The Case Against 401(k) Automatic Enrollment

June 30, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (14)

Automatic enrolling workers in 401(k) plans is generally viewed as a way to get more employees to save for retirement. Instead of requiring workers to sign up and make investment choices, employees automatically have a portion of their paycheck set aside for retirement. These involuntary investors must take action only if they don’t want to participate or disagree with the default investment amount or allocation. A 2006 law made it easier for companies to automatically enroll employees in 401(k) plans. Since then, more employers have been automatically enrolling primarily new employees in 401(k) plans. However, contrarian Punam Anand Keller, a management professor at Dartmouth College’s Tuck School of Business, cautions that automatically enrolling all workers in 401(k)s or similar retirement accounts makes workers less responsible for their retirement decisions and doesn’t help people figure out how much they will need for retirement. U.S. News asked Keller to explain why workers who are automatically enrolled still need to pay attention to their investments. Excerpts:

What’s wrong with automatically enrolling workers in 401(k) plans?

It makes people less responsible for their own retirement decisions. A lot of employees who are automatically enrolled may think that their retirement is taken care of. People should be thinking about how much they have and how it is invested. How many of them are actually following up and seeing whether they will get a lump sum or an annuity or whether they are invested in a target date fund? It doesn’t tell people how much they are going to need to save for retirement. There is no savings goal. Without a goal it is very very hard to change people’s saving behavior. It doesn’t emphasize the consequences of saving or not saving for retirement. We don’t do enough education about the consequences of not filling this gap. With automatic enrollment, a lot of employers feel like it is a silver bullet and they are cutting back on financial literacy programs and I think that is inappropriate.

Should all employees be automatically enrolled at the same rate?

The current defaults adjust for salary and raises, but we have to put employees in segments and customize plans for them. Also, should we be automatically enrolling everybody? Should a 55-year-old be automatically enrolled? Should we be automatically enrolling low income employees who have a lot of debt and who may be visiting pay day lenders? Should we be automatically enrolling women with the same defaults as men without regard for household income? Should we have automatic enrollment in companies where you are encouraged to own company stock? Why are we only automatically enrolling new employees and not existing employees? Should we create different defaults for companies with a lot of low wage workers? We need to strike a balance between financial literacy and automatic enrollment.

How could automatic enrollment be made better?

We can do some things. We can require people to provide their savings goals. We can have separate education seminars for the young and old and males and females. Females often don’t want to go because they feel they don’t know as much as males and will be embarrassed. Males, when they are with females, will pretend they know more than they do. They also have different motives for saving for retirement. Females feel they have more of a prevention focus and men have more of a performance focus. Female employees are more worried about outliving their husbands and they don’t want to say all this in front of their male colleagues. This makes it very hard to have a good conversation. Women need to save more and need to know more about accumulation than men do because they are going to live longer.

If you’re automatically enrolled in your employer’s plan, what do you need to think about?

The problem with automatic enrollment is you don’t have to make any decisions and people don’t have any idea about matching versus not matching and what the level of the match is. It’s a very paternalistic system. People just don’t want to think about it. Automatic enrollment was designed to be just one part of your retirement savings along with your pension and Social Security. People are also going to have to open supplemental retirement accounts and make decisions about how much to save and how to invest and how to track it. If you take some financial responsibility for your own decisions you will be much better at crisis management than if you were automatically enrolled because you have some ability to know what is going on.

Tags:
retirement

Reader Comments Read all comments (14)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

I knew nothing about automatic 401k enrollment plans until recently, when I 'contracted' through an employer-of-record who had an automatic 401k enrollment policy. I view the automatic enrollment plans as extremely dangerous on several levels. First and foremost it is an extreme breach of privacy. Even if I 'opt-out' of participating, my personal and private information (e.g. SSN, DOB, address) has already been given without my consent to financial company that I have no interest in doing business with. I've been told that due to IRS and ERISA laws, once that financial company has my information, they can't purge it. Further automatic enrollment 401ks take choice away. Apparently, the government doesn't think you are intelligent enough to make informed choices about how you want your money spent. Further, let's say I already have an IRA that I diligently put money into every paycheck. And, let's say I am a contractor that also works with a second or third "employer-of-record" who also offer 401ks. Am I to be forced participate in and manage yet a 3rd or 4th retirement plan? Where is the wisdom in that? And, even if I opt-out, my personal and private data is still with that company. How exactly does this benefit me? Once again this is a typical example of the government creating a law that really only benefits the corporation, with little or no thought of how it will impact the individual consumer. Why am I not surprised this was something that was pushed through under Bush?

Mary of PA 4:58PM November 13, 2012

What if your company does not offer automatic enrollment? What laws cover that to convince your employer that this is necessary?

Teresa of NC 10:02AM May 17, 2012

Any time someone offers to automatically enroll you in something, supposedly "for your own good", you can be sure there's something in it for them. Yes, some companies will do a percentage match, but the thing no one talks about is that match is not really yours until you are fully vested. In my experience, getting to "fully vested" takes working 5 years at the company. LOL!How often does that happen anymore? I no longer believe in 401K's. I've had two, both companies laid me off so I had to cash 'em out in order to pay the bills. To add insult to injury, I had to take a penalty, pay out taxes, and of course, I didn't get but a tiny portion of the match. Somebody made a ton of money and it sure wasn't me.

Sherri of OK 6:26PM September 17, 2011

Planning to Retire

Senior editor Emily Brandon tells you how to get ready financially for retirement and to make your golden years the best they can be.

advertisement

Our retirement readiness calculator will provide a rough idea of how long your retirement savings and income will last.


advertisement