A rapidly growing public policy concern facing the United States is whether future generations of retired Americans, particularly those in the Baby Boomer and Gen X cohorts, will have adequate retirement incomes. There have been several policy studies in recent years that suggest that the decreasing relevance of defined benefit (DB) plans relative to defined contribution plans (such as 401(k) plans) since the 1980s will have a negative impact on the percentage of future retirees who will achieve a specified level of retirement income adequacy.
Previous EBRI research reported on a comparative analysis of future benefits from private-sector, voluntary enrollment (VE) 401(k) plans and stylized, final-average-pay defined benefit plans.
This webinar will begin with a presentation by Jack VanDerhei, EBRI research director, that reviews new EBRI research that expands the previous research by computing the actual final-average DB accrual that would be required to provide an equal amount of retirement income at age 65 as would be produced by the annuitized value of the projected sum of the 401(k) and IRA rollover balances under automatic enrollment (AE) 401(k) plans.
However, the choice for employers is not binary. It is not DC versus DB. Rather, those are two end-points on a spectrum of designs that might prove to be a better approach to balance employer and employee needs and concerns.
In the second presentation by Stewart D. Lawrence, FSA, Senior Vice President, National Retirement Practice Leader, The Segal Group, we’ll look at that spectrum and focus on a few candidates for finding that middle ground.
Stewart D. Lawrence, FSA, Senior Vice President, National Retirement Practice Leader, The Segal Group
Jack VanDerhei, EBRI Research Director
Continue by clicking on the following link: