Sign Connecticut Banking Profit And Loss Statement Secure

Industry sign banking connecticut profit and loss statement secure

okay great we were going to go ahead and get started with the last panel which in some ways tries to in re ground all of the discussions in the context of some of the most vulnerable workers for whom these these all three pillars of a retirement savings system should ideally work in service of helping them build retirement security and we're really fortunate today to have just incredible perspective both from Canada and from here in the US on the implications of both the Canadian reforms and Canadian system ideas and their impact on low and moderate income workers and also some of the ideas and then some of the reality of what that looks like here in the US and then we'll have a bit of an interplay between our speakers about what can we draw from Canada and also how do we not put something that's happening in some other country on a pedestal and think that everything's better someplace else but really grapple with some of the ways that we actually have some advantages and options in the US if we have the political will to work with them to actually do even more for low and moderate income workers in terms of retirement security so I'm gonna just quickly you know we'll go across the board here we'll start with Jonathan Weiss AB who's one of the founding partners of Common Wealth and I know you have full bios so I don't want to spend a lot of time with that but a lot of experience both in the public and private sector on these issues and you're going to share with us a bit of the work and then we're going to Katherine Harvey who's a senior policy research analyst from AARP at the public policy institute Katherine's been doing a lot of work both with the innovations in the product side and also in terms of some of the policy work that's been happening at the state levels and and we'll ask mark Avery to to round us out with in terms of an additional set of remarks and Mark is here at the Brookings Institution as a non-resident senior fellow in economic studies and I probably should have introduced myself I'm Ida Rademacher and I lead the financial security program at the Aspen Institute and it's a pleasure to be here for this conversation so Jonathan why don't we have you go ahead and start I know you have some slides to put up and we'll use your last slide later on whoever is managing AV we may pull the last slide up later on in the discussion two incredible screen it's an incredible screen credible screen okay so but those aren't your slides no they're not they're not that's the beginning of the slide okay so thanks nada so I want to start by actually by thanking all of you for sticking with us it's been a it's been a long session on retirement security and I appreciate that you're all still here so I'm gonna actually burst your bubble a bit in talking about Canada it turns out we don't actually live in a perfect social democracy may come as a shock to all of you today I'm going to talk about how low and moderate-income Canadians fare in retirement and why innovation is necessary to to address their needs so people look to Canada as as a model often on world-class pension plans and as a country that prides itself and the protection of of the vulnerable and while there are elements of truth to this as it relates to lower and moderate income earners Canada actually is unfortunately failing a bit so this is the first slide is on seniors poverty and you'll see because I mean we're talking about retirement security we might as well talk about how well our our system is doing for seniors you'll see on the left that we've had a very good reduction in seniors poverty on the right you'll see the public programs that have actually driven that decline in seniors poverty and that some of them were talked about before our benefit system is made up of a few different programs old age security which is a monthly Social Security payment available to most Canadians 65 and older with individual income of less than a hundred and fourteen thousand dollars the maximum monthly payment is about five hundred eighty three dollars we heard some of these numbers actually actually think before earlier from us and we also have something called the guaranteed income supplement this program was designed for seniors with lower incomes and provides up to eight hundred and seventy five dollars a month and of course the Canada Pension Plan the recent enhancement of which Hassan talked about earlier which was obviously a very significant achievement so it's it's true that government benefits been pretty successful in creating minimum standard that keeps most seniors out of the technical definition of poverty but that minimum standard is not high it's only twenty twenty two thousand dollars a year for a single person in Canada this level of income on its own does not actually give seniors the kind of lives that they want so if we want to rise above that level we actually need some form of private savings which leads me to the next slide which is on private savings so this is not a great news story the problem is low to moderate income Canadians actually don't have much in the way of savings you can see the median retirement assets of a family families aged 55 to 64 earning less than $25,000 a year with a workplace retirement plan is zero the median retirement income see the similar group between twenty five thousand and fifty thousand dollars a year is two hundred and fifty dollars that is a total number that's that's not monthly that that is total savings so effectively this group is reliant on government programs for 100 percent arguably their income once they stopped working and I would say that we we believe that