Syndicate content
Insight on Plan Design & Investment Strategy
Updated: 3 hours 31 min ago

Investment Product and Service Launches

Thu, 2020-01-16 13:21
Fidelity Investments Releases Bond Model Suite

Fidelity Investments launched a suite of bond model portfolios for financial advisers—Fidelity Short Multi-Sector Bond Model Portfolio, Fidelity Core Bond Model Portfolio, Fidelity Core Plus Bond Model Portfolio, and Fidelity Dynamic Bond Model Portfolio.

The new model portfolios are designed to maximize risk-adjusted total return as well as accommodate a range of risk preferences, including duration and credit risk.

“Think of model portfolios as a recipe—they can serve as a starting point for advisers but allow for a level of customization based on their clients’ needs,” says Matt Goulet, senior vice president, Fidelity Institutional Asset Management. “We’re excited to offer bond model portfolios with a range of risk profiles for advisers who are looking for strategies that can serve as—or complement—the fixed income allocations in their clients’ portfolios.

Fidelity Short Multi-Sector Bond Model Portfolio is designed to provide a lower duration bond portfolio with a focus on investment grade mutual funds/ETFs complemented by a limited allocation to non-investment grade.

Fidelity Core Bond Model Portfolio is designed to provide a core bond portfolio focused on a diversified allocation to investment grade mutual funds/ETFs.

Fidelity Core Plus Bond Model Portfolio is designed to provide a diversified bond portfolio with a focus on investment grade mutual funds/ETFs complemented by a limited allocation to non-investment grade.

Fidelity Dynamic Bond Model Portfolio is designed to provide a diversified bond portfolio of fixed income mutual funds/ETFs while offering greater investment flexibility through duration and credit allocation.

BlackRock Announces Sustainability as New Standard for Investing

BlackRock will be accelerating efforts to deepen the integration of sustainability into technology, risk management and product choice.

In a client letter, the firm says, “Over the past few years, more and more of our clients have focused on the impact of sustainability on their portfolios. This shift has been driven by an increased understanding of how sustainability-related factors can affect economic growth, asset values, and financial markets as a whole.”

The firm says the most significant of these factors today relates to climate change, not only in terms of the physical risk associated with rising global temperatures, but also transition risk—namely, how the global transition to a low-carbon economy could affect a company’s long-term profitability.

“We believe that sustainability should be our new standard for investing,” BlackRock says.

It announced it is accelerating efforts to deepen the integration of sustainability into technology, risk management and product choice.

This year it will begin to offer sustainable versions of its flagship model portfolios, including its Target Allocation range of models. These models will use environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-optimized index exposures in place of traditional market cap-weighted index exposures. “Over time, we expect these sustainability-focused models to become the flagships themselves,” BlackRock says.

The firm also plans to launch sustainable versions of its asset allocation iShares this year, in order to provide investors with a simple, transparent way to access a sustainable portfolio at good value in a single exchange-traded fund (ETF).

BlackRock is working to develop a sustainable LifePath target-date strategy, which would provide investors with an all-in-one, low-fee, sustainable retirement solution, and it is working to expand its sustainable cash offerings as well.

Other initiatives announced by BlackRock include:

  • Strengthening sustainability integration into the active investment processes
  • Reducing ESG risk in active strategies
  • Exiting thermal coal producers
  • Putting ESG analysis at the heart of Aladdin, its risk management and investment technology platform
  • Enhancing transparency of sustainable characteristics for all products
  • Doubling its offerings of ESG ETFs
  • Simplifying and expanding ESG iShares, including ETFs with a fossil fuel screen
  • Working with index providers to expand and improve the universe of sustainable indexes
  • Expanding sustainable active investment strategies
BlackRock also announced its investment stewardship team is intensifying its focus and engagement with companies on sustainability-related risks.

The post Investment Product and Service Launches appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Union Pension Funding Crisis Enters a New Decade

Thu, 2020-01-16 12:47

In new commentary shared with PLANSPONSOR, Israel Goldowitz, partner with the Wagner Law Group, says the financial hardship faced by the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund is characteristic of a broader problem.

As Goldowitz explains, the U.S. Treasury Department has received an application from the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund to suspend benefits, based on authorities granted under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014. The plan’s suspension application is the latest of more than 30 by similar union-run multiemployer plans.

So far, Goldowitz says, the applications have mainly covered workers in transportation and the building trades. But upwards of 120 plans in a number of industries are considered “critical and declining,” he says, which means they are expected to run out of money within 20 years. Such plans, under the 2014 funding reforms, may suspend benefits if that would prevent outright insolvency.

According to a statement from the pension, more than 20,000 musicians could see benefit reductions under the plan. The vast majority face reductions ranging from 0% to 20%, while fewer than 1,000 could see reductions in the range of 20% to 40%. In cases like this, the Treasury must approve or deny the benefit reduction plan after conferring with the U.S. Department of Labor and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC)—for which Goldowitz once served as chief counsel. Once approved, the suspension proposal goes to the plan’s participants and beneficiaries for a vote.

While it might seem unlikely that pension beneficiaries would vote in favor of benefit cuts, in fact this has already happened across the U.S. Votes in favor of benefit reductions are cast based on a simple economic analysis: The guaranteed monthly benefit limit that will be paid out by the PBGC (which insures both union and single-employer corporate pensions) is about $36 per month per year of service, or about $13,000 annually with 30 years of service. This amount is far less than the PBGC single-employer guarantee of about $65,000, and it is often also far less than the level of the benefit to be paid after a proposed reduction. And unlike the single-employer guarantee, Goldowitz observes, the multiemployer guarantee is not adjusted for inflation.

“Worse, the PBGC’s multiemployer insurance fund is itself projected to become insolvent no later than 2026,” he warns. “At that point, there will be no backstop for plans that fail or for the 1.3 million people who depend on them. That includes 400,000 people in the Teamsters Central States plan alone.”

Goldowitz says it is no surprise that Congress has picked up on this challenge, given the political influence of unions. However, consensus on a solution remains elusive, even with the lobbying efforts of high-profile politicians and business leaders. Unlike the approach favored by Democrats in the House of Representatives, which would establish a government-backed loan program to assist troubled union pension, the Republican-favored approach in the Senate would permit the partition of such plans and would require accounting reforms.

