Missing participants, defined as individuals who have become disconnected from their retirement savings – often through their own inaction – are a significant challenge that has long plagued defined contribution plans.  Unfortunately, the responsibility for locating these persons falls squarely on the shoulders of plan sponsors.

No retirement plan sponsor likes the idea of dealing with uncashed distribution checks, nor do they wish to draw unwanted regulatory attention or to become embroiled in costly litigation because of their uncashed check policies.

Unfortunately, many plan sponsors place themselves in precisely that spot, becoming unnecessarily over-burdened with unresolved uncashed checks, while inviting unwanted regulatory scrutiny and/or legal challenges by embracing flawed uncashed check policies.

A more-enlightened approach to managing the problem of uncashed checks seeks to minimize their numbers, while simultaneously steering clear of the “red flags” that could land them in hot water.

Policymakers and stakeholders in America’s defined contribution system have made important progress in advancing initiatives that could help to close the large racial wealth gap. While much of the groundwork has been laid, it will ultimately fall to retirement plan sponsors to make the difference by supporting four key retirement initiatives that will generate increased wealth and enhance retirement security for millions of America’s minority workers.

On the heels of the 11/7/23 announcement by the Portability Services Network that the industry-led consortium has launched its digital auto portability solution powered by Retirement Clearinghouse (RCH), RCH has made available the results from a new version of their Auto Portability Simulation (APS), a discrete event simulation that models the adoption of auto portability within America’s defined contribution system, over a 40-year period.

In general, legislation that gets more Americans saving for retirement is good. But if a great many of those incremental savers would likely cash out their savings immediately following a job change, then the public policy benefits might fall a bit short, no?

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 this five-part 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 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?