World something really big happened on monday. And that was there was agreement to actually increase the cpp. So we had a change in government last october. That was a positive on enhancing the cpp. Frankly, ontario would rather do something nationally with the other provinces than do things on their own. So the between ontario and the federal government and doing some further work, there was actually agreement on monday to do two things with respect to the canada pension plan. One was to increase the benefit, and number two is to increase the amount of income thats going to be covered by the benefit. So its a big deal in canada right up there with stabilizing the cpp in the 1990s. So theres a lot of detail to be worked out as to okay, exactly you get down to the bottom line what does it all mean in terms of implementation. A long window on implementation, starts 2019. Sevenyear window to implement the whole thing. That got agreement thats what got agreement from the hesitant provinces to have a very long runway. So that now changes the conversation in canada in terms of, okay, given were going to do that, what else do we need to do . Its quite a change in conversation. So good things can happen. There can be agreement between governments, apparently, if you get the right vibes and somebody called trudeau in the room and it happened. So where does that leave you all here . Three things. One is that i think its important to have the ideal system in mind. Ideally if you could wave a magic wand, what would it look like . And then number two is realistically, how close can you get there . Because there are a lot of barriers, a lot of path dependency on how they got to where they are today, some of them nonchangeable, but still i think this notion of the ideal, what can we do, you know at the margin, where should we be spending our time . And it seems to me, firstly, that the Poverty Alleviation for seniors is one major issue that i would look at in terms of what can we do about that, and then i think with respect to middle income workers without pension plans, the question really does become is you know, how forceful can you become about getting that participation up . And its interesting that in the uk, they went through this and they said, you know, youve got to mandate it, and now in canada through expanding the canada pension plan, it is mandatory. So all employers will have to be involved in this. So i think the question for you is to what degree can you require, number one, participation, but also, number two, getting the contribution rate up to a level where it actually matters, where you can get the income replacement. So those are my opening thoughts. Thanks. [ applause ] thanks so much, keith. So weve got about 15 minutes left. And i want to make sure we have lots of time for well, lots of time, some time for audience questions. So i would say i would like to pose one question to all of you that you can answer or not, as the case may be, based on things that everyone has said. Everyones pointed out that coverage is a huge issue. Keith has just put on the table the idea that the key to it internationally is compulsory participation. Is that the key to it . And, you know, related to what the way he framed it at the end which i thought was really useful, right, is like theres an ideal system in mind and then theres realistically how close can you get there . We all know the prospects for compulsory systems in the United States are particularly challenging in the aftermath of the Affordable Care act, so comment, if you would, on whether you think compulsory is the solution or what a different alternative might be that would get us there. Do you want me to start . Sure. So id say to start, the first thing i would suggest is we dont use the term compulsory. How about mandate . Probably not that one either. So ive been at a number of events with the folks from n. E. S. T. And others from the uk that were part of their reforms. They always start using the term compulsion. And i think, boy, that will never sell here. To be here later, and i think the critical thing is to think about how we build on, you know, the start that they got on the auto ira and think about the framing in a way that makes people in policy circles comfortable with the fact that were not talking about compulsion or a mandate. Were talking about putting in place a series of defaults that puts people on a path towards Retirement Security, towards success, and that if we dont, were doing the same thing, were just choosing a negative default. Were putting them on a path toward failure. So why as a society would we do that . I mean, it just doesnt make any sense, and i think if you frame it that way, its a lot easier to get the 90 of the way there that we can get to and not make the search, the for the ideal be the enemy of good enough here. Thats my thought. Thank you. Sure. I like the term universal as opposed to compulsory. I like the sense that everyone, all workers, would be covered, would have some way of providing for retirement. And targeted universalism perhaps by that i mean doing something for those who are the lowest earners through tax credit, expanding the savers credit and making it refundable, something to that effect so that there is an additional boost in terms of ensuring that there is enough for them at their retirement age. [ inaudible ] maybe this is the time where im supposed to remember to say my views are my own and dont reflect the trustees, et cetera, et cetera. I think you really need to focus on how to best draw employers in as part of the solution. We modeled what would happen if auto iras were basically available on a national basis, and of the 4. 13 trillion in Retirement Savings shortfalls, we were only able to decrease it by 6. 5 . The reason is, of course, you dont have any employer money coming in and you dont have any incentives for the employees to go beyond the 3 . So whether were calling it mandatory or universal or compulsory, i think we should do everything we possibly can to incentivize the employers to become part of this process and to come in as contributions. The other thing i think you have to be really careful on is what is your objective . I mean, do you really want to have every single employee, quote, covered every single year . We look at these snapshots and we look at a huge percentage of individuals that dont necessarily have coverage or arent participating in a particular year, but that doesnt mean theyre going to go through their entire career without participating or without coverage. So you have to look basically over a full lifetime. Then you get to the end and what is it that you want to have available for these people . We find in our modeling that a lot of individuals look like theyd be in good shape financially, and then because of nursing home costs for one or both spouses, basically, the account balances are ravaged. Is it really a problem with not