Support local journalism!
Help preserve local news coverage in print and online.
Become a member now!

Login | Register
Sign up for eBulletins
Click for Pleasanton, California Forecast

Pleasanton Weekly News
Increase font Increase font
Decrease font Decrease font
Adjust text size

Business News: California's new retirement program, do we need it?
Pleasanton financial analyst says new state law has 'serious limitations, unnecessary use of taxpayer money'

Photo

Bookmark and Share
By Gary Alt

The media coverage of last year's presidential election drowned out the news of a controversial retirement program announced by the state of California, the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program. While its intentions are good, the details show serious limitations and unnecessary use of taxpayer money.

According to the bill's sponsors, over 6 million California workers don't have access to a retirement savings program from their employer, and 75 percent of them earn less than $50,000 per year.

The law mandates that employers with more than 5 employees must participate in Secure Choice unless they offer their own retirement program. Unless workers opt out of the program, businesses will be required to automatically deduct 3 percent from paychecks to deposit into their employees' retirement accounts. Most union employees aren't covered by the new program.

That sounds like a worthy cause, until you consider some of the program's limitations.

The contribution limit will be $5,500 per year in 2013 – the same as for Individual Retirement Accounts (IRA's). If you're over 50 you can save an additional $1,000. That's not nearly enough to make a sizeable difference in retirement income.

Another limitation of Secure Choice is that investments in equities cannot exceed more than 50 percent of the overall asset allocation of the fund. Since bond yields are at near record lows, and bond prices fall when yields rise, that could put a sizeable amount of retirement funds in the wrong place at the wrong time.

A major flaw in this program is there is no fiduciary who is taking responsibility for the investment decisions. Though the state is dictating many investment choices, they apparently don't want to be responsible for their recommendations.

While reading the bill it wasn't clear to me what benefit this program provides that's not already available in an IRA. Was I missing something? So I called a Secure Choice representative in Sacramento who spoke on condition of anonymity. Her only explanation as to its inherent benefit is that the employer can deduct money from paychecks to transfer to an IRA – forcing an automatic savings mechanism.

So this is essentially an IRA program run by the state of California. While it's noble of the state to want to create incentives to save for retirement, this could have been done without creating government bureaucracy.

Fortunately, it will be a few years before the California Secure Choice Savings Program becomes a reality – the governor has yet to appoint a board of trustees and then they'll do a "market analysis" using funds from non-state sources. Hopefully state budget pressures will force them to eliminate the bureaucracy and utilize the IRA to accomplish their goals. Beyond that, businesses already have a number of affordable retirement plans to choose from that will be more effective in helping their employees prepare for retirement.

Gary Alt is co-founder of Monterey Private Wealth in Pleasanton. Send your questions to gary@montereypw.com

Are you receiving Express, our free daily e-mail edition? See a sample and sign-up for Express.


Comments

Posted by Chemist, a resident of the Downtown neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2013 at 9:09 am

Gary,

Do you believe that people who are stupid enough to vote for Jerry Brown could actually have enough sense to set up and manage their own IRA? We need this state-run program to take care of us!

Chemist


Posted by Charlie Brown, a resident of the Pleasanton Valley neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2013 at 10:08 am

Wow, a retirement program run by the state, sounds like a plan to me, especially in light of their performance in running the state.


Posted by local, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Mar 5, 2013 at 2:09 pm

I would love to be part of the California Retirement program. I can then leave the state and not be responsible for the funding of my retirement. The suckers left in California would be responsible for the deficits. Sort of the like the California residents being responsible for the funding of the California public employee retirement system deficits.


Posted by Gary Alt, a resident of the Del Prado neighborhood, on Mar 6, 2013 at 8:25 am
Gary Alt is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com

If anyone wants to read SB 1234, you can find it here: Web Link

If the state has limited dollars, every Sacramento bureaucrat employed is one less teacher, firefighter, or police officer employed. Our state cannot afford to spend money in areas where solutions already exist, let alone a sub-standard one.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.
Add a Comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration! Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff
 
We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *
Select your Neighborhood or School Community: *
Comment: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box. *
Verification Code:   
 

PleasantonWeekly.com ©2013 Embarcadero Media.
All rights reserved.