Blog

At Retirement Clearinghouse (RCH), we’re excited about the 2020 prospects for auto portability.  Before we’re too far into a new decade, we wanted to pause, take a breath and share with you some highlights from 2019, a year that’s positioned the newest automatic, default plan feature for widespread adoption.
 

• In Part 1, I examined the dramatically improved participant outcomes that will result from a program of auto portability.
• In Part 2, I described how auto portability, by enhancing and extending automatic rollover programs, represents an enhanced standard of participant care.

In Part 3, I present evidence that the adoption of auto portability could lead to a reduction in plan expenses.

In this series, I identify five key reasons why an auto portability program serves the best interests of plan participants.

Previously, in Part 1, I examined the dramatically improved participant outcomes that will result from a program of auto portability.

In Part 2, I describe how auto portability, by enhancing and extending automatic rollover programs, represents an enhanced standard of care for participants.

Plan sponsors considering the adoption of auto portability must determine that, by participating in the auto portability program, they are acting prudently and solely in the interests of their plan’s participants and beneficiaries.

Over the past few years, we’ve written extensively about auto portability -- what it is, how it works and the significant, positive impact it will have on the retirement security of working Americans.  Our positions have been supported by research, predictive models (including EBRI’s RSPM) and real-world results from the initial implementation of auto portability.

In this article, we address an important retirement public policy question: How would a pairing of auto portability with open multiple employer plans (or “open MEPs”) impact the retirement savings of America’s minorities, and particularly, African-Americans?

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. 

For job-changing 401(k) participants with balances greater than $15,000, it was the spring of financial wellness, as the bulk of their retirement savings would remain intact.  For less-aristocratic 401(k) savers with balances below $15,000, it was the winter of despair, as most of their savings would be lost on the cashout chopping block or forcibly exiled to a safe harbor IRA, where more savings would perish.

The problem of missing participants continues to receive a great deal of attention from plan sponsors, industry advocates, regulators and politicians.  All parties are keen to address the negative outcomes that result when job-changing 401(k) participants leave behind their accounts with former employers, relocate and fail to update their address.

Research has conclusively demonstrated that retirement savings portability dramatically reduces 401(k) cashout leakage, preserves retirement savings and reduces the incidence of missing participants. With that in mind, it’s not surprising that recent retirement public policy activities are increasingly focused on various aspects of portability.

How Big is the 401(k) Cashout Leakage Problem? 

We’ve known for some years now that 401(k) cashout leakage is a very big problem, but have lacked a thorough understanding of its many dimensions. 

In 1989, New York real estate developer Seymour Durst wanted to highlight America’s rising national debt, and came up with an idea: the National Debt Clock. Since then, the National Debt Clock has had a physical presence as a billboard near Times Square, serving as a constant reminder to Americans of their government’s ever-growing debt.