Defined contribution health benefits

This Issue Brief discusses the emerging issue of "defined contribution" (DC) health benefits. The term "defined contribution" is used to describe a wide variety of approaches to the provision of health benefits, all of which have in common a shift in the responsibility for payment and selection of health care services from employers to employees. DC health benefits often are mentioned in the context of enabling employers to control their outlay for health benefits by avoiding increases in health care costs. DC health benefits may also shift responsibility for choosing a health plan and the associated risks of choosing a plan from employers to employees. There are three primary reasons why some employers currently are considering some sort of DC approach. First, they are once again looking for ways to keep their health care cost increases in line with overall inflation. Second, some employers are concerned that the public "backlash" against managed care will result in new legislation, regulations, and litigation that will further increase their health care costs if they do not distance themselves from health care decisions. Third, employers have modified not only most employee benefit plans, but labor market practices in general, by giving workers more choice, control, and flexibility. DC-type health benefits have existed as cafeteria plans since the 1980s. A cafeteria plan gives each employee the opportunity to determine the allocation of his or her total compensation (within employer-defined limits) among various employee benefits (primarily retirement or health). Most types of DC health benefits currently being discussed could be provided within the existing employment-based health insurance system, with or without the use of cafeteria plans. They could also allow employees to purchase health insurance directly from insurers, or they could drive new technologies and new forms of risk pooling through which health care services are provided and financed. DC health benefits differ from DC retirement plans. Under a DC health plan, employees may face different premiums based on their personal health risk and perhaps other factors such as age and geographic location. Their ability to afford health insurance may depend on how premiums are regulated by the state and how much money their employer provides. In contrast, under a DC retirement plan, employers' contributions are based on the same percentage of income for all employees, but employees are not subject to paying different prices for the same investment.     

Retirement Confidence Survey 2000 including results from the RCS Minority Survey and the Small Employer Retirement Survey

The year 2000 represents the 10th anniversary of the Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS), and the third year for the Minority RCS and Small Employer Retirement Survey (SERS). Key RCS findings over the past 10 years include: The fraction of workers saving for retirement has trended upward, and today 80 percent of households report that they have begun to save. The fraction of workers who have attempted to calculate how much they need to save for retirement has risen noticeably over the past several years. Today, 56 percent of households report that they have attempted the calculation. One-half of workers who have attempted such a calculation report that it has changed their behavior, such as saving more and/or changing where they invest their retirement savings. Workers who have done the calculation appear to be in better shape regarding their retirement finances. Worker confidence in the ability of Social Security to maintain benefit levels bottomed out in 1994 and 1995. Workers today are just as confident as they were in 1992, although the majority remain not confident in Social Security. Regarding overall retirement confidence, Hispanic-Americans tend to be the least confident among the surveyed minority groups that they will have enough money to live comfortably throughout their retirement years. Key SERS findings include: While cost and administrative issues do matter to small employers, they are not the primary reasons for low plan sponsorship rates. Employee-related reasons are most often cited as the most important factor for not offering a retirement plan. Business-related reasons, such as profitability, are also a main decision-driver. It is important to note what small employers without plans do not know about plan sponsorship. Small employers that do sponsor a retirement plan report that offering a plan has a positive impact on both their ability to attract and retain quality employees and the attitude and performance of their employees. The survey results indicate that many small company nonsponsors may not be aware of such potential business benefits from plan sponsorship. In addition, many nonsponsors are unaware of the plan options available to them, in particular the ones created specifically for small employers, such as SIMPLE and SEP retirement plans. Therefore, some small employers may be making a premature decision not to sponsor a plan based on incomplete information.     

