February 2007, Vol. 28, No. 2. Retirement Plan Participation and Asset Allocation, 2004, p. 2 New Publications and Internet Sites, p.

Transcription

1 NOTES Retirement Plan Participation and Asset Allocation, 2004, p. 2 New Publications and Internet Sites, p. 9 Executive Summary: February 2007, Vol. 28, No. 2 Updating previous EBRI research: This article updates previous EBRI research on asset allocation in defined contribution plans and individual retirement accounts (IRAs) using the latest data from the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), a triennial interview survey of U.S. families sponsored by the Federal Reserve in cooperation with the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The SCF measures the financial characteristics and status of American families. Sponsorship rate steady: From 1992, the percentage of family heads working for an employer that sponsored a retirement plan remained steady, at or just over 61 percent. Participation rate down: In 2004, 46 percent of working family heads participated in their employer s retirement plan, a drop of more than 2 percentage points from Defined contribution dominance continues to grow: There has been a significant increase in the percentage of family heads with a defined contribution plan (typically a 401(k)-type plan). In 2004, almost 26 percent of family heads who participated in an employment-based retirement plan had a defined benefit (pension) plan only, while 56 percent had a defined contribution (401(k)-type) plan only, while the remaining 18 percent had both a defined benefit and defined contribution plan. This was a significant change from 1992, when 42.3 percent had a defined benefit plan only and 40.8 percent had a defined contribution plan only. This trend toward more defined contribution plan use occurred across all employer sizes, but most of the shift occurred in the mid-1990s, with the shift leveling off recently. Small firms are seeing the biggest changes: The most significant changes occurred in the smaller firms, with increased or unchanged participation levels among family heads in these firms and larger shifts to defined contribution plans (mostly for employees of firms with 10 or more employees). Family heads in largest firms experienced less movement to defined contribution plans and a decline in their likelihood of participating in a plan. Asset allocation affected by individual account ownership: Besides typical demographic factors, the asset allocation that family heads apply to their retirement plan seems to be affected by their ownership of other types of retirement plans. Both those who own 401(k)-type plans and those who own IRAs are more likely to be invested all in stocks if they also own the other type of plan, although some of the difference related to IRAs is due to the high percentage of older IRA participants without a 401(k)-type plan. As family heads have more accounts or more wealth, they are more likely to be more invested in stocks. A monthly newsletter from the EBRI Education and Research Fund 2007 EBRI

2 g Retirement Plan Participation and Asset Allocation, 2004 By Craig Copeland, EBRI Introduction An important component of the assets that can help retirees achieve an adequate level of income security throughout retirement is the ownership of an employment-based retirement plan or funds that were accumulated in an employment-based retirement plan. Various data sources are available for measuring the percentage of workers with these types of plans, so that retirees potential income from these assets can be predicted. In particular, the EBRI-ERF Retirement Security Projection Model (RSPM) allows for estimation of the additional savings that current workers would need beyond savings that would be generated assuming existing saving behavior within tax-qualified plans in order to maintain the same standard of living throughout retirement. 1 To establish existing savings behavior, it is necessary to estimate the percentage of workers with an employment-based retirement plan, and to know the characteristics of workers with and without a plan the subject of this article. The March Current Population Survey (CPS), conducted by U.S. Census Bureau, has the most up-todate information on the percentage of workers with a retirement plan. 2 However, the CPS does not provide for a breakdown of the retirement plan types defined benefit and defined contribution for those participating workers. Previous EBRI research established the plan-type breakdown for families using the Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), which is conducted by the Federal Reserve Board. 