this is unacceptable and we're committed to finding an efficient and effective ways for modest earners to to save more for retirement now before we talk about how we're working to solve this problem we need to understand two things about Canada so first is around investment fees so the spirit of being slightly interactive because it's a little bit late in the afternoon wanted to to ask you how many of you think that our investment fees are higher in Canada how many how many do you think are in Destin okay lower is that is the remainder presumably well let me show you something that you might find slightly shocking which is air they're a bit higher we actually have the highest investment fees in the world which is you know arguably we win obviously we lose because because this is an outrageous score to get in a way I mean we are actually the last among 25 countries surveyed so our average mutual fund fees according to the industry's only law own lobby group are 2.2 percent which i think is about double what americans pay the net results of all of that as you can see and i guess many of you probably would be familiar with this math is that people in these kinds of with these kinds of fees effectively lose 40 percent of their nest egg to fees alone now the other problem that we have is something called the I mean we call the GIS clawback now G I asked to talk a little bit about that before is actually not a small program they're about a third of Canadians actually rely on GIS and the well we're good basically it's setting a minimum floor in Canada this is quite a significant problem in terms of the capacity of Canadians to actually save so just to give you a more concrete example we have a system that takes back 50 percent or more of whatever a lower-income Canadian has a typical retirement account so if a lower income Canadian had just to give you simple math $50,000 in our equivalent of an IRA or 401k they would effectively lose $25,000 of that amount in lost guaranteed income supplement benefit so I would say that our government is creating in a way a regressive welfare wall around retirement savings so it's an example of a very worthwhile program working against the ability of this income group to build assets for retirement and again I'd say that this is this is a wrong this is a group that could not afford to lose their savings nor do they deserve to and in case you've you think that we've focused on the worst case scenario here when you do the math and and we've done quite a lot of math as part of what we do you'll find that low to moderate income Canadians even if they save diligently and they save with reasonable asset allocation that and an investment you know products that are that are well thought out they will and and by the way that is actually something that doesn't occur in real life for the most part that they will find at the end of 30 plus years that they have 75 cents back for every dollar that they invest so that is is it's not great it's a combination I mean that we get those numbers effectively through a combination of the GIS clawback that I talked about and the higher fees so the next slide is about how widespread basically is this problem in Canada this problem effectively exists across virtually every one of our traditional and called regulatory categories are ESPYs are are you know a very common category P rpps or a newer category and obviously don't have time to get into these categories very much part of what I've what I've highlighted here is that there are issues are around called GIS benefit optimization which is another way of saying that they're all effectively subject to the clawback apart from the TFSA but we have issues obviously of high fees and then we also have issues across many of these arrangements of not having a proper governance structure or a fiduciary duty to members so I want to I want to turn for a second now to myths the conventional wisdom around this stuff for modest and lower-income earners is that actually lower and modern income earners do not want to save they don't really need to save because government benefits meet their needs and they can't or won't save and what I would say is it turns out the conventional wisdom is is wrong I mean the work that we did we've done with SEIU SEIU is a is a major health care union in Canada they've got 60,000 or so members 30,000 of which actually have no retirement security they are one of the largest fastest growing unions in Canada and their members are typically female first generation immigrants in the work that we did with them they're they're very hardworking people they want to save they were eager to save they have high anxiety you know about their futures and they also want their union to help them the broader pulling and and that's done I mean I'll see some polling here on the screen done in recently in Canada shows that that this income group as well is willing to contribute the majority of this income group is willing to contribute 10% of their pay to maintain their standard living standard and retirement the the data from Vanguard again in the u.s. context supports that same conclusion so how is is I mean you're you're probably more interested in the innovation that we've brought to this than the than some of this material but how is what we're doing at Commonwealth new and unique so we designed a product that will deliver something that avoids the two key problems identified high fees and the gis clawback and we've added some additional protections and innovations which we think are important to give people the best result which we measure in a very simple way which is around the optimization of the dollar so what do you get effectively for every dollar that you invest what do you get back for every