Vanguard Sees All-Time High Deferral Rates, Plan Design Improvements in 2024

According to a preview of its ‘How America Saves’ report, Vanguard found that average account balances increased in 2024 and participants’ deferral rates are rising.

With more defined contribution retirement plans offering automatic features and increasing default deferral rates, Vanguard found that participant outcomes remained strong in 2024, according to a preview of its “How America Saves 2025” report.

Vanguard found that, driven primarily by positive market performance, account balance averages increased by 10% in 2024, and 45% of participants increased their deferral rate—either on their own or as part of an automatic annual increase—an all-time high since Vanguard started tracking this metric in 2019.

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

“Plan designs have never been stronger,” says Jeff Clark, head of defined contribution research at Vanguard. “What we’ve noticed is that over the last 20 years, the percentage of plans adopting automatic enrollment has increased every year, and last year was not an exception.”

As of year-end 2024, 61% of Vanguard plans that allowed employee-elective deferrals had adopted automatic enrollment. Larger plans—those with at least 1,000 participants—were more likely to implement automatic enrollment, with 78% using the design.

In addition, with automatic enrollment defaulted their employees into the plan at a rate of at least 4%, and Vanguard found that default rates have continued to increase every year.

Investing Trends

On the investment side, 67% of participants now have a professionally managed allocation, which Clark says is up from 45% in 2014. The majority of those invested in a professionally managed allocation are in target-date funds, with 60% of participants in pure TDFs and 7% using an in-plan managed account.

Clark says overall advice and managed account usage has been relatively flat compared with the previous year.

“But it’s also important to remember that each year, more plans are offering advice,” Clark says. “Sometimes it takes [time] to organically grow participants using advice, so that is a number that we do think will start to increase in the coming years, as there’s more stability and plans [have been] offering advice for a longer period of time.”

At the end of 2024, nearly 80% of participants had access to managed account advice services, according to Vanguard.

Vanguard also noted that participant trading, or exchange activity, was low last year, with only 5% of participants initiating an exchange in 2024, similar to 2023’s all-time low. Clark says overall participant trading has been decreasing over the last 20 years, much of it correlated with the increase of pure-TDF investing.

Alight Solutions similarly found in the fourth quarter of 2024 that retirement investors’ trading was light following a post-election bump. However, the late stock stumble, coupled with the Federal Reserve’s interest rate cut, fueled increased trading in December.

Hardship Withdrawals

The Vanguard report preview also revealed that hardship withdrawal activity increased in 2024, with 4.8% of participants initiating a hardship withdrawal, up from 3.6% in 2023.

Clark notes that one reason for the increase in hardship withdrawals could be because as more plans are offering auto-enrollment, it can disproportionately help lower-income workers save for retirement. These are also workers who tend to have liquidity restraints and may need to take a hardship withdrawal, Clark says.

He adds that the distribution process itself has been streamlined, and there has been increased financial stress on individuals over the last few years.

“Given higher interest rates, stubborn inflation [and] rising household debt, hardship withdrawals may serve as a bit of a safety net for some participants,” Clark says.

Clark says there the increase in hardship withdrawals was particularly notable in the second half of 2024, largely due to natural disaster declarations that enable participants to take out money to repair homes following natural disasters.

In terms of plan loans, 13% of participants had a loan outstanding at the end of 2024, in line with 2023 data.

“I think that this trend highlights the importance of just overall financial wellness and certainly the benefits of having an emergency savings fund that would help to cover some of these unplanned expenses,” Clark says.

The full “How America Saves” report will be released in June.

Exploring Alternative Investment Vehicles in Employee-Sponsored Retirement Plans

Options such as collective investment trusts and institutional separate accounts have gained traction in recent years.

Peter Mustian

Sydney Aeschlimann

Mutual funds have historically been the most popular investment vehicle in employee-sponsored retirement plans. However, due to their competitive pricing, alternative options such as collective investment trusts and institutional separate accounts have gained traction in recent years. While CITs and ISAs operate similarly to mutual funds as daily-valued pooled investment vehicles, they have distinct differences that plan sponsors must understand to make informed decisions.

