Behavioral effects of employer-sponsored retirement plans

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 251-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEVEN A. NYCE
Keyword(s):  
Perceived Value ◽  
Selection Effect ◽  
Employee Commitment ◽  
Pension Plan ◽  
Behavioral Effects ◽  
Independent Effect ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Retirement Plans ◽  
Attitude Survey

AbstractMany organizations have either already terminated their defined benefit (DB) plans or are thinking about it, in order to offload the financial and regulatory risks these programs pose. But plan sponsors should think carefully about how their decision might affect their workers' commitment and productivity – and ultimately their organization's success.To answer those and other retirement questions, Watson Wyatt set out to learn how DB and defined contribution (DC) plans affect employees' workforce behavior and decisions. Watson Wyatt's Retirement Attitude Survey (WWRAS) found that, while most workers value both types of plans very highly, workers with DB plans generally appreciate their retirement programs significantly more than those with only a DC plan. This was particularly the case for those with a hybrid pension plan. This analysis found that retirement plan generosity and effective communication strongly affect a plan's perceived value to employees. This has important implications for plan sponsors, since greater plan appreciation is strongly linked to employee commitment. In fact, we found that workers covered by a defined benefit plan express a very strong commitment to their current employer, while DC plan coverage has no effect on employee commitment. This is partly owing to a selection effect, whereby firms with DB plans tend to attract more committed workers. However, even after controlling for the selection effect, DB plans exert an independent effect on the likelihood that employees will stay with their employer.

How defined contribution plans and 401(k)s affect employer pension costs

2006 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
TERESA GHILARDUCCI ◽  
WEI SUN
Keyword(s):  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Pension Plan ◽  
Ordinary Least Squares ◽  
Pension Plans ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Defined Contribution Plans ◽  
Pension Costs ◽  
Administrative Expenses ◽  
Pension Contribution

We investigate the pension choices made by over 700 firms between 1981 and 1998 when DC plans expanded and overtook DB plans. Their average pension contribution per employee dropped in real terms from $2,140 in 1981 to $1,404 in 1998. At the same time, the share of their pension contributions attributed to defined contribution plans was 23% in 1981 and increased to 68% in 1998. By analyzing pension plan data from the IRS Form 5500 and finances of the plan's sponsoring employer from COMPUSTAT with a fixed-effects ordinary least squares model and a simultaneous model, we find that a 10% increase in the use of defined contribution plans (including 401(k) plans) reduces employer pension costs per worker by 1.7–3.5%. This suggests firms use DCs and 401(k)s to lower pension costs. Lower administrative expenses may also explain the popularity of DC plans. Although measuring a firm's pension cost per worker may be a crude way to judge a firm's commitment to pensions, this study suggests that firms that provide both a traditional defined benefit and a defined contribution plan are the most committed because they spend the most on pensions. Further research, especially case studies, is vital to understand employers' commitment to employment-based pension plans.

scholarly journals Considering Jumping Ship? A Pirate Looks At Retirement

2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Bob G. Kilpatrick
Keyword(s):  
Pension Plan ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
State University ◽  
Senior Faculty ◽  
Budget Cuts ◽  
Faculty Position ◽  
Maximum Benefit ◽  
Senior Faculty Member ◽  
The Right

If youre like me, a senior faculty member at a public state university facing significant budget cuts, recently youve probably thought about leaving your current position for another faculty position in a different state. A possible reason for considering jumping ship is envisioning a clearer picture of your retirement as it nears on the horizon a retirement that does not look quite what you had projected ten years ago, due to the that fact that you elected the defined contribution (DC) plan (often referred to as an optional or alternate retirement plan at universities) rather than the traditional defined benefit (DB) state employee pension plan when you first arrived at your university 20-odd years ago (which was the right choice, at that time, given the information availablekeep reminding yourself of that), and then seeing the value of that retirement account drop considerably two-three years ago. Although your retirement account may have mostly recovered, there are still those lost years of growth that may have you second-guessing your previous decision. Alas, that decision cannot be undone, but a new decision can be created by moving to another state. It is this possible decision that is the topic of this paper. What factors should be considered in choosing between the traditional DB plan and the optional DC plan for an individual who cannot necessarily reach the maximum benefit under the DB plan?

scholarly journals Use of Advisors and Retirement Plan Performance

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 342-356
Author(s):  
Rui Yao ◽  
Weipeng Wu ◽  
Cody Mendenhall
Keyword(s):  
Portfolio Allocation ◽  
Objective Measures ◽  
Retirement Savings ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Retirement Plans ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Retirement Plan ◽  
Research Gap

