More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Jane White

Jane White

GET UPDATES FROM Jane White
 

So Much for a "Best 401(k) Plan" Ranking: Apparently It's None of Your Business

Posted: 05/24/11 09:12 AM ET

Like millions of her peers, my daughter graduated from college last weekend and I'm already nagging her about participating in the 401(k) plan at the university where she's working as a research assistant until she starts grad school. Needless to say, she's rolling her eyes at my nagging.

It amazes me that job hunters don't evaluate their future employer's retirement plans. While I understand that many young people are happy to have ANY job in this stinky economy -- as Arianna Huffington pointed out, the unemployment rate for those age 16 to 24 is more than 18% -- if you have a choice you should make "deferred compensation" as high a priority as the size of your paycheck. As I've pointed out in previous posts, the vast majority of 401(k) participants will have to stay on the job AT LEAST another 10 years beyond the normal retirement age because of the typical puny 3% employer matching contribution, the second lowest in the advanced world, a necessity that's not disclosed to them.

This week I had hoped to launch the first annual Best 401(k) list, citing those employers who make generous 401(k) matching contributions. Unfortunately, when I asked a company that rates retirement plans to come up with some data, I learned that many of their findings were inaccurate. And I couldn't research this because while employers who offer these plans are required to file Form 5500s in order to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and there's a website called Free-Erisa.com where these forms can be found, the generosity of the plans isn't in the form but in the "auditor's report," which isn't on Free-ERISA.com.

Unfortunately, the best I could do was fact-check a handful of "Fortune 50" companies and it appears that none of America's richest companies contribute the equivalent of 9% of pay as every employer except the self-employed are required to do in Australia. Here goes: Chevron offers a dollar per dollar match, up to 8% of pay, for Marathon and Exxon Mobil the match is 7%, and for IBM and Citibank it's 6%. (I disqualified any company whose matching contributions are made in company stock).

If you think that newer high-tech companies are more generous, think again. When I contacted Apple and Google, which have been known to lure programmers with generous paychecks, media representatives at Apple didn't return my calls and a Google spokesperson said it was "unable to participate." So I found out Google's benefits myself by -- surprise, surprise -- googling "Google" and "benefits" and finding out that their 401(k) plan features the typical measly 50% matching contribution up to 6% of compensation (a similar search for Apple's plan didn't turn up anything.)

Google CEO Sergey Brin should realize if he wants to attract more future Sergeys he ought to offer them the deferred compensation they deserve, not just gyms, laundry rooms and massage parlors. If Google and other frugal companies aren't willing to offer adequate retirement plans, they ought to be required to make their stinginess public so that prospective and current employees can look elsewhere.

 
 
 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 15
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
07:13 PM on 05/26/2011
A prospective employee interviews with a firm, and asks about the 401k and any matching contributions by the employer. They get the information they want from the interview, and use that info to determine if they take the job or not.Seems pretty simple to me. But now the writer of this article wants to pass a law that requires employers to post how their retirement plans work? C'mon.
05:26 PM on 05/25/2011
I am hoping that players like SigFig (http://www.sigfig.com) will soon be providing greater visibility into the very opaque world of investment.

Ari Nave
arinave.com
02:54 PM on 05/25/2011
There is a good article on 401k plans in the current issue of Forbes magazine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Langley
Successful Beer Guy
12:24 PM on 05/25/2011
Matching funds are important, but so is an ability to "manage my funds". Remember when they were being rolled out in a big way 401k's and their public equivalents placed a big emphasis on "YOU Invest" your retirement funds", "just like a private investor would",...yeah, whatever. The employer supposedley has a fiduciary duty to make available funds that perform at a comparably reasonable level vs. other investments. Can you buy commodities when those prices move, like oil traders? Can you buy investment grade commodities like gold and silver? If the compensation was "paid" instead of "deferred" I could buy those items, but in a 401k, we assume good intentions flowing from the fiduciary responsibilty peice,...ask those Enron employees about that. Put my money in a tax free money market fund that I can invest how I SEE FIT. Then we'll have something. Otherwise, it's just more corporate big brother working with their buddies/fellow board memebers to keep corporate conditions favorable and shirking responsibilities to employees. Oh, what's that you say, they could get audited? Yeah,....right. If we don't audit the guys who print the money you think we'll audit every corporation that offers a 401k?
11:40 AM on 05/25/2011
the matching is only a small part of it. i would like to see the average return on investment that participants receive. i recall the 401k of a previous employer that had terrible funds to choose from so you would be more inclined to take company stock.