State and local retirement plans: innovation and renovation

This Special Report/Issue Brief examines the universe of state and local retirement plans. It describes how these plans have developed and continue to evolve in a number of areas, including plan features, regulatory framework, governance, and asset management. While these retirement programs differ in many respects from private-sector plans, the disparity in some areas has narrowed. This report also includes a discussion of trends and the underlying forces for change. Public-sector retirement programs provide an important source of pension coverage in the United States, and are a significant part of the total retirement market: Combined public-sector retirement assets (state, local, and federal governments) comprised 29 percent of the $11.2 trillion U.S. retirement market in 1998. State and local plans are dominant in the public-sector retirement market, holding $2.7 trillion in assets, compared with $696 billion held by federal plans (both military and civilian). More than 16 million individuals are employed by state and local jurisdictions in the United States. State and local retirement plans share certain common features because of the environment in which they operate. Legal statutes, governance, and tradition all play a role in defining what is sometimes referred to as a "public-sector culture." Despite common features, there is considerable diversity among public-sector retirement plans. To attract and retain a skilled work force, public-sector employers have increased their use of defined contribution (DC) plans to supplement defined benefit (DB) plans (or, to a lesser extent, replace or serve as an alternative to them) and improve cost-of-living adjustments. At the same time, a combined federal-state regulatory framework has encouraged certain plan design features, unavailable in the private sector, which include multiple tiers for successive generations of employees in a single plan and different strategies to increase portability. State and local retirement plans reflect an increasing role by the federal government in pension system design and operation, which has led to greater complexity in such areas as Social Security participation and deferred compensation arrangements. Complexity can be expected to increase with the recent passage of P.L. 107-16, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. The latest full-year data included in this report are for 1999 and in some cases 2000. After this report went to press, the Federal Reserve issued significantly revised quarterly data for state, local, and federal retirement plan assets, which were not incorporated in this Issue Brief.     

The changing face of private retirement plans

A rapidly growing public policy concern facing the United States is whether future generations of retired Americans, particularly those in the "baby boom" generation, will have adequate retirement incomes. One reason is that Social Security's projected long-term financial shortfall could result in a reduction in the current-law benefit promises made to future generations of retirees. Another reason is that many baby boomers will be retiring with employment-based defined contribution (DC) plans, as opposed to the "traditional" defined benefit (DB) plans that historically have been the predominant source of employer-provided retirement income. These factors are likely to reduce the amount of life annuity benefits that future retirees will receive relative to current retirees, raising questions as to whether other sources of retirement income--such as individual account plans (DC plans and individual retirement accounts, or IRAs)--will make up the difference. This Issue Brief highlights the changes in private pension plan participation for DB and DC plans and provides some possible explanations for these changes. Results are presented from the Employee Benefit Research Institute's (EBRI) Retirement Income Projection Model that quantify how much the importance of individual account plans is expected to increase because of these changes. This Issue Brief also discusses the risk of outliving one's assets, since a greater fraction of pension wealth is projected to come from "nonguaranteed" sources. Results of the model are compared by gender for cohorts born between 1936 and 1964 in order to estimate the percentage of retirees' retirement wealth that will be derived from DB plans versus DC plans and IRAs over the next three decades. Under the model's baseline assumptions, both males and females are found to have an appreciable drop in the percentage of private retirement income that is attributable to defined benefit plans (other than cash balance plans). In addition, results show a clear increase in the income retirees will receive that will have to be managed by the retiree. This makes the risk of longevity more central to retirees' expenditure decisions. The implications of these model results for retirees are significant. First, individuals--rather than the pension plan sponsor--increasingly will have to manage their retirement assets and bear the risk of investment losses. Second, since most retirees' non-Social Security retirement income will be distributed as a lump sum or in periodic payements (from a defined contribution plan or IRA) rather than as a regular paycheck for life (from a defined benefit plan), retirees will need either to purchase an annuity from an insurance company or carefully manage their individual rate of spending in order to avoid outliving their assets.     

Small employers and health benefits: findings from the 2002 small employer health benefits survey