enough savings, or is it a problem we are retirement expenditures that are not being dealt with sufficiently. Whether its through Long Term Care insurance or some government program, what have you. Thank you. Im going to give you the last give you the last word on this and well open it to the audience if thats okay. [ inaudible ] i think behavioral economics is important and understanding it. The framing is really critical. I was going to give an example of that and this relates to my friend david knox this goes back to the inventor of gpi. Hes on a mission to invent the back ends on dc plans, income for life back ends. And we just had a work shop in toronto on that. And i wrote it up, and i used in my language, i used income for life guarantees in my draft. And he came back and he said dont use the word guarantees. Use protection. Income for life protection. And, again, i think its classic example of something that goes down a lot easier because, again, with protection, its not necessarily a guarantee. I mean, you can actually do a lot of shifting between the people that die too soon and the ones that live longer than theyre supposed to without guarantees. And thats the focus. So i think theres a whole open question of the language we use and how we rethink getting to where we want to go using language that facilitates rather than creates barriers. Thanks, keith. Thats a great point. Lets go to audience questions. I would ask remind you that were on cspan, not because anybody should be afraid that are on tv. But if you would wait till we get a microphone, stand up and also if you would please identify yourself before you start. I think melissa, did you have a hand up . Thanks, melissa kahn. And i agree about all the comments about language. Language is very important and framing is very important. I like the term of universal as opposed to mandate. Lou, im sorry to put you on the spot. Were a member and support you greatly. Im curious, you know, i think auto enrollment, escalation, changing safe harbors is important here. But i still think you have the gap of workers who dont work for companies, especially in the small employer sector who dont and wont have access. So how would you get them covered . Yeah, great question. So i think the first thing you want to do is understand as jack was alluding to who is left out of the system and i think we often reflectively fall into the trap of looking at a snap shot that at any given time theres a significant percentage, maybe an overreported percentage, but a significant percentage of the population that at that moment in time is not covered. A significant number of those people that are not covered are going to cycle back into coverage and maybe out of it and back in. So i do think its important for us to understand through a working lifetime, you know, whether people have access to enough coverage to get them where they need to be. But that aside, who is left out . So parttime employees are clearly in a position where theyre more often than not left out. We need to figure out what the incentives are in the system right now that are causing employers to leave their parttime employees off the table. I think there are rules in place qualification rules that are probably an akronistic we need to rethink. We need to make sure the incentives are to cover people and not leave them out. It goes well beyond that. The selfemployed are often out of the system. You would think theres a way for us to incentivize them to take care of themselves. I think thats going to be further exacerbated as we see the emerging gig economy where a lot of people are technically selfemployed even though they feel like theyre working for others. And then, you know, we clearly have issues with very very small employers and with the service industry. And you know, i think once we sort of define where that coverage gap is, it helps us to think through what the appropriate solutions are. You know, there are definitely different paths to take. I do like the idea of focusing on the framing around universality. I think there is going to have to be a nudge there somehow. I think practically its a nudge and not mandate. But, you know, it has the same effect. You know, ultimately i think the other thing is it may be a little beyond the scope here, but we have to think about the Critical Role that Social Security plays in providing for the Retirement Security of the least among us. And you know, Social Security was conceived as a social insurance program. Weve gotten to thinking about it as a Retirement Savings program. And i think as part of the conversation we have to think about there is going to be a portion of our population that whatever we do are not going to have enough periods of coverage through working to provide for their Retirement Security needs. We have to make sure that their security is provided through Social Security. I think its a critical part of the total calculus. Other questions . Thanks so much, everyone. Im justin king from new america. Congressman crowley did a great job offering up the idea of the need for savings, for a variety of needs over the course of ones life. And id love to solicit reactions from the panel about the tension between peoples Emergency Needs and Retirement Savings. And whether or not theres potential to adapt the Retirement Savings system to more holistically meet the needs of americans. Whether we can address withdrawals and leakage in a way that supports families, Emergency Needs and the fact that life happens going forward. Anyone want to take that . Thats a very good question. Definitely there is the need to acknowledge that people are going to have requirements for the use of savings before they get to retirement. And to have multiple ways of saving. We have research that shows that people of all income levels can and do save when they have the structures in place to facilitate savings. Like upper income households have had for a long time. So there are options to have bifurcated savings strategies so some are going into retirement accounts, at the same time some savings are going into accounts for other uses. Which could be emergency savings. I think we need to keep those on the table and explore that as we go forward. I want today quickly comment, so i think it goes beyond programs. I think we have a real need for cultural change. We need to change the mindset, change the beliefs in our country around the savings and the taking control of your financial future. There are definitely programs that can put in place i would suggest outside the Retirement Savings system instead of detracting from it. I think its important we get people focused on a gut level on the need for taking control of their financial future. Thank you. So i think we have time for one more question. Lenny, i saw your hand up. First of all, thanks for a wonderful and comprehensive panel. I wanted just to note that what was about closing the coverage gap is