What causes EBRI retirement readiness ratings to vary: results from the 2014 Retirement Security Projection Model.

RETIREMENT INCOME ADEQUACY IMPROVED SLIGHTLY IN 2013: Due to the increase in financial market and housing values during 2013, the probability that Baby Boomers and Generation Xers would NOT run short of money in retirement increases between 0.5 and 1.6 percentage points, based on the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) Retirement Readiness Ratings (RRRs). ELIGIBILITY FOR PARTICIPATION IN AN EMPLOYER-SPONSORED DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN REMAINS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS FOR RETIREMENT INCOME ADEQUACY: RRR values double for Gen Xers in the lowest-income quartile when comparing those with 20 or more years of future eligibility with those with no years of future eligibility, while those in the middle income quartiles experience increases in RRR values by 27.1-30.3 percentage points. FUTURE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE FOR THE RETIREMENT INCOME ADEQUACY OF SOME HOUSEHOLDS, ESPECIALLY GEN XERS IN THE LOWEST-INCOME QUARTILE: If Social Security benefits are subject to proportionate decreases beginning in 2033 (according to the values in Figure 8), the RRR values for those households will drop by more than 50 percent: from 20.9 percent to 10.3 percent. LONGEVITY RISK AND STOCHASTIC HEALTH CARE RISK ARE ASSOCIATED WITH HUGE VARIATIONS IN RETIREMENT INCOME ADEQUACY: For both of these factors, a comparison between the most "risky" quartile with the least risky quartile shows a spread of approximately 30 percentage points for the lowest income range, approximately 25 to 40 percentage points for the highest income range, and even larger spreads for those in the middle income ranges. A GREAT DEAL OF THE VARIABILITY IN RETIREMENT INCOME ADEQUACY COULD BE MITIGATED BY APPROPRIATE RISK-MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES AT OR NEAR RETIREMENT AGE: For example, the annuitization of a portion of the defined contribution and IRA balances may substantially increase the probability of not running short of money in retirement. Moreover, a well-functioning market in long-term care insurance would appear to provide an extremely useful technique to help control the volatility from the stochastic, long-term health care risk, especially for those in the middle income quartiles.

The impact of a retirement savings account cap.

This Issue Brief provides an initial analysis of the potential financial impact on private-sector retirement benefits of the retirement savings account cap included in the Obama administration's FY 2014 budget proposal. It finds that although a very small percentage of current 401(k) participants with IRA accounts have combined balances sufficient to be immediately affected by the proposed limit, over time (and depending on the applicable discount rates, whether a defined benefit pension is involved, and the size of the 401(k) plan) the impact could be much greater. Simulation results for 401(k) participants assuming no defined benefit accruals and no job turnover show that more than 1 in 10 current 401(k) participants are likely to hit the proposed limit sometime prior to age 65, even at the current historically low discount rate of 4 percent. When the simulation is rerun with discount rate assumptions closer to historical averages, the percentage of 401(k) participants likely to be affected by these proposed limits increases substantially: For example, with an 8 percent discount rate, more than 20 percent of the 401(k) participants are simulated to reach the limit prior to retirement. When the impact of stylized, defined benefit account assumptions are added to the analysis, the percentage of 401(k) participants simulated to reach the proposed limits increases even more: In fact, for 401(k) participants assumed to be covered by a 2 percent, three-year, final-average plan with a subsidized early retirement at 62, nearly a third are assumed to be affected by the proposed limit at an 8 percent discount rate. Additional analysis is performed for small plans (those with less than 100 participants) to assess the potential impact of eventual plan terminations if an when the owners and/or key decision makers of the firms reach the cap threshold. Depending on plan size, this may involve as few as 18 percent of the firms (at a 4 percent discount rate) to as many as 75 percent of the firms (at an 8 percent discount rates).

The 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey: job insecurity, debt weigh on retirement confidence, savings.

Americans' confidence in their ability to retire comfortably is stagnant at historically low levels. Just 14 percent are very confident they will have enough money to live comfortably in retirement (statistically equivalent to the low of 13 percent measured in 2011 and 2009). Employment insecurity looms large: Forty-two percent identify job uncertainty as the most pressing financial issue facing most Americans today. Worker confidence about having enough money to pay for medical expenses and long-term care expenses in retirement remains well below their confidence levels for paying basic expenses. Many workers report they have virtually no savings and investments. In total, 60 percent of workers report that the total value of their household's savings and investments, excluding the value of their primary home and any defined benefit plans, is less than $25,000. Twenty-five percent of workers in the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey say the age at which they expect to retire has changed in the past year. In 1991, 11 percent of workers said they expected to retire after age 65, and by 2012 that has grown to 37 percent. Regardless of those retirement age expectations, and consistent with prior RCS findings, half of current retirees surveyed say they left the work force unexpectedly due to health problems, disability, or changes at their employer, such as downsizing or closure. Those already in retirement tend to express higher levels of confidence than current workers about several key financial aspects of retirement. Retirees report they are significantly more reliant on Social Security as a major source of their retirement income than current workers expect to be. Although 56 percent of workers expect to receive benefits from a defined benefit plan in retirement, only 33 percent report that they and/or their spouse currently have such a benefit with a current or previous employer. More than half of workers (56 percent) report they and/or their spouse have not tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved by the time they retire so that they can live comfortably in retirement. Only a minority of workers and retirees feel very comfortable using online technologies to perform various tasks related to financial management. Relatively few use mobile devices such as a smart phone or tablet to manage their finances, and just 10 percent say they are comfortable obtaining advice from financial professionals online.