The Rise of CITs and ISAs

CITs and ISAs are commonly used in 401(k) plans, 457 plans and other defined contribution plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, emerging as attractive alternatives to mutual funds primarily due to their lower costs. They typically have lower expense ratios, making them appealing to plan sponsors and participants. Currently, CITs are not permitted in 403(b) plans. However, pending legislation aims to amend federal securities laws to allow their inclusion. Despite repeated efforts, this legislation has not yet passed in recent years. If enacted, this change would provide 403(b) plans access to the cost efficiencies and institutional management benefits of CITs.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Regulatory Landscape

Mutual funds are governed by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940, requiring registration and compliance processes and associated costs. These expenses are often passed on to investors. By contrast, CITs and ISAs are not subject to SEC registration, contributing to their cost efficiency. State authorities and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulate CITs, while state insurance departments have jurisdiction over ISAs. Both CITs and ISAs must also comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, ensuring adherence to retirement plan standards.

Cost Efficiency

A key advantage of CITs and ISAs lies in their reduced operational cost. Mutual funds serve retail and institutional investors, resulting in extensive operational requirements. Retail investors, who tend to trade more frequently, can contribute to higher transaction costs, distributed across all mutual fund investors. CITs and ISAs primarily serve institutional investors, benefiting from more stable investment flows and lower trading costs.

Investment Standards and Performance

As plan assets grow, many plan sponsors consider transitioning to CIT or ISA versions of mutual funds, provided they meet investment minimums. While these transitions may seem akin to a share class change, critical differences exist. CITs and ISAs, governed by ERISA, may adhere to stricter investment standards than mutual funds. For example, CIT and ISA bond managers can be restricted from investing in below-investment-grade, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities, which mutual funds may include. These distinctions can result in differences in holdings and performance.

CITs and ISAs also manage separate cash pools from mutual funds, leading to discrepancies in cash flow and trade timing. Frequent trading in mutual funds can create challenges in aligning liquidity and timing for CITs and ISAs to mirror mutual fund investments accurately. These differences can affect performance, making careful evaluation essential.

Reporting Differences

Unlike mutual funds, CITs and ISAs lack SEC-registered ticker symbols, making them less searchable online. Participants, however, can access detailed information through their plan recordkeeper’s participant website. This distinction underscores the importance of transparency and communication when incorporating these funds into retirement plans.

Other Key Considerations for Plan Sponsors

When evaluating CITs and ISAs, we recommend that plan sponsors also consider the following:

  • Assets Under Management: Ensure the vehicle has substantial AUM for stability and liquidity. Preference should be given to established vehicles with a solid asset base and track record;
  • Investment Holdings: Assess whether the CIT or ISA mirrors the mutual fund’s holdings. Understand any differences and their potential impact;
  • Performance Track Record: Analyze historical performance to ensure alignment with the mutual fund. Some CITs and ISAs have underperformed their mutual fund counterparts, net of fees, during certain periods; and
  • Legal Review: Be prepared for additional contracts and paperwork. Engaging legal counsel for document review is advisable.

While mutual funds remain a mainstay in employer-sponsored retirement plans, CITs and ISAs present a compelling alternative with potential cost savings. However, their regulatory, operational and performance differences require careful consideration. By thoroughly evaluating these factors, plan sponsors can make informed decisions that align with participants’ retirement goals.

 

Peter Mustian is the chief operating officer of and a principal in Innovest, providing institutional consulting services to committees and boards of various types of retirement plans, nonprofit clients and wealthy families. He is a member of the Capital Markets Research Group, responsible for asset allocation studies and portfolio construction. He is also part of Innovest’s Investment Committee, which makes decisions on investment related research and due diligence. He is a member of Innovest’s Retirement Plan Practice Group, which identifies best practices and implements process improvements to maximize efficiencies for our retirement plan clients.

Sydney Aeschlimann is a manager on Innovest’s retirement plan practice group, a specialized team that maximizes efficiencies and implements process improvements for retirement plan clients.

This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal or tax advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice. Any opinions of the author do not necessarily reflect the stance of ISS STOXX or its affiliates.

 

«