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] A solid November employment report translated into a solid day of gains for the major averages. While there was some talk that the encouraging job growth raised the odds of the Fed announcing a tapering at its December meeting, the message of the markets today was either that it didn't believe there would be a tapering this month or that it doesn't fear a tapering this month.
It was just one day, yet there was ample meaning wrapped up in the connection that the 10-yr ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|