The DB(k): Pension of the Future

When hiring picks up again, this blend of defined benefit and 401(k) features will help snag top talent.

By Joan Pryde, Senior Tax Editor, the Kiplinger letters

August 19, 2009
Text Size T T

Advertisement

An attractive new option for employer sponsored retirement plans becomes available next year. The “DB(k)” offers businesses with 500 or fewer employees an opportunity to provide a strong retirement plan for their employees with fewer hassles and less financial drain than a traditional pension plan.

The DB(k) melds a 401(k) savings plan with a small guaranteed income stream. “You take the best of the defined benefit concept and put it together with a 401(k) plan,” says Lynn Dudley, senior vice president for policy with the American Benefits Council. The key elements of the plan:

  • A defined benefit equal to 1% of final average pay for each year of the employee’s service, up to 20 years.
  • An automatic enrollment feature for the 401(k) portion. Unless an employee specifically opts out or changes the contribution level, 4% of pay is automatically shunted into 401(k) savings.
  • An employer match of at least 50% of employee 401(k) contributions, with a maximum required match of 2% of pay.

To induce employers to participate: An exemption from “top-heavy” rules, which are used to ensure that a company’s retirement plans are not unfairly skewed toward high paid workers. In addition, the paperwork burden is much lighter for a DB(k) plan than if a company operates separate pension and 401(k) plans, says Martella Turner-Joseph, a pension actuary and a member of the board of the American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries. With the DB(k), a company need have only one plan document and file one Form 5500 -- the annual information return for benefit plans -- even though it is essentially operating two plans.

The DB(k), authorized by Congress as part of the 2006 Pension Protection Act, is designed to repair a flaw in the current retirement system. The 401(k), originally conceived as a supplement to employer paid pensions, has become many people’s primary source of retirement income. But even before the stock market slide of late 2008 and early 2009, there were fears that, for many workers, voluntary savings would prove woefully inadequate in retirement. Indeed, for a majority of workers with no pension plan, the lump sum 401(k) distribution they receive at retirement, even if managed well, may not last. So Washington policymakers set out to encourage a comeback in pensions, albeit much smaller pensions than in the past. The much more limited size is intended to ensure that employers won’t find their plan in need of considerable new funds, as so many pension plan sponsors have in the past several years.

While the economy continues to struggle, interest in DB(k)s will be light. With an unemployment rate soaring toward 10%, there’ll be no swell of companies rushing to adopt DB(k)s come Jan. 1, 2010, when the gate opens. But we expect the concept to pick up steam as the economy strengthens and competition for good workers again becomes keen. Indeed, there is already discussion among pension industry officials about pushing Congress to make DB(k)s available to larger companies, too.

For weekly updates on topics to improve your business decisionmaking, click here.

Discuss

Reader Comments (9)

Posted by: michael at 08/19/2009 08:54:32 AM

While this plan is a great idea for small family held companies to care for their long term employees, interst will be zero as long as some in congress are talking about seizing all of the private pension and 401k plans and pouring them into social security.

Posted by: Mike at 08/20/2009 10:38:46 AM

If there is a headwind for DBK plans it will be the existing 401(k) industry. Imagine a pre-401(k) retirement plan world in which defined benefit plans predominated. "Oh, you mean in a 100 life case, There is only one account - trustee directed!!" "How can I make any money in that situation?" Fact is, fear the government less than the 401(k)/404(c) crowd. At least the government tells you when tney are stealing your 401(k) savings.

