Why 401(k) Retirement Plans Really Don’t Work, and How to Fix Them


With the death of defined pension plans, 401(k) retirement plans have become a staple for many employees, but the recent financial turmoil has put these once infallible savings vehicles under the microscope. There have been numerous news articles detailing the stunning losses of the stock market since October of last year. Such stories usually offer a profile of some victim around 55 years old who was preparing to retire in the next few years, only to have 25% or more of his 401(k)’s value wiped out over night.

This has led to calls for the government to step in and fix the problem. Economist Teresa Ghilarducci has put forth a plan to do just that, and congressmen George Miller and Jim McDermott support it. Under Ghilarducci’s plan, contributions to a worker’s 401(k) plan would no longer be tax deferred. This would effectively tax the contributions twice – once when you earn the income that you then contribute to the plan, and again when you withdrawal the money in retirement. Under such conditions, why would anyone continue contributing to a 401(k)?

Ghilarducci’s plan also proposes implementing a government provided “guaranteed retirement account” to be administered by the Social Security Administration. Under this plan, worker’s would be required to invest 5% of their pay, and would receive a guaranteed return of 3%, adjusted for inflation.

This is the wrong way to fix the problem.

First of all, why would we want to reinvent social security when it’s been documented to be unsustainable? The government has already tapped the money many times over that was supposed to be set aside for the program. Isn’t this just recreating that problem? Secondly, the stock market has returned, on average, roughly 10% per year since WWII. How would worker’s be better off earning 3% per year? Thirdly, it doesn’t address the real reason 401(k) plans have left people short on their retirement funds.

The 401(k) plan did not fail. The stock market did not fail. This person simply had too much invested in the stock market for his age and retirement goal. The problem lies with the individual, and the lack of information and education provided to the individual, not with the 401(k) plan itself.

401(k) participants are investors, whether they know it or not. The problem is that most do not. The real reason 401(k) plans fail to the extent that people perceive them to is because the participant often lacks the education to make appropriate decisions. Many 401(k) participants don’t want to be investors, they just want to do their job and live their life. Another problem with 401(k) plans is that the individual is often entirely in charge of their investments, and have no safety valve in times of extreme panic or greed. Just look at the recent economic turmoil and see how many have pulled everything out of their 401(k) because they don’t trust the market. Once the loss has happened, pulling out is the worst thing they can do, but these people are simply reacting emotionally. They don’t have the background to approach it rationally.

The real way to fix this problem is education. Employers could provide professional assistance by way of making an impartial financial planner available to employees in the plan. Most plans provide life cycle or target date funds where employees choose the fund with their target retirement date, and the plan manager gradually adjusts the allocations between stocks and bonds over time. This is essentially a set it and forget it approach that has been proven to work over time. But so many employees are ignorant to their existence and their use. If that 55 year soon-to-be retiree had a proper asset allocation in his 401(k), he would still be on course to retire, though he might still choose to work a little longer for a better post-retirement lifestyle but the choice wouldn’t be so drastic as losing a quarter of your retirement.


Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.


Other Posts



Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

*

Reader Comments

I agree. The one change that the government could make is to require that the default set up is to have contributions deposited in one of those funds that automatically adjusts for your age.

I don’t know why people in Washington feel that every problem needs a government program to fix it. The government finds new and innovative ways to waste money and resources everyday. George Miller and Jim McDermott need to be ousted from office before they can do any more damage.

The dirty little secret of the 401K is that it has been a huge wealth transfer scheme from investors to vendors. With rare exception the plans are run by employers who forget the millions in their company sponsored plan is actually deferred income of the employees, not corporate funds. President Obama and congress should simply create identical tax deduction limits for both IRAs and 401 type plans. This would allow participants to opt out of their lousy employer plan and let the market work to reduce expenses and create greater transparency. Of course pensions died when health care costs skyrocketed. No secret with that. Fix HC and it’s a different world.

I love the idea of a 401k, but I don’t participate in it (I only do a Roth IRA) because the mutual fund company in my company’s plan has only high-fee funds that are 2%+ per year! It is insane to waste that much on fees, in my opinion.

I would be much more satisfied with a 401k plan that worked like my IRA – so that I could pick better choices (i.e. low cost, no load index target date funds), yet still get my employer match. Now that would be great – although I still worry that a majority of people will remain poorly diversified.

401k plans definitely need an overhaul. As an advisor (for 3 more days anyway), I’ve reviewed many plans with an annuity wrap fee that adds another 0.75% to 1.50% to the total cost of the plan. These are typically for small employers that would be better served with a SIMPLE IRA plan instead.

I listened to this woman’s testimony and she clearly stated a return of inflation + 3% which is ridiculous. Just as pension plans have seen, assuming high rates of return ends in the death of the plan. In the same way, I would ask, where are the investments yielding a guaranteed inflation + 3%? They don’t exist.

When the fund doesn’t return this amount, guess who makes up the difference? We do in the form of higher taxes which harms economic growth.

Target date retirement funds are becoming more prevalent and offer a good alternative to the typical participant’s options. The top three investments in 401k plans are (1) cash, (2) company stock, and (3) bonds. This clearly illustrates that the average plan participant knows little about investing.

I am leaving the financial advisory business to start a new website that we hope to release this summer. I hope that it will be the answer to the financial illiteracy problem we have and has been painfully illustrated with the housing crash, mortgage meltdown, and retirement savings collapse in the past year.

I agree that many 401K plans have inferior funds, or the fees on the funds are excessive. Having low cost index funds available inside all 401K plan offerings would be a good first step to fixing them. That said, you can still boost your returns by making a few allocation adjustments each year to capitalize on the shifts in equity/bond trends.

[...] originally wrote this article back in January for the Saving Advice Blog, but I’ve seen a lot of chatter recently about it again – including this issue of Time [...]

Three Points–
1) Even being in a “target date fund” would not have protected the hypothetical 55 year old from a significant (ie 20-30%) drop in thier account balance during 2009. Thus, the impulse to sell at the bottom would probably not be alleviated in the unsophisticated investor.
2) At the root of the problem is inadequate savings. Putting in 3 or 4% to get the employer match is not enough for the average person to maintain their standard of living through their retirement years (even ignoring inflation and assuming a 10% rate of return).
3) To Jeff’s comment above about investing in a Roth IRA instead of his employer sponsered plan due to high plan expenses. Assuming that you are giving up an employer match, you are cutting off your nose to spite your face. Put enough into the plan to maximize the match, and complain to management/ HR about the high fees within the plan–your company can move its plan to a more cost effective platform.