Closing the Retirement Readiness Gap for Aging Boomers

Commentary January 24, 2011 at 07:00 PM
Share & Print

As the oldest baby boomers turn 65 this year, long-simmering questions among policymakers and (within our industry) advisors engaged in distribution planning now must be urgently addressed: Are the boomers prepared for retirement? And if not, what is to be done?

Recent research on the topic does not inspire great optimism. Take, for example, a December 2010 study of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The report notes the percentages of late boomer (born 1946-1954) and early boomer (1955-1964) households that are "at risk" of being financially unprepared for retirement are 48% and 41%, respectively.

These numbers would be alarming enough if boomers–indeed, all working age Americans–had an employer-sponsored retirement plan. Problem is, many of them don't. Roughly half of U.S. workers are without a plan, either because they've opted out or, as is often the case, because their employer doesn't offer one.

Given the prospects of continuing cutbacks in existing plans–among small businesses that can no longer bear the fiduciary and administrative costs; and among states that now seek to reign in underfunded pension obligations for government employees–the percentage of at-risk workers could rise still higher.

Clearly, action is needed to close the retirement readiness gap. Judging from the collective assessment of a panel debate in New York City earlier this month hosted by Prudential Financial, steps in the right direction are being taken. The event, The 2011 Global Economic & Retirement Outlook, brought together 5 Prudential Financial executives and business reporters for a discussion about (among other topics) retirement preparedness.

Jamie Kalamarides, a vice president of retirement solutions for Prudential Retirement, said the outlook for "adequacy" (i.e., whether people are saving enough for retirement) is improving in the wake of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. The PPA, he noted, is encouraging "good investing behavior" among workers by permitting automatic enrollment/escalation and default investment alternatives in employer-sponsored defined contribution plans, most notably 401(k)s.

Kalamarides added that he expects the new 112th Congress to give a boost to 401(k) plans by passing a Lifetime Income Disclosure Act. Introduced by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), and Herb Kohl (D-WI) in December of 2009, the legislation aims to help Americans ensure they do not outlive their retirement savings by mandating the illustration of "lifetime equivalents"– the gap between current savings and future needs–on plan participants' statements.

These are welcome measures for people who already can join a retirement plan. The bigger question is what can be done to assist employees who are without a plan option. Help, Kalamarides suggested, may come in the form of an automatic IRA, which proponents tout as a low-cost, 401(k)-like savings vehicle that can boost pension participation rates among workers, particularly those on low incomes.

Introduced last August by Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), the Automatic IRA Act of 2010 (S.3760) would allow employees of firms with 10-plus employees that do not sponsor a retirement plan to be automatically enrolled in an IRA at their workplace. The voluntary auto-IRA would entail minimal administrative support and out-of-pocket costs for employers, for they would not have to make matching contributions. As a default option, 3% of workers' earnings would be invested in a low-risk portfolio, but they could choose to change the defaults or opt out of the plan. They would also be eligible for an expanded "savers credit" on their income tax return.

Alas, an auto-IRA is no panacea. As an August 2010 report from Boston College forecasts, many eligible employees would not participate. Controlling for "self-selection"–a higher than average participation rate among employees that seek companies offering a retirement plan — the predicted participation in an auto IRA is just 58%. Among low income workers with the least disposable income, the estimated rate plummets to 34%.

Assuming such statistics are anywhere near to accurate, then one has to believe that legislatively mandated improvements to the retirement planning landscape for U.S. workers–and, most urgently, pre-retirement boomers–will bring only marginal gains.

A closing of the retirement saving gap, I suspect, will require a substantial increase in economic output that boosts employment and, thus, workers' access to employer-sponsored plans. Equally important are technology-driven productivity gains, which would yield increases in wages, disposable income and–not least–savings.

The solution then is less about tinkering with retirement savings vehicles than about instituting expansionary fiscal and monetary policies, as well as tax policies that encourage smart business investments. And that's a job for the politicians. One can only hope that they're up to the task.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center