3 This article builds upon that research to examine the plan-type breakdown by the characteristics of the participating family heads and their employers. The findings show that there has been a significant increase in the percentage of family heads with a defined contribution plan (typically a 401(k)-type plan). Consequently, the manner in which participants allocate their defined contribution balances among asset categories will have a significant impact on the funds available for these participants in retirement. While SCF does not provide the level of detail on asset allocation within 401(k) plans found in the EBRI/ICI Participant-Directed Retirement Plan Data Collection Project, 4 it does allow for the comparison of asset allocation within 401(k)-type plans when controlling for the existence of other tax-qualified retirement plans (such as defined benefit pensions and individual retirement accounts (IRAs)). To estimate future retirement income security, this article discusses the types of results that are incorporated in RSPM related to participation in employment-based retirement plans, and the asset allocation in defined contribution plans and IRAs. In addition, the article updates previous EBRI research on these topics that used the 2001 SCF with results from the 2004 SCF. 5 The SCF is a triennial interview survey of U.S. families sponsored by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Treasury, which measures the financial characteristics and status of U.S. families. 6 Retirement Plan Participation In 2004, according to the SCF, 61.0 percent of working family heads worked for an employer that sponsored an employment-based retirement plan, and 46.1 percent participated in one (Figure 1). 7 This level of participation is a drop of more than 2 percentage points from 2001, when 48.7 percent of working family heads participated in a plan. 8 From 1992 to 2001, the percentage participating had remained in a very small range, from just under 48 percent in 1995 to the high of 48.7 percent in The sponsorship (the percentage of those working for an employer that sponsored a plan) remained at or just over 61 percent from 1992 to Employer Size The likelihood of a working family head participating in a retirement plan increased with the size of his or her employer. In 2004, among family heads working for employers with employees, 25.4 percent participated in a plan. In comparison, 67.3 percent of family heads who worked for employers with 500 or more employees participated in a plan. From 1992 to 2004, family heads who worked for smaller and mid-sized employers (with fewer than 10 employees,

3 Figure 1 Percentage of Working Family Heads Whose Employers Sponsor a Retirement Plan, and the Heads' Participation, by Employer Size and Industry, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and Head Head Head Head Head Employer Partici- Employer Partici- Employer Partici- Employer Partici- Employer Partici- Category Sponsors pates Sponsors pates Sponsors pates Sponsors pates Sponsors pates (percentage) All 61.3% 48.3% 60.7% 47.9% 61.1% 48.3% 61.9% 48.7% 61.0% 46.1% Employer Size Fewer than 10 employees or more Industry Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries Mining and construction Manufacturing Wholesale and retail trade Finance, insurance, real estate, and business and repair services Transportation, communications, and personal and professional services Public Administration Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates of the 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances. Note: Employer Sponsors is defined as the percentage of workers employed by an employer who offers a retirement plan to any of its employees, but not necessarily the working head being studied. employees, or employees) had an increase in their likelihood of participating in a retirement plan, while those working for the largest employers (500 or more employees) or for employers with employees experienced a decrease in the probability of participating in a plan. Industry Family heads who worked for employers in public administration or manufacturing had the highest probability of participating in a retirement plan, while those working in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries had the lowest likelihood of participation. Among family heads working in public administration, 80.7 percent participated in a plan, compared with 9.4 percent of those working in agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. From 1992 to 2004, family heads working in public administration had the largest increase in their likelihood of participating in a plan (75.2 percent versus 80.7 percent). Those working in the finance, insurance, real estate, and business and repair services also had an increased likelihood of participating in a plan, while family heads working in the remaining industries experienced a decline in their levels of participation. Retirement Plan Types In 2004, 25.8 percent of family heads who participated in an employment-based retirement plan had a defined benefit plan only (Figure 2). Approximately 56 percent had a defined contribution plan only, while the remaining 18 percent had both a defined benefit and defined contribution plan. This was a significant change from 1992, when 42.3 percent had a defined benefit plan only and 40.8 percent had a defined contribution plan only. However, virtually all of the change occurred prior to Employer Size In 2004, family heads who worked for the largest employers were more likely to have a defined benefit plan (either alone or with a defined contribution plan) than those who worked for smaller employers. For example, 48.5 percent of participants who worked for an employer with 500 or more employees had a defined benefit plan, compared with 26.5 percent of participants working for an employer with employees. Consequently, workers for smaller employers who participated in a 3