Overall, 19 percent of small employers offering health benefits made changes to their health plan between 2001 and 2002. Sixty-five percent increased deductibles and co-pays; 35 percent switched insurers; 30 percent increased the employee share of the premium; and 29 percent cut back on the scope of benefits. Twenty-six percent increased the scope of benefits offered. Nearly one-quarter of small employers offering health benefits think their firm would change coverage and 3 percent think it would drop coverage if the cost were to increase an additional 5 percent. Most small employers offer sound business reasons for offering health benefits to workers. Many report that it helps with employee recruitment and retention, and increases productivity. More than three-quarters report that offering health benefits is "the right thing to do." Most small employers that do offer health benefits report that it has a positive impact on various aspects of the business, such as recruitment, retention, employee attitude and performance, employee health status, and the overall success of the business. Most small employers that do not offer health benefits tend to think that not offering them has no negative impact on the above aspects of their business or the overall success of the business. However, those not offering benefits are more likely than those offering them to report that most of their employees are high-turnover and stay on the job only a few months. Small employers that offer health benefits tend to be distinctly different from those not offering them. Worker income in firms not offering health benefits tends to be considerably lower than in firms that do offer them. Employers not offering health benefits are more likely than those offering them to have a smaller proportion of full-time employees, and employers that do not offer health benefits have a larger proportion of females, workers under age 30, and minority employees. Of small employers that offer dependent coverage, more than 40 percent report that workers do not take coverage for their dependents because the dependents have coverage from somewhere else, but 35 percent report that employees decline dependent coverage because they cannot afford the premiums. Many small employers that do not offer health benefits are potential purchasers. Eleven percent are either extremely or very likely to start offering health benefits in the next two years, and 22 percent are somewhat likely to start offering health benefits.     

Health insurance portability: COBRA expansions and job mobility

This Issue Brief discusses continuation-of-coverage mandates under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA). It provides background information on health insurance portability and job mobility, data on the cost to employers of providing continuation of coverage to former employees, and a summary of empirical research on COBRA's effect on employee benefits and job mobility. COBRA coverage can be considered advantageous for most workers, as it allows continuation of the health insurance policy they had in place at work when they lose or leave a job. Although employees can be required to pay 102 percent of the premium for COBRA coverage, they can usually realize significant savings compared with the cost of purchasing the equivalent insurance policy in the private market. Many employers consider COBRA to be a costly mandate for three reasons. First, premiums collected from COBRA beneficiaries typically do not cover the costs of the health care services rendered. Second, COBRA imposes an additional administrative cost on employers. Third, many employers view the penalties for noncompliance as excessively large. According to a survey conducted by Charles D. Spencer & Associates, of the 10.2 percent of employees and dependents who were eligible for COBRA coverage in 1996, over 28 percent elected it. In addition, average employer claims costs for COBRA beneficiaries amounted to $5,591, compared with $3,332 for active employees in surveyed plans. According to Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates of the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the COBRA population is much older than the general insured population. COBRA beneficiaries also have higher personal income than the general insured population, with this difference being almost entirely due to differences in retirement income. Any attempt to expand COBRA coverage, either through subsidies or by allowing workers to choose from plans with lower premiums, would likely result in increased employer health care costs. As a result, employers may consider various alternatives to reduce, shift, or eliminate the impact of this increased cost. One alternative would be to continue requiring active employees to share in the increased costs through higher employee contributions. A second alternative would be to reduce or eliminate health care benefits for active employees and/or future retirees and their families. A third alternative would be to reduce the size of the work force eligible for health insurance benefits. Finally, employers may pass additional costs on to workers or consumers.     

Small employers and health benefits: findings from the 2000 Small Employer Health Benefits Survey

Many small employers (between two and 50 workers) are making decisions about whether to offer health benefits to their workers without being fully aware of the tax advantages that can make this benefit more affordable. Fifty-seven percent of small employers did not know that they can deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums. Nearly one-half of small employers are not aware that workers who purchase health insurance on their own generally cannot deduct 100 percent of their health insurance premiums. Small employers are largely unaware of the laws that have been enacted by nearly all states and the federal government with the intent of making health insurance more accessible and more affordable for many small employers. More than 60 percent did not know that insurers may not deny health insurance coverage to small employers even when the health status of their workers is poor. Most employers offer sound business reasons for offering health benefits to workers. Many have found that it helps with employee recruitment and retention, increases productivity, and reduces absenteeism. Nearly 50 percent of the employers offering dependent (family) coverage report that the workers do not take coverage for their dependents because the dependents have coverage from somewhere else. Twenty-seven percent report their employees decline dependent coverage because they cannot afford the premiums. Many small employers that do not offer health benefits are potential purchasers. Twelve percent are either extremely or very likely to start offering health benefits in the next two years, and 17 percent are somewhat likely to start offering health benefits. A number of factors would increase the likelihood that a small business would seriously consider offering a health benefits plan. Two-thirds of small-business owners said they would seriously consider offering health benefits if the government provided assistance with premiums. Almost one-half would consider doing so if insurance costs fell 10 percent. In addition, one-half would be more likely to seriously consider offering a health benefits plan if employees demand it. Many small employers with health benefits have recently switched health plans, and 34 percent report that they did so within the past year. Affordability for the employer and the worker is clearly a critical factor affecting the likelihood of switching health plans. Nearly all employers who have switched health plans within the past five years cite cost as the main reason. One-third of companies offering health benefits think they will change coverage, and 5 percent think they would drop coverage if the cost of health insurance were to increase by 5 percent.     

