Re: Wage stability and inequality: I went and looked at a couple of papers from the Social Security studies. They seem to be focused on wages and salary earned as reported on W2s, which makes sense because that is what Scoial Security FICA taxes are based on. However, the inequality with CEOs and others is not because their salaries are bigger; it is because they get founder-like stock option grants as part of their compensation. Unless they make a fast grab for that money so it is "non-qualified", that wealth and income never gets reported on W2s or entered into the Social Security database. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucebrumberg/2019/01/22/tax-time-making-sense-of-form-w-2-when-you-have-stock-compensation/?sh=27b9854e2ab3
The stock option grants are now so big that dilution of shares due to them is one of the key reasons for companies to do stock buybacks (instead of paying cash dividends). https://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/041702.asp
"If you are managing public pension money, this all gets a little more dicey. The so-called woke investment backlash was inevitable. When you take taxpayer money (which they have to guarantee) and invest it in your favored causes, you should be subject to more scrutiny." You want a lack of scrutiny? Gaze upon all the foundations,many unknown to most of the public, that are left wing activist. Start with the Ford Foundation.
In my opinion, the biggest benefit of DB plans is that they manage the longevity risk whereas in the DC plans, the individual has to do it him/herself or hire a financial advisor to do that- a better way to do it. 401K/DC plans offer more some flexibility but with limited choices as to where the money is invested depending on the 401K plan and most plans offer an independent advisor to manage the money in which case there is better alignment with the plan and the individual's needs/goals. With a DB plan, which I was also a part for a while and I ended rolling up transferring all my balance to my IRA because I literally had no control over the investment choices and it was not tailored to my needs/goals as the big pool of portfolio is managed by portfolio managers subject to big institutional constraints where the money invested.
I suppose some people can't roll their crappy 401k (limited choices, etc) over into an IRA because they stay at their employer. But given that the average tenure at a job is dropping fast, this becomes less and less of a problem.
401ks are regulated under ERISA and therefore the plan sponsor (employer) has a fiduciary responsibility unlike brokerage IRAs or 403bs (public sector, non-profits). Employee lawsuits over the past decade or so have made it clear to plan sponsors that they needed to improve.
My employer started taking the fiduciary responsibility very seriously about 10 years ago and the quality of the choices improved dramatically. There aren't a lot of choices, but they are all pretty good ones providing substantially opportunity for diversification with low to very low expenses. The many ways that the plan managers were previously siphoning money off vanished, so much more money remains in the employee's pocket to be re-invested. Changes in default options means that somebody not really paying attention can get very good long-term results now.
Simplicity of options is under rated as a benefit. Many people freeze when given too many choices and end up making poor ones. 401k pre-selected high quality options simplify that process for many employees. The option quality and selection is vastly better today than my first 401ks in the 1980s.
I'm a youngster so I only have the past decade and a half to judge, but it seems to me that even in the past 10 years options have gotten much better. I've only had 403b's and a lot of the time they are halfway decent.
403bs are not regulated under ERISA and therefore don't have a fiduciary standard automatically required. Some plan sponsors make sure there are good options; others don't. Some 403bs are on the verge of larceny for the expenses buried in them. My spouse was able to select one that had inexpensive Vanguard options with a 0.35% record-keeping fee for a total ER of about 0.5%, so a bit more expensive than my 401k but much better than 401k options from 20-30 years ago. Others on her list to choose from typically have expenses of 2% or more by the time the sales charges, record-keeping, fund ERs, etc. were all added up.
These plans are essentially accidents of history where some Congress person has an idea and gets it stuck in the tax code somewhere. Then it takes a life of its own and evolves. Once financial companies figure out that there is LOTS of money involved, they hire massive teams of lawyers and lobbyists to ensure that their share of it is maximized without unfortunate things like fiduciary regulations getting in the way. The insurance companies have been able to protect 403(b)s to date as they were the primary people selling annuities etc. at the beginning of 403(b)s. The public sector employer is able to claim that they are not actually a plan sponsor or contributor and therefore have no fiduciary responsibility.
401(k) was just a minor provision in the 1970s that started getting implemented to help attract employees. As life expectancy of seniors grew, corporate pension plan liabilities began to explode and they looked for a life raft, which the 401(k) was able to provide. Since the companies contribute money to the plan in lieu of a pension plan, they assume a fiduciary responsibility.
