7/15/2013 2:45 PM ET|
Which is better: 401k or a pension?
Managed correctly and over a sufficiently long haul, 401k's can produce more money at retirement than traditional private-sector pension plans, new research suggests, though the risks are obviously higher.
Most people bemoan the loss of the traditional pension plan, and they cite its disappearance -- and the rise of the save-it-yourself 401k -- as key factors in the retirement crisis facing American workers. But new research suggests the new kid on the block is not to blame.
In fact, workers with 401k's in some cases are likelier to end up with more money at retirement than they would with a traditional private-sector pension plan, according to a study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan think tank in Washington.
Some people "have termed 401k's a failed experiment," said Jack VanDerhei, a research director at EBRI and author of the report.
"But it's just not what the evidence is suggesting," he said.
For example, lower-income workers who are now aged 25 to 29 and who remain eligible for their retirement plan for 30 to 40 years end up with a 15 percentage point higher income-replacement rate at retirement with a 401k than with a traditional pension plan, according to the study's median finding for that scenario.
"Replacement rate" means the percentage of annual income they'd be able to create from their account balance at retirement. (As an example, unrelated to the study, 80% of income is replaced versus 65%.)
A 401k is even more valuable for higher-income workers, the study shows.
Under the same scenario as above, but looking at workers who earn more, the difference in income replacement rates at retirement rises to 21 and 30 percentage points more for 401k's over pension plans, at the median, for people at the next two income quartiles.
The study found a hefty 44 percentage-point gain in favor of 401k's for workers at the highest income level, according to the median finding for the above scenario.
In the above scenarios, the EBRI study assumed historical rates of return on an equities and bond portfolio, and historical annuity costs. (In order to compare 401k's to traditional pension payouts, the research assumes that retirees purchase annuities at age 65.)
The report is based on data for more than 2 million plan participants, and accounts for the fact that not all people who have a 401k choose to save money in it.
If the study focused only on those who save, VanDerhei said, "that would clearly alter this and 401k plans would always do much better, especially for low-income workers."
But if you reduce the assumed rate of return, the traditional pension starts to look better for lower-income people, the study found.
For example, when the rate of return is decreased by 200 basis points, a 25- to 29-year old lower-income worker who is eligible for a plan for 30 to 40 years would see his income replacement rate at retirement with a 401k plan drop to 4 percentage points lower than he would have enjoyed with a pension plan, at the median.
For the next highest income group in the above scenario, their replacement rate with the 401k would be 1 percentage point less than with a traditional pension.
However, for the two highest-income groups, the 401k is still better: that plan provides a 6 percentage point and 15 percentage point replacement-rate benefit over the pension, at the median, even when a lower rate of return is assumed.
And combining the lower-return assumption with a higher-cost annuity assumption (reflecting the current low-interest-rate environment, which is substantially different from recent history), then traditional pensions look even better.
Also worth noting: Workers, of course, contribute to their 401k out of their own pocket, unlike the traditional pension plan, which is fully funded by the employer.
"There are different financing streams going on here, I admit that," VanDerhei said.
His focus was, he said, "from a retirement-income adequacy standpoint, which of these two [types of plans] seems to be providing larger retirement account balances?"
than he would have enjoyed with a pension plan, at the median.
He added: "The sole objective was to look at: 'Is Plan A or Plan B providing a larger source of retirement funds at age 65, not adjusting for how those are financed?"
In an ideal world, VanDerhei said, workers would have access to both a traditional pension and a 401k or similar defined-contribution plan.
"If you have both," he said, "then obviously you have less employee investment risk, you have less employee longevity risk and you still are giving employees the upside if they choose to participate in the 401k plan."
In his study, VanDerhei points to previous research that came to a similar conclusion: In many cases, retirement savers ended up with more money under a 401k than they did with a traditional pension plan. See the full EBRI report.
What was left out
The study is based on a robust sample of more than 2 million people. "I know what they're doing in their 401k plan. I know their salaries," VanDerhei said.
"Given the specific set of job changes and wage paths that I assumed for them under the 401k, I did the exactly same person, exactly same assumptions, and said: 'What would you end up with if you had a [traditional pension] plan?'" he said. "If you really do want to have a direct comparison of Plan A versus Plan B, I think it's helpful to actually track the same person under the two plans, and do the person by person comparison."
This study does not include workers who are automatically enrolled into their 401k by employers, though he said that would likely push the results even more in favor of such plans.
Also, the data looked at private-sector pension plans. It did not include public-sector plans. Doing so would have pushed the data more in favor of pensions.
"I can promise you I would get much different results had I done a public defined-benefit as opposed to a private defined-benefit comparison," VanDerhei said.
Public pension plans -- those offered by government entities -- generally offer more generous benefits than private-sector plans, and usually include cost-of-living adjustments in retirement.
More from MarketWatch
MORE ON MSN MONEY
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
Pension administrationis my profession. We expect rates of return of 8% a year and have exceeded that over the last decade. 9.435B TO BE EXACT. THAT INCLUDED 2008-2009, the worst year in the last fifty. The 401K scam will be the ruination of this country. Millions of mddle class workers with no retirment security, and it is right around the corner.
The reason you keep seeing stories trying to bolster the FAILED 401k experiment, is that financial planners make a FORTUNE off them and they want the 3-5 trillion dollars that are now "tied up" in traditional pensionas. Wake Up people, we are being screwed by Wall Street. They destroyed the housing market, and now they intend to destroy traditional pensions, or what's left of them.
Instead, you get to grow old while you worry about such things as the investment mix in your 401k (How are you investments doing? Should you change your portfolio? Is there going to be enough $$ to take care of you until you die?)...right up to the grave.
Show of hands: How many people long to be 90+ years old, in failing health, quite likely with failing mental capacity, and spending what little time they have left monitoring the stock market, checking their investments, reading the Wall Street Journal over breakfast, and running the calculations every time the stock market takes a dip?
For the benefit of the greedy among us who don't understand the rest of us: To a worker, having a defined-benefit pension was never about the total amount of money a retiree might collect BY THE TIME he/she died. It was about retirees being secure in the knowledge that their needs would be taken care of UNTIL died, regardless of how long that might turn out to be, because they would receive their retirement money every month until they died.
That arrangement held the promise of a retirement with dignity, unsaddled with the specter of possibly living long enough to end up pushing a shopping cart from dumpster to dumpster because the money ran out before death arrived.
I am fortunate to have both. But over twenty years my 401 has tanked several times. If I was having to live off my 401 one of those times there would be nothing left.
And tomorrow MSN will have an article complaining too employees will cash out their 401's when they leave their jobs (usually because they were fired due to "downsizing") to pay for groceries!
My husband is also fortunate to have both. At about $90 per year of service he'll get $2700 in his pension. On top of his 401K that hopefully will be at $300,000 at retirement time. I also will have both state pension and MUCH smaller 401K. Social Security who knows?! The house will hopefully paid off (or almost) by the time we're both done. Can't wait!!!!
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] Commodities are mostly higher this morning, while the dollar index is modestly lower.
Energy is in the red, except for natural gas futures, which is adding to its 4% gain last week, largely driven by unfavorable weather conditions in the U.S. Front-month natural gas futures (Jan contract) rose as high as $1.7% to $4.18/MMBtu and is now +1.6% at $4.18/MMBtu.
Jan crude oil is currently -0.1% at $97.52/barrel.
Metals are higher this morning with gold and silver ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|