August 14, 2005

THE BEFORE PHOTO:

Investors shoulder 401(k) risk alone: Average balances rebound, but many not saving enough (Charles Stein, August 14, 2005, Boston Globe)

Fidelity Investments had some good news to report about 401(k) plans recently -- at least it sounded like good news.

The mutual fund giant found that in 2004 the average balance in the 401(k) accounts it services rose 10 percent. At $61,000, the average participant balance is at the highest level since 1999 when it reached $64,000. ''We are encouraged by the results," said Steve Deschenes, executive vice president of Fidelity's retirement business.

Call me a pessimist, but I found the results discouraging. A retirement account of $61,000 isn't going to pay for many rounds of golf in the golden years. Even worse, as a result of the difficult stock market in 2001 and 2002, the typical investor has less money saved today than he did six years ago.

Welcome to the ownership society.

For most Americans, the 401(k) plan is the private retirement system. More than half of all workers have access to a 401(k). Only one in six is covered by a traditional defined benefit pension plan. Alicia Munnell says those old-style pensions, with their guaranteed benefits, will continue to wither away.

''Employers don't want to bear the risks," said Munnell, a retirement specialist at Boston College and the author of a good book about 401(k) plans called ''Coming Up Short."

In her book, Munnell argues that 401(k) plans have the potential to provide for a decent retirement, but that often, the actual results are disappointing.

Inexperienced investors make too many mistakes, she found. They save too little, invest in the wrong mix of funds and, all too frequently, withdraw their money for nonretirement needs, especially when they change jobs.

Those wounds are largely self-inflicted.


All of which is why, of course, the Ownership Society will require your contribution--and should that of your employer--limit your investment options, not allow such withdrawals, and replace the guaranteed SS benefit that everyone knows they have coming regardless of their 401k.

MORE (David Cohen): The article OJ posted has the flavor of a pessimist looking for something to be pessistic about. Knowing the value of the average Fidelity 401(k) is only interesting if we know other things about the average 401(k) holder:

Mutual Funds: Sticking to Your Plan: When It Comes to Investing For Retirement, Putting Portfolios on Autopilot Is the Key to Success (Meg Richards, AP, 4/21/05)

A recent study of 5 million households conducted by the Vanguard Group found the ill effects of the bear market are slowly working their way out of long-term portfolios, with a majority of 401(k) and individual retirement account holders finally showing positive returns.

Vanguard analyzed the historic returns of 401(k) and IRA investors for the five years that ended in December of 2004, essentially taking a snapshot of how 5 million households fared in the aftermath of the bull market. According to the survey, more than 80 percent of 401(k) investors and 70 percent of IRA investors made gains or at least broke even over the last five years.

Investors in 401(k) or other employer-sponsored defined contribution plans saw median five-year returns of 4 percent, and IRA investors had median returns of 3.2 percent.

Of course, that means a fifth of 401(k) investors and almost a third of IRA investors are still licking their wounds, said Stephen Utkus, head of Vanguard's Center for Retirement Research. But overall, the results suggest retirement investors are "out of the woods," and committed to investing, Utkus said.

"Most people feel they're making money again, or at least they should," Utkus said. "I'm not sure, psychologically, if we did a poll, people would think they'd recovered. But the numbers show things are looking good."

Balances Climbing With Returns

In addition to improved returns, the study found a double-digit rise in average balances over the last five years. Investors in 401(k) plans saw their balances rise 12 percent, to $65,216 at the end of 2004, and average IRA account balances rose 13 percent to $52,627.

The Vanguard study looked at the returns of 2.6 million participants in employer-sponsored plans, and 2.7 million investors in its mutual fund IRA program. On average, 401(k) investors were slightly younger and made less money than IRA investors. The median income for 401(k) investors, with an average age of 44, was $84,000; the median income for IRA investors, with an average age of 50, was $89,000.

In other words, the average 401(k) holder has 15 or 20 years to go before retirement. These last years before retirement, which typically come after the mortgage is paid off and the kids have been educated, are the big years for retirement savings. What's really interesting is that IRA holders are older, make more, but have less in their IRA's. The article suggests that this is because people play with their IRA's more than their 401(k)'s, where people "set it and forget it."

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 14, 2005 6:52 AM
Comments

What is missed entirely by the author's snide attacks on "individual responsibility" is the risk created by "Defined Benefit" plans such as state pensions, Social Security and even the private plans.

This is a moral risk that those in charge of the plans simply use the money to purchase influence, reward connected friends, and pay off interest groups. You see this in public & private plans.

Here in the Peoples Republic of IL, the constitution guarantees public pension benefits. This clause, combined with the "defined benefit" nature of the plans, has allowed the legislature to shower benefits upon protected classes (teachers, administrators) that bear no relation to actuarial reality.

There is now evidence that private companies representing both left (financial firms) and right (Carlyle group) have their fingers in the IL pension pot.

Private pension plans, supposedly more insulated from such "rent seeking" are in fact, no better. Enron employees where disallowed from diversifing until it was too late, while companies like United slough their pension liability off on the tax payer.

(United should have been forced into liquidation - with the proceeds from the sale of planes, gates, & reservation systems going to Pension Guarantee Fund)

____

The upshot is that the writer - who slavishly pines for the corrupt collective pool of money - is dead wrong. The personal plan (401(k), whether fully funded or not - is morally superior to the collective plan.

Posted by: Bruno at August 14, 2005 11:51 AM

replace the guaranteed SS benefit that everyone knows they have coming regardless of their 401k.

replace that with what?

Posted by: lonbud at August 14, 2005 1:03 PM

lb:

Essentially a government mandated 401k.

Posted by: oj at August 14, 2005 1:13 PM

One problem with this analysis is that the author assumes a 1:1 correspondance between people and accounts. Due to my work history, I have 5 separate Fidelity accounts (401K/IRA/Pension). My average is slightly higher than the article's, but my aggregate is significantly higher. Do I count as one person, or five?

Posted by: TimF at August 14, 2005 5:53 PM

There's no such thing as a "guaranteed SS benefit", according to the SCOTUS.

That's why private accounts are such an appealing idea; market risks are easier to bear than political risks, especially since Congress has made it very clear that they consider the SS "trust" fund to be a handy slush fund.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at August 15, 2005 1:48 AM
« WHO ELSE YA' GONNA BET ON?: | Main | NIKE DIPLOMACY: »