4 Figure 2 Retirement Plan Type of Family Head Participants, by Employer Size and Industry, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and DB a DC b Both Any DB a DC b Both Any DB a DC b Both Any DB a DC b Both Any DB a DC b Both Any Category Only Only DB, a DC b DC b Only Only DB, a DC b DC b Only Only DB, a DC b DC b Only Only DB, a DC b DC b Only Only DB, a DC b DC b (percentage) All 42.3% 40.8% 17.0% 57.8% 27.2% 56.2% 16.1% 72.3% 21.3% 60.7% 17.9% 78.6% 21.3% 61.5% 17.1% 78.7% 25.8% 56.3% 18.0% 74.2% Employer Size Fewer than 10 employees or more Industry Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries Mining and construction Manufacturing Wholesale and retail trade Finance, insurance, real estate and business and repair services Transportation, communications, public utilities, and personal and professional services Public Administration EBRI Notes February 2007 Vol. 28, No. 2 Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates of the 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances. a Defined benefit. b Defined contribution. Note: The 2004 SCF revised the retirement plan identification variables, so the time series should be used with caution. plan had a higher likelihood of having only a defined contribution plan than those who worked for larger employers. Due to the change in the questions in the SCF, it is difficult to determine the trend in defined benefit plan versus defined contribution plan participation from However, the overall trend from has clearlybeen toward more definedcontributionplan use across all employersizes. Most of the shift occurred in the mid-1990s, with the shift leveling off recently. For example, 58.4 percent of retirement plan participants working for employers with 500 or more employees were in a defined contribution plan in This grew to 71.9 percent in 1995 and has held steady around 75 percent from 1998 through Furthermore, 37.1 percent of participants working for employers with workers were in a defined contribution plan in 1992, growing to 68.8 percent in This number then jumped to just over 90 percent in 1998 and has remained more than 80 percent in Industry Family heads who worked in public administration and participated in a retirement plan had the highest percentagewith a definedbenefit plan only, at 46.8 percent in The next highest percentage, 29.0 percent, occurred among those working in transportation, communications, public utilities, and personal and professional services. Family heads working in public administrationalso had the highest percentage with both a defined benefit and a defined contribution plan. Workers in the wholesale and retail trade industry had the highest percentage with a defined contribution plan only, at 75.5 percent. The percentage of retirement plan participants across all industries who had a defined benefit plan only declined significantly from While family heads who worked in manufacturing had the smallest percentage point drop in defined benefit plans, those in public administration had the lowest percentagechange. Workers in the transportation, communications, public utilities, and personal and professional services industries had the largest gain in the use of defined contribution plans from , with the percentage in this plan type increasing from 49.7 percent to 71.0 percent. Workers in public administration continued to lag behind workers in other industries in defined contribution participation increasing from 39.8 percent to 53.2 percent. Workers in the remaining industries had an increased likelihood of being in a defined contribution plan from but their growth lagged behind that of transportation communications, public utilities, and personal and professional services industry. 4

5 Asset Allocation in IRAs and 401(k)-Type Plans In the most recent survey, SCF refined the questions it uses to classify where IRA and 401(k)-type plan 12 owners invest their assets. Prior to the 2004 survey, very broad general asset categories were used: 1) mostly or all in stocks, 2) mostly or all in interest-earning assets, 3) split between stock and interestearning assets, and 4) other, although there were small differences in the classifications between the two types of accounts. 13 However, in the 2004 survey, the question asked if the assets were invested: 1) all in stocks, 2) all in interest-earning assets, or 3) split. If the respondent answered split, the percentage in stocks was then asked. 14 Therefore, the 2004 results are not directly comparable with results from the prior year surveys, but since the results in this study for 2004 have the percentage of assets invested in stocks reported by quartiles, a general comparison can be made against the more general categories. 15 The asset allocation within IRAs and 401(k)-type plans are compared across demographic categories and types of plans owned by percentage of assets invested in stocks. 