Employees'' understanding of employer-sponsored retirement plans, a knowledge gap perspective

The retirement benefit community is currently undergoing a paradigm shift as many organizations cast aside traditional defined benefit plans in favor of defined contribution plans. In other words, instead of employers providing defined benefit plans that are risk free to employees, many organizations have decided to offer defined contribution plans in which employees are responsible for both contributing to the plan and making the investment decisions required therein.As employees are required to make decisions that will ultimately determine their financial security during retirement, it is crucial that employers develop materials that will equip all employees with knowledge about retirement-related issues. Therefore, this study examined the range of knowledge about retirement-related issues that exists among various employee groups within a particular organization. Results showed that education serves as a strong predictor in determining employees' knowledge about retirement-related concepts. Based on the study's findings, implications for future research regarding the development of materials designed to educate employees about employer-sponsored retirement plans are discussed.     

Baby boomers in retirement: what are their prospects?

This Issue Brief examines the baby boomers' retirement income prospects by analyzing trends in the elderly's income and pension participation among workers; examining saving behavior and critically evaluating studies of the adequacy of the boomers' saving; and looking at tenure trends, lump-sum distribution preservation, and changes in Social Security benefits. Since the mid 1970s, the real median income of individuals aged 65 and over has increased 18 percent. Sources of income have shifted, with employment-based pensions increasing and earnings and asset income decreasing as a proportion of income. The boomers' prospects are partly dependent on participation in employment-based retirement plans. After decreases in the sponsorship rates, participation rates, and vesting rates of workers during the 1980s, all three percentages increased during the early 1990s. Data do not support the perception that the U.S. work force is becoming increasingly mobile. Tenure levels for prime age workers in the 1980s and beginning of the 1990s were higher than those of previous decades. Still, in response to competitive pressures, employers may not offer the security of paternalistic benefit packages as in the past. Various studies have reached different conclusions regarding the adequacy of the boomers' financial preparation for retirement. Evidence indicates that boomers, in general, will enjoy a retirement standard of living exceeding that of their parents. It is less clear whether they will maintain a standard of living in retirement comparable to that of their working years. To the extent they are willing to tap housing wealth, they would appear at this early stage to be in good shape. Federal fiscal policy decisions will impact boomers by affecting their disposable income today, and thus their ability to save, as well as the benefits they will receive in retirement through Social Security and Medicare. The boomers are 17 to 35 years away from age 65. Given heterogeneity of the boomers, research is needed to identify what specific groups within the generation are at risk and the magnitude of that risk. Groups that would now appear to be at risk to some degree include non-homeowners, the less educated, the single, and the youngest boomers.     

Retirement plan participation and features and standard of living of Americans 55 or older

