Baby ‘Steps’

I recently ran across a survey that claimed 7 in 10 DC plan sponsors were “taking steps” to solve the retirement income challenge… but that looks to have been “aspirational.”

While the survey’s[1] intro cautioned that there was more to be done, that struck me as a remarkably high (and reassuring) finding, though it didn’t mesh with my sense of the world at present. Sure enough, turns out, there is apparently a retirement income “journey”—one that apparently has several stages—all of which were (apparently) classified as “steps.” Those included:

• 34% – INITIAL (my emphasis, their wording) stages of learning about retirement income approaches
• 14% – in the process of better understanding participants’ retirement income needs
• 8% – in the process of evaluating specific retirement income solutions/products
• 7% – implementing/implemented a retirement income solution/product

Indeed, the survey goes on to comment that another 8% have evaluated these type solutions, and decided not to pursue them. And more than a quarter (27%) say retirement income is “not currently a topic of interest or need.”  
 
So, not to put too fine a point on it, but that looks to me like (only) 15% are taking actual steps to solve the problem, though I suppose there’s something to be said that nearly half are at least keeping an open mind on the subject.    

And even those who are considering a solution seem a bit confused. Consider that when it comes to products and solutions designed to support retirement income, plan sponsors cited stable value funds (70%). The income fund in a target-date series was a distant second (46%), though products most likely to be considered for future inclusion in 401(k) plans include annuities, long-duration fixed income funds, and managed accounts that support decumulation.

Don’t get me wrong—despite some significant legislative enhancements in SECURE 1.0 (and some modest encouragements in SECURE 2.0)—there remain plenty of legitimate, rational reasons why a plan fiduciary might rationally defer or delay action here. While today there are (more) solutions available, and more regulatory/legislative clarity—the traditional concerns (still) loom large in rationalizing inertia.  Mostly I think it still boils down to a question as to whether it’s the employer’s responsibility to provide these options (and to take on additional fiduciary exposure), particularly if nobody is asking for it.
More’s the pity, because in my experience if you want employees to feel comfortable about retiring, they need to know how much income they will have to live on.

For most, that’s going to be a function of their Social Security benefit (diminished by their Medicare premiums), and what kind of income stream their retirement savings can produce. The latter isn’t hard math, but it’s more complicated than most participants will want to pursue (particularly with their financial future at stake). They may not be lining up at HR’s door demanding these solutions, but the physical—and fiscal—reality is that they need them. 
It's been said that “a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

The sooner, the better. 

Footnote

[1] The research was conducted by Coalition Greenwich from May 23 to Aug. 26, 2022, using an online, quantitative approach with 155 DC plan sponsors who have at least one 401(k) plan and at least $100 million in 401(k) assets. Plan breakdown by AUM: 36 plans with $100-$249M AUM; 37 plans with $250-$499M AUM; 31 plans with $500-$999M AUM; 32 plans with $1-$4.9B AUM; 19 plans with over $5B AUM.