16 Demographic Characteristics According to the SCF, among IRA participants, 29.0 percent had their assets invested all in stocks and 23.9 percent were invested in all interest-earning assets in 2004, while 401(k)-type plan participants had a virtually identical percentage of 29.1 percent invested all in stocks and 21.3 percent all in interest-earning assets (Figure 3). The percentage of participants with assets Figure 3 Percentage of Individual Retirement Account (IRA) and 401(k)-Type Plan a Family Head Participants in Various Asset Allocation Categories, by Family Head Characteristics, 2004 IRAs 401(k)-Type Plans a All Stock allocation All Stock allocation interest- 1% 26% 51% 76% interest- 1% 26% 51% 76% Category earning 25% 50% 75% 99% 100% earning 25% 50% 75% 99% 100% Total 23.9% 6.4% 19.8% 13.9% 7.0% 29.0% 21.3% 7.2% 21.4% 12.6% 7.9% 29.1% Family Income <10, b b b b b b $10,000 up to $25, $25,000 up to $50, $50,000 up to $100, $100,000 or more Age of Head < b b b b b b Education of Head No high school diploma High school diploma Some college College degree Race White non-hispanic Nonwhite Net Worth Percentile Bottom 25% % 49.9% % 74.9% % 89.9% Top 10% Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates from the 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances. a Sec. 401(k) plans are combined with Sec. 403(b) plans, Thrift Savings Plans, and supplemental retirement annuities. b Fewer than 10 observations. invested all in interest-earning assets decreased as family income increased for participants in both types of plans. For IRA participants, this percentage decreased from 40.0 percent among those family heads with family incomes of $10,000 up to $25,000 to 14.3 percent for those with family income of $100,000 or more. The percentage with all their investments in stocks was fairly consistent across income categories, but larger allocations to stocks increased as family income increased. 5

6 As family head IRA participants ages increased, the likelihood that they were invested all in stocks decreased. For those under age 35, 43.0 percent were invested all in stocks, compared with 27.5 percent of those ages and 12.4 percent of those ages 75 or older. Age did not have a significant impact on the probability of a 401(k)-type participant being invested all in stocks until the family head reached age 65, according to the SCF. 17 As the educational attainment of the family head increased, the likelihood decreased that IRA participants were invested all in interest-earning assets. Specifically, 51.5 percent of family head IRA participants without a high school diploma were invested all in interest-earning assets, compared with 19.1 percent among those with a college degree. This pattern also emerged for 401(k)-type plan participants. Among IRA participants, the race of the family head did not have a significant effect on the probability of being invested all in stocks, but white, non-hispanic family heads had a lower likelihood of being invested all in interest-earning assets. However, white, non-hispanic family head 401(k)-type plan participants were more likely to be invested all in stocks and less likely to be invested all in interestearning assets than nonwhite participants. The participants level net worth did not have a significant effect on the likelihood of being invested all in stocks, but the likelihood of being invested all in interestearning assets decreased as the percentile of net worth increased. This held for participants of both types of plans. Asset Allocation Comparison Among Plan Types As shown previously, the probability of being invested in various levels of stocks was similar for IRA and 401(k)-type plan participants. However, among IRA participants there seems to be a significant difference in the likelihood of being invested all in stocks or all in interest-earning assets that is related to whether they also own a 401(k)-type plan (Figure 4). Twenty-seven percent of those who did not own a 401(k)-type plan were invested all in interest-earning assets, compared with 16.6 percent of those who did own one. Among IRA participants who roll over assets, there is a lower likelihood of being all in interest-earning assets, relative to those IRA participants without rollover assets. Among 401(k)-type participants with or without an IRA, those without an IRA are more likely to be all invested in interest-earning assets and less likely to be all invested in equities (Figure 4). For those without an IRA, 23.6 percent were invested all in interest-earning assets, while 16.7 percent of those with an IRA were all in interest-earning assets. The 401(k)-type participants with an IRA were also more likely to have a stock allocation of more than half but less than all of their assets than were the 401(k)- type participants without an IRA. Asset Allocation by Defined Benefit Status and Account Balance Family heads who participate in both a 401(k)-type plan and a defined benefit plan are more likely to have more than half of their assets in the 401(k)-type plan invested in stocks than are 401(k)-type participants who are not also in a defined benefit plan, as 56.9 percent of those with a defined benefit plan had more than half invested in stocks, compared with 47.3 percent of those without a defined benefit plan (Figure 5). If the participant did not have a defined benefit plan but his or her spouse did, the percentage invested in stocks was not significantly affected by the spouse s participation, where non defined benefit participants with or without a spouse