Lynn Brenner, CFO Magazine
April 1, 2009

mandatory matches

IRS rule 401(k) was meant to SUPPLEMENT retirement.

However, with the govt blessings, it has now turned into a primary retirement vehicle which the employer no longer GIVES A DAM*N and doesn't even have to contribute to it.

now retirement is a 4 letter word and greedy corporations have used it to bilk their employees through corrupt and senseless manipulation call wall street.

companies should have to MATCH no matter what and bankruptcy laws need to be changed to give screwed employees real ownership in return for the promises management made to them.

OW get ready for 90% of retirees to be - well welfare recipients

on your taxpayer dime

Posted by bob pischke | Apr 6, 2009 9:50 AM ET

Is it really just a 401(k) issue?

I don't disagree that there could be some enhancements to 401(k) plans that would make them better. 401(k) plans have constantly changed and I would think that will continue. What most people are focusing on relates to plan designs, but the problem we face today has to do with the investment side of the equation in plans not necessarily the design.

As we're all aware the plans that are in place have a fairly high participation rate. What has stopped individuals from investing in their plans is the fear of the stock market. The main reason individuals, as this article mentions, stop contributing is their fear of losing more assets. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to allow for some type of guarantees inside of the plans. Some investment platforms currently have options for participants that would allow them to lock in benefit levels. It would make sense to me for our government to look at the options private providers are offering, review the strengths of those companies and decide it they want to offer a backup guarantee should those companies find it difficult, in a market such as we've experienced, to meet their obligations. Obviously part of the requirements of our government to do so would include only allowing companies with strong balance sheets, specific reserve requirements, etc. to participate in offering these types of guarantees. I'd rather see the government be a secondary guarantor to the participants in qualified plans vs. a primary entity to bailing out poorly run companies.
After all isn't this issue more about protecting the assets/benefits of the participant rather than blow up a vehicle (401(k) plan) that has given many the opportunity to save for a secure retirement?

Posted by Neil Tullis | Apr 6, 2009 8:54 AM ET

Spiral of Death!

As so often happens In a terrible economy, companies lose sight of the trees for the forest! Why do we offer employee benefits in the first place? To attract and retain the best employees! Because we offer benefits does this require that all employees are equal. I think not, try tying 401k matches and all employee benefits to performance! Don't lose your best employees b/c they feel they aren't important to your organization. Get a good consultant to help you reward an retain your "A"squad. Remember, the worst of the worst employees, stay because they have nowhere else to go! Avoid the Spiral of Death for your organization. Who will be on your team when business picks up again!! Choose wisely in this economy.

Posted by joe cortelli | Apr 2, 2009 12:47 PM ET