press releases of interest: blog 
press releases of interest's blog
one in five companies eliminating 401(k) matching
by Golo Managing EditorPublished Jun. 25, 2009
Views: 1123
I just received this one on my inbox...
One in five companies eliminating 401(k) matching
Charlotte, N.C., June 22, 2009 – Grant Thornton LLP’s recent survey of U.S. companies finds that 29 percent have already modified, or currently intend to modify, the matching contribution feature in their 401(k) plans during the 2009 plan year; two-thirds of those respondents (approximately 20% of all respondents) report that they will eliminate the match entirely.
“Clearly, the economic downturn is causing many companies to reevaluate their 401(k) plan design carefully, and in many cases, rethink their 401(k) plan strategy,” said Sharon Whittle, Grant Thornton’s Compensation and Benefits Leader for the Carolinas. “The highest anticipated action reported by all respondents is the complete elimination of the match, which will generate the most cash savings for the plan sponsor.” Other survey findings include:
- Employer matching — Almost 87 percent of companies reported that their 401(k) plans provided for matching company contributions prior to 2009.
- 401(k) plan nondiscrimination tests — Approximately 34 percent of companies felt that the reduction or complete elimination of the matching contribution feature would make it less likely that the 401(k) plan nondiscrimination tests (the ADP/ACP tests) for 2009 would be passed; and 38 percent reported that they did not expect any significant changes in the test results between the 2008 and the 2009 plan years. Almost 10 percent of companies indicated that they felt the test results would actually improve during the 2009 plan year (which correlates to the 11 percent of companies that reported that they expected to increase the match during 2009).
- Safe harbor 401(k) plans — Approximately one-third of companies with a matching contribution in their 401(k) plans indicated that they currently have a “safe harbor” 401(k) plan (a plan that is exempt from the 401(k) plan nondiscrimination tests because it provides a minimum level of employer match), and approximately 27 percent of the plan sponsors with a safe harbor plan indicated that they are considering the reduction or complete elimination of the match during the 2009 plan year.
- Automatic enrollment 401(k) plans — Approximately 36 percent of companies with a matching contribution in their 401(k) plans reported that they currently have an “automatic enrollment” plan (a plan that automatically enrolls employees when they are initially eligible to participate and contains a procedure for them to “opt out” of the auto enrollment feature), and approximately 31 percent of plan sponsors with an automatic enrollment plan indicated that they are considering the reduction or complete elimination of the match during the 2009 plan year.
“The survey results also illustrated certain trends by industry and by the revenue levels and work force size of the companies,” added Whittle. “We found that companies in the health care and not-for-profit industries were less likely to make changes during 2009, while companies in the technology, retail/trade and financial services/banking industries were generally more likely to make changes during 2009. Larger employers, whether classified by revenue levels or the size of their work forces, were generally more likely to make changes during 2009.” “Companies are expecting 2009 to continue to be a challenging year for business growth and financial stability,” concluded Whittle. “The impact on 401(k) plans appears to be greater consideration of lower, and more prudent, spending on matching contributions in order to address cash and profit constraints.
The reduction or complete elimination of matching contributions may have an ancillary impact on benefits for key employees due to the potential negative impact on nondiscrimination testing; therefore, any decision affecting matching contributions should consider both the overall employee perception of the employer and its 401(k) plan and the potential consequences on retaining and motivating key high-performing employees.”
close![[no avatar]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/presentation/v1/images/golo/noavatar.gif){kind=avatar}
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
GOLO member since October 26, 2007
June 27, 2009 8:20 p.m.
GOLO member since September 11, 2007
June 26, 2009 4:43 p.m.
GOLO member since December 11, 2007
June 26, 2009 10:18 a.m.
We were just going to take the $$ he had been putting in the 401k into a Roth, but we've lowered the percentage now because of the paycut. I'm only temping for now, but I've been here since Jan. We're just waiting on the company to lift the hiring freeze long enough to bring me on board permanently.
We'd LIKE to think that they'll re-instate the 401k matching - but we'll see. We're pretty confident in that they won't stop the insurance, as two of the partner's wives have cancer and are on the plan. They'd be hard pressed to get an individual plan.
GOLO member since March 13, 2008
June 26, 2009 9:14 a.m.
Well, think of it as a cut in pay. For example; my company would match up to 6%. That's 6% of your income that you are no longer saving for retirement. And to top that off, some companies, like mine, are also doing a 5% pay cut. When you hear state workers whine about a .5% pay cut, it sort of makes one shrug and think "So?".
GOLO member since May 16, 2008
June 25, 2009 3:23 p.m.
and that's a sad thing. in fact, i would be surprised to hear of anybody in that age group that was able to get it for less than $1K per month.
GOLO member since March 31, 2008
June 25, 2009 2:19 p.m.
Companies give "benefits" to their employees when they need to compete for labor. When they don't need to compete (like now), they stop giving them. Health insurance is the most likely benefit to be dropped next, and one of the reasons the government is in a hurry to pass some sort of healthcare reform bill is to keep companies from beating them to the punch. If all companies were to drop their plans, there would be few viable alternatives to nationalizing the system.
Many people don't realize that individual plans and small group plans are far more costly than large group plans, because premiums are based on the age of the insured. If you are over 60, your individual or small group premium will probably cost you over $1,000 per month. That's a budget buster for most Americans. In a large group, premiums for all are equal regardless of age. It makes a huge difference.
GOLO member since January 25, 2008
June 25, 2009 1:56 p.m.
angela, given my position in the company, i can say for fact that is the intention...but, probably not until sometime in 2011. don't expect things to improve enough in 2010 to enable this to happen.
as far as things improving in 2010, i wouldn't expect a rapid recovery...that would not be good in the long term anyway. i believe we have pretty much hit the bottom, there will still be come ups and downs to come, but a long, slow recovery is in sight.
GOLO member since March 31, 2008
June 25, 2009 1:28 p.m.
you would be much better off to leave your money in there anyway. if you are investing wisely, you should be earning a decent return, or at least preventing losses. you do have the option of cutting your contributions entirely.
GOLO member since March 31, 2008
June 25, 2009 1:25 p.m.
GOLO member since December 2, 2007
June 25, 2009 1:18 p.m.
Please log in to add comment.