“Either proposal would involve a cost to taxpayers, with interest groups citing various figures,” Goldowitz says. “Butch Lewis Act proponents [mainly Democrats] point out that retiree spending has a multiplier effect, as most retirement income is spent quickly on goods and services, keeping others at work and generating tax revenues. A compromise may be reached, but we can only speculate when that may happen or what a compromise would look like. These issues should be of concern to companies that participate in multiemployer defined benefit plans, to unions, and to retirees. They should also be of interest to those seeking to lend to or acquire such companies.”

To gauge public awareness and sentiment around multiemployer pension plans and their impending collapse, the Retirement Security Coalition recently commissioned a bipartisan poll among 2,700 likely voters in key states affected by the multiemployer pension crisis. According to the Coalition, the results clearly indicate voter recognition of the pension crisis, as well as the urgent need for Congressional action.

“The survey results show broad voter support for protecting retirees and Congress needing to make changes to multiemployer pension plans,” the Coalition reports. “Voters said overwhelmingly (92%) that protecting American retirees is essential to our economy. The survey found that three-quarters of voters recognize the urgency and need for Congress to take action. Voters support Congress taking action through a comprehensive (70%) ‘shared solution,’ including additional employer support, government assistance and additional retiree support.”

The post Union Pension Funding Crisis Enters a New Decade appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

How to Include Private Equity in DC Plans

Thu, 2020-01-16 12:05

Results of a study by the Defined Contribution Alternatives Association (DCALTA), conducted in collaboration with the Institute for Private Capital (IPC), suggest that including private equity funds in defined contribution (DC) plan portfolios both improves performance and has diversification benefits that lower overall portfolio risk.

The researchers sought to understand the properties of a portfolio strategy that provides an investor exposure to more private funds early in the investment lifecycle but then shifts to increasingly lower-risk and more liquid assets over time. In particular, they simulate the impact of including private market funds into target-date funds (TDFs) that typically have a defined change in asset allocation over several decades.

The analysis found average returns of the TDF portfolio are higher than for the all-public benchmark and the calibrated portfolio outperforms in 82% of the 1,000 simulations. The adjusted standard deviation falls considerably from 9.89% to 8.50%, suggesting that the diversification benefits from adding buyout funds remain substantial. This fall in risk drives the Sharpe ratio up for the calibrated portfolio so that in 100% of simulations, it is higher than for the all-public benchmark. “This is the first evidence we are aware of that an investor can invest their portfolios with private market funds and achieve substantial diversification benefits while at the same time manage dynamic allocation targets within reasonable bounds,” the paper says.

Plan sponsors in the U.S. may have concerns about including private investments in DC plan fund menus, notes Serge Boccassini, head of institutional global product and strategy at Northern Trust Asset Servicing in Chicago. There is a fear that as a fiduciary, plan sponsors worry whether they are making an appropriate decision to include investments that are not necessarily understood. There is concern about the cost of alternative assets and how that plays into participants’ savings accumulation. And, there are concerns about the illiquid nature of some private investments.

Speaking about the results of Northern Trust’s work supporting DC plans in Australia, Boccassini says, “The platforms and processes we use to evaluate [alternative investments] on a daily basis work.”

Including private equity in DC plans

Boccassini explains that when Northern Trust started to grow globally, one of the first places he went was Australia. He realized that the country is No. 1 or No. 2 in terms of leadership in DC plans, with its mandatory “Superannuation Guarantee” contributions program. “Many investments in those plans include assets in illiquid alternatives, such as private equity and real estate,” Boccassini says.

He adds that alternatives are incorporated in the balanced fund—the default fund for superannuation plans. These funds are the typical 60% equity/40% fixed income split, and on the equity side, between 2% and 15% is invested in alternatives. From a liquidity perspective, it works, because buys and sells needed are made with cash and liquid investments other than alternatives.

Boccassini has seen the inclusion of alternative assets result in better rates of return and a better response to challenges when the market slides.

In the U.S., when markets started to flatten and investors, including retirement plans, weren’t getting the same types of returns, many plans went back to a master trust strategy, or one in which multiple plans—defined benefit (DB) or DC—could be combined into one investment trust, and assets could be unitized, according to Boccassini. He explains that if a large plan sponsor has a DB plan with a global equity portfolio that invests in 50 stocks, with 20 in private equity, including venture capital and buyout funds, it can allow its DC plan to invest in that portfolio. For the DC plan, the global equity fund can represent 60% of the plan’s balanced fund. The global equity portfolio is investing both in marketable and nonmarketable securities. The liquidity challenge is addressed because the plan sponsor can sell portions of the fund not invested in illiquid assets when money needs to leave, Boccassini says.

As for the fiduciary concerns, DC plan sponsors can consider that DB plans have a deeper management philosophy and are more broadly based, he adds.

If a plan sponsor only has a DC plan, it would sit down with an asset manager or consultant to create a separately managed balanced fund or a target-date fund (TDF) with assets in private equity. Boccassini says there exists both the technology and processes to peg illiquid assets to the actual trading market through marketable assets and to peg to them to an index. The net asset value (NAV) can be calculated every day, using plus or minus cash flows and what happened in that particular industry.

“What we’re trying to do through research and participating in DCALTA is educate plan sponsors about value versus cost,” Boccassini says. “Some countries have put caps on fees in DC plans, and this limits the use of broad-based investments. The research shows that over time and net of fees, private investments in multi-asset class portfolios perform better, and their risk tolerance is more appropriate in down markets.”

He believes DC plans are missing huge opportunities in the U.S investment market because publicly tradeable securities have been on the decline since the 1980s, and private investments are on the increase. And, from an operating perspective, plans can use private investments in a multi-asset class investment vehicle.

One of the other challenges Boccassini notes is interpretation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) about what investments can be included in a DC plan. He stresses that nothing in ERISA excludes alternative vehicles. “A number of plan sponsors include private equity or hedge funds in target maturity funds,” he notes.

Boccassini and others in DCALTA have sat down with the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) to discuss how plan sponsors in other markets are making investments in private equity easier and ways to expand U.S. regulations to include broader assets to alleviate plan sponsor concerns about fiduciary duty.

The post How to Include Private Equity in DC Plans appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Broker/Dealer Rep Accused of Misleading 403(b) Plan Participants

Wed, 2020-01-15 14:02

Broker/dealer Horace Mann Investors Inc. has agreed to provide settlement payments to numerous customers with IRA accounts opened by one of its registered representatives, Delaware Attorney General Kathleen Jennings announced.