This Issue Brief is the third in a series of Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) publications based on data collected in 1998 and released in 2002 as the Retirement and Pension Plan Coverage Topical Module of the 1996 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP). This report completes the series by examining the survey's more detailed questions concerning workers' employment-based retirement plans. Specifically, it examines the percentage of workers who are participating in a plan, and also workers' reasons for not participating in a plan when working in a job where a plan is sponsored; the features of, or decisions made concerning salary reduction plans; historical participation in employment-based retirement plans; and a comparison of the standard of living of individuals age 55 or older with their living standard in their early 50s. As of June 1998, 64.3 percent of wage and salary workers age 16 or older worked for an employer or union that sponsored any type of retirement plan (defined contribution or defined benefit) for any of its employees or members (the "sponsorship rate"). Almost 47 percent of these wage and salary workers participated in a plan (the "participation rate"), with 43.2 percent being entitled to a benefit or eligible to receive a lump-sum distribution from a plan if their job terminated at the time of survey (the "vested rate"). The predominant reason for choosing not to participate in a retirement plan was that doing so was unaffordable. The eligible participation rate for salary reduction plans was 81.4 percent. Fifty-six percent of all workers have participated in some type of retirement plan sometime during their work life through 1998. For those ages 51-60, almost 72 percent have ever participated in a plan. The median account balance in salary reduction plans in 1998 was $14,000. In 1998, 12.9 percent of salary reduction plan participants eligible to take a loan had done so, and the average outstanding loan balance was $5,196. Nearly 80 percent of those age 55 or older reported that their standard of living is about the same or better now than it was when they were in their early 50s. The incidence of both pension income and health insurance from a former employer had a significant impact on retirees' ability to maintain their standard of living. In addition, those who spent their entire most recent lump-sum distribution were more likely to have a much worse standard of living in retirement than those who rolled over their entire most recent distribution.     

Supplemental Retirement Savings Plans in the Public Sector: Participation and Contribution Decisions by School Personnel

Virtually all full-time state and local government employees are covered by a retirement plan, typically a defined benefit plan, in which they are required to participate. In addition, most school employees have the option of choosing to contribute to a voluntary retirement savings plan offered by their school district. Relative to private sector workers, public employees face an expanded choice of retirement savings plans. Federal tax policies allow state and local governments the opportunity to offer both 401(k) plans and 457 plans to their employees. In addition to these plans, public schools and certain other organizations can offer 403(b) plans to their employees. This paper examines the decision to participate in a voluntary savings plan and the level of contributions for those that enroll in at least one of the plans. The analysis begins by describing the savings options available to public school employees and how these plans differ. The findings indicate that the same economic and demographic factors that influence saving decisions by private workers also drive the decisions of school employees. The three savings plans offered to public employees have many similar characteristics; however, several differences in the plans imply that certain workers may prefer one plan type over the others. Probit and Tobit models of participation in any plan and total annual contributions are estimated. Finally, we estimate the determinants of the decision to choose any one or a combination of savings plans.     

Demographic and employment shifts: implications for benefits and economic security

This Issue Brief examines factors affecting the population's age distribution and composition, such as mortality rates, fertility rates, and immigration. In addition, it examines factors affecting labor force composition, such as immigration, increased labor force participation of women, and retirement trends, and discusses the potential impact of these changes on publicly financed programs: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and federal employee retirement systems. The discussion also highlights the implications of these population and labor force changes on employers, employees, and retirees. The elderly population--now 31.8 million, representing 12.6 percent of the population--is projected to experience tremendous growth between 2010 and 2030, when the baby boom generation reaches age 65, rising from 39.7 million, or 13.3 percent of the population, to 69.8 million, or 20.2 percent of the population. Growth in the elderly population has implications for retirement and health care systems. Population projections suggest that the traditionally pyramid-shaped work force, with a proportionately greater number of younger workers than older workers, will be replaced with a more even age distribution. Consequently, significant and continued modifications to benefit packages, such as changes in compensation structures in which earnings automatically rise with age, are likely to occur. Women's labor force participation began to accelerate in the mid-1950s, rising 75 percent among women aged 25-44 in 1991, although there is some indication that this growth may be flattening. With women comprising a greater part of the labor force, employers will be encouraged to develop and implement programs to better accommodate their needs. Increased life expectancy, a decreased percentage of entry level workers, changes in Social Security's normal retirement age from 65 to 67, and employer plans to raise the normal age of retirement or provide incentives to delay retirement, could raise the average age of retirement. However, other factors, such as poor health, other sources of retirement income, and individual preferences for retirement, could still dominate the retirement decision. The combination of increased average life expectancy guaranteeing more years of retirement to finance and rising dependency ratios increases the future cost of Social Security financing. Medicare financing is also an important policy issue because the program is projected to experience financial difficulties in the short term, resulting from explosive health care costs. In addition, Medicaid expenditures are consuming increasing amount of shrinking state budget resources--a large portion of which is used to finance nursing home care for a growing elderly population.     

