Father of the 401(K)' reveals the biggest downside of his creation

hollydolly

SF VIP
Location
London England
Firstly we don't have 401K's in this country but I do know it's a major thing in the USA...so I though you would be interested


  • Ted Benna, 82, is credited with creating the 401(K) as it is known today
  • It has changed the way millions of Americans think about their retirement funds
  • However, today he says the fees charged to workers have become too high

He is credited with overhauling the way millions of Americans think about and save for retirement.

But today Ted Benna - known as the 'father of the 401(K)' - has some reservations about his own creation.

'I am very disturbed by what's happening with the investment expenses,' the 82-year-old told DailyMail.com.

'Originally in our plan all of the administrative fees would be covered by the employer but that's all changed now.'

A Christian working as a workplace benefits consultant in the 1970s, Benna had become tired of helping clients maximize their own tax breaks while doing little for their employees.

84629593-13397127-image-a-44_1715378102649.jpg

He then stumbled upon a creative way to reinterpret the eponymous section of a 1978 tax law. It allowed employees to save pre-tax salary into a retirement account while receiving a matching contribution from their workplace.

He implemented the strategy into his own company's retirement plan and soon after the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Treasury department sanctioned his idea which took off.

Just 8 percent of Americans contributed to a defined contribution plan in 1981. By 2023, 56 percent of workers participated in a retirement plan of some kind, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

84725727-13397127-image-a-46_1715378183250.jpg


But Benna argues companies have become too greedy by charging hefty administrative fees - while their employees do not know any better.

He said 'I know one employer was charging administrative fees of 2.75 percent. It's something I'm seeing more and more.'

Fees on 401(K) plans can significantly dampen investment returns. There are three types of fees covering administrative, service and investment.

Although administrative fees tend to be non-negotiable, savers do have more control over service and investment charges.

Service fees are only paid when you wish to activate certain features of your plan for example, taking out a 401(K) plan.
nvestment costs are charged by the funds available on your plan. Savers can find funds with a low expense ratio such as broad-based index funds.
Benna's original vision called for employers to pay all the fees associated with administration and keeping audits. The employer would also pay between $10 and $20 a year for their workers to receive investment advice.
But mutual fund providers expressed concern that their financial results could be impacted by an independent advisor - before realizing they could make money by adding another layer of fees.

Benna also says a flaw in today's system is the fact employees have the option to withdraw their 401(K) entirely when they change jobs.
This is something he argues should be 'eliminated' to ensure Americans are keeping funds in their retirement pots. Workers do have the option to roll over the funds into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA).
However, Benna cautions: 'A 30-year-old changing jobs is hardly going to be thinking about retirement when they have the option to take out $10,000 in front of them.'
Today he is working on a new 'Wheat Grains Incentive Plan' which is a type of defined contribution plan which makes it easier for low and mid-income workers to withdraw funds.
The concept comes as more and more Americans take hardship withdrawals from their 401(K)s to cope with higher living costs.
 

IMO the 401k program will eventually be seen as a failure and be replaced with some sort of mandatory participation scheme.

Many sources quote current median 401k balances for retirement age workers of less than $100,000.00.

This lack of participation will eventually put more pressure on current workers to fund various government programs that will supplement the lack of those retirement savings.

It’s a bit scary to think that where I live 31% of people already depend on some form of government assistance other than Medicare and Social Security.
 
The catch phrase, "you can withdraw amounts after retirement when taxes are lower." So, say you wish to withdraw $12,000.00
Withholding $2400.00 IRS you left with $9600 spendable. By end of the year, you pay IRS back a couple of months of social security $$'s.

So you pay say 25% taxes on the money you earned then invest it and pay 25% taxes when you take a withdrawal ! Figuring your yearly income you end up paying taxes on social security also, no deductions to taxation at all. It's easy to understand the Panhandler's / Homeless cash only answers. Most likely even Social Security believes you dead !
 
Last edited:
I certainly won with mine. Some people had/have better benefits than others. Some have larger matches. Some charge managment fees…and some let you manage your own thru companies like fidelity. Vesting periods can be different. And when you can withdraw without penalty (such as leaving that company). I had a relatively low employer match at my last employer…but had hundreds of mutual fund choices. Believe me…it is possible to get and sustain a great rate of return if you have choices and bother to research them.
 
I had a 457(b), which is a public employer version of the private sector 401(k). Wasn't happy with it, especially when they lost about 40% of my contributions in the 2007 financial crash, all the while they were collecting monthly fees /commissions for managing my account.
So the market hadn't recovered yet when it was time for you to take distributions? Or were there investment choices not so good?
 
So the market hadn't recovered yet when it was time for you to take distributions? Or were there investment choices not so good?
This 457 was through ING, who I loathed for telling me that none of my contributions could ever be affected by market downturns, which of course was a blatant lie. ING got a bailout from the Dutch government to the tune of 8 Billion dollars. ING's customers never got any compensation.

I actually don't have to take a distribution until next year, when I turn 73, it will just be a few hundred dollars so that I don't incur some kind of penalty.
 
This 457 was through ING, who I loathed for telling me that none of my contributions could ever be affected by market downturns, which of course was a blatant lie. ING got a bailout from the Dutch government to the tune of 8 Billion dollars. ING's customers never got any compensation.

I actually don't have to take a distribution until next year, when I turn 73, it will just be a few hundred dollars so that I don't incur some kind of penalty.
That's a damned shame Nathan!
 
I actually don't have to take a distribution until next year, when I turn 73, it will just be a few hundred dollars so that I don't incur some kind of penalty.
How small is your 457?

At age 73 $100,000 in total deferred accounts the RMD is over $4,000 as far as I can tell. I believe this extra "income" is not exempt from bumping you into a higher tax bracket. So you pay tax on the distribution, possibly more taxes than otherwise on the rest of your taxable income, and might run into a Medicare premium cost trap (IRMAA).
The income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA) is a fee you pay on top of your Medicare Part B and Part D premiums if you make a yearly income above the annual thresholds.
 


Back
Top