dollar that you invest and our result in the in a plan we designed with SEIU the result is expected to be three to four times better than a typical retirement security arrangement in Canada typical kind of retail retirement security arrangement in Canada now we were driven to create this product and products like it not only because there is a need in the market to be filled but be also because we believe from a policy perspective there is an imperative to support low and moderate income Canadians in savings such that they can actually live out their retirement in dignity with an acceptable standard of living and not in effective poverty I would say this is good for individuals and I would also say it's good for Canada so this is our bit of our case study it illustrates again the math I mean you can see effectively in these two scenarios that that Amy is doing quite a bit better than Frank and Amy's effectively winding up with much more and you can see effectively where where those losses occur between these two examples so I referred before to the tax-free savings account and earlier an earlier slide and that's effectively the category the regular category that we used for our product this is a regular regulatory category that was introduced about eight years ago and it was intended to allow lower-income Canadians to save efficiently for retirement but to date it hasn't been used for that purpose those of you who understand the incentives of some financial services firms may be able to guess why but not going to go there so my 65-plus which is which is our the product that we designed with SEIU combines the principles upon which our better pension plans are built with a TFSA regulatory category and you will have heard some of those those principles come out in the preceding panel we've brought proper governance to this plan we've brought thoughtful low cost investment product this plan by partnering with Vanguard which is offering its target date fund at 10% of the cost of a typical mutual fund in Canada and we have brought true portability to that plan what I mean by that is that we're allowing members to access this this product through their bank account and that allows them to move effectively from job to job it's not then effectively employer based entirely and so we assume that people stay within that sector but they can continue to contribute if they want to continue to contribute to build their retirement savings and of course SEIU has sponsored this plan to bring this innovation to their members so I just want to make one final point which is that we believe when organizations like SEIU who care about their members and have their best interest at the core of what they do are put in the position with the right information and the right design to hold service providers to account that they will and that the result is actually much much better for members and that's actually what our better pension plans do and you'll have heard earlier how well that actually works I mean in the last panel people talked about it was a bit of a passing reference to incentives but but that is something that we think is actually possible for other kinds of arrangements and we believe that everyone actually can do this our design and approach enables that and the evidence shows that members outcomes are much better when actually things are arranged in this way now this may not sound radical but actually there is virtually no arrangement in the private savings market that does this and we think it's the right thing to do and we believe that ultimately it will make all the difference to do things this way and so one example of what we at Commonwealth are doing to try to improve the market and we certainly feel that the time is ripe for this kind of innovation and we certainly believe that doing it this way brings enormous value to people who can benefit from these kinds of arrangements so those are my remarks and I think we're gonna talk about it in the context of some of the other things will impact there thanks so much Jonathan Catherine let's go ahead and come to you and do a little bit of sizing up what the financial security for older Americans looks like in the US and I think there's some different kinds of innovations that you would add on to the types of things that Jonathan was talking about but it does strike me that the earlier metaphor that you use Jason was that the three-legged stool has become more of a pogo stick and my sense for low and moderate-income is it's a focus that stick-in-the-mud it's not even particularly helpful as a as a balancing act but I think that sounds very true actually in Canada and the US but why don't you go ahead and kick us off Katherine with a little bit of a Thank You Ida and thanks to the retirement security project for hosting this event and I thi k for many of us the the overview that you gave the experience of low and moderate income workers is familiar there's not major differences in terms of the struggles and the structural drivers of disparities between low and moderate income people and wealthy Americans as there are in in Canada but what we're learning is that the retirement system that we have in place here in the US not only does it not serve low and moderate income people very well but part of the reason doesn't do so is because we keep looking at it in isolation and we're failing to address savings writ large and financial security holistically in this country I'm personally am optimistic by from what I see in the private sector some of the innovation that we see going on I'm in financial technology and in some of the thinking around solutions to improve the savings rates and the financial lives of low and moderate income Americans specifically we'll get to a