by the way, when compared to australia, google's plan is a kinda lame but more and more companies are doing away with the match entirely. it is sad to say, but the 50% match up to 6% (employee puts in 6% of gross salary and employer matches with 3%) is positively generous these days.

please shine more light on this dark subject.
10:22 AM on 05/25/2011
"Google CEO Sergey Brin should realize if he wants to attract more future Sergeys he ought to offer them the deferred compensation they deserve, not just gyms, laundry rooms and massage parlors."

I strongly doubt that Brin's personal career decisions were influenced at all by retirement compensation issues. Retirement concerns are the fixation of the sort of time servers that Brin isn't going to want in his organization. The gyms, laundry rooms and massage parlors are designed to enhance performance now; not cater to the donkey following the carrot hung in front of their nose for 40 years. If a primary motivation for you is a pension; then you are no Sergey Brin.
SeriesSeven
Libs Love Unproven Counterfactuals
10:04 AM on 05/25/2011
Sorry, but I'm not quite seeing the point of the article. It's one thing to argue that employee benefits as a whole are inadequate. It's another thing to say that the employee benefits are not discoverable by prospective employees.

You'd think someone was a complete idiot not to ask what the potential salary is for a position when they go in for an interview. The same should be said for the benefit plans, a major feature of which is the 401k matching. Any company will disclose full details of their benefits to any prospective employee. This stuff isn't secret. Benefits are just as relevant to your choice of employer as salary is (or at least it should be). If you don't like the benefits an employer provides, or think that you can get better benefits elsewhere...don't work for them.
04:05 PM on 05/24/2011
A bigger issue than the amount of the employer match is the program itself. I have seen quite a few plans, especially in the public sector, that are managed by "who are these guys?" plan administrators, at high cost, with few investment choices. Employees should always look to see whether their prospective employer is using someone like Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab or other broad based service provider to ensure low cost and a wide selection of investments.
03:47 PM on 05/24/2011
From the most recent Apple 10K, available at www.sec.gov:

"Employee Savings Plan

The Company has an employee savings plan (the “Savings Plan”) qualifying as a deferred salary arrangement under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. Under the Savings Plan, participating U.S. employees may defer a portion of their pre-tax earnings, up to the IRS annual contribution limit ($16,500 for calendar year 2009). The Company matches 50% to 100% of each employee’s contributions, depending on length of service, up to a maximum 6% of the employee’s eligible earnings. The Company’s matching contributions to the Savings Plan were $59 million, $50 million and $39 million in 2009, 2008 and 2007, respectively. "

Presumably available for every other public company in the same place.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Jane White
10:53 AM on 05/25/2011
How is this in the 10K? I couldn't find it. What's more, the 10k's purpose is to describe the stock's performance and future risk, not the benefits the company offers.
12:13 PM on 05/25/2011
The 10K has more information in it than you can imagine -- plant locations and sizes, employees, all manner of financials, and a full description of employee benefit plans, such as pensions, 401k's, etc. I only looked at Apple because it was mentioned in the article but I'll go look for another and post a link.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Under Fed yet Fed Up
Business operator
02:22 PM on 05/24/2011
Although a good 401K program can go a long ways towards assisting with retirement expenses a savy person will understand that it will take more than Social Security and a good 401K to have a luxurious retirement.

My first full time permanent job out of college was before there were 401K's. But the company had an excellent profit sharing program. A few years later when 401K's became popular, this company had a meager "me too" program. After seven years of employment, until the company was sold, I received generous profit sharing contributions. After seven years, the amount in my profit sharing fund was greater than my gross pay for all seven years.

Today I run my own company. I have a respectable but ordinary 401K program: dollar for dollar up to 4% of pay. But I kick back 50% of company profits to the profit sharing plan. My employees have a chance to do extremely well.

My point is, look at the entire compensation package, including profit sharing and bonuses, when assessing the value of a job.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
frank day
Republican = FAIL
02:46 PM on 05/24/2011
Indeed, many smaller companies offer better total compensation packages than

Fortune 500s do.