401(k) plan asset allocation, account balances, and loan activity in 2011.

THE BULK OF 401(K) ASSETS CONTINUED TO BE INVESTED IN STOCKS: On average, at year-end 2011, 61 percent of 401(k) participants' assets was invested in equity securities through equity funds, the equity portion of balanced funds, and company stock. Thirty-four percent was in fixed-income securities such as stable-value investments and bond and money funds. SEVENTY-TWO PERCENT OF 401(K) PLANS INCLUDED TARGET-DATE FUNDS IN THEIR INVESTMENT LINEUP AT YEAR-END 2011: At year-end 2011, 13 percent of the assets in the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database was invested in target-date funds and 39 percent of 401(k) participants held target-date funds. Also known as lifecycle funds, these funds are designed to offer a diversified portfolio that automatically rebalances to be more focused on income over time. MORE NEW OR RECENT HIRES INVESTED THEIR 401(K) ASSETS IN BALANCED FUNDS, INCLUDING TARGET-DATE FUNDS: For example, at year-end 2011, 51 percent of the account balances of recently hired participants in their 20s was invested in balanced funds, compared with 44 percent in 2010, and about 7 percent in 1998. A significant subset of that balanced fund category is target-date funds. At year-end 2011, 40 percent of the account balances of recently hired participants in their 20s was invested in target-date funds, compared with 35 percent at year-end 2010. 401(K) PARTICIPANTS CONTINUED TO SEEK DIVERSIFICATION OF THEIR INVESTMENTS: The share of 401(k) accounts invested in company stock remained at 8 percent in 2011. This share has fallen by more than half since 1999. Recently hired 401(k) participants contributed to this trend: They tended to be less likely to hold employer stock. PARTICIPANTS' 401(K) LOAN ACTIVITY REMAINED STEADY, ALTHOUGH LOAN BALANCES INCREASED SLIGHTLY IN 2011: At year-end 2011, 21 percent of all 401(k) participants who were eligible for loans had loans outstanding against their 401(k) accounts, unchanged from year-end 2009 and year-end 2010, and up from 18 percent at year-end 2008. Loans outstanding amounted to 14 percent of the remaining account balance, on average, at year-end 2011, unchanged from year-end 2010. Loan amounts outstanding increased slightly from those at year-end 2010. THE YEAR-END 2011 AVERAGE ACCOUNT BALANCE IN THE DATABASE WAS 2.2 PERCENT LOWER THAN THE YEAR BEFORE, BUT MAY NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT THE EXPERIENCE OF TYPICAL 401(K) PARTICIPANTS IN 2011: To understand changes in 401(k) participants' average account balances, it is important to analyze a sample of consistent participants. As with previous EBRI/ICI updates, analysis of a sample of consistent 401(k) participants (those that have been in the same plan since 2003) is expected to be published in 2013.

The impact of deferring retirement age on retirement income adequacy.

UPDATE OF RSPM-POST-65 RETIREMENT AGES: The EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model (RSPM) was developed in 2003 to provide an assessment of national retirement income prospects. The 2011 version of RSPM adds a new feature that allows households to defer retirement age past age 65 in an attempt to determine whether retirement age deferral is indeed sufficiently valuable to mitigate retirement income adequacy problems for most households (assuming the worker is physically able to continue working and that there continues to be a suitable demand for his or her skills). The answer, unfortunately, is not always "yes," even if retirement age is deferred into the 80s. LOWEST-INCOME LEVELS, 50-50 CHANCE OF ADEQUACY: RSPM baseline results indicate that the lowest preretirement income quartile would need to defer retirement age to 84 before 90 percent of the households would have a 50 percent probability of success. Although a significant portion of the improvement takes place in the first four years after age 65, the improvement tends to level off in the early 70s before picking up in the late 70s and early 80s. Households in higher preretirement income quartiles start at a much higher level, and therefore have less improvement in terms of additional households reaching a 50 percent success rate as retirement age is deferred for these households. LOWEST-INCOME LEVELS, HIGHER CHANCES OF ADEQUACY: If the success rate is moved to a threshold of 70 percent, only 2 out of 5 households in the lowest-income quartile will attain retirement income adequacy even if they defer retirement age to 84. Increasing the threshold to 80 percent reduces the number of lowest preretirement income quartile households that can satisfy this standard at a retirement age of 84 to approximately 1 out of 7. IMPORTANCE OF DEFINED CONTRIBUTION RETIREMENT PLANS: One of the factors that makes a major difference in the percentage of households satisfying the retirement income adequacy thresholds at any retirement age is whether the worker is still participating in a defined contribution plan after age 65. This factor results in at least a 10 percentage point difference in the majority of the retirement age/income combinations investigated. FACTORING IN RETIREMENT HEALTH COSTS: Another factor that has a tremendous impact on the value of deferring retirement age is whether stochastic post-retirement health care costs are excluded (or the stochastic nature is ignored). For the lowest preretirement income quartile, the value of deferral (in terms of percentage of additional households that will meet the threshold by deferring retirement age from 65 to 84) decreases from 16.0 percent to 3.8 percent by excluding these costs. The highest preretirement income quartile experiences a similar decrease, from 12.8 percent to 2.6 percent.