According to a press release from Jennings’ office, in 2016, the State of Delaware transitioned its deferred compensation plans from numerous independent 403(b) service providers, including Horace Mann, to a sole provider, Voya Financial.  Related to this transition, more than 120 teachers with 403(b) accounts with Horace Mann opened IRAs in 2016 and 2017 with Horace Mann, through one of its registered representatives, Dieter Hofmann.

The Attorney General’s Investor Protection Unit (IPU) investigated the facts and circumstances relating to the opening of these IRAs. The press release notes that both Horace Mann and Dieter Hofmann cooperated with IPU in connection with its multi-year investigation. IPU alleged and concluded that Hofmann engaged in dishonest and unethical practices in violation of the Delaware Securities Act.

Specifically, IPU alleged that Hofmann took unfair advantage of his customers with 403(b) accounts who were confused about the transition to Voya by providing them with inadequate or inaccurate information which was misleading. IPU also alleged and concluded that Horace Mann failed to sufficiently supervise Hofmann.  

Neither Hofmann nor Horace Mann admitted or denied any wrongdoing. They each agreed to pay a fine of $250,000 and make a $50,000 payment for investor education for Delaware educators. Hofmann is no longer affiliated with Horace Mann and agreed to a one-year suspension from conducting business as a broker/dealer agent or investor adviser representative in Delaware. IPU and Horace Mann agreed that Horace Mann will provide settlement payments for certain customers to compensate those customers for potential lost earnings.

Responding to a request for comment from PLANSPONSOR, Horace Mann said, “The Investor Protection Unit of the Delaware Department of Justice undertook an investigation related to Delaware’s 2016 403(b) transition to a sole provider. In that transition, other providers, including Horace Mann, were no longer able to sell 403(b)s in the public schools in the state. One former Horace Mann representative responded to the change by soliciting existing Horace Mann 403(b) clients to open IRA accounts if they wanted to continue saving for retirement with Horace Mann.

“In the process, this representative engaged in certain activities that the IPU determined violated Delaware law. For example, the representative failed to provide a prospectus to certain investors. This representative is no longer associated with Horace Mann. Horace Mann cooperated fully with the IPU and the investigation, and we determined that it was in the best interest of the Horace Mann, our clients and our representatives to settle this investigation.

“Horace Mann is fully committed to compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, and is disappointed that the conduct of one of our representatives failed to fully meet these expectations.”

The post Broker/Dealer Rep Accused of Misleading 403(b) Plan Participants appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

MetLife Offers Digital Enrollment for non-ERISA 403(b)s

Wed, 2020-01-15 11:37

All eligible employees in MetLife administered 403(b) and non-Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) retirement plans are now able to use EnrollNow—a digital platform accessible from any internet-connected device that makes the retirement plan enrollment process easier, faster and engaging.

With EnrollNow, the enrollment process is efficient and paperless, and participants receive support as they make important decisions such as selecting a deferral amount and choosing funding options.

The company told PLANSPONSOR the offering is free to MetLife plan clients and there is no setup involved. MetLife provides plan sponsors with access to marketing materials to promote the platform to employees. Decision support is provided via digital educational materials, for example, fund fact sheets, that are accessible through links.

“We launched a digital solution to support our customers as they make important plan decisions while meeting the growing demand for alternatives to traditional paper-based applications, says Derrick Kelson, vice president, MetLife Resources. “With EnrollNow, we can deliver an interactive and intuitive digital experience that saves time and costs and delivers an engaging experience for the end-user.”

The post MetLife Offers Digital Enrollment for non-ERISA 403(b)s appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

HSA Investment Menus Shouldn’t Just Replicate Those of DC Plans

Wed, 2020-01-15 11:32

Investing health savings account (HSA) assets can help participants grow their balances for current and future health care expenses.

Often plan sponsors mirror their defined contribution (DC) plan investment lineup in their HSAs, but a white paper from Devenir, a provider of customized investment solutions for HSAs and the consumer health care market, suggests this may not be the best strategy.

Devenir says it may be advantageous to include more funds in an HSA menu than a DC plan menu due to the wider range of use cases for HSAs, among other factors.

“Simply replicating the typical retirement plan menu is a less compelling strategy for HSAs due to the potentially differing objectives of the end user,” Devenir says. Common objectives providers have when offering investment menus include:

  • Simplification – this results in a limited menu size with core asset classes and an active or passive choice of funds.
  • Minimize costs – this results in an intermediate-sized menu with core and some supplemental asset classes and a passive-oriented choice of funds.
  • Maximize return potential – this results in an expanded investment menu with core and supplemental investment options, and potentially a brokerage window, and an active-oriented choice of funds, as well as target-date funds.

Devenir notes that the case for limiting the number of funds on a menu often stems from research which has shown investors may be overwhelmed by choice, lowering participation rates, or that investors prefer default investment options. However, Devenir says it believes HSAs have the ability to offer a reasonably more sophisticated menu for several reasons: HSA providers do not auto-enroll participants into the investment account, so account holders have to take action to invest, which may lower default utilization; HSA account holders have been shown to exhibit high levels of consumerism (according to Alegeus, consumers enrolled in HSAs are more fluent, engaged, and make savvier health and financial decisions than the general public), meaning HSA investors are potentially more capable of navigating investments; HSAs often do not offer a diversified default investment, as defaults are often set to money market funds (which, however, may still produce a more favorable outcome than leaving balances in cash); and HSAs are less likely to be the first investing experience for participants.

According to Devenir, one of the potential benefits of larger investment menus for HSAs is the appeal to a wider range of investor sophistication and objectives. The range of funds that limits default utilization, minimizes plan costs, and allows investors to build quality portfolios will vary based on a number of factors, including client objectives, financial literacy of the participant population, user experience of technology platform (specifically, how the menu is presented to the account holder), and marketplace demand (investors may be more successful using products they understand), among others.

Recent trends in the marketplace show the relationship between menu size and the number of funds held by investors has generally been positively correlated in HSAs, according to Devenir. Fund line-ups have expanded over time, and investors have nearly tripled their average holdings from 1.5 funds in 2012 to 4.3 funds mid-way through 2019. “The greater average number of holdings suggests investors are taking advantage of the additional investment options and asset classes. Such trends have been shown to lead to higher quality portfolios and outperformance,” the white paper says.