couple of those those innovations but specifically just applying a holistic lens a lifetime lens looking at short-term savings as well as retirement savings short-term savings in competition with or in context with retirement savings is progress and that conversation is happening at AARP which is traditionally seen as an older Americans organization which is very encouraging to those of us in the field because the retirement folks are talking to the asset building folks and there's progress being made that said the status quo is as you said unacceptable here in the United States the Social Security system provides the vast majority of retirement income for a large segment of our of our older American workforce it needs to be strengthened it needs to be shored up and benefits for Laura Lauren come workers do need to be strengthened access to workplace savings which is the other way that people build retirement savings the entire 401k system that we're familiar with misses about half of the workforce nearly half of American workers don't have access to any form of employer sponsored retirement savings plan it's about about 55 million people and one of the consequences of this is of course that American workers especially low and moderate income workers are unprepared for financial security in retirement depending on who you're listening to in which analysis you're looking at the plight of the worker or the the scope of the crisis varies but in terms of the retirement savings just to give out some numbers from the National Institute for retirement security median household retirement savings for those who have any savings at all is $2,500 and for those nearer to retirement it's about $15,000 women low-income people communities of color have a fraction of this retirement wealth which should be concerning for all of us giving the given the demographic change in our country in the United States which will be predominantly people of color by mid son three as one of the solutions you know there's a talk of working longer raising the retirement age I think when you when we're thinking about low and muttering come workers you've got to understand that that's not possible for a lot of people especially with the kinds of jobs that lower wage workers have physically demanding work long hours multiple jobs multiple responsibilities as well as family caregiving responsibilities that extend beyond childcare often in multi-generational households immigrant households etc so working longer while it's possible for some people is not the solution for financial security for for everyone but increasingly we're understanding that one of the threats to retirement security in this country is ill actual actually a lack of savings for the short term so people don't have a cushion just to be able to cover an unexpected expense and really the leaders in in uncovering this this lack of emergency savings has been the Pew Charitable Trusts as well as some qualitative ethnographic research from a couple of scholars who wrote a book called the US financial Diaries which if you're not familiar with it you should check out but the bottom line is that a typical financial emergency an unexpected unbudgeted for event faced by American families in this country is about two thousand dollars a year that's the most that's a typical most expensive financial shock according to a Pew survey and 41% of American households cannot afford to cover that shock and that should be disturbing to us that shows the vulnerability and how close to the edge not just low and moderate income households are but a large swath of the American of the American public so what are these shocks we're not talking about a hurricane we're talking about a car repair that's them that's the number one most common shock a pay cut or a job loss followed by a hospitalization house repair divorce or separation and these are pews data for low and moderate income households a financial shock can turn into an emergency really quickly and can last for a long time the consequences are that people turn to high debt high-cost products high-cost debt products like payday loans title loans borrowing from family and friends and there's other insidious and and less quantitative results as well effects as well in that first-generation college students in who come from poorer backgrounds often become the lender of first resort for family members when they hit that financial shock so you have racial and ethnic and income wealth inequalities perpetuated because of this lack of emergency savings for those workers who are fortunate enough to actually have private retirement savings financial shocks are part of the driver of what we call retirement account leakage and what we're learning is about forty cents of every dollar that contributed to the 401k and IRA system is actually lost to leakage this isn't loans against retirement accounts this is withdrawals against retirement accounts before before retirement and people of Transamerica found that people are about a third of people are taking money from their retirement accounts to plate to pay for unplanned expenses so that's kind of the the prognosis that we're looking at now we can talk a little bit more about the product and policy innovations after after mark lays out his reading of HR 1 as well as all all of the work that's going on at the state level I'll stop there for now it's great are you calling Mark out I mean it's not TT not multitasking up here this is all related it's all related work it's really struck me that your your data on $250 zero $250 is very resonant with what you're saying as well Catherine and you know other 46% of Americans couldn't find four so a lot of a lot of similar pain points and another one that you've identified