Robert' Waldmann: How Keynesian Was Milton Friedman?: Noted for August 10, 2013
Geoffrey Garrett: MOOC technology will force MBA degrees to change: Noted for August 10, 2013

Why We Need a Bigger Social Security System with Higher, Not Lower Benefits

Signing the social security act Google Search

Edward Filene's idea from the 1920s of having companies run employer-sponsored defined-benefit plans has, by and large, come a-crashing down. Companies turn out not to be long-lived enough to run pensions with a high enough probability. And when they are there is always the possibility of a Mitt Romney coming in and making his fortune by figuring out how to expropriate the pension via legal and financial process. Since pension recipients are stakeholders without either legal control rights or economic holdup powers, their stake will always be prey to the princes of Wall Street.

That suggests that what we really need is a bigger Social Security system--unless, of course, we can provide incentives and vehicles for people to do their retirement saving on their own. But 401(k)s have turned out to be as big a long-run disaster as employer-sponsored defined-benefit pensions when one assesses their efficiency as pension vehicles.

And so let me turn the mike over to James Kwak:

The Problem with 401(k) Plans: Ian Ayres has made a lot of people upset, at least judging by the Wall Street Journal article about him (and co-author Quinn Curtis) and indignant responses like this one from various interested parties. What Ayres and Curtis did was point out the losses that investors in 401(k) plans incur because of high fees charged at the plan level and high fees charged by individual mutual funds in those plans. The people who should be upset are the employees who are forced to invest…. Ayres and Curtis estimate the total losses caused by limited investment menus (small), fees (large), and poor investment choices (large)…. What really annoyed people in the 401(k)) industry (that is, the mutual fund companies that administer the plans and the consultants who advise companies on plans) was Ayres and Curtis’s charge that many plans are violating their fiduciary duties to plan participants by forcing them to pay these fees….

The response of the industry has been one of righteous indignation and blanket assertion. For example, Drinker Biddle huffs, “In our experience, most plans are well-managed.”  401(k) plans provide different “services,” so different plan-level fees are appropriate; and high fund fees are OK because “it is commonly accepted that the use of actively managed funds is prudent.” Just because lots of rent-seekers say so doesn’t make it so…. There’s no good reason not to just provide a lineup of cheap, big index funds with low costs and low tracking error….

So yes, most plan sponsors and administrators are violating their fiduciary duties…. Not that they should stay up nights…. The courts have for the most part endorsed current behavior, probably “reasoning” that if everyone’s doing it, it must be OK. But anything Ayres and Curtis can do to draw attention to the problem of high fund fees and plan fees will help move us closer to the day when workers don’t have to pay for their companies’ poor choices.

I disagree: they should stay up nights. Chances that they will be hauled into a this-world court are low, it is true. But they do have to worry about how they are going to bear looking into the mirror in the bathroom when the sun rises.