A post-crisis assessment of retirement income adequacy for Baby Boomers and Gen Xers.

UNLABELLED: DETERMINING THOSE "AT RISK" OF INSUFFICIENT RETIREMENT INCOME: The analysis in this paper was designed to answer two questions: 1) What percentage of U.S. households became "at risk" of insufficient retirement income as a result of the financial market and real estate crisis in 2008 and 2009? 2) Of those who are at risk, what additional savings do they need to make each year until retirement age to make up for their losses from the crisis? The results are from the 2010 EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model by the Employee Benefit Research Institute. KEY FINDINGS: Range at risk: The percentage of households that would not have been "at risk" without the 2008-2009 crisis but that ended up "at risk" varies from a low of 3.8 percent to a high of 14.3 percent. 50-50 chance of adequacy: Looking at all Early Boomer households that would need to save an additional amount (over and above the savings already factored into the baseline model), the median percentage of additional compensation for these households desiring a 50 percent probability of retirement income adequacy would be 3.0 percent of compensation each year until retirement age to account for the financial and housing market crisis in 2008 and 2009. 90 percent chance of adequacy: Looking at all Early Boomer households that would need to save an additional amount (over and above the savings already factored into the baseline model), the median percentage of additional compensation for these households desiring a 90 percent probability of retirement income adequacy would be 4.3 percent of compensation. Range of adequacy: Looking only at Early Boomer households that would need to save an additional amount (over and above the savings already factored into the baseline model), that had account balances in defined contribution plans and IRAs as well as exposure to the real estate crisis in 2008 and 2009 shows a median percentage for of 5.6 percent for a 50 percent probability and 6.7 percent for a 90 percent probability of retirement income adequacy.

Tax reform options: promoting retirement security.

TAX PROPOSALS: Currently, the combination of worker and employer contributions in a defined contribution plan is capped by the federal tax code at the lesser of $49,000 per year or 100 percent of a worker's compensation (participants over age 50 can make additional "catch-up" contributions). As part of the effort to lower the federal deficit and reduce federal "tax expenditures," two major reform proposals have surfaced that would change current tax policy toward retirement savings: A plan that would end the existing tax deductions for 401(k) contributions and replace them with a flat-rate refundable credit that serves as a matching contribution into a retirement savings account. The so-called "20/20 cap," included by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform in their December 2010 report, "The Moment of Truth," which would limit the sum of employer and worker annual contributions to the lower of $20,000 or 20 percent of income, the so-called "20/20 cap." IMPACT OF PERMANENTLY MODIFYING THE EXCLUSION OF EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLANS FROM TAXABLE INCOME: If the current exclusion of worker contributions for retirement savings plans were ended in 2012 and the total match remains constant, the average reductions in 401(k) accounts at Social Security normal retirement age would range from a low of 11.2 percent for workers currently ages 26-35 in the highest-income groups, to a high of 24.2 percent for workers in that age range in the lowest-income group. IMPACT OF "20/20 CAP": Earlier EBRI analysis of enacting the 20/20 cap starting in 2012 showed it would, as expected, most affect those with high income. However, EBRI also found the cap would cause a significant reduction in retirement savings by the lowest-income workers as well, and younger cohorts would experience larger reductions given their increased exposure to the proposal. IMPORTANCE OF EMPLOYER-SPONSORED RETIREMENT PLANS AND AUTO-ENROLLMENT: A key factor in future retirement income security is whether a worker has access to a retirement plan at work. EBRI has found that voluntary enrollment in 401(k) plans under the current set of tax incentives has the potential to generate a sum that, when combined with Social Security benefits, would replace a sizeable portion of a worker's preretirement income, and that auto-enrollment could produce even larger retirement accumulations. POTENTIAL INCREASE OF AMERICANS FACING INADEQUATE RETIREMENT INCOME: The potential increase of at-risk percentages resulting from (1) employer modifications to existing plans, and (2) a substantial portion of low-income households decreasing or eliminating future contributions to savings plans as a reaction to the proposed elimination of the exclusion of employee contributions for retirement savings plans from taxable income, needs to be analyzed carefully when considering the overall impact of proposals to change existing tax incentives for retirement savings.