Colorado PERA Launches Roth Option for PERAPlus 401(k) and 457 Plan Participants

Colorado PERA recently announced that it is now offering a Roth feature in its optional retirement savings accounts, the PERAPlus 401(k) and 457 Plans. PERA members whose employers have adopted the Roth option are allowed to make Roth contributions.

Named for their congressional sponsor, former Delaware Senator William Roth, these are tax-paid retirement savings accounts, meaning that contributions, whether to a Roth IRA or retirement plan account, have already been taxed as regular income. But once contributed to a Roth account, earnings grow tax-free. There are no additional tax obligations when funds are withdrawn at retirement and follow the requirements of the Roth option.

There are several notable differences between using a Roth 401(k) or 457 and a traditional plan. Traditional IRA or pre-tax retirement plan contributions are not taxable when contributed, which can lower the tax rate in the year in which contributions are made. When these savings are eventually withdrawn, taxes must be paid on both contributions and any earnings.

There are also important differences between contributions to Roth 401(k) or 457 and a Roth IRA. Employer-sponsored plans have significantly higher limits compared to IRAs. For example, total IRA contributions are limited to a combined (pre-tax and Roth) maximum of $5,500 per year ($6,500 for those age 50 and older). Retirement account contributions are limited to a current maximum contribution of $18,000 ($24,000 for those age 50 and older). Contributions to a Roth IRA are also limited based on income, whereas in a 401(k) or 457 plan, there are no income restrictions that would limit contributions.

The advantages of the Roth option may be leading to different savings behavior, particularly among younger workers. According to a report issued earlier in 2014 by Aon Hewitt, a human resource leader, of clients who participated in defined contribution plans, such as a 401(k) or 457 plan, participants using Roth options contributed significantly more of their income compared to savers who did not use a Roth option when available (10.2 percent of income compared to 7.7 percent). Participants choosing the Roth option are more likely to be younger employees and to have been with their employers for a relatively shorter period of time.

Younger participants are more likely to use a Roth contribution feature than their older counterparts. More than 17 percent of workers in their 20s chose to contribute to a Roth, versus fewer than 9 percent of those in their 50s. This may reflect the pre-tax status of contributions to a Roth account. Younger workers are more likely to have a lower marginal tax rate compared to older workers who are further along in their careers.

That being said, older participants may want to consider using a Roth account for estate planning purposes. Because everyone has unique financial planning target, PERA recommends that plan participants consult a financial planning professional, use the online investment planning tools or service, or work with a trusted Certified Public Accountant or Certified Financial Planner when determining the best way to meet their financial goals.

By offering a Roth savings option to its supplemental savings accounts, PERA may be able to tap into the interest of younger workers and encourage additional contributions from a broad range of PERA members. By further encouraging members to increase their optional savings, PERA will be strengthening public workers’ ability to be prepared for retirement.

  • Younger employees have the most to gain from investing in a Roth 401(k) because their longer investment time horizon gives their contributions a longer time to compound tax free, leading the contributions to be worth more at retirement.
  • Younger employees may be in a lower tax bracket than down the road when they may be earning more in their careers and paying a higher marginal tax rate. This would mean that contributions made to a Roth 401k today would be taxed at a lower rate than potential contributions made when in the future when earnings are higher.
  • A T Rowe Price study of its customers investing in Roth IRAs at the end of 2013 found that investors in their 40s had almost twice as much money in Roth IRAs as they did in Traditional IRAs.
  • The same study looked at how much more spendable income in retirement an investor who used a Roth IRA would have compared with an investor who used a Traditional IRA. Assuming investors retired at age 65 and contributed $1,000 into a Roth IRA or a Traditional IRA, the study found that a 25-year-old who used a Roth IRA and stayed in the same tax bracket at retirement would have nearly 20 percent more spendable income in retirement than an investor who used a Traditional IRA instead. (Assumptions included that investors were in a 25 percent tax bracket at the time of their IRA contribution and that the $250 tax deduction from the Traditional IRA was invested in a separate taxable account. Investments earned an annualized 7 percent return before retirement and 6 percent during retirement).

Because eligible employees also have the option to divide their optional retirement savings between Roth and traditional options, tax diversification is another important benefit that Roth savings could provide. Employees have the option to pay taxes on Roth contributions now, while deferring taxes on traditional contributions until they are ready to withdraw their funds. As more employers begin to make the Roth option available to their employees, greater numbers of PERA members will benefit from these choices.

