T. Rowe Price engaged NMG Consulting to conduct a national study of 3,016 retirement plan participants, 250 eligible non-plan participants, and 603 individuals without access to workplace savings plans. The online survey was conducted from June 13–25, 2019.
The first published segment of our research focuses on the relationship between 401(k) plan access and participation and the level of confidence savers have in their financial futures.
This second published segment of our research focuses on retirement income preferences and solutions.
Beyond products, plan sponsors and financial professionals can offer an experience to help participants make informed savings drawdown decisions.
- Confusion about different retirement income products creates an opportunity for traditional advice or advice-embedded retirement income solutions.
- Preference for managed payout accounts and annuities weaken as participants get close to retirement. Willingness to work with a financial professional increases at the same time.
- Participant preferences suggest that retirement income solutions need to evolve beyond products to provide participants with an experience that makes them confident about their choice.
401(k) Participants Want to Turn Their Assets Into Income but One in Four are Unsure About How to Manage Their Investments
The shift from defined benefit to defined contribution plans has placed shared burdens on the employee and employer to solve for retirement income. That means there is ample opportunity for plan sponsors and financial professionals to help participants make better choices.
Once upon a time—as the fairy tale goes—deﬁned beneﬁt (DB) pension plans were the norm among employers and generated suﬃcient retirement income for all.
However, the past frequently appears rosier in the collective memory.
Even when DB plans were more commonplace, not every worker had a DB plan, and not every plan provided a livable income. However, DB plans provide a simpler experience for participants in retirement. Money set aside by the DB plan sponsor provides a paycheck for life, and DB plan participants don't need to make complicated decisions about how to arrange for ongoing income.
In recent years, deﬁned contribution (DC) plans like 401(k)s have overtaken DB plans as the most popular workplace savings vehicle for most employees. Recent research from the Employee Beneﬁt Research Institute (EBRI) found that the percentage of private-sector wage and salary workers who participated in a DB plan decreased from 28% to 1% between 1979 and 2018. During that same time period, the percentage of individuals participating in DC plans increased from 7% to 40%.1
The shift from DB to DC plans has placed shared burdens on the employee and the employer for solving for retirement income. Plan sponsors are expected to oﬀer solutions. Employees then have to decide which solution can help them generate a “paycheck” throughout retirement.
The ﬁnancial services industry has put a lot of energy, education, and communication toward teaching people how to save for retirement, and it has done a lot of good. Perhaps more importantly, plan sponsors have increasingly adopted auto-services (i.e., auto-enrollment, auto-escalation, etc.) to make it easier for plan participants to save for retirement.
A similar “auto income” feature can simplify the participant experience after retirement. However, most DC plans lack a default “auto income” feature.
Because savings decisions in DC plans are often automated, saving for retirement may be an easier proposition for individuals than deciding how to spend down their nest egg. People saving for retirement need to make two crucial decisions: how much to save and how to invest the savings. Workplace retirement plans like 401(k)s have increasingly made these decisions easier by creating defaults that auto-enroll people to save and invest in investments (including target date investments) that are age- and risk-appropriate.
On the other hand, generating retirement income may require a deeper assessment of longevity risk, market risk, and inﬂation risk, as well as an understanding of tax implications. Yet many people are left to fend for themselves in this critical phase.
It’s almost like they’ve been dropped oﬀ in the middle of a bus route with no directions and left to their own devices to navigate the rest of the journey on their own. While the conversation continues on what can be done to address income needs, the challenge continues to grow.
More people saving in DC plans means that more will need to ﬁnd their own way. DC plans may be well suited to meet this need by incorporating solutions that can help the transition to income so retirees can meet their spending needs.
How to Create the “Best” Retirement Income Strategy?
Part of the complexity in presenting a solution is that there is no such thing as a “best” retirement income strategy or an ideal one-size-ﬁts-all approach. People have diﬀerent needs and preferences, so their retirement income strategies may include a variety of solutions—such as managed payout solutions, systematic withdrawals, immediate annuities, and deferred annuities, etc.
That’s easier said than done.
Even though plan sponsors have tried to educate, research has shown that a large number of Americans still lack basic ﬁnancial literacy, which aﬀects their retirement planning.2 So introducing a plethora of complicated ﬁnancial products and strategies to them at a time when they are most concerned about not making a ﬁnancial mistake only increases their ﬁnancial stress is counterproductive.
The ﬁrst step to solving the retirement income needs of workers is to understand their knowledge and preference regarding liquidity, ﬂexibility, and risk tolerance.
T. Rowe Price’s most recent Retirement Savings and Spending Study examined these topics for preretirees who are saving for retirement in a 401(k) plan.
What Do People Really Want?
In our survey, we posed a question to preretirees age 50 and older about how they would allocate a hypothetical amount of retirement savings ($500,000) at retirement across four options:
- Invest in a managed payout mutual fund
- Invest in an immediate annuity
- Invest in a deferred annuity
- Manage on their own or with an financial professional’s help
One number immediately jumped out from the responses: One in four preretirees were not sure if they would invest in any of these products or if they should manage their money on their own. In our question, we provided detailed explanations of these investment solutions with relevant examples, but people were still confused. Explaining these products and strategies is part of the challenge.
More than eight in 10 preretirees have a goal to manage a strategy that converts their assets into an income stream in retirement. In simpler terms, they want to create a paycheck from their own savings. But when asked about individual retirement income solutions like a managed payout fund, an immediate annuity, or a deferred annuity that would meet that goal, the majority of preretirees say they are either not sure or won’t put any money in these choices.
So while the desire to create a paycheck is there, the appeal of individual retirement solutions is low—this is the gap that needs to be bridged.
There could be other reasons, beyond unfamiliarity, behind the aversion to certain retirement income solutions.
For example, while guaranteed income is an appealing idea in theory, we see that consumers balk at the point of purchasing an annuity. Some aren’t sure if it’s a fair product for the money,3 and others might be concerned about liquidity. Also, the lack of knowledge and understanding of these products could be a key barrier toward the adoption of these solutions.
So what does all this mean?
Download the full article to learn more and uncover opportunities for Plan Sponsors and Financial Professionals.
1 “Putting Numbers to the Shifting Retirement Landscape,” Plans, EBRI Fast Facts, https://www.ebri.org/docs/default-source/fast-facts/ff-344-retplans-23jan20.pdf?sfvrsn=8063d2f_6, January 23, 2020, #344.
2 Lusardi, Annamaria and Mitchell, Olivia S., “Financial literacy and retirement planning in the United States,” Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(04), pages 509–525, October 2011.
3The Pivotal Role of Fairness: Which Consumers Like Annuities?,” Shu, Suzanne B.; Zeithmamer, Robert; Payne, John W., Dec. 7, 2018. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/cfp2.1019#d21735373
This material is provided for general and educational purposes only and is not intended to provide legal, tax, or investment advice. This material does not provide fiduciary recommendations concerning investments or investment management. This material is provided for informational purposes only and is not intended to be investment advice or a recommendation to take any particular investment action.
The views contained herein are those of the authors as of June 2020 and are subject to change without notice; these views may differ from those of other T. Rowe Price associates.
All investments involve risk. All charts and tables are shown for illustrative purposes only.
© 2020 T. Rowe Price. All rights reserved. T. Rowe Price, INVEST WITH CONFIDENCE, and the bighorn sheep design are, collectively and/or apart, trademarks of T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
T. Rowe Price Investment Services, Inc., Distributor.