participating in a defined benefit plan were equally likely to have their 401(k)-type plan assets invested all in stocks and all in interest-earning assets. Perceived Value of Defined Benefit Plan For family head 401(k) participants with a defined benefit plan, the allocation to stocks did not follow a clear trend as the perceived value of the annual benefit from the defined benefit plan increased (Figure 5). Those with a perceived defined benefit value of less than $5,000 annually were most likely to be invested in either of the extreme allocations (all in stocks or all in interest-earning assets). Furthermore, participants with a perceived defined benefit value of $5,000 up to $15,000 annually were the most likely to have more than half of their assets invested in stocks (66.9 percent, compared with the next-highest of 61.1 percent for those with a perceived defined benefit value of $40,000 or more annually). However, those with a perceived defined benefit value of $15,000 up to $40,000 annually, as well as those of less than $5,000 annually, had similar probabilities having either less than or more than half of their 401(k)-type plan assets invested in stocks. Account Balance of 401(k)-Type Plan Family head 401(k)-type participants were more likely to have more than half of their account invested in stocks as the account balance increases to $50,000; 6

7 Figure 4 Percentage of Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and 401(k)-Type Plan a Family Head Participants in Various Asset Allocation Categories by Plan Types, 2004 All Stock Allocation Retirement Plan Type Interest- 1%- 26%- 51%- 76%- and Other Factor Earning 25% 50% 75% 99% 100% IRAs 23.9% 6.4% 19.8% 13.9% 7.0% 29.0% With 401(k)-type plan a Without a 401(k)-type plan a With rollover Without rollover (k)-Type Plan a With IRA Without IRA Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates from the 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances. a Sec. 401(k) plans are combined with Sec. 403(b) plans, Thrift Savings Plan, and supplemental retirement annuities. Figure 5 Percentage of Family Head 401(k)-Type Plan a Participants in Various Asset Allocation Categories, by Defined Benefit Plan Status and Account Balance, 2004 All Interest- 1% 26% Stock Allocation 51% 76% Category Earning 25% 50% 75% 99% 100% Family Head 21.3% 7.2% 21.4% 12.6% 7.9% 29.1% With defined benefit plan Without defined benefit plan Without defined benefit plan but spouse with one Head/Perceived Value of Defined Benefit Plan Less than $5,000 annually $5,000 up to $15,000 annually $15,000 up to $40,000 annually $40,000 or more annually Head/Account Balance Less than $5, $5,000 up to $20, $20,000 up to $50, $50,000 up to $100, $100,000 or more Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates from the 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances. a Sec. 401(k) plans are combined with Sec. 403(b) plans, Thrift Savings Plan, and supplemental retirement annuities. thereafter, the probability levels off, if not decreases, once the account balance surpasses $100,000 (Figure 5). Among 401(k)-type participants with an account balance less than $5,000, 39.2 percent had more than half of their account balance invested in stocks, compared with 59.1 percent of those with a balance of $50,000 up to $100,000. Furthermore, approximately 55 percent of those with an account balance of $100,000 or more had more than half of their account balance invested in stocks. Conclusion The percentage of family heads who participated in an employment-based pension or retirement plan remained basically unchanged from (at 48.7 percent) before declining by more than 2 percentage points in 2004 to 46.1 percent. Also, a dramatic shift occurred in the types of plans in which these family heads participated, as those with a defined contribution (401(k)-type) plan grew by more than 40 percent. The most significant changes occurred in the smaller firms, with increased or unchanged participation levels among family heads in these firms and larger shifts to defined contribution plans (mostly for employees of firms with 10 or more employees). Family heads in the largest firms experienced less movement to defined contribution plans and a decline in their likelihood of participating in a plan. Due to this increased defined contribution plan participation, the manner in which these participants allocate their assets within these plans could have a significant effect upon the funds they ultimately will 7

