Younger Participants Are Increasingly Using TDFs

An EBRI and ICI report find 62% of participants in their 20s use TDFs.

The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Investment Company Institute (ICI) have found that participants are increasingly using target-date funds (TDFs) to save for retirement—especially younger participants.

A new report by the two organizations found more 401(k) plan participants are using the funds than in the past. EBRI and ICI examined year-end 2018 data from the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database—which follows millions of 401(k) plan participants as a means to examine how these participants manage their plan accounts—and found that 56% of participants in the database held target-date (or lifecycle) funds. That’s up almost 200% in 12 years. TDFs also held 27% of total 401(k) plan assets in the database.

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

Younger 401(k) participants were more likely to hold TDFs than older participants. According to the report, at year-end 2018, 62% of plan participants in their 20s and 61% of those in their 30s owned TDFs, compared with 50% of participants in their 60s.

Additionally, 51% of 401(k) plan assets owned by participants in their 20s were invested in TDFs, versus 23% for those in their 60s. Almost half (41%) of participants in their 30s held plan assets in TDFs, with the number lowering significantly for participants in their 40s—to 28%.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, younger plan participants who held assets in target-date funds had higher allocations to equities than older groups. Among participants in their 20s, those holding TDFs invested 87% of their plan assets in equities.

Plan participants in their 20s also had a higher concentration of their accounts in target-date funds than older TDF investors. Eighty-eight percent of younger plan participants with TDFs held more than 90% of their accounts in these funds, with only two-thirds of TDF investors in their 50s and 60s holding such a high concentration.

The EBRI and ICI report studied how 401(k) participants are investing their TDFs, finding that most follow investing approaches that are appropriate for their age group. For example, among 401(k) plan participants with one TDF, 91% of those in their 20s held a TDF that had asset allocations in conjunction with their age. Overall, the vast majority (88%) of participants with TDFs held one age-appropriate TDF.

Additionally, participants tend to be using a TDF in accordance with their retirement date. For example, 83% of 401(k) plan participants holding a 2040 TDF were in line with reaching age 65 in 2040, and 96% of investors in the 2035 funds were also appropriately aged.

The firms said the heightened usage of TDFs can be attributed to the funds’ increased accessibility over time. For example, in 2006, 57% of plans offered TDFs to their participants. In 2018, that number rose to 79%. And now, 56% of participants use the funds, compared with just 19% in 2006.

But that growth has also led to scrutiny. In May, the chairwoman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a review of TDFs.

They say that while TDFs are billed as offering participants retirement security by placing their assets in an age-appropriate glide path that grows more conservative as they approach retirement, the funds might actually be placing some participants at risk. Specifically, they say expenses and risk allocations vary considerably among funds.

An academic paper released in May also took aim at TDFs, saying they can take advantage of investors who aren’t paying attention to their accounts.

Past research has also shown that some investors aren’t using the vehicles as they are intended to be used. A combination of investor overconfidence and a desire for greater diversification can drive misuse.

Crediting Service for Plan Participants Covered Due to Acquisition

Experts from Groom Law Group and CAPTRUST answer questions concerning retirement plan administration and regulations.

We are a 501(c)(3) health care organization that recently acquired another 501(c)(3) health care organization, which is not part of our controlled group. We plan on covering the employees of the acquired organization, but how do we treat the pre-acquisition service of these employees? Are we required to credit that past service in our 403(b) plan, or required to exclude it? Or do we have the option to credit or exclude?”

Charles Filips, Kimberly Boberg, David Levine and David Powell, with Groom Law Group, and Michael A. Webb, senior financial adviser at CAPTRUST, answer:

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

A plan sponsor is NEVER REQUIRED to count past service with any other employer, even if that other employer becomes part of the controlled group. Per the 401(a)(4) regs. (Code Section 403(b)(12)(A)(i) incorporates 401(a)(4) by reference), a legitimate business reason must exist in order for an employer to credit an employee’s pre-participation service with another employer. The regulations supply a non-exhaustive list of the relevant facts and circumstances for determining whether a legitimate business reason exists (see below), including when new employees are part of an acquired group of employees or the new employees become employed as part of a transaction between two employers (such as a stock or asset acquisition, merger or other similar transaction).

(IRS Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(a)(4)-11(d)(3)(iii)(B)(1) and (2), which applies by reason of Code section 403(b)(12)(A)(i)):

(B) Legitimate business reason –

(1) General rule. There must be a legitimate business reason, based on all of the relevant facts and circumstances, for a plan to credit imputed service or for a plan to credit pre-participation service for a period of service with another employer.

(2) Relevant facts and circumstances when crediting service with another employer. The following are examples of relevant facts and circumstances for determining whether a legitimate business reason exists for a plan to credit pre-participation or imputed service for a period of service with another employer as service with the employer: whether one employer has a significant ownership, control, or similar interest in, or relationship with, the other employer (though not enough to cause the two employers to be treated as a single employer under section 414); whether the two employers share interrelated business operations; whether the employers maintain the same multiple-employer plan; whether the employers share similar attributes, such as operation in the same industry or the same geographic area; and whether the employees are an acquired group of employees or the employees became employed by the other employer in a transaction between the two employers that was a stock or asset acquisition, merger, or other similar transaction involving a change in the employer of the employees of a trade or business. Other factors may also be relevant for this purpose, such as the plan’s treatment of service with other employers with which the employer has a similar relationship and the type of service being credited (e.g., vesting service as compared to benefit service or accrual service). A legitimate business reason is deemed to exist for a plan to credit military service as service with the employer.

The boldface text reflects the Experts’ emphasis.

Most preapproved 403(b) plan documents contain a section where the employer can elect whether or not to credit an employee’s pre-participation service with a predecessor employer. Note that the granting of pre-participation service must be nondiscriminatory. For example, if you acquired a physicians practice, you could not just credit prior service for the physicians who are highly compensated employees (HCEs) and not the admin staff who are non-HCEs.

However, the Experts should note that 410(b) coverage and 401(a)(4) general nondiscrimination testing (but not ACP testing) is generally deemed to be satisfied in a merger situation through the year following the year of the merger, so if the transaction took place this in 2021, you have a free pass on such testing until 2023.

 

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.

Do YOU have a question for the Experts? If so, we would love to hear from you! Simply forward your question to Rebecca.Moore@issgovernance.com with Subject: Ask the Experts, and the Experts will do their best to answer your question in a future Ask the Experts column.

«