How do we get our leaders to do math in public instead of just pushing the same old policy solutions. Just seems like math may help us minimize reutilizing the garbage can theory
Re: Wage stability and inequality: I went and looked at a couple of papers from the Social Security studies. They seem to be focused on wages and salary earned as reported on W2s, which makes sense because that is what Scoial Security FICA taxes are based on. However, the inequality with CEOs and others is not because their salaries are bigger; it is because they get founder-like stock option grants as part of their compensation. Unless they make a fast grab for that money so it is "non-qualified", that wealth and income never gets reported on W2s or entered into the Social Security database. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucebrumberg/2019/01/22/tax-time-making-sense-of-form-w-2-when-you-have-stock-compensation/?sh=27b9854e2ab3
The stock option grants are now so big that dilution of shares due to them is one of the key reasons for companies to do stock buybacks (instead of paying cash dividends). https://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/041702.asp
"If you are managing public pension money, this all gets a little more dicey. The so-called woke investment backlash was inevitable. When you take taxpayer money (which they have to guarantee) and invest it in your favored causes, you should be subject to more scrutiny." You want a lack of scrutiny? Gaze upon all the foundations,many unknown to most of the public, that are left wing activist. Start with the Ford Foundation.
In my opinion, the biggest benefit of DB plans is that they manage the longevity risk whereas in the DC plans, the individual has to do it him/herself or hire a financial advisor to do that- a better way to do it. 401K/DC plans offer more some flexibility but with limited choices as to where the money is invested depending on the 401K plan and most plans offer an independent advisor to manage the money in which case there is better alignment with the plan and the individual's needs/goals. With a DB plan, which I was also a part for a while and I ended rolling up transferring all my balance to my IRA because I literally had no control over the investment choices and it was not tailored to my needs/goals as the big pool of portfolio is managed by portfolio managers subject to big institutional constraints where the money invested.
I suppose some people can't roll their crappy 401k (limited choices, etc) over into an IRA because they stay at their employer. But given that the average tenure at a job is dropping fast, this becomes less and less of a problem.
401ks are regulated under ERISA and therefore the plan sponsor (employer) has a fiduciary responsibility unlike brokerage IRAs or 403bs (public sector, non-profits). Employee lawsuits over the past decade or so have made it clear to plan sponsors that they needed to improve.
My employer started taking the fiduciary responsibility very seriously about 10 years ago and the quality of the choices improved dramatically. There aren't a lot of choices, but they are all pretty good ones providing substantially opportunity for diversification with low to very low expenses. The many ways that the plan managers were previously siphoning money off vanished, so much more money remains in the employee's pocket to be re-invested. Changes in default options means that somebody not really paying attention can get very good long-term results now.
Simplicity of options is under rated as a benefit. Many people freeze when given too many choices and end up making poor ones. 401k pre-selected high quality options simplify that process for many employees. The option quality and selection is vastly better today than my first 401ks in the 1980s.
403bs remain a significant issue.
I'm a youngster so I only have the past decade and a half to judge, but it seems to me that even in the past 10 years options have gotten much better. I've only had 403b's and a lot of the time they are halfway decent.
403bs are not regulated under ERISA and therefore don't have a fiduciary standard automatically required. Some plan sponsors make sure there are good options; others don't. Some 403bs are on the verge of larceny for the expenses buried in them. My spouse was able to select one that had inexpensive Vanguard options with a 0.35% record-keeping fee for a total ER of about 0.5%, so a bit more expensive than my 401k but much better than 401k options from 20-30 years ago. Others on her list to choose from typically have expenses of 2% or more by the time the sales charges, record-keeping, fund ERs, etc. were all added up.
I'm not sure why ERISA exempted 403b's. Any idea?
These plans are essentially accidents of history where some Congress person has an idea and gets it stuck in the tax code somewhere. Then it takes a life of its own and evolves. Once financial companies figure out that there is LOTS of money involved, they hire massive teams of lawyers and lobbyists to ensure that their share of it is maximized without unfortunate things like fiduciary regulations getting in the way. The insurance companies have been able to protect 403(b)s to date as they were the primary people selling annuities etc. at the beginning of 403(b)s. The public sector employer is able to claim that they are not actually a plan sponsor or contributor and therefore have no fiduciary responsibility.
401(k) was just a minor provision in the 1970s that started getting implemented to help attract employees. As life expectancy of seniors grew, corporate pension plan liabilities began to explode and they looked for a life raft, which the 401(k) was able to provide. Since the companies contribute money to the plan in lieu of a pension plan, they assume a fiduciary responsibility.
DOL info on 403(b) plans and ERISA: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/key-topics/retirement/403b-plans
DOL info on 401(k) plans and ERISA:
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/key-topics/retirement/401k-plans
How do we get our leaders to do math in public instead of just pushing the same old policy solutions. Just seems like math may help us minimize reutilizing the garbage can theory