8 have available in retirement. However, even with increased experience and use of these types of plans, a need for more education of participants still appears to exist, as the distribution of participants invested in each proportion of stocks was found not to significantly vary with age until the participant reached age 65. Furthermore, higher educational attainment, income, and net worth are correlated with more investment in stocks. Historically, stocks have produced significantly higher returns than interest-earning assets. In addition to the demographic factors related to family heads, the asset allocation within a family head s retirement plan seems to be affected by his or her ownership of other types of retirement plans. Both those who own 401(k)-type plans and those who own IRAs are more likely to be invested all in stocks if they also own the other type of plan, although some of the difference related to IRAs is due to the high percentage of older IRA participants without a 401(k)-type plan. Ownership of a defined benefit plan also is correlated with an increased probability of a 401(k)-type participant being invested all in stocks. Consequently, as family heads have more accounts or more wealth, they are more likely to be more invested in stocks. While these results provide important information on behavior within retirement savings plans, they do not include the type of detail provided by the findings from the EBRI/ICI Participant-Directed Retirement Plan Data Collection Project. However, the results reported in this article help refine predictions of behavior within retirement plans that can be used both for policy decisions and in models such as RSPM to predict retirees future income. Therefore, more realistic estimates of future retirees financial status can be assessed, as policymakers face decisions on how to address the economic security issues arising from the upcoming retirement of the baby boom generation. Endnotes 1 See Jack VanDerhei and Craig Copeland, Can America Afford Tomorrow s Retirees: Results from the EBRI-ERF Retirement Security Projection Model, EBRI Issue Brief, no. 263 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, November 2003). 2 See Craig Copeland, Employment-Based Retirement and Pension Plan Participation: Geographic Differences and Trends, 2005, EBRI Issue Brief, no. 299 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, November 2006). 3 See Craig Copeland, Individual Account Retirement Plans: An Analysis of the 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances, EBRI Issue Brief, no. 293 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, May 2006). 4 See Sarah Holden and Jack VanDerhei, 401(k) Plan Asset Allocation, Account Balances, and Loan Activity in 2005, EBRI Issue Brief, no. 296 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, August 2006) for the latest results from this project. 5 See Craig Copeland, Retirement Plan Participation and Asset Allocation, EBRI Notes, no. 1 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, January 2004): See Brian K. Bucks, Arthur B. Kennickell, and Kevin B. Moore, Recent Changes in U.S. Family Finances: Evidence From the 2001 and 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances, Federal Reserve Bulletin, vol. 92 (February 2006), pp. A1 A38 for more detail about the Survey of Consumer Finances. 7 From Current Population Survey (CPS) data, the percentage of all workers participating in an employment-based retirement plan was 41.8 percent in 2002 and held virtually unchanged through 2004 at 41.9 percent before declining to 40.9 percent in These CPS levels are expected to be lower than the results for just family heads in this study, as the CPS results include younger workers and spouses with a lower likelihood of a strong attachment to the work force. See Copeland, November 2006, op. cit,. for further results from CPS. 8 A similar decline was found in the most recent results from CPS (Copeland, November 2006, op. cit.). However, an increase in participation was found from the Survey of Income and Program Participation as well as the National Compensation Survey conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. See Craig Copeland, Retirement Plan Participation and Retirees Perception of Their Standard of Living, EBRI Issue Brief, no. 289 (Employee Benefit Research Institute, January 2006) and Patrick Purcell, Pension Sponsorship and Participation: Summary of Recent Trends, CRS Reports for Congress, RL30122 (Congressional Research Services, August 2006) for further discussion of the different results from the various surveys. 9 These sponsorship rates and levels of participation cannot be used to calculate participation rates (percentage of retirement plan eligible workers who participate in the plan), as the sponsorship rate in this study includes any 8

9 worker who works for an employer that sponsors a plan regardless of his or her eligibility status. For participation rate trends from SCF, see Copeland, May 2006, op. cit. 10 The 2004 Survey of Consumer Finances questions on employment-based retirement plans were significantly revised from prior years surveys. One of the goals of these revisions was to better identify the type of plan in which the workers were participating. This includes differentiating between defined benefit and defined contribution, but also within the plan types. Therefore, a cash balance answer was added, and as well as a 401(k) plan, thrift saving plan, and 403(b) plan designation, among others, instead of just a 401(k)-type plan grouping as before. However, by including these revisions in the survey, the trends across plan types cannot be directly assessed. The revised questions appear to be better able to identify defined benefit plans, particularly hybrid plans such as cash balance plans. Therefore, the increased percentage of workers with a defined benefit plan found in this study is most likely due to better identification of plan type than to an actual change toward the adoption of defined benefit plans. 11 See endnote 10 for more discussion of the changes in the questions regarding employment-based retirement plan identification. 12 The term 401(k)-type plan is used in this study, since SCF combined Sec. 401(k) plans with Sec. 403(b) plans and supplemental retirement annuities into one category in surveys prior to For consistency purposes, the plans grouped in this publication to allow for a comparison with prior years. Thus, these are not pure 401(k) plan results. 13 Specifically, the choices of asset allocation for 401(k)-type plan participants were 1) mostly or all stock, stock in company; 2) mostly or all interest-earning, guaranteed, cash, bank account assets; 3) split between stock and interest-earning assets; and 4) other. The choices for IRA participants were: mostly in 1) CDs/bank accounts, money market accounts; 2) stocks, stock mutual funds; 3) bonds/similar assets, Treasury bills, Treasury Notes; and 4) other. For IRA participants, various combinations of 1) to 3) were also offered as choices, which allowed for the creation of a split category that was similar to that for 401(k)-type participants. 2) and 3) were also combined for IRA participants to make a category similar to that of 2) for 401(k)-type participants. The way the choices for IRAs were structured seems to bias the responses toward a choice of one of the particular assets instead of into the split between assets category. Thus, caution should be used in comparing the results for these two groups. 14 The type of interest-earning asset or stock is not differentiated from these questions. 15 See Craig Copeland, January 2004, op. cit. for results from the Surveys of Consumer Finances on asset allocation from 401(k)-type plans and IRAs. 16 This article does not examine the percentage of families or family heads who own IRAs or 401(k)-type plans. It only examines the asset allocation of those who do own such accounts. Copeland, May 2006, op. cit., found from the 2004 SCF that 27.8 percent of family heads owned an IRA/Keogh and 29.6 percent of all families had a member participating in a 401(k)-type plan. Furthermore, 31.3 percent of those family heads who owned an IRA had a rollover IRA, but 46.0 percent of the IRA assets were attributable to rollover IRAs. 17 Holden and VanDerhei, op. cit., found that the percentage of 401(k) participants invested in equities decreased as the participant became older after the initial jump from those in their 20s to those in their 30s. However, the percentage with the highest allocation of equities was fairly consistent among those in their 30s through their 50s, with a drop-off for participants in their 20s and 60s. g New Publications and Internet Sites [Note: To order U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) publications, call (202) ] Health Care Porter, Michael E., and Elizabeth Olmsted Teisberg. Redefining Health Care: Creating Value-Based Competition on Results. $35. Harvard Business School Press, Attn: Customer Service, 60 Harvard Way, Boston, MA 02163, (800) , fax: (617) , corpcustserv@hbsp.harvard.edu, Vogenberg, F. Randy, and Joanne M. Sica. Managing Pharmacy Benefits. Second Edition. IFEBP members, $47; nonmembers, $67 + S&H. International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans, Publications Department, P.O. Box , Milwaukee, WI , (888) , option 4; fax: (262) , books@ifebp.org, 9

10 Pension Plans/Retirement CCH Editorial Staff. Law, Explanation and Analysis of the Pension Protection Act of $79. CCH Incorporated, Book Order Dept., 4025 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL , (800) , fax: (800) , Orszag, Peter R., J. Mark Iwry, and William G. Gale. Aging Gracefully: Ideas to Improve Retirement Security in America. $ Brookings Institution Press, Hopkins Fulfillment Service, P.O. Box 50370, Baltimore, MD , (800) or (410) , fax: (410) , Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America. 49 th Annual Survey of Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plans. PSCA members, $125; nonmembers, $325. Profit Sharing/401(k) Council of America, 20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 3700, Chicago, IL 60606, (312) , fax: (312) , Social Security Reform U.S. Government Accountability Office. Social Security Reform: Implications of Different Indexing Choices. Order from GAO. Workplace Issues O Toole, James, and Edward E. Lawler III. The New American Workplace. SHRM members, $34.95; nonmembers, $ Society for Human Resource Management, 1800 Duke St., Alexandria, VA , (800) , option #1, shrmstore@shrm.org, shrmstore.shrm.org/shrm Saving and Investing Sites AARP Choose to Save Edelman Financial Services LLC The Future of Life-Cycle Saving & Investing [conference materials] smg.bu.edu/exec/elc/lifecycle/ Investing for Success Investing in Bonds Investment Company Institute Investor Education The Investor s Clearinghouse The Money Alert