The 1999 Small Employer Retirement Survey: building a better mousetrap is not enough

As of 1995, there were 5.3 million small-employer firms (100 or fewer employees) in the United States. These small firms employed 38.0 million individuals, representing 38 percent of all employment. Therefore, low retirement plan coverage among small employers directly affects a sizeable fraction of the national work force. There are a number of reasons why more small employers do not offer retirement plans. Cost and administration-related issues do matter, but for many small employers these take a back seat to other issues. For some, the main driver is the financial reality of running a small business: Their revenue is too uncertain to commit to a plan. For others, the most important reasons for not sponsoring a plan are employee-related, e.g., the workers do not consider retirement savings to be a priority, or the employer's work force has such high turnover that it does not make sense to sponsor a plan. Many nonsponsors are unfamiliar with the different retirement plan types available to them as potential plan sponsors, especially the options created specifically for small employers. For example, most nonsponsors said they have never heard of (36 percent) or are not too familiar with (20 percent) SIMPLE plans for small businesses. Fifteen percent of small employers report that they are very likely to start a plan in the next two years, while 24 percent say this is somewhat likely. Nonsponsors report that the two items most likely to lead to serious consideration of sponsoring a plan are an increase in profits (69 percent) and business tax credits for starting a retirement plan (67 percent). Major drivers of low retirement plan sponsorship among small employers are who they employ and the uncertainty of revenue flows. While issues of administrative cost and burden matter, they are only part of the puzzle. Therefore, the solution is not simply "build it and they will come," by creating simpler and simpler retirement plans geared to small businesses. Rather, it is build it and they will come once the business reaches a certain level of profitability and stability, and once retirement planning and saving are more of a priority for the small employer's workers.     

Retirement Plan Participation in an Era of Change: The Case of a Rural Region*

Individual savings are critical for retirement as government and employer‐based provisions fade or become less secure. Rural communities are vulnerable given their higher proportion of elderly and more who rely on Social Security. Using a telephone survey of working‐age residents in Michigan's rural Upper Peninsula, this research investigates factors associated with participation in tax‐advantaged retirement plans that have largely replaced defined‐benefit pension plans for earmarked retirement savings. The project also identifies factors predictive of making maximum contributions to those retirement plans. We consider several distinct categories of variables to reflect the social embeddedness of economic action. In addition, the research included community variables describing aspects of respondents' social context, a new component of the savings discourse, which we show to be significantly related to saving outside a tax‐advantaged retirement plan and making maximum contributions to a tax‐advantaged retirement plan.     

Flexible benefits, choice, and work force diversity

This Issue Brief evaluates the prevalence of flexible benefits plans and their ability to achieve cost management goals and to meet the needs of diverse employee groups. In addition, it examines flexible benefits plans' current legislative and regulatory status and typical plan design features. Sec. 125 of the Internal Revenue Code allows employers to provide employees with a choice among benefits, including moving otherwise taxable cash compensation to the pre-tax purchase of benefits, without requiring them to include the value of the noncash benefits in their adjusted gross income unless they choose taxable options. Although the percentage of full-time employees in medium and large private establishments who are eligible for cafeteria plans has not increased appreciably, the percentage of employees eligible for freestanding flexible spending accounts (FSAs) nearly tripled between 1988 and 1991. Generally, the proportion of employers sponsoring cafeteria plans or FSAs increases with employer size. Recent surveys show that 27 percent of employers with 1,000 or more employees offered choice-making plans in 1991, 48 percent of firms offered health care FSAs, and 54 percent offered dependent care FSAs, either in conjunction with cafeteria plans or as a stand-alone option. Ten percent of full-time employees in private firms employing 100 or more workers were eligible to participate in cafeteria plans in 1991. Only 5 percent of full-time employees in state and local governments and 1 percent of similar employees in small private establishments were eligible for cafeteria plans in 1990. Recent Bureau of Labor Statistics' surveys show that, among full-time employees, 27 percent in private establishments with 100 or more employees, 28 percent in state and local governments, and 6 percent in small private establishments were eligible to participate in freestanding FSAs. In 1992, 21 percent of eligible employees contributed to a health care FSA, and only 3 percent of eligible employees contributed to a dependent care FSA. Contributions to health care FSAs averaged $651, and those to dependent care FSAs averaged $2,959. National health reform could have a significant impact on these plans if the tax treatment of health benefits is changed. Taxation of health benefits in excess of a standard benefits package would fundamentally reduce the ability to use FSAs.     