Posted by: Jim at 08/20/2009 03:01:11 PM

No offense, Mike from 8/20, but 401k plans are entirely voluntary. The idea that the 401k industry is stealing your money is nonsense. None the less, assume your argument true and they are "stealing". 401k Plans do not have mandatory enrollment. You can opt out of deferrals, even in an auto enroll plan governed by the post-PPA regs(of course forfeiting any associated match potential). Employer profit sharing would still flow to the plan, if applicable. You are fully capable of not deferring and instead funding IRA's or annuities. Who's the fool, given your logic? Seems your beef perhaps instead is with plan fees and expenses a la the George Miller bill in House. There are many in the media, blogosphere, or comments sections like this that seem to confuse .5% to 2% aggregate recordkeeping, trustee, and investment fees with capital market losses. The problems of the last 18 months are pure capital markets and unrelated to any 401k industry fees nor the vehicle. Ask yourself this question? Has any investment vehicle (401k/403b, IRA, non-IRA, DB pension, endowment, even NQ plan) NOT been affected by downdrafts in capital markets? Wonder if those in the US Govt Thrift program or state pensions feel that the govt "stole" their money with 20-40% market losses? Something tells me a participant with 20-40% losses in ANY vehicle isn't really all that concerned with even 2% RK/Ttee fees (and most private plans don't pay anywhere near this). Furthermore, the fundamental problems with DB are not the benefits, the income stream, the perceived security, but the accounting and funding mechanisms. It is all on the employer, whether public or private. No risk to the participant. Forced to mark to market on corporate balance sheets via FASB rules. And if underfunded, which is probably 75% of plans right now, the cash flow contribution costs have gone geometric. What CFO or govt executive in their right mind would voluntarily subject themselves to a system stacked against them? There is a reason for DB terminations the last 30 years and it continues, even in state/federal govt circles. Anyone in the industry would know this. Off subject, I love 8/19 "michael's" comments. Right on! Just another thought. You wanna see capital market collapse? Just have Congress even provide a whiff of "seizure" of 401a/IRA vehicle assets to fund social security. Funny, I though there was a "trust" fund in a "lock box" (really bonds in file cabinet in WV).

Posted by: Michael at 08/21/2009 09:20:08 AM

The fact of the matter is that the cost (employee contribution expense and administrative) of a custom-designed DB/DC combined plan arrangement will be far less than that of a DBk. Something like a DBk might have been a good sell 10-15 years ago, but not today. The under 100-employee market wants more customization and tailoring and DBk is the exact opposite.

Posted by: Joy at 08/24/2009 08:16:24 AM

Congress keeps spouting off about how concerned they are with protecting EEs and retirement funds and that all of these new mandatory disclosures and new intiatives (i.e. DB(k)) are to help the employees. The average plan participant in a participant-directed 401(k) plan doesn't understand basic investing concepts, basic contribution concepts (pre-tax versus Roth), vesting (what do you mean I don't get to keep all of of MY money - I've been here 6 months), and more disclosure isn't going to help anyway. Now you want to throw a DB(k) in there and expect the employees to appreciate, understand, and welcome it - auto enrollment alone will tick them off and ruin any possible "good PR" you try and spin at the enrollment meetings. I agree with Jim - there's a reason DB plans have gone the way of the dinasaur.

Posted by: Joan Pryde at 08/25/2009 02:39:52 PM

Hi, I'm Joan Pryde, the author of the article. I appreciated learning the points of view expressed in the comments, especially from the folks giving the small business view of retirement plans. A comment about auto enrollment leads me to ask folks: Do you think that adding an auto enrollment feature to a 401(k) plan helps or hurts participation? What else can an employer do to encourage participation in the company's 401(k) short of using the auto enrollment idea?

Posted by: Allyson Smith at 08/25/2009 05:11:33 PM

I'm actually looking forward to learning more about this. In my previous company we had auto enrollment for our 401k which helped with our participation. Currently, we don't and we have very few participants that make less than 85K. Secondly, we have a safe harbor plan but due to the economic downtown we are investigating suspending our match which would make us subject to testing again (which we failed in the past due to the highly compensated employees making up the majority of the plan participants). For those reasons alone, I'm interested. I personally think younger employees will be encouraged by the guaranteed 1% because it offers some stability in an unknown area (they are typically the employees not enrolling in the plan). I also think most people don't see their 401k as the end all retirement solution and would likely supplement their IRAs, mutual funds, etc. with an employer sponsored program that would allow for easy rollover should they depart. Just my two cents.

Posted by: lucy at 09/09/2009 03:58:10 AM

it's spelled d i n o s a u r

Posted by: Joe Gordon at 12/04/2009 03:10:09 PM

Joan, Auto enrollment does help participation in 401(k) plans; all of the data and astudies support this. But, auto-enrollment for small employers may be a non-event becasue these same employers already may use another safe harbor available since 1999, the qualified non-elective 3% profit-sharing safe harbor, or the 4% matching safe harbor. Small business owners adopted one of these to eliminate deferral testing for HCEs. If they want to increase employee participation, they should match to a higher number, say 100% to 8% of pay.

Today's Video More Videos >>

Save Money in February

E-mail Alerts: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox:

Advertisement