Skip to main content

Participant Outcomes vs. Participation Rates: How to Succeed in Both Areas

Until recently, participant outcomes were not a great concern to most plan sponsors; even now, a relatively few number of plan sponsors use income replacement as a measure of plan success. A recent survey conducted by PLANSPONSOR magazine showed just 3.5% of plan sponsors use projected retirement income as a metric to assess their plans.1 Instead, the goal was to offer a plan with good investment choices, competitive fees, and a recordkeeping platform that would minimize the administrative burden on the employer.

Due to industry pressures and technology advances, the unbundling of these programs has driven down administrative costs and provided better choices to employees. However, the decisions of if and how to participate in the plan remain with the employee. The same factors contributing to lower administrative costs and improved investment selection also drove an increase in the complexity of the plan, at least as perceived by the employee. Although plans were now “better,” they did nothing to reduce the impact of participant inertia.

Certainly, plan sponsors have no obligation to help employees achieve their retirement goals. Yet, a recent survey conducted by Deloitte Consulting, LLC, showed that 62% of plan sponsors “feel that our responsibility includes taking an interest in whether our employees are tracking towards a comfortable retirement.” 2 Given this sentiment, there are several steps plan sponsors can initiate to improve the likelihood of retirement readiness for their employees.

When asked, participants often say they want and need help in two areas of retirement planning: 1) how much to save and 2) how to invest their money. A growing percentage of participants would be more than happy to completely pass off their retirement planning to someone else to manage.

A recent study by Aon Consulting found that participants should save 15% of their pay, including employer contributions, over their working career to provide adequate retirement income.3 Such contribution levels, in conjunction with Social Security, would provide 85% pre-retirement income replacement, an amount considered sufficient to maintain the same standard of living in retirement. To the extent participants wait to enroll in the plan or enroll at lower contribution levels, the required contribution amount increases.

In addition, often participants lack knowledge about making investment allocation decisions. Faced with an often confusing set of multiple investment options, participants often make investment decisions resulting in inadequate diversification and heightened risk exposure.

Plan sponsors have a fiduciary responsibility to ensure the investment options included in their plan are appropriate and the fees being paid are competitive. These actions go a long way to ensuring the plan being offered is a “good” one. However, the focus cannot just be on funds and fees. A lineup of five-star, low-cost funds becomes irrelevant if employees are not participating in the plan or are not making the right investment decisions. A well designed contribution formula combined with “auto” features can significantly improve participation rates as well as participant outcomes, often at little or no increase in cost. Plan sponsors can then take their plan from being good, to being one that works.

* * *

This article addresses some steps plan sponsors can take to improve participation rates and outcomes within defined contribution retirement plans. To read about other plan design changes that can improve participant readiness, read Improving Participant Outcomes: An Action Plan for Plan Sponsors available. If you have any questions, or would like to begin talking to a retirement plan advisor, please get in touch by calling (800) 388-1963 or e-mail us at

1 2012 PLANSPONSOR Defined Contribution Survey.
2 Deloitte Consulting, LLC, Annual 401(k) Survey Retirement Readiness, 2010 Edition.
3 Aon Hewitt Consulting, The Real Deal – 2012 Retirement Income Adequacy at Large Companies.

Popular posts from this blog

SECURE 2.0 Discussion Series: Session One

SECURE 2.0 provisions: What we know and what’s still up in the air The SECURE 2.0 Act, signed into law in late December 2022, has factored heavily in retirement industry discourse since the final legislation was published. As with any legislation of this depth and breadth, there’s a lot to digest and the industry takes time to adjust. Our team of experienced advisors recently met to discuss some of the more nuanced provisions of the legislation, such as changes to Roth contributions, and what they could mean for plan sponsors. Panel participants included the following HBS team members: Noah Buck, Christina Bauer-Dobias, Sean Bayne, Vincent Bocchinfuso and Kathleen Coonan. Highlights of our panel’s conversation below should serve to help guide plan sponsor thinking. On Roth employer contributions NB – In addition to deferring pre-tax or Roth, plan sponsors can now allow employer contributions to be classified as Roth, is that right? VB – Correct. This is immediately available to plan s

COVID-19: Retirement and Benefit Plan Resources

As the COVID-19 crisis continues to unfold, we are closely monitoring news and updates from top sources. We’ll be updating this section as new developments unfold. Here are several key articles and links to help plan sponsors and administrators navigate the COVID-19 impact to retirement and benefit plans: Retirement Plans 4 Key CARES Act Provisions for Retirement Plan Sponsors Markets React to Coronavirus   Important Considerations for Retirement Plan Sponsors during the Coronavirus Pandemic In Fed We Trust Participant Education Services: Timely Help from a Safe Distance CRDs 100% Taxable for New York State and Local Income Tax Purposes in 2020 IRS Permits Remote Notarization of Participant Elections   Employee Benefits CARES Act Expands Health Coverage Rules Understanding the Historic $2 Trillion Stimulus Package Employee Compensation and Benefits During Closures and Furloughs DOL Clarifies Exemptions to Coronavirus Paid Leave Laws Small Business Exemption to

SECURE 2.0 Discussion Series: Session Two

The retirement industry has been buzzing since the SECURE 2.0 Act was signed into law last December. This new, comprehensive legislation has sparked a lot of discussion. As with any major reform, it will take time for the industry to fully adapt and understand all its implications. Following our April 11 webinar on the first three months of the industry’s response, our team reconvened to discuss some of what we have heard from our client and vendor partners and to respond to some of the great questions we heard from attendees. Panel participants included the following HBS team members: Noah Buck, Christina Bauer-Dobias, Sean Bayne, Vincent Bocchinfuso and Kathleen Coonan. The Discussion SB – Throughout the webinar, I wanted to stress two things: 1) confusion about where to start and what is expected from plan sponsors is normal; and 2) even more than three months in, this is a developing situation and people should expect changes as time goes on. With those in mind, engagement through