Retirement plans, personal saving, and saving adequacy

This Issue Brief addresses three questions raised by recent trends in personal saving: How are national savings measured and what is the meaning of the trends in measured personal saving rates, given what is included and what is not included in those measures? What is the effect of retirement saving programs--in particular, 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs)--on personal saving levels? What are the implications of existing saving behavior for the retirement income security of today's workers? The National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), the most commonly referenced gauge of personal saving, is a widely misunderstood measure. One could argue that a complete measure of saving would include increases in wealth through capital gains, but NIPA does not factor accrued and realized capital gains on stocks and other assets into the saving rate. By one measure, accounting for capital gains results in an aggregate personal saving rate of 33 percent--more than double the rate of four decades ago. A major policy question is the impact of tax-qualified retirement saving plans (i.e., IRAs and 401(k) plans) on personal saving rates. Empirical analysis of this issue is extremely challenging and findings have been contradictory. These programs now represent an enormous store of retirement-earmarked wealth in tax-deferred vehicles: Combined, such tax-deferred retirement accounts currently have assets of about $4 trillion. Ninety percent of IRA contributions are now the result of "rollovers" as employees leave employer plans, like 401(k) plans. While leakage from the system remains a challenge, the majority of the assets in the system can be expected to be available to fund workers' retirements. One could argue that, from a retirement income security perspective, workers in general are better off because IRA and 401(k) programs exist. Surely, many of the dollars in these programs would have been saved even without the programs; but they would not necessarily have been earmarked for retirement and been available to fund retirement expenses. As rollovers become larger, this "partnership" of employment-based qualified plans and IRAs will grow even more important. The evidence indicates that many groups of American workers appear unlikely to be able to afford a retirement that maintains their current lifestyle (at least not without working more years than currently planned). Consensus does not exist on how many workers are at risk or the typical magnitude of their retirement saving shortfall. There is a consensus, however, that a substantial number of individuals are at risk. This is not surprising--despite the fact that the 70 percent of workers are saving for retirement--since relatively few workers know how much it is that they need to accumulate to fund their retirement.     

The retirement system in transition: the 2007 Retirement Confidence Survey

WORKERS SLOW TO SEE OR ADAPT TO A CHANGING U.S. RETIREMENT SYSTEM: The 17th annual wave of the Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) suggests that American workers may be slow to recognize how the U.S. retirement system is changing, and those who are aware of these changes may not be adapting to them in ways that are likely to secure them a comfortable retirement. HALF OF WORKERS LESS CONFIDENT ABOUT PENSION BENEFITS: The RCS finds pension-plan changes by employers have left nearly half of workers less confident about the benefits they will receive from a traditional pension plan, but that those experiencing a decline in retirement benefits often fail to react constructively. Moreover, although Americans will rely increasingly on 401(k) retirement savings plans and other personal savings and investments to fund their retirement security, data suggest that many may not follow professional investment advice when it is offered to them. MANY WORKERS COUNTING ON BENEFITS THAT WON'T BE THERE: Many workers are counting on employer-provided benefits in retirement that are increasingly unavailable. Only 41 percent of workers indicate they or their spouse currently have a defined benefit pension plan, yet 62 percent say they are expecting to receive income from such a plan in retirement. Likewise, workers are as likely to expect as retirees are to receive retiree health insurance through an employer, even though the number of employers offering this benefit to future retirees is declining. MANY WORKERS UNLIKELY TO HEED INVESTMENT ADVICE EVEN IF THEY GET IT: More than half of workers indicate they would be likely to take advantage of professional investment advice offered by companies that manage employer-sponsored retirement plans. However, two-thirds of these workers say they would probably implement only some of the recommendations they receive and 1 in 10 think they would implement none of them. AMERICANS OVERESTIMATE LONG-TERM CARE COVERAGE: One-quarter of workers and more than one-third of retirees report they have long-term care insurance (separate from health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid) to help pay for care they might need in a nursing home, assisted living facility, or at home. But only 10 percent of Americans age 65 and older are estimated to have had private long-term care insurance in 2002, suggesting that many are counting on coverage they do not actually have. MOST SAVINGS LEVELS ARE MODEST: Almost half of workers saving for retirement report total savings and investments (not including the value of their primary residence or any defined benefit plans) of less than $25,000. The majority of workers who have not put money aside for retirement have little in savings at all: Seven in 10 of these workers say their assets total less than $10,000. CONTINUED IGNORANCE ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY COVERAGE: Despite the longstanding increase in the eligibility age for Social Security, only a small minority of workers are aware of the age at which they can receive full retirement benefits from Social Security without a reduction for early retirement.     

