Working Papers

“Who Benefits from Retirement Saving Incentives in the U.S.? Evidence on Gaps in Retirement Wealth Accumulation by Race and Parental Income”, with Taha Choukhmane, Cormac O’Dea, Jonathan Rothbaum, and Lawrence Schmidt. (Conditionally accepted, American Economic Review). [Draft: available upon request] [Non-technical summary]

[Abstract]: U.S. employers and the federal government devote the equivalent of 1.5% of GDP annually toward promoting defined contribution (DC) retirement savings. Using a new employer-employee linked dataset covering millions of Americans, we show that tax and employer matching incentives disproportionately benefit White and Asian workers compared to their similar-income Hispanic, Black, and American Indian or Alaska Native coworkers. Similarly, these incentives disproportionately benefit those with richer parents compared to those from lower-income families. Breaking the link between contribution choices and saving subsidies through revenue-neutral reforms could close up to one-third of the DC wealth gaps by race and parental income.

Policy Papers

The Evolution of U.S. Firms’ Retirement Plan Offerings: Evidence from a New Panel Data Set with Antoine Arnoud, Taha Choukhmane, Cormac O’Dea, and Aneesha Parvathaneni.

[Abstract]: This paper documents, using a newly-constructed data set, the evolution of the characteristics of employer-sponsored DC schemes. The features we focus on are their match schedules, vesting schedules, and the extent of ‘auto-features’ (i.e. presence of auto-enrollment, the level of any default contribution, and presence and details of auto-escalation). The data we construct is formed by hand-coding the details in narrative plan descriptions attached to plan filings. Our data covers approximately 5,000 plans, covering up to 37 million participants annually, for the period 2003-2017. We document that matching schedules, when they are offered, have become more generous over time. However, the proportion of firms offering a match fell sharply during the Great Recession and the proportion offering one did not recover to its pre-financial crisis level for almost a decade. Vesting schedules for DC plans have remained essentially unchanged since 2003, while the proportion of plans with auto-enrollment has increased dramatically over the same period. We find that the vast majority of plans that offer auto-enrollment have a default rate that is substantially lower than the level that would fully exploit the match offered by the employers.