California, fund industry spar over automatic retirement savings plan Secure Choice

The Investment Company Institute blasts the state over its plans to exclude mutual funds from the proposed Secure Choice program

Aug 10, 2016 @ 11:40 am

By John Waggoner

The Investment Company Institute, the mutual-fund trade organization, has offered several reasons why California shouldn't offer a low-cost retirement plan for most private-sector workers that would be devoid of, lo and behold, mutual funds.

California's Secure Choice retirement program is edging towards passage in its legislature. The program would have employers with five employees or more automatically enroll their workers in a state retirement program similar to an individual retirement account. Employees could opt out at any time and, at least initially, the monies collected from each employee's paycheck would be invested in a pool of Treasury securities — rather than mutual funds.

The rationale: 7.5 million Californians work for employers who don't offer a retirement plan, and 66% of those people work for small businesses. While all workers can open IRAs, few of those without employer retirement plans do so.

Among the groups supporting the bill are AARP, the Asian Business Association and the Los Angeles Latino Chamber of Commerce. The ICI, naturally, is not among those groups.

On Monday, the Washington, D.C., based trade group issued a press release slamming the bill. “California Governor Jerry Brown should carefully examine the costs and risks of legislation to implement the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program and stop it before it is implemented,” the release said.

“Secure Choice — as currently structured — does not present a viable means of expanding meaningful retirement savings for private-sector workers in California and carries tremendous risks that could put taxpayers on the hook for a bailout,” wrote ICI President and CEO Paul Schott Stevens. “The analysis used to advance this legislation paints an overly optimistic picture of this program's success and dangerously understates the economic risks to the state of California. Implementing Secure Choice as it stands now could damage California's fiscal health and create a new financial liability for state taxpayers.”

The ICI's full letter runs 68 pages and cautions that the proposed program would also be subject to the new Department of Labor's new fiduciary rule for retirement accounts. The ICI also cautions that the state plan could have problems under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

California officials disagree. “We didn't learn anything new from the letter,” said Marc Lifsher, a spokesman for the California Treasurer. “In March, the board that oversees putting together Secure Choice reported their findings that it was legally and financially feasible. They (the ICI) keep saying that taxpayers will be on the hook, but the law specifically says the state is not liable for the condition of the fund. It's like any IRA or 401(k): Its value will depend on market conditions.”

Financial services companies have been fighting the bill since at least 2012. Is the ICI simply trying to protect fund companies who might want inroads to the small-company 401(k) plan market?

“They seem to think this is a universe of potential customers, but this is not a group that has been served well in the past, nor have they been eager to avail of traditional retirement services,” Mr. Lifsher said. "They're not saying, 'Sign me up for an IRA.' A lot don't even have checking accounts. If the industry had been serving this group of people so well in the past, we wouldn't be having this problem.”

“Workers, employers, and California taxpayers should be very concerned about this program," said ICI Chief Economist Brian Reid. "The state is forcing businesses to enroll workers in a complex plan charging fees well above the private-sector average that will deliver questionable retirement savings to participants. More can—and should—be done to strengthen the voluntary private-sector retirement system to help those who want to participate, but currently do not own an IRA or 401(k). This work should be done at the federal level. We have identified a number of risks inherent in the Secure Choice program, which could ultimately leave California taxpayers on the hook to cover costs if the program does not work as envisioned.”

0
Comments

What do you think?

View comments

Recommended for you

RIA Data Center

Use InvestmentNews' RIA Data Center to filter and find key information on over 1,400 fee-only registered investment advisory firms.

Rank RIAs by

Upcoming Event

Oct 23

Conference

Women Adviser Summit - San Francisco

The InvestmentNews Women Adviser Summit, a one-day workshop now held in four cities due to popular demand, is uniquely designed for the sophisticated female adviser who wants to take her personal and professional self to the next level.... Learn more

Featured video

INTV

What it took to win an Excellence in Diversity & Inclusion Award

Editor Fred Gabriel and special projects editor Liz Skinner explain how InvestmentNews chose the winners of our inaugural Excellence in Diversity & Inclusion Awards.

Latest news & opinion

Gotcha! 10 lessons from brokers gone bad

These cases show why regulators nabbed reps and firms, and how to avoid their fate.

Tax-credit investigation may trip up Wells Fargo

Justice Department is investigating bank's dealings in tax credits for low-income housing, sources say.

10 biggest boomtowns in America

These metro areas are seeing the biggest influx of people, work opportunities and business growth.

SEC ponders creating video to help investors decide between investment adviser and broker

Chairman Jay Clayton has suggested the host on the video would deliver similar information as conveyed on disclosure Form CRS.

Genworth raises long-term-care insurance costs an average 58%

The cost increases, approved by regulators in the second quarter, affect roughly $160 million of in-force premiums.

X

Hi! Glad you're here and we hope you like all the great work we do here at InvestmentNews. But what we do is expensive and is funded in part by our sponsors. So won't you show our sponsors a little love by whitelisting investmentnews.com? It'll help us continue to serve you.

Yes, show me how to whitelist investmentnews.com

Ad blocker detected. Please whitelist us or give premium a try.

X

Subscribe and Save 60%

Premium Access
Print + Digital

Learn more
Subscribe to Print