EMPLOYEE FINANCIAL LITERACY AND RETIREMENT PLAN BEHAVIOR: A CASE STUDY

This article uses administrative data on all active employees of the Federal Reserve (FR) System to examine participation in and contributions to the Thrift Saving Plan, the System's defined contribution (DC) plan. We link to administrative records a unique employee survey of economic/demographic factors including a set of financial literacy questions. Not surprisingly, FR employees are substantially more financially literate than the population at large. Most importantly, financially savvy employees are also most likely to participate in their DC plan. Sophisticated workers contribute three percentage points more of their earnings to the DC plan than do the less knowledgeable, and they hold more equity in their pension accounts. We examine changes in employee plan behavior 1 year after employees completed a Learning Module about retirement planning, and we compare it to baseline patterns. We find that those employees who completed the Learning Module were more likely to start contributing and less likely to have stopped contributing to the DC plan postsurvey. In sum, employer‐provided learning programs are shown to significantly impact employee retirement saving decisions and consistent with a lot of other research, higher levels of financial literacy are found to have a beneficial impact on retirement saving patterns. (JEL J3, H7)     

Women and pensions: a decade of progress?

This Issue Brief compares changes from 1989 to 1998 in pension participation, accumulation, and allocation for employed women, versus employed men, ages 18-62. In addition, it provides an estimate of the gender "pension gap" in defined contribution accumulations, contrasts this with the gender "earnings gap," and provides explanations for these differences. Between 1989 and 1998, the percentage of employed women with a pension or retirement plan at their current job increased from 43 percent to 45 percent, compared with a decline from 53 percent to 52 percent for employed men. For both women and men, the percentage with defined contribution retirement plans increased dramatically, while the percentage with defined benefit pension plans dropped sharply. Between 1989 and 1998, the ratio of women's to men's defined contribution plan accumulations increased from 40 percent to 44 percent, indicating a narrowing of the gender pension gap. However, the narrowing was concentrated among the cohort ages 45-53 in 1998. The gender pension gap increased for women in other age groups. Gender differences in defined contribution plan accumulations can be attributed to differences in earnings and job characteristics. Between 1989 and 1998, for workers with defined contribution plans, the ratio of women's to men's earnings remained unchanged at 57 percent. Employed women with defined contribution plans are more than twice as likely to earn less than $25,000 per year than employed men with defined contribution plans, but almost five times less likely to earn more than $100,000 per year. From 1989 to 1998, the percentage of employed men with defined contribution balances invested mostly in low-risk, low-return assets declined much more than the percentage of employed women who followed that investment strategy. Whereas the percentages of men and women with retirement plans invested mostly in bonds were nearly equal at 31 percent and 32 percent in 1989, respectively, by 1998, 20 percent of women (compared with 14 percent of men) had their retirement plans invested mostly in bonds. The trend toward defined contribution plans and riskier retirement portfolios has resulted in significant wealth accumulation over the decade. In real terms, both men and women have greater retirement plan wealth, but increases have been larger for men than for women. Since there is no evidence that plan provisions vary by gender, improvements in the gender pension gap will come only with changes in women's labor force experience and investment decision-making.