Devenir offers two real-world examples of potential scenarios where investors may benefit from a wider selection of asset classes to choose from. In the first, an investor with recurring qualified expenses as a result of a common medical condition needs a higher level of investment income to cover recurring expenses. Potential optimal asset classes for this investor may include International bond, core-plus bond, high-yield, and equity-income.

In the second example, a young investor with a family history of heart disease and a higher likelihood of lump-sum costs later in life needs to look for additional diversifier asset classes to reduce the risk of not having saved enough for a higher likelihood of acute medical costs. Potential optimal asset classes for this investor may include real estate, emerging markets, international small/mid cap, and international bond.

Regarding the active vs. passive debate, Devenir says passive strategies have largely outperformed higher-fee active managers since 2008, which has made it more difficult for many funds to justify their management fees. However, there is strong evidence to support the idea that the relationship between active and passive outperformance is cyclical. Considering the historically cyclical relationship, the firm believes investors should have an option to avoid a black and white decision between an entirely active or entirely passive portfolio.

Certain areas of the investment menu may be more or less suited to offering either active or passive funds, or a combination of the two. According to Morningstar, active funds have had higher average success rates in asset classes such as real estate, international, domestic small cap, and fixed-income. Morningstar research also points to skilled active fixed-income managers having a higher likelihood of outperforming their passive peers during certain market environments.

According to Devenir, a 6/30/2019 snapshot of the HSA market shows that on an asset weighted basis, HSA investors currently hold more active than passive dollars.

The white paper also says the typical target-date fund glidepath may not adequately represent the less predictable withdrawal patterns in HSAs. However, investors targeting health costs in retirement may find the familiarity and ease of use worthwhile.

But, as an alternative to target-date funds, Devenir suggests investors looking for a simplified approach to investing may be able to utilize objective-based allocation or target-risk funds. Offering an assortment of these funds provides a spectrum of risk levels for investors to choose from. Target-risk funds allow investors to easily align their portfolio risk with their own health or general preferences with a more hands-off approach.

The practices outlined in the white paper stem from observations over Devenir’s 16 years of experience as a consultant, recordkeeper, and researcher in the HSA market. They are intended to help stakeholders benchmark their product offering in the context of the broader marketplace.

The post HSA Investment Menus Shouldn’t Just Replicate Those of DC Plans appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Preventive Maintenance Is Key to Retirement Plan Health

Wed, 2020-01-15 09:51

Preventive maintenance is an essential part of any health routine—even when the patient is a retirement plan.

Periodic checkups can keep plans running smoothly and help plan sponsors identify issues early, before those become difficult and expensive to correct. Such audits come in two varieties—transactional audits and operational audits—both of which are distinct from the annual financial audit required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). ERISA financial audits are performed by accounting firms to review participant-related transactions and the plan’s investments to support the plan’s annual Form 5500 filing. They are a good starting point for assessing the health of a plan, but they really only scratch the surface.

Transactional audits, by contrast, review benefit estimates, calculations and other plan transactions to ensure they conform to the provisions laid out in the plan document. The objective of a transactional audit is to improve plan accuracy and compliance. In fact, an analysis of the “big-ticket items” that the IRS focuses on in an audit situation is a good starting point for these audits. Examples of these items are loan disbursements, required minimum distributions (RMDs) and the process for finding missing participants. Alternatively, a plan sponsor may determine a set of plan provisions to be reviewed, then select a test population of participants who are affected by those specific provisions. Eligibility, pay definitions, service definitions, benefit formulas, minimum benefits and transfer rules are examples of categories used to pick test cases.

Operational audits are more comprehensive in nature and review administrative processes from start to finish to confirm they follow established operating procedures. The objective of an operational audit is to improve administrative efficiency and enhance the participant experience. Typical areas of focus include:

  • Comparison of plan documents against the requirements in the documents used to program the administration system and against the actual administration system configuration;
  • Review of administrative operations manuals and call center knowledge systems;
  • Analysis of data ownership and data flow from payroll to administration systems;
  • Review of eligibility processes and related data points, including periodic feeds of data from payroll to administration, historical stored data and dynamic age and service calculations;
  • Evaluation of benefit calculations and regulatory limits;
  • Analysis and sample validation of various distribution types as well as reductions, discontinuation and reassignment of payment amounts; and
  • Review of administrative processes required for the financial operation of the plan(s), including check-handling, lump-sum payment protocols, periodic death searches and address change management.

If issues surface during a transactional or operational audit, a thorough and comprehensive root-cause analysis may be an appropriate next step, especially if the failure is severe. This phase requires a deep understanding of the underlying processes as well as the day-to-day activities performed not only by the plan sponsor, but also by payroll systems, carriers, trustees and recordkeepers. The findings of the root-cause analysis will help define the actions required to bring programs and processes in line with plan documents and regulatory requirements.

Given the detailed nature of the work, many plan sponsors opt to engage the services of a third-party consultant that is experienced in conducting these preventive audits. An effective auditor must have the retirement plan experience required to consider particulars such as plan provisions, population characteristics, third-party provider relationships, data quality issues and acquisition/divestiture history.

While it’s not necessary to conduct preventive audits on an annual basis, best practice dictates that they should be completed every three to five years. Issues left undiscovered for longer than that can be extremely difficult—and expensive—to correct. Moreover, periodic audits play a role in ensuring plan sponsors adapt to any changes that may have occurred within the regulatory landscape—e.g., the IRS’ new expanded Self-Correction Program—or within their own environment such as process changes following an acquisition or a change in third-party administrator (TPA).

If it’s been a while since your plan has had a thorough going-over, consider scheduling a “deep clean” as a preventive measure that will help you avoid more extensive plan repairs down the road.


Jay Schmitt, ASA [Associate of the Society of Actuaries], is a principal of Strategic Benefits Advisors, an independent, full-service employee benefits consulting firm that solves benefits issues for clients with 500 to 300,000-plus employees. He has more than 25 years’ experience in benefit plan administration and consulting. He can be reached at

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 Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) or its affiliates.

