for the United States' drop in the firm’s 2015 global retirement ranking.

Global retirement readiness rankings are inherently subjective and often controversial, but Mercer says the U.S. is clearly slipping compared with some other developed nations—from 13th to 14th for the United States in the firm’s 2015 global retirement ranking.

Mercer says the drop reflects a continuation of trends from the 2013 ranking, in which the U.S. placed 11th among the 25 countries surveyed. Now in its seventh year, the firm’s Melbourne Mercer Global Pension index (MMGPI) report measures retirement systems against more than 50 indicators, organized under the sub-indices of adequacy, sustainability and integrity.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Emily Eaton, a senior consultant in Mercer’s International Consulting Group, says the U.S. still stands firmly in the middle of the pack for retirement system efficacy, but concerns over the adequacy of the typical level of benefits provided under the U.S. system has dragged down scores, especially after the most recent financial crisis.

“The lack of employer-provided supplemental retirement benefits for many Americans and the relatively low labor force participation rates of our older workers are also contributing factors to the U.S. ranking,” she says. “There have been a series of regulatory changes to address these issues, but additional action could improve the adequacy and sustainability of the U.S. system.”

She notes the 2015 MMGPI “looked beyond the annual rankings to observe changes over the last seven years and assess which pension systems will continue to deliver and which ones are at risk.”

 NEXT: Labor participation a major factor

Both a positive and a negative indicator for individual retirement savers, all of the 11 countries that have been part of the MMGPI since it began in 2009 have experienced an increase in the expected length of retirement, with the average length rising from 16.6 years to 18.4 years since 2009. According to Mercer, just five countries—Australia, Germany, Japan, Singapore and the United Kingdom—have increased their pension age to offset the increase in life expectancies.

Eaton says even these changes were “not enough to halt the increasing length of retirement” among these nations, and that it doesn’t require a degree in mathematics see the troubling connection between longer retirements, slow wage growth and macroeconomic sluggishness.

For the 16 countries that have been part of the MMGPI since the 2011 report, Mercer finds the average labor force participation rate for 55- to 64-year-olds has increased from 57.9% to 62.2% between 2011 and 2015, or just over 1% per year. However, averages can be misleading, Mercer warns, as the labor force participation rate among at-risk older population segments in many countries slid backwards since 2009, most notably in the United States.

“Extending the years that individuals spend in the work force is one of the most positive ways of developing sustainable retirement systems when life expectancies are increasing,” adds David Knox, global pension risk index report author and a senior partner with Mercer Retirement. “While there is a natural limit to the participation rate at older ages, with most countries still below 70%, the scope for significant increases across the world remains, which would improve the sustainability of many pension systems.”

 NEXT: Some universal suggestions 

Overall, Mercer finds, there is a persistent and enormous variety in the level of pension assets held within a given country, ranging from 1.8% of gross domestic product (GDP) in Indonesia and 6.0% of GDP in Austria, to 160.6% of GDP in the Netherlands and 168.9% of GDP in Denmark.

Knox suggests the diversity in pension assets held as a percentage of GDP “recognizes that some countries have very limited private pension arrangements, whereas others have well-developed and mature pension systems.” Therefore, widely applied solutions to the global retirement crisis are likely to be less effective than locally driven initiatives that respond to specific situations and problems.

That said, Mercer suggests there are some common goals that should be kept in mind across geographies and distinct retirement systems. For example, Mercer urges policymakers to consider adding or raising minimum pension benefits for low-income workers while adjusting the level of mandatory contributions to increase the net replacement for median-income earners.

Other potential strategies suggested by Mercer include “improving the vesting of benefits for all plan members and maintaining the real value of retained benefits through to retirement, … reducing pre-retirement leakage by further limiting the access to funds before retirement … and introducing a requirement that part of the retirement benefit must be taking as an income stream.”

A New Player in the Retirement Industry

Thinking the retirement industry has failed to deliver on its goals, state governments are trying to get into the retirement business.

“Our issues are becoming more political,” Brian H. Graff, Esq., executive director and CEO of the American Retirement Association, told attendees of the 2015 ASPPA annual conference.

Retirement is front and center, and there is a lot of concern that many people do not have access to retirement plans at work, he explained. “The government finally gets it that retirement plans are important, but now it’s not sure we are the best to deliver those plans,” Graff told retirement plan advisers and service providers.

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

A movement has started to expand access to retirement plans. Graff noted that it is focused on the same issues as health care reform—lack of coverage, access and costs.

However, while state governments have started the movement, they are not just mandating that employers provide retirement plans; they are creating state products. “It’s as if states are getting into the retirement business,” Graff stated.

Now, the federal government is getting involved. In Interpretive Bulletin 99-1, the Department of Labor (DOL) established a framework for non-Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) payroll deduction individual retirement accounts (IRAs). According to Graff, as California, Illinois and Oregon worked on their state products, they asked the DOL for clarification that automatic-enrollment does not make payroll deduction IRAs ERISA plans, Graff explained. The DOL was reluctant to respond, but earlier this year, President Obama told the DOL to develop guidance facilitating state programs.

NEXT: Giving states a competitive advantage

The guidance from the DOL has not been proposed yet, but it is awaiting approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), so it is expected to be published soon. Officials at the American Retirement Association have not seen the guidance, but Graff shared what they’ve gleaned from discussions with the DOL.

It seems the guidance will have two components: a proposal that auto-enrollment IRAs would not be ERISA plans if employers are required to participate—avoiding pre-emption by ERISA, and a rule allowing states to offer open multiple-employer retirement plans (MEPs) that would be treated as an MEP for affiliated employers—meaning, there would only need to be one plan document, one summary plan description and one Form 5500 per year filed. Graff says the first component would be delayed by the proposal, comment period and hearing process, while the second component would be effective immediately.

“This gives a competitive advantage to state products; it’s not a level playing field,” Graff said. In a 2012 advisory opinion, the DOL said an MEP open to unrelated employers does not constitute a single employee pension benefit plan. Graff contended that if the DOL gives states a competitive advantage over private providers, the uneven playing field will lead to less competition, less innovation and worse outcomes for savers.

Judy A. Miller, executive director of the ASPPA college of pension actuaries and director of retirement policy at the American Retirement Association, noted that the DOL is probably wanting to allow states to offer MEPs, because they want something with ERISA protections.

NEXT: Problems with state plans

But, Miller notes that there are many problems or unanswered questions about state plans. How will they define participants; what if employees live in different states? How would states be held accountable for and correct errors? Who will run and control investments?

While the DOL guidance may address how these plans should be structured or run, right now it depends on rules set by each state, Miller noted. For example, Illinois issued a request for proposals (RFP) for an investment provider and it has a board that acts as an investment committee. The American Retirement Association is asking that the DOL require a designated service provider, registered with the DOL, to make sure rules are being followed, she said.

Miller also contended that the MEP concept will not work unless there’s an employer mandate to participate. Graff agreed, noting that this movement by states is based on the notion that the retirement industry is not offering a cost-effective solution for small businesses. “There are many cost-effective solutions available. The problem is distribution. It takes time and effort to set up plans for businesses,” he says.

Why would employers jump on board just because a state is providing the product, Miller added.

Miller also noted that the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) has usually followed the trends of the private sector. “States will be laggards; they won’t be ahead of the curve,” she contended.

«