11 NASD Web Documents 2006 Kaiser/Hewitt Retiree Health Benefits Survey Minimums and Maximums for High-Deductible Health Plans, Health Savings Accounts and Archer Medical Savings Accounts 401(k) Plans: A 25-Year Retrospective Adopting FAS 158 Practical Implications and Next Steps for Plan Sponsors [White Paper] df Building Futures Vol. VII: How Workplace Savings Are Shaping the Future of Retirement [A Report on Corporate Defined Contribution Plans] buildingfutures.fidelity.com/pdfs/full_version.pdf Health Savings Accounts in National Compensation Survey Data Indexed Numbers for 2007: IRS Dollar Limits, Social Security Factors and the PBGC Premiums and Guarantee Limit National Survey of Enrollees in Consumer-Directed Health Plans Pension Protection Act of 2006 [Public Law Resource Materials] Private Pension Plan Bulletin: Abstract of 2003 Form 5500 Annual Reports U.S. Department of Labor: elaws Health Benefits Advisor [new interactive health laws compliance tool] Use of Electronic Media for Providing Employee Benefit Notices and Making Employee Benefit Elections and Consents; Final Regulation

12 EBRI Notes i EBRI Employee Benefit Research Institute Notes (ISSN ) is published monthly by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, 2121 K Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC , at $300 per year or is included as part of a membership subscription. Periodicals postage rate paid in Washington, DC, and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to: EBRI Notes, 2121 K Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC Copyright 2007 by Employee Benefit Research Institute. All rights reserved, Vol. 28, no. 2. Who we are What we do Our publications Orders/ subscriptions The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) was founded in Its mission is to contribute to, to encourage, and to enhance the development of sound employee benefit programs and sound public policy through objective research and education. EBRI is the only private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, Washington, DC-based organization committed exclusively to public policy research and education on economic security and employee benefit issues. EBRI s membership includes a cross-section of pension funds; businesses; trade associations; labor unions; health care providers and insurers; government organizations; and service firms. EBRI s work advances knowledge and understanding of employee benefits and their importance to the nation s economy among policymakers, the news media, and the public. It does this by conducting and publishing policy research, analysis, and special reports on employee benefits issues; holding educational briefings for EBRI members, congressional and federal agency staff, and the news media; and sponsoring public opinion surveys on employee benefit issues. EBRI s Education and Research Fund (EBRI-ERF) performs the charitable, educational, and scientific functions of the Institute. EBRI-ERF is a tax-exempt organization supported by contributions and grants. EBRI Issue Briefs are periodicals providing expert evaluations of employee benefit issues and trends, as well as critical analyses of employee benefit policies and proposals. EBRI Notes is a monthly periodical providing current information on a variety of employee benefit topics. EBRI s Pension Investment Report provides detailed financial information on the universe of defined benefit, defined contribution, and 401(k) plans. EBRI Fundamentals of Employee Benefit Programs offers a straightforward, basic explanation of employee benefit programs in the private and public sectors. EBRI Databook on Employee Benefits is a statistical reference volume on employee benefit programs and work force related issues. Contact EBRI Publications, (202) ; fax publication orders to (202) Subscriptions to EBRI Issue Briefs are included as part of EBRI membership, or as part of a $199 annual subscription to EBRI Notes and EBRI Issue Briefs. Individual copies are available with prepayment for $25 each (for printed copies) or for $7.50 (as an ed electronic file) by calling EBRI or from Change of Address: EBRI, 2121 K Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20037, (202) ; fax number, (202) ; Publications Subscriptions@ebri.org. Membership Information: Inquiries regarding EBRI membership and/or contributions to EBRI-ERF should be directed to EBRI President/ASEC Chairman Dallas Salisbury at the above address, (202) ; salisbury@ebri.org Editorial Board: Dallas L. Salisbury, publisher; Steve Blakely, editor. Any views expressed in this publication and those of the authors should not be ascribed to the officers, trustees, members, or other sponsors of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, the EBRI Education and Research Fund, or their staffs. Nothing herein is to be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the adoption of any pending legislation, regulation, or interpretative rule, or as legal, accounting, actuarial, or other such professional advice. EBRI Notes is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. ISSN: /90 $ Did you read this as a pass-along? Stay ahead of employee benefit issues with your own subscription to EBRI Notes for only $89/year electronically ed to you or $199/year printed and mailed. For more information about subscriptions, visit our Web site at or complete the form below and return it to EBRI. Name Organization Address City/State/ZIP Mail to: EBRI, 2121 K Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC or Fax to: (202) , Employee Benefit Research Institute Education and Research Fund. All rights reserved.