The post Preventive Maintenance Is Key to Retirement Plan Health appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Supreme Court Remands IBM v. Jander Stock Drop Challenge

Tue, 2020-01-14 14:08

The Supreme Court has ruled in Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Larry W. Jander, remanding the case back to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In mid-2019, IBM asked the high court to hear the case after the 2nd Circuit reversed the company’s district court win. Plaintiffs allege that IBM imprudently managed company stock investments in one of its retirement plans, and their lawsuit is a classic example of “stock drop litigation.”

“The question presented in this case concerned what it takes to plausibly allege an alternative action that a prudent fiduciary in the same circumstances would not have viewed as more likely to harm the fund than to help it,” the decision explains. “It asked whether Dudenhoeffer’s ‘more harm than good’ pleading standard can be satisfied by generalized allegations that the harm of an inevitable disclosure of an alleged fraud generally increases over time. In their briefing on the merits, however, the petitioners (fiduciaries of the employee stock ownership plan at issue here) and the Federal Government (presenting the views of the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as the Department of Labor), focused their arguments primarily upon other matters.”

The decision notes the petitioners argued that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) imposes no duty on an employee stock ownership plan fiduciary to act on inside information. For its part, the government argued that an ERISA-based duty to disclose inside information that is not otherwise required to be disclosed by the securities laws would conflict at least with objectives of the complex insider trading and corporate disclosure requirements imposed by the federal securities laws.

“The Second Circuit did not address these arguments, and, for that reason, neither shall we,” the Supreme Court rules. “We are a court of review, not of first view. Nevertheless, in light of our statement in Dudenhoeffer that the views of the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission might well be relevant to discerning the content of ERISA’s duty of prudence in this context … we believe that the Court of Appeals should have an opportunity to decide whether to entertain these arguments in the first instance. For this reason we vacate the judgment below and remand the case, leaving it to the Second Circuit whether to determine their merits, taking such action as it deems appropriate.”

The full text of the Supreme Court ruling, including two consenting opinions, is here.

The post Supreme Court Remands IBM v. Jander Stock Drop Challenge appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Portfolios Face Rate Cuts, Trade Tensions and Elections

Tue, 2020-01-14 13:28

Bob Browne, executive vice president and chief investment officer for Northern Trust, introduced the firm’s 2020 market outlook during a roundtable discussion with members of the financial services media.

According to Browne, Northern Trust continues to be moderately overweight risk entering 2020, while the global economy stabilizes after an episode of mid-year weakness in 2019.

“We expect markets to focus on tensions between economic growth and political risks, such as the U.S.-China trade war, Brexit and the 2020 U.S. election,” Browne says.

Echoing its previous projections, Northern Trust anticipates the combination of moderate growth and technological innovation will continue to suppress inflation, which in turn will bolster the global central bank easing cycle that is already well underway.

“This leaves us continuing to favor ‘lower-risk risk assets,’ such as U.S. equities and high yield bonds,” Browne explains. He suggests that central bankers, unable to do anything about inflation, are increasingly willing to serve political agendas to support the global economy. As a result, we are entering 2020 on a new global easing cycle.

Equities and Real Assets

Browne observes that equity markets rebounded strongly in 2019, helped by the Federal Reserve’s policy reversal.

“The Fed cut rates three times, which helped distract investors form the U.S.-China trade dispute and slowing economic growth,” Brown says. “In 2020, we expect companies to return to earnings growth with more global demand from reduced trade tension and easy monetary policy.”

Under this regime, Northern Trust projects the highest returns to be in non-U.S. developed markets, particularly in Europe, though such returns will come with elevated risk. For its part, the U.S. is expected to deliver a solid return with less risk.

In 2019, Northern Trust’s research shows, global real estate and listed infrastructure assets performed well, driven by falling interest rates. Natural resources lagged on slower economic growth and stagnant oil prices.

“This year, we expect continued low interest rates and attractive income to support global real estate and listed infrastructure,” Brown says. “Like last year, we anticipate slow economic growth of approximately 2.5% GDP growth to weigh on natural resources.

Fixed Income and Interest Rates

On the fixed-income side, 2019 bond market returns were strong, benefitting from the combination of falling interest rates and tighter credit spreads. As Browne observes, it paid to take on duration and credit risk in 2019.

“Looking forward, we expect more moderate but positive bond returns, and continued low interest rates, which may fall even more,” Browne says. “Investment grade fixed income will provide a return premium over cash.”

Northern Trust’s analysis posits that the U.S. Federal Reserve is likely to cut rates twice in 2020, which will potentially restore steepness in the yield curve.

“We recommend taking on duration risk in portfolios where appropriate,” Browne says.

The Investor Perspective

Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America also published a 2020 market outlook this week, this one focused more on investors’ expectations rather than the fund manager outlook. The research suggests 43% of Americans are worried a recession is “right around the corner,” down from 50% in Q3 2019. At the same time, 39% of respondents say they are worried about a big market crash “on the horizon,” down from 48% in Q3 2019.

“Interestingly, despite this current sense of calm, the number of people who say now is a good time to invest in the market continues to decrease,” observes Kelly LaVigne, vice president of consumer insights, Allianz Life. “This may be because people are anticipating more volatility in 2020, and don’t want to take the risks that those major swings can have on their savings and retirement.”

According to the Allianz research, nearly one-third of respondents (31%) say putting some money into a financial product that provides a guaranteed stream of income in retirement is the most important step to take to help make sure they have a secure retirement. This is up from 26% last quarter, perhaps reflecting momentum from the passage of the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act.

Risks from inflation are top of mind, the survey shows. Almost half (49%) of Americans say the rising cost of living is a big risk to their security in retirement, and over one-third (34%) say that inflation may prevent them from ever being able to retire.

“Those with the longest runway toward retirement, Millennials, are most worried about the impact of rising costs, both now and in their future,” the Allianz analysis finds. “They are more likely to say the rising cost of living is preventing them from saving money for retirement as much as they should (62%, compared with 56% of Gen Xers, and 42% of Baby Boomers).”

Millennials are also most worried about being able to pay for necessities like housing or medical care in retirement due to the rising cost of living (50%, compared with 46% of Gen Xers, and 35% of Boomers).

“The rising cost of living is a real threat to hard-earned retirement savings, particularly as people are spending more time in retirement,” LaVigne says. “But less than four in 10 (38%) say they are confident that their financial plan can deal with the rising cost of living. The good news is that a majority of people (60%) recognize having a financial product that offers the opportunity for increasing income can help reduce that risk. Boomers are even more likely to agree, at 63%.”