As defined contribution (DC) plans become more popular than defined benefit (DB) plans, American workers are increasingly responsible for their retirement savings. Because retirement plan participants' portfolio allocation is constrained by the available funds in the plan, the construction of a plan's investment menu has become extremely important. No research has evaluated fund selection in retirement plans or compared plans involving an advisor with self-directed plans. To fill this research gap, this study employs cross-sectional, nationwide data that include 5,570 retirement plans with 100 or more participants in 2013, 2014 and 2015. Results show that in most cases, using advisors is not related to plan performance. Plan sponsors should require advisors to periodically evaluate the performance of plans under their management using objective measures.

Why are US men retiring later?

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 442-457
Author(s):  
Wenliang Hou ◽  
Alicia Munnell ◽  
Geoffrey Todd Sanzenbacher ◽  
Yinji Li
Keyword(s):  
Social Security ◽  
Structural Model ◽  
Retirement Age ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Retirement Plans ◽  
Original Cohort ◽  
The Past ◽  
Retirement Timing ◽  
Retirement Study

AbstractOver the past two decades, the share of individuals claiming Social Security at the Early Eligibility Age has dropped and the average retirement age has increased. At the same time, Social Security rules have changed substantially, employer-sponsored retirement plans have shifted from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC), health has improved, and mortality has decreased. In theory, all of these changes could lead to a trend toward later claiming. Disentangling the effect of any one change is difficult because they have been occurring simultaneously. This paper uses the Gustman and Steinmeier structural model of retirement timing to investigate which of these changes matter most by simulating their effects on the original cohort (1931–1941) of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS). The predicted behavior is then compared with the actual retirements of the Early Boomer cohort (1948–1953) to see how much of the later cohort's delayed claiming and retirement can be explained by these changes. The Early Boomer cohort was less likely to be fully retired than the HRS cohort at both age 62 (36.7% vs. 44.0%) and age 64 (49.5% vs. 53.9%). The model suggests that the shift from DB toward DC plans was the biggest contributor to these declines, followed by better health. Social Security rules and improvements in mortality played smaller roles.

Financial Advice, Plan Choice, and Retirement Plan Satisfaction

2020 ◽  
pp. JFCP-18-00050
Author(s):  
Michael P. Ryan ◽  
Brenda J. Cude
Keyword(s):  
Risk Tolerance ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Retirement Plans ◽  
Retirement Plan ◽  
Defined Contribution Plans ◽  
Plan Choice ◽  
Public Sector Employees ◽  
Selection Of

Most private sector employees have access to defined contribution retirement plans while public sector employees often may choose defined benefit or defined contribution plans. This research utilized a survey of faculty to analyze retirement plan satisfaction. Advice from a financial planner was positively associated with satisfaction with portability. Retirement plan knowledge was negatively associated with satisfaction on the decision period. Selection of a defined benefit plan was positively related to four aspects of satisfaction and negatively related to regret. Financial planners assisting individuals who face such choices should acknowledge the decision's challenges and evaluate the client's level of retirement planning knowledge. Focusing on long-term goals and the client's investment and mobility risk tolerance may be helpful, especially after market corrections.

scholarly journals Lessons for public pensions from Utah's move to pension choice

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 285-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT L. CLARK ◽  
EMMA HANSON ◽  
OLIVIA S. MITCHELL
Keyword(s):  
Cost Savings ◽  
Pension Plan ◽  
The State ◽  
Defined Benefit ◽  
Defined Contribution ◽  
Public Employment ◽  
Potential Cost ◽  
Active Choice ◽  
Defined Contribution Plan ◽  
New Hires

AbstractWe explore what happened when the state of Utah moved away from its traditional defined benefit pension. In its place, it offered new hires a choice between a conventional defined contribution plan and a hybrid plan option, where the latter has both a guaranteed benefit component and a defined contribution plan where employees bear investment risk. We show that around 60% of new hires failed to make any active choice and, as a result, were automatically defaulted into the hybrid plan. Slightly more than half of those who made an active choice elected the hybrid plan. Post-reform, employees who failed to actively elect a primary retirement plan were also far less likely to enroll in a supplemental retirement account, compared with new hires who actively selected a plan. We also find that employees hired following the reform were more likely to leave public employment, resulting in higher separation rates. This could reflect a reduction in the desirability of public employment under the new pension design and an improving economic climate in the state. Our results imply that public pension reformers must consider employee responses in addition to potential cost savings, when developing and enacting major pension plan changes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document