Catherine and what you just said is that in addition to the kind of fees and potential clawback issues that I think we have similar types of issues here and different context the leakage because we have the probably the most liquid retirement system in the world is that we also are because of the current conditions of income also dealing with leakage from retirement system and a third way perhaps in the u.s. to bring into the specials so luckily there are people like Mark every in the world and David John who long ago when this retirement security project first started really conceptualized in some ways a much more systemic way to both capture the number of low income savers in this country who don't have access so it's really looked at the access problem began to look at the adequacy problem and and kind of the design features that would have to go into that so you know in that sense mark I'd love to turn it over to you to both respond a little bit to Jonathan and to lay out a little bit of kind of what in a u.s. context would would work for low and moderate-income Americans thanks Ida and it's it's great to be here I think Jonathan makes great points and I'd like to agree and come back if we might have if we might during our discussion and tie those together and I think Katherine makes great points too and I would note again that David John and I together with David Laibson Bridgette major Ian John Bashir's James Choi are working on that issue with Katherine's help and Sarah Holmes helped to try to flesh out how short-term saving emergency rainy-day saving if you will might be added to our system to augment retirement saving in a way that enhances both stems leakage in the retirement system and fills this big gap that you've been talking about for a particularly low and moderate-income people just not having enough for short-term emergencies at this time the efforts in our private pension system to promote more retirement security for lower and moderate income people middle class lower middle class working class and lower income people include as Jonathan says first and foremost the concept that folks can save who are in these situations and and want to save if given an easy and reasonably remunerative way to do it so making it easy inconvenient and making it reasonably remunerative giving them some return if you will for what they put in is part of the overall strategy that the retirement security project sponsoring this this program has been all about now for some years they mentioned a half-dozen specific things one of which is the short-term emergency saving effort that's sort of in its infancy and that we're hoping will will mature the other five automatic enrollment in IRAs who caused a breakthrough in coverage of retirement savings for lower and moderate income and middle class workers in America maybe as many as 40 50 million people getting into the system for the first time number two expanding the savers credit so if auto IRA is making saving easier more convenient savers credit is making it more remunerative this is the tax credit we now have that gives lower and moderate income people people whose family income is in the lower 60,000 60,000 or below a tax credit that levels the playing field pardon the cliche but I use it advisedly because it's what the I end lobbyists are always telling con versus why they need to complicate the tax code to put in more tax breaks for big companies and wealthy individuals so for once we could level the playing field in favor of middle class and lower than middle class people by giving them a tax credit if they save in an IRA if they save in a 401k or similar plan in in addition to the deduction that they would normally get which is proportional to their tax bracket a tax credit that's proportional not to how much they they make or earn generally but to how much they save and David John and I have developed together the first of these two proposals the automatic IRA and we and Bill Gail have worked on expanding the savers credit together with some of the rest of you in this room the type of expansion a 50% credit across the board make it refundable deposit the credit in the person's account so they're saving the credit as well as what they put in and extending it to more of the middle class third automatic enrollment in 401k other auto features escalate the 401k contributions this helps middle and lower middle and moderate and lower-income people if they have access to a 401k if they're eligible it jacks up participation dramatically especially among lower income and minority folks sometimes from one out of five to four out of five in terms of those who participate in the plan if given the chance forth lifetime income getting our private pension system to restore the pension part of the private pension system the regular regular systemic guaranteed lifetime income which defined benefit plans provide when people don't elect lump sums and which 401 k's generally don't provide we can get lifetime income into 401 k's into IRAs with much greater frequency and help enhance security a great deal fifth the my RA may it rest in peace this was a proposal that we implemented it's an administrative initiative in the previous administration also directed at lower and moderate income people to give them a really easy way to save through IRAs not the big solution that the automatic IRA would be but but a kind of supplement or helper to those who are risk-averse don't want to get into the market afraid to save never save before giving them away pending a major solution like automatic enrollment in IRAs a short-term help and given the opportunity in tax reform now on the table on the hill to finally implement reforms to really help the middle class and boost the economy