The post Portfolios Face Rate Cuts, Trade Tensions and Elections appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Political Discussions Heating Up in the Workplace

Tue, 2020-01-14 13:24

More than half (56%) of working Americans surveyed say politics and the discussion of political issues have become more common in the workplace in the last four years, according to the Society for Human Resource Management’s Politics in the Workplace study.

Nearly two-thirds (65%) say their workplace is inclusive of differing political perspectives, while 33% say their workplace is not. Eleven percent report they have experienced different treatment in the workplace because of their political views, and 12% report they have experienced political affiliation bias. Similar amounts have witnessed these things against others in the workplace.

Forty-two percent of those surveyed say they have experienced political disagreements in the workplace, and 44% have witnessed or observed political disagreements.

According to a Robert Half survey of more than 1,000 workers, 66% of respondents say talking politics at work is more common today than five years ago, but just 22% feel these conversations are appropriate. In addition, 49% of employees are interested when politics come up at work, but more than one-quarter feel uncomfortable or indifferent (27% each), and 19% get irritated.

The post Political Discussions Heating Up in the Workplace appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Northrop Grumman Agrees to Settle 401(k) Excessive Fee Suit

Tue, 2020-01-14 12:27

A settlement agreement has been reached in a case accusing Northrop Grumman and its 401(k) administrative and investment committees of various breaches of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) fiduciary duties.

While denying all liability for the claims made in the lawsuit and maintaining that they are without any fault or liability, the defendants have agreed to pay a gross settlement amount of $12,375,000 to resolve all claims.

According to the original complaint, the defendants—including Northrop—“acted to benefit themselves and Northrop by paying plan assets to Northrop purportedly for administrative services Northrop provided to the plan, which were not necessary for administration of the plan or worth the amounts paid. Defendants also caused the plan to pay unreasonable recordkeeping fees to the plan’s recordkeeper and mismanaged the plan’s emerging markets equity fund.”

The plaintiffs also accuse the plan and its administrative and investment committees of allowing its recordkeeper to receive fees from an agreement with Financial Engines to provide participants with investment advice.

In February 2018, most counts in the case were dismissed against the company, with the court finding it was not a fiduciary with respect to the acts alleged. However, Northrop Grumman did not escape the failure to monitor fiduciaries count.

The post Northrop Grumman Agrees to Settle 401(k) Excessive Fee Suit appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

First Facilitated Merger of Multiemployer Plans Approved by PBGC

Tue, 2020-01-14 12:21

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) announced its first approved facilitated merger under the Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014 (MPRA).

The MPRA gave the PBGC the authority to facilitate plan mergers under certain conditions. If one or more of the plans in the merger is in critical and declining status and appears to become insolvent within 20 years, the agency can provide financial assistance for the merged plan(s) to remain solvent.

To help facilitate the merger of the Laborers International Union of North America 1000 Pension Fund (Local 1000 Plan) with the Laborers Local 235 Pension Fund (Local 235 Plan), PBGC will provide three annual installments of $8.9 million to the merged plan beginning this month.

The Local 235 Plan is a “green zone” plan covering over 1,100 participants. The Local 1000 Plan covers over 400 participants and was projected to become insolvent in 2026. PBGC expects that this merger will reduce the agency’s long-term loss with respect to the Local 1000 plan and will not affect participants and beneficiaries of the Local 235 Plan.

Six months after the MPRA was passed, 66% of sponsors of multiemployer plans surveyed by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP) said the law would be somewhat, very or extremely helpful. At the time, 5% of responding plan sponsors were considering merging with better-funded plans.

The post First Facilitated Merger of Multiemployer Plans Approved by PBGC appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Court Ends Dispute of Proper Remedy in Amara v. Cigna

Tue, 2020-01-14 10:34

Plaintiffs in the case Amara v. CIGNA, concerning CIGNA’s switch from a traditional defined benefit (DB) plan to a cash balance plan last April alleged that CIGNA is not following new calculations ordered by a federal court to remedy its breach of providing inadequate disclosures to participants about its conversion from a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan.

On August 16, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut issued a ruling that denied aspects of the plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Court Rulings and for Sanctions. Specifically, the court ruled that CIGNA was in compliance with an earlier ruling that set forth the method for converting already-paid lump sum retirement benefits into annuities. In reaching that conclusion, the court clarified and reiterated its prior ruling that CIGNA was to utilize the mortality tables and interest rates in effect at the time the lump sum was received.

The plaintiffs in the suit argued that CIGNA violated the court’s rulings by, among other things, using “outdated” mortality tables from the date of the Part B lump sum distributions rather than the “successor” mortality tables applicable under the plan provisions on the “Applicable Mortality Table” to annuitize the offsets that the court allowed CIGNA to take.

The plaintiffs also argued that CIGNA violated the court’s rulings by eliminating early retirement benefits until the “later of” the Part A early retirement age or the date the Part B cash balance account is distributed.

In its decision last August, the court declined to entertain a methodological dispute regarding the payment of early retirement benefits because the plaintiffs had not pursued that issue in their motions related to methodology.

On August 23, 2019, the plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of these aspects of the court’s enforcement ruling, but the court has now denied their motion. The court agreed with CIGNA that the plaintiffs are essentially attempting to relitigate issues already decided. “Plaintiffs’ Reconsideration Motion does not present any previously overlooked decisions or facts, but instead restates the arguments presented in their Enforcement Motion and subsequent reply,” the court said in its order.

The post Court Ends Dispute of Proper Remedy in Amara v. Cigna appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Supreme Court Will Not Weigh In on Burden of Proof and Index Fund Comparison

Tue, 2020-01-14 08:37

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied review of a case in which Putnam Investments was accused of engaging in self-dealing by including high-expense, underperforming proprietary funds in its own 401(k) plan.

Putnam had asked the high court to weigh in on whether the plaintiff or the defendant bears the burden of proof on loss causation under Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 409(a). Putnam also asked the court to determine “whether, as the First Circuit concluded, showing that particular investment options did not perform as well as a set of index funds selected by the plaintiffs with the benefit of hindsight, suffices as a matter of law to establish ‘losses to the plan.’”

The U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, in 2018, ruled for Putnam. Among other things, U.S. District Judge William Young of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found the comparison of the Putnam mutual funds’ average fees to Vanguard passively managed index funds’ average fees flawed. Vanguard is a low-cost mutual fund provider operating index funds “at-cost.” Putnam mutual funds operate for profit and include both index and actively managed investments. Young said the expert’s analysis “thus compares apples and oranges.”

