How Does Your 401K Compare

[keegs]

Sorry if this did the rounds already...I didn't see it in a search though

BrightScope | 401k Plan Ratings

 

[ronocnikral]

"highest in peer group." i didn't know our plan has $11.7B in assets...no wonder vanguard gives us admiral shares on low balances.

 

[keegs]

We do / have done poorly on participation rate and payroll deferrals. We score real well on company generosity and plan fees. We're a young company. Average age is probably mid-thirtes. I don't think the young ones have saving for retirement high on their list of priorities.

Fidelity manages the fund. They don't coordinate the company's plan (funds of funds) with their online tools very well so minor things like asset allocation data are usually all screwed up.

I've mentioned it a few times at both sides and got nowhere.

 

[HornedToad10]

88.

All great's with one above average.

 

[braumeister]

Very interesting.
DW, who is still w*rking, is in a plan rated 70.

Thanks for the link!

 

[aaronc879]

72. I didn't think our plan was that good but it could be worse.

 

[Alan]

I believe someone posted this link last year and I e-mailed our HR manager the link. He had not realized the site existed. He confirmed the data was accurate as of 2 years earlier and was very pleased I'd brought it to his attention. (our company ranked very highly). I also e-mailed the link to a few friends at work so I'm sure it cascaded to lots of others.

Those of you who feel comfortable doing so may want to forward the link onto your company also. I think it is good for them to know that their plans are available for comparison to the world.

 

[neihn]

87 with 24.8B in plan assets.

 

[Alan]

81 - top 15% of its peer group.

I'll be rolling my 401(k) to an IRA early next year.

 

[DblDoc]

A 42 - mostly because of "average" participation and "poor" deferrals. I'm not surprised. Many coworkers stopped contributing in 2008 and haven't restarted yet. This indirectly lowers my benefits as they are calculated based on some formula for the amounts "non-highly compensated employees" contribute each year . The locums job helps as I can contribute to a SEP IRA and increase my tax deferred savings annually.

DD

 

[ziggy29]

80 here.

 

[photoguy]

I don't think the rating system is very good. My prior employer got a 77 and the 401K options were terrible with very high fees (some as high as 1%). My current employer is with vanguard and got 76.

 

[stoutboy]

Is there a way to see how the TSP ranks?

This is quite interesting by the way. I have to wonder why so many companies choose what appear to be quite expensive 401k providers, rather than going with Vanguard or Fidelity. These decisions end up costing their employees 100,000s in lost retirement savings.

 

[target2019]

My company plan gets an 83, with 15 billion in the plan. Company will have serious problems this coming year as shareholders continue to give up dividends to make up the shortfall. Also disturbing is that over 25% of the plan is invested in company stock. #2 investment is stable value (20%), which is yielding 2%. Co. stock is down 10% and will continue to decline (defense).

The brightscope site is interesting, especially if you dig into the numbers. I posted a question about expenses, but never got a clear answer. Our published expenses are quite low. I think it may even be vanguard institutional shares. However, brightscope publishes estimates of additional expenses never discussed by the plan. You see this if you create an account, and enter your funds and balances.

 

[DblDoc]

I don't think the rating system is very good. My prior employer got a 77 and the 401K options were terrible with very high fees (some as high as 1%). My current employer is with vanguard and got 76.

It factors in more than the choice of funds. See my post above. I have access to institutional shares of Vanguard and Spartan index funds but my plan still scores low secondary to poor participation and deferral.

DD

 

[powerplay]

Is there a way to see how the TSP ranks?

This is quite interesting by the way. I have to wonder why so many companies choose what appear to be quite expensive 401k providers, rather than going with Vanguard or Fidelity. These decisions end up costing their employees 100,000s in lost retirement savings.

Just type in "Thrift Savings Plan", it's rated at 65.

 

[foxfirev5]

My company is rated a 75. They match 70 percent of your first 10 with excellent options in Vangaurd Inst Class Funds at .05-.07 exp ratio. However, they are knocked down for low participation. Cna I help it if I work with a bunch of dumb #!$@%#

 

[keegs]

Didn't something pass a few years back allowing companies to make participation the default for new hires? I wonder how many have responded to that.

I know during the SS privatization debate there were reports of research determining how participation rates could/would improve if it were the default.

I get dinged on the HCE limitation too, which as was mentioned, is set by some factor of total company contributions.

 

[ronocnikral]

My company is rated a 75. They match 70 percent of your first 10 with excellent options in Vangaurd Inst Class Funds at .05-.07 exp ratio. However, they are knocked down for low participation. Cna I help it if I work with a bunch of dumb #!$@%#

my company matches 4:1 up to 8% (you contribute 2%, they give 8%). you'd have to be absolutely insane not to put 2% in.

 

[stoutboy]

Just type in "Thrift Savings Plan", it's rated at 65.

Thanks! I think that 65 rating is too low. It dings TSP for a low participation rate, but I believe participation in TSP is mandatory--every fed employee gets at least 1 percent fed match, and the gov is now auto-enrolling all new hires.

If the TSP does have a weakness, it is that it does not have an emerging markets index.

One surprise--not just for TSP, but for numerous other plans I looked at, are the low average account balances.

 

[keegs]

Thanks! I think that 65 rating is too low. It dings TSP for a low participation rate, but I believe participation in TSP is mandatory--every fed employee gets at least 1 percent fed match, and the gov is now auto-enrolling all new hires.

If the TSP does have a weakness, it is that it does not have an emerging markets index.

One surprise--not just for TSP, but for numerous other plans I looked at, are the low average account balances.

Ours was in the mid-sixties last year as I remember it. This year we're @71. The participation has improved over that time apparently.

The low participation rates and average 401k balances we hear about in the news would seem to support Texas Proud's argument regarding choice in this thread: http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f30/the-ben-stein-pass-fail-test-52872-2.html#post994525 however (and not to beat a dead horse) there are a plethora of circumstances beyond simple choice that can and do put a retirement savings agenda out of reach for many.

I absolutely think the default enrollment would help though.