Conversations About Colorado’s Public Employee Retirement System Should Include PERA Input and Be Fact-Based

The Colorado Pension Project (CPP) recently posted a column regarding PERA from TeacherPensions.org and Bellwether Education Partners, national organizations headquartered in Boston, MA. Prior to its posting, Colorado PERA had the opportunity to review the material and subsequently raised concerns with CPP about inconsistencies and mischaracterizations contained within the piece. Unfortunately, CPP went ahead and posted their version without revising their statements.

Colorado’s hybrid defined benefit plan and optional defined contribution plans provide Colorado’s teachers and public workforce with portability and the option to change and advance in their careers either in the public or private sector. Members who leave their retirement savings with PERA accrue benefits with interest and an employer match until they are eligible for retirement. At that time, they can receive a guaranteed monthly income for the rest of their life – without fear they will lose money due to stock market drops or that their savings will run out. Additionally, if life events intervene, these workers have the option to cash out or roll over their savings into other qualified savings plans.

The State of Colorado has commissioned an independent actuarial firm, retained by the State Auditor’s Office, to conduct studies that will compare the costs and benefits of the different retirement savings options with those provided by PERA’s hybrid defined benefit savings plan. The PERA Board supports this process which will make comparisons of alternative plan designs considering a variety of career patterns. To the extent these studies identify employees, employers or career patterns that are not well served by the existing PERA hybrid DB system, policy makers will be well positioned to have an informed discussion of alternatives and the cost of those alternatives.

The goal of the General Assembly’s reforms enacted in 2010 was for PERA to achieve fully funded status – thus ensuring retirement security – with sensitivity to the equitable distribution of costs and burdens associated with the reforms. The “potential solutions for Colorado” outlined in the CPP white paper come with significant increased costs while not appearing to materially enhance retirement security nor meaningfully improve Colorado’s ability to attract and retain a talented public workforce.

Retirement savings and security is an important conversation we should be having, and Colorado PERA is proud to be a resource and voice for how our unique plan design serves the teachers and public employees of Colorado. Colorado PERA wants to ensure our members, policymakers, community leaders and stakeholders have correct information when discussing this important topic.

Colorado PERA: Best Practices Leader

At its January meeting, the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees heard the results of an audit of PERA’s actuarial services.

Milliman, a worldwide actuarial firm, reviewed its findings of the actuarial services provided to PERA by Cavanaugh Macdonald Consulting, LLC, the Board’s retained actuarial firm.

While it may seem unusual for an actuarial firm to review the work of another actuary, Colorado PERA regularly conducts an audit to monitor the quality of the actuarial services it receives.

This is a critical part of the board’s commitment to transparency and careful stewardship of member and employer contributions. In fact, this has become a public pension plan industry best practice, and Colorado PERA has audited its actuary since the early 1980s.

Given that PERA uses independent actuaries to calculate the plan’s liabilities and project the future value of its assets, it is critical that those actuaries provide sound and accurate estimates.

As Cavanaugh Macdonald notes in its letter of response to the Milliman review, “We believe it is prudent to periodically have a second opinion with respect to the actuarial work being performed. An audit is a critical step in maintaining the long term actuarial soundness of the System.”

In 2014, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) adopted a best practice related to actuarial audits noting, “An actuarial audit is a valuable tool for monitoring the quality of actuarial services performed on behalf of the pension plan.”

PERA’s actuarial audits are conducted about every five years and typically result in minor changes to the way the plan’s liabilities are calculated.

Cautionary Tales: Case Studies Show How States Face Funding, Debt Challenges After Switching to Defined Contribution Retirement Plans

Case studies just released by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) highlight the challenges that three states have faced in their switch from defined benefit (DB) to defined contribution (DC) retirement plans for their public employees. Rather than saving money, Alaska, Michigan, and West Virginia exacerbated their funding problems and increased their pension debt. Together, these states offer a cautionary tale for those who might believe that DC plans are less costly and are better suited for managing a public sector workforce.

From the report:

Overall, certain trends appear common to all three states, such as:

  • Changing from a DB plan to a DC plan did not help an existing underfunding problem, and, in fact, increased pension plan costs.
  • Workers under the DC plan face increased levels of retirement insecurity.
  • The best way to address a pension underfunding problem is to implement a responsible funding policy of making the full annual required contribution each year and to evaluate and adjust assumptions as well as funding over time.