which of these has Congress chosen to move forward with none ratha fication a gimmick to pretend to be paying for some of the tax reform without really doing so maybe it was inevitable that this would be a trigger after some in prominent positions have irresponsibly invented and experimented with the concept of fake broadcast news fake print media news fake online news their political allies have recently been trying out the concept of fake revenues I'm referring to the claim that if you shift from pre-tax savings which gives a tax benefit in the short term to post tax savings Roth type which gives a tax benefit in the long term that you've actually saved all this revenue for the federal government rather than merely shifted the timing of the revenue mark it was worth it for everybody in this room to stay here just to hear that I think you know just read through some of the tax reform bill and you know as people know from news reports if you've followed it today they're saying that there's no ratha fication in there I spent I wish I'd been able to be at the previous panel because I was really interested in what people had to say the panelists had to say but I skipped it sorry Josh I skipped it in order to read the tax bill because I knew that you would ask about it so it it's 400 and some pages it took me about 15 minutes to look for to do what I needed to do which was find out what you'd want to know you know a look at the Roth uh vacation provisions so it took the first minute to see that there was nothing on Roth vacation in there and nothing on 401 k's the other 14 minutes I spent being skeptical about that whether in fact it'll come back in you know there's a legislative process ahead of us there's a markup there's a House vote I think it's less likely that the Senate would it would add this but the house could still do it and the revenue target is the fake revenue target is very tempting they could raise four five six seven maybe eight hundred billion dollars with this kind of Roth vacation so the Democrats lest that sound partisan at all which it's not the Senate Democrats came out with an attack on ratha fication as most of you know on Tuesday and they announced that there was an antidote to this they you know they exposed it as the gimmick that it is but they could not resist the temptation to compromise between a solid proposal that would actually help the middle class and that's the good news here that they they put the automatic IRA out there and said that that should be done and also something useful on employer contributions but on the other hand they they yielded to the temptation to make a sort of political score political points by saying that the first of the three antidotes or replacements of provocation ought to be raising the maximum limits on 401k plans by a third is the real problem for middle-class 50-year old workers in our country that they cannot contribute more than twenty four thousand dollars a year to their 401k which by the way is 40 percent of the median income in America whereas the problem that a third to a half of them don't have a 401k or a pension plan the auto IRA would address the latter would at least give them something 401k like putting people into tax favored saving through automatic enrollment without requiring small businesses to sponsor a plan and giving a tax credit to the small business for its trouble even though there's no outlay no contribution that it would need to make so I'm looking forward to the discussion but I wanted to give you that just quick breaking news bulletin on the on the tax bill and the response to it and I'm looking forward to the discussion too and I actually don't know how much of it we can have because my notes say that we're supposed to wrap up at 425 and ever body went out over so go for a couple of minutes so I do think that at the very least we should have the ability to have the conversation up here and would love to hear some of those questions but perhaps we'll have to take them offline a little bit you know I think the first thing to all of you is you unpacked one kind of assumption pretty explicitly but all three of you did which is the low and moderate-income people can't save or won't save or that the desire to do so isn't there so I think that that kind of assumption we've already talked about addressed and the evidence basis is not there but the other kind of assumption is that we have certain institutions that have to play certain roles in reform and some of them aren't doing that right now so I wonder if the other question is what are who are the innovators and who can be the institutions of the future who helped to bring some of these changes to pass and I know Jonathan for you you've got a few thoughts about that up with the SEIU yeah I think the idea of other associations other kinds of intermediaries there a future type of institutional you know function that we need to be thinking about to solve these paper I think our view is that the the power of the group and the power of associations and unions is an untapped power in a way and that that part of what we've done with SEIU in Canada is to tap that power more for members of their community who don't have a traditional kind of pension or other kind of workplace coverage and and so they've been able in a way to innovate and they're not committed to the traditional forms of college defined benefit type arrangements for this group and they're willing to step up and to create effectively a plan that is helping their members in that way I think our view is that that that kind of approach can be extended across many groups who actually have the the members best interests at heart and that's a little bit different in terms of the incentives than traditionally financial