Publications by Barbara Butrica for Retirement Policy

More about Barbara Butrica's areas of expertise can be found on this Urban Institute expert's page.

How employers respond to automatic pension enrollment is important to the debate over how to increase retirement savings for all Americans. We recently completed a study showing that employers with autoenrollment have lower match rates than those without it, suggesting that employers may be trying to offset their higher costs. In contrast, the Employee Benefit Research Institute finds that employers with automatic enrollment have increased match rates since 2005. The two studies measure different concepts and use different time frames. A large sample of 401(k) plans reporting match rates before and after autoenrollment is needed to fully understand employer responses.

The sharp decline in the stock market in 2008 placed the retirement security of many Americans at risk. Although the market has rebounded this year after bottoming out in March 2009, as of mid-October 2009 the S&P 500 Index remained 30 percent below its peak level two years earlier. This brief simulates the impact of the 2008 stock market crash on future retirement savings under alternative scenarios. The results show that by delaying retirement one additional year, many mid- and late-career workers could increase their income at age 67 enough to offset some or all of their stock market losses.

The retirement savings of American households took a big hit when the stock market crashed in 2008. Recently, however, a good portion of these losses has been reversed. This fact sheet follows trends in retirement account balances since the beginning of 2005.

This paper simulates the impact of the 2008 stock market crash on future retirement savings under alternative scenarios. If stocks remain depressed as after the 1974 crash, 20 percent of preboomers born 1941-45 and 22 percent of late boomers born 1961-65 would see their retirement incomes drop 10 percent or more. Working another year would reduce the share of these big losers to 14 percent for late boomers. Because most pre-boomers were already retired, their share of big losers would decline slightly to 19 percent. Delaying retirement would disproportionately benefit low-income people because their additional earnings exceed their stock market losses.

Many employers match employee contributions to 401(k) plans. However, the employer cost of continuing this practice may increase rapidly as trends towards automatic enrollment boost employee participation. This paper examines the relationship between employer matching behavior and automatic enrollment. Using a sample of large 401(k) plans, we find that match rates are about 7 percentage points lower among firms with automatic enrollment than among those without automatic enrollment, even controlling for firm characteristics. So while autoenrollment increases the number of workers participating in private pensions, our findings suggest it might also reduce the level of pension contributions.

Automatic enrollment, a 401(k) feature that enrolls employees as soon as they become eligible, is growing in popularity because it has been shown to significantly increase pension participation rates. However, higher participation rates increase costs for employers that match employee contributions. This brief evaluates the extent to which firms adjust their 401(k) contributions to offset the higher costs associated with automatic enrollment. We find that employer match rates are 7 percentage points lower among firms with autoenrollment than among those without it, suggesting that automatic enrollment may not promote retirement savings as effectively as some advocates have claimed.

Urban Institute projections suggest the stock market collapse will have small effects on most Americans' retirement incomes. It's estimated that 37 percent of Americans born between 1941 and 1965 owned no stocks when the market crashed in 2008 and that income from assets will account for a small share of retirement income, even for those with stocks. For most retirees, Social Security provides the majority of income. Had Social Security been invested in private accounts with equities, the impact of the crash would have been much larger—positive or negative, depending on one's birth cohort and on future market performance.

The one-third drop in the S&P 500 index between year-end 2007 and 2008 raises concerns about retirement security since Americans now hold more equities through their retirement plans. Those near retirement will fare the worst because they have no time to recoup their losses. Midcareer workers will fare better because they have more time to rebuild their wealth. They may even gain income if they buy stocks at low prices and get above-average rates of return. High-income groups will be the most affected because they are most likely to have financial assets and to be invested in the stock market.

High out-of-pocket health care costs may have serious repercussions for older people and their families. This paper examines the impact of health problems at older ages on out-of-pocket health care spending and other types of expenditures. The results show that medical conditions increase health spending, particularly for households ages 51 to 64, but do not generally reduce nonhealth spending. Health conditions do, however, reduce nonhealth spending for low-income households ages 51 to 64, suggesting that holes in the health safety net before the Medicare eligibility age force some low-income people to lower their living standards to cover medical expenses.

Over the last three decades there has been a steady shift from DB to DC pensions. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 may accelerate this trend. This paper examines the impact of an accelerated freeze on the retirement income of boomers. Simulations suggest that such a scenario would produce more losers than winners and reduce average retirement incomes. Income changes will be substantial among high-income workers, who have the highest DB coverage and pension incomes. Late boomers will experience the largest impacts, as they lose their high DB accrual years and have inadequate time to accumulate DC wealth before retirement.

Return to list of authors.