However, “finding several errors of law in the district court’s rulings,” the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the District Court’s judgment in part and remanded the case for further proceedings. In its opinion, the Appellate Court said “we align ourselves with the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits and hold that once an ERISA plaintiff has shown a breach of fiduciary duty and loss to the plan, the burden shifts to the fiduciary to prove that such loss was not caused by its breach, that is, to prove that the resulting investment decision was objectively prudent.”

The Supreme Court’s denial of Putnam’s petition for writ of certiorari will leave these questions unanswered, and Putnam will now have to defend itself in the lower courts.

Previously, in an amicus curiae brief, the Investment Company Institute argued that shifting the burden of proving causation, or the lack thereof, from the plaintiff to the fiduciary ignores the ordinary default rule and the plain language of ERISA specifying that fiduciaries are liable for “losses to the plan resulting from” a fiduciary breach. “The ruling will inevitably adversely skew fiduciaries’ selection decisions. Congress directed fiduciaries to make investment option selections in the best interests of participants. Participants’ best interests vary based on many factors, including individual needs (e.g., age, marital and family status, other financial resources, risk appetite, and other factors) and the marketplace, so fiduciaries typically make available to plan participants a wide range of options. The ruling gives fiduciaries greater—and potentially overwhelming—incentives to make choices driven by the threat of litigation based on a single point of reference (i.e., index funds), rather than simply by what plan participants’ best interests dictate,” the brief says.

It also argued that allowing plaintiffs in ERISA fiduciary-breach cases to meet the loss causation element of a fiduciary breach claim solely by comparison to an index-fund-only hypothetical ignores the differences between actively managed investments and index funds as well as their differing benefits for participants while assuming that, as a per se matter, a prudent fiduciary would necessarily substitute passively managed funds for active ones no matter the circumstances.

ICI said letting the Appellate Court decision in the case stand will increase ERISA litigation, distort retirement plan fiduciary decisionmaking and ultimately harm plan participants.

The post Supreme Court Will Not Weigh In on Burden of Proof and Index Fund Comparison appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Is Treatment of Roth Excess Deferrals the Same as That for Pre-Tax?

Tue, 2020-01-14 05:00

“Are refunds of an excess Roth 403(b) deferral handled the same way as an excess deferral to a traditional pre-tax 403(b)? If not, what are the differences?”

Stacey Bradford, Kimberly Boberg, David Levine and David Powell, with Groom Law Group, and Michael A. Webb, vice president, Retirement Plan Services, Cammack Retirement Group, answer:

Good question!  Generally, excess pre-tax and Roth deferrals are subject to the same tax treatment, with the timing of the return of the excess deferral determining when and the extent to which the excess is taxed:

  • If the excess deferrals and the related earnings are distributed in the same calendar year in which the deferral was made, both the deferral and earnings are taxable in that year.
  • If the excess deferrals are withdrawn in the next calendar year, but by April 15, the deferrals are taxable solely in the calendar year contributed, while the earnings through the date of distribution are taxable in the year distributed. There is no 10% early distribution tax, 20% income tax withholding or spousal consent requirement on amounts distributed by this date.
  • If the excess deferrals aren’t withdrawn by April 15 of the calendar following the year of the deferral, the excess deferrals are subject to double taxation—both in the year contributed and in the year distributed—and could be subject to the 10% early distribution tax, 20% income tax withholding and spousal consent requirements. As in other cases, the earnings through the date of distribution are taxed in the year distributed.

All of that said, there are some nuances with respect to reporting when all or a part of the distribution consists of Roth amounts, which you should discuss with your retirement plan counsel.


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 with Subject: Ask the Experts, and the Experts will do their best to answer your question in a future Ask the Experts column.

The post Is Treatment of Roth Excess Deferrals the Same as That for Pre-Tax? appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

TRIVIAL PURSUITS: From Where Does the Word Trivia Come?

Mon, 2020-01-13 13:12

From where does the word trivia come?

“Trivia” was introduced in the early 20th century as the noun form of the word “trivial” which comes from the Latin “trivialis.”

“Trivialis” means “that which is in, or belongs to, the crossroads or public streets; hence, that may be found everywhere, common.“ It is derived from “trivium,” which means a place where three roads meet.

The post TRIVIAL PURSUITS: From Where Does the Word Trivia Come? appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

Health Care Organizations Focused on Improving Retirement Plan Participant Savings

Mon, 2020-01-13 12:48

Top priorities over the next two years for sponsors of health care organization defined contribution (DC) plans are increasing employee savings/contribution levels (96% say this is very important or important), increasing plan participation (89%) and helping employees with holistic financial wellness (81%), according to the 2019 Voya health care report.

“Motivating employees to save adequately” is the top plan management challenge selected by 81% of the plan sponsors surveyed. “Perhaps one reason many health care organizations struggle with motivation is that they have yet to implement lessons learned from behavioral finance: techniques to overcome participant inertia and indecisiveness,” says Brodie Wood, national practice leader, health care, Voya Financial. “By changing the plan design and enrolling participants in the plan by default at a level that will bring them closer to retirement readiness, even those employees not motivated to save adequately will be on track to achieve retirement success.”

He adds, “Again, it is plan design changes—automatic enrollment at a high deferral rate, automatic deferral increases and stretch the match strategies—that can bring about progress beyond the incremental changes achieved with additional employee education and counseling.”

Wood notes that many health care organizations continue to measure plan success by the participation rate rather than by a retirement readiness score or average deferral rate. “Adopting automatic plan features makes ‘participation rate’ a moot point and leads organizations to adopt retirement readiness as the preferred gauge of success,” he says.

To make employees more retirement ready, some health care employers rely on on-site representatives of their service providers to do more—principally in the area of education. Nearly 60% say they would like to see more one-on-one and group education meetings. More than half (52%) say they would like to see on-site representatives do more to discuss topics beyond the retirement plan with participants.

Only 12% find plan service providers very effective at motivating employees to increase their contribution to an appropriate level, and another 12% find their plan service provider very effective at supporting participants with their overall financial well-being. Nearly six in 10 (59%) health care organizations depend on their plan advisers and consultants to meet with employees to provide retirement plan guidance or advice.