services firms in the way they interact with say clients there's a lot of value I think to be derived from from groups sponsoring things from those groups being empowered with the right information and knowing what we do about what actually makes say better pension arrangements work that many of those principles can be applied to the way in which those arrangements are organized and managed there's a there's a parallel to that in the u.s. not only for thinking about those other but also for leadership at the state level so I just wonder you know Marc and Katherine if you want to say something about that as an additional form of leadership an institution that could help to drive some of this change in the absence of federal leadership certainly I think the one of the takeaways of the tax reform proposal is that Congress doesn't have retirement reform at the top of its list to the extent retirement was included you've been considered on the table it was to raise revenue to pay for some of the other changes in the tax bill so the national level despite the fact that the American consumer has retirement security and anxiety about that at the top of their list policymakers are not paying attention at the state level however we do have we do see leadership in about half the states or more at this point in taking some initiative to tackle the retirement savings gap in small businesses some have chosen the path of the automatic IRA others are looking at other models like multiple employer plans this is real progress and states can lead and are leading on these work and save efforts as we call them an AARP one fundamental difference between the 401k and what's happening at the state level is the role of the employer which is an institution I would call out as extremely important and vital to the future retirement security in this country there's a question about what responsibilities the employer will have in the future around economic security of their workers around retirement provision there's some one there's some who will say that the employers want to get out of the game altogether but I would look to the buzz around employer employee financial wellness as one piece of evidence that maybe employers are still interested in doing right by their employees at the right price and at the state level these state plans the employers only responsibility in most of these cases is to facilitate a payroll deduction into a private retirement account in the name of that employee and so employers still have a vital role to play but the the hurdles the to offering a 401k plan cost administrative burden are removed or significantly reduced in some of these cases and so there are innovations that are happening that still include the employer but it really reimagined the role of the employer I'm sorry we won't have a fully robust discussion here mark I want to give you a last word observation back to Jonathan and Kent Canada and also just in terms of the this is not the first time we've come through this cycle of looking at opportunities in federal policy to address the needs of low and moderate income workers in the retirement system but but there's actually some things on the on the horizon to both continue to think about in terms of what other countries are doing and the continued think about about the u.s. opportunity what's your advice absolutely and and you know Jonathan you you point out very well that we ought to be looking at who the players are the institutions and the state efforts to implement in particular the automatic IRA and Josh got BAM here's the chairman of that effort in Maryland fortunately of Oregon California Illinois Connecticut also have passed that legislation it's taking the automatic IRA proposal that David John and I developed now 11 years ago and implementing it at the state level which has taken years we started working at least I started working the states on something like this 15 years ago and when we developed the auto IRA we were able to get them interested in it along the way so in the u.s. at least the states as Kathryn says are a big plus the other thing I would and institutionally too close is that the reason Congress almost countered the ratha fication impulse with raising the maximum limits on plans which is helpful only to a very small percentage of savers is that the role of the financial services industry has been very mixed many people there are really well-intentioned they're all expert or generally expert many of them have their clients best interests in mind and many of them want to have clients who are not just affluent people on the other hand there's a general incentive for the industry to serve the most affluent of course to maximize profits they have shareholders it's it's a free-market economy and to resist regulation and the result to some degree is that all of our conversations about retirement security are continually in need of refocus on who it's all about Frandsen all not all about assets under management which was the point of raising the limits and frankly was a large part of the concern about ratha fication though not all of it it's about retirement security for those who need it the most so the focus all too often is on the providers on the plan sponsors who are great and they were doing what's needed but not enough on the central player in our system the worker because the great notes hand-done thank you very much so I love you and thanks again to the Brookings Institution for organizer audience we'll talk in the end and as you can tell this is a conversation that could go on for quite some time so regard this as the start of a longer conversation thank you all for coming and for sticking with us and thank you for everyone who is watching us on the web Thanks