However, Voya finds DC plans in the health care sector are showing stats in line with those of DC plans in the corporate sector. On average, 67% of employees participate in their plan and contributions average 8% of pay.

The 2019 Voya health care report—Prescription for Retirement Plans in the Health Care Sector—presents findings and implications from a survey of 95 health care organizations. The survey was conducted during a three-week period in July 2019. Nearly two-thirds of all respondent health care organizations offer a 403(b) plan, nearly two-thirds offer a 457(b) plan, and nearly half (47%) offer both. Besides these plan types specific to tax-exempt organizations, 44% offer a 401(k) plan.

The post Health Care Organizations Focused on Improving Retirement Plan Participant Savings appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

PBGC Issues Premium Filing Instructions for 2020 Plan Years

Mon, 2020-01-13 10:14

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) has issued Comprehensive Premium Filing Instructions for 2020 Plan Years.

Changes to note for 2020 include:

  • Changes in premium rates:
    • Single-employer plans: The Flat-rate Premium is $83 per-participant, up from $80; the Variable-rate Premium is $45 per $1,000 of unfunded vested benefits capped at $561 times the number of participants, up from $43 per $1,000 of unfunded vested benefits capped at $541 times the number of participants.
    • Multiemployer plans: The Flat-rate Premium is $30 per-participant, up from $29.  Multiemployer plans do not pay Variable-rate Premiums.
  • Risk transfer activity: The agency has simplified the reporting requirements with respect to lump-sum windows and annuity purchases and reinstated the question about lump-sum windows for retirees. See item 18 of the “Description of Data Elements” section.

The agency revised its premium filing procedures in 2015 to require reporting of pension risk transfer actions.

The PBGC reminds defined benefit (DB) plan sponsors that electronic filing is mandatory for all plans.

The post PBGC Issues Premium Filing Instructions for 2020 Plan Years appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

DC Plans Moving to Become Decumulation Vehicles

Mon, 2020-01-13 09:54

The percentage of defined contribution (DC) plan sponsors with a policy for retaining the assets of terminated and retired participants in their plans has increased steadily since 2015, according to the Callan 2020 DC Trends Survey.

More than six in 10 (62.7%) had such a policy in 2019, up from 58.1% in 2018. The percentage that had a policy for retaining assets in the plan in 2015 was 43.5%. Specifically, 72.3% with a policy seek to retain retiree assets, and 61.7% seek to retain assets of terminated participants.

An Alight Solutions study last year found DC plan participants who have small balances when they terminate employment are more likely to cash out than those with higher balances. Alight recommends that plan sponsors educate participants about their retirement plan choices, particularly discouraging younger workers who leave for other jobs from cashing out.

Employees who keep their assets in their DC plans after terminating or retiring from employment benefit from lower fees and having balances available for retirement income. According to the Callan survey, many of the plans seeking to retain assets offer an institutional structure that is more cost effective than what is available in the retail market. For plan sponsors, if they retain terminated and retired participant assets, the size of the plan is higher and, thus, they have more bargaining power with respect to service providers’ fees.

The Alight study found DC plan participants who were age 60 or older when they retired were more likely to keep assets in the plan if it permitted installment payments. Plan sponsors can also help participants in retirement stay properly invested while decumulating their assets by offering an in-retirement investment tier.

According to the Callan 2020 DC Trends Survey, one-third (32.5%) of plan sponsors offered a drawdown solution or calculator in 2019, up from 10.8% in 2018. One-quarter (24.7%) offered managed accounts/income drawdown modeling services, compared to 17.6% in 2018.

Callan conducted its 13th annual Defined Contribution (DC) Trends Survey online in September and October of 2019. The survey incorporates responses from 114 DC plan sponsors, including both Callan clients and other organizations. The full survey report is here.

The post DC Plans Moving to Become Decumulation Vehicles appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News

SURVEY SAYS: 2020 Financial New Year’s Resolutions

Mon, 2020-01-13 03:30

Last week, I asked NewsDash readers, which, if any, financial resolutions they made for 2020.

The most common financial resolution selected by responding readers was to spend less (31.2%). One-quarter each selected “save more for retirement” and “give more to charity.” Nearly 19% said one of their financial resolutions is to reduce or get out of debt.

Other selections were as follows:

  • Create a budget and stick to it – 6.2%;
  • Spend more/stop being so frugal – 6.2%;
  • Save for emergencies – 12.5%;
  • Invest more in the stock market – 12.5%;
  • Get better financially educated – 0%;
  • Stop financially supporting family members – 12.5%;
  • Establish my plan for retirement – 12.5%; and
  • Engage with a financial adviser – 6.2%.

One-quarter of responding readers selected “None of the above.”

Those readers who chose to leave comments revealed other non-financial resolutions they’ve made. One said, “I am always successful with my resolutions. I always resolve to not smoke. I’ve never been a smoker, so it is quite easy! :)” Another reader wished everyone good luck with their resolutions. Editor’s Choice goes to the reader who said: “None of the above are New Year’s resolutions for me. They’re just things I know I need to tackle if retirement is going to be as enjoyable as I hope it will be.”

A big thank you to everyone who participated in our survey!


More chocolate!

Every January I increase my 401(k) Contributions by 1%. So much less painful this way. Once I max out my contribution, it’s like getting a raise!

I just retired so my resolution is to figure out how to enjoy life now that I do not have to go to work every day!

My resolution is to track my spending as I am within 3-5 years of retirement.

Good luck to everyone!

Since I consistently overspend at the holidays, I have established a good old fashioned Christmas Club for myself in 2020.

Mortgage payoff is number one on my list for this year!

None of the above are New Year’s resolutions for me. They’re just things I know I need to tackle if retirement is going to be as enjoyable as I hope it will be.

I try to set a goal each month of the year to accomplish something I’ve been “meaning to get to”. I’m a procrastinator by trade and this helps me accomplish more and feel better about myself.

I’m not likely to meet my resolution of spending less unless I delete my Amazon app. I think they’re going to start leaving random packages for me with a note saying they knew I probably meant to order it…and they’d be right.

I am always successful with my resolutions. I always resolve to not smoke. I’ve never been a smoker, so it is quite easy!

The post SURVEY SAYS: 2020 Financial New Year’s Resolutions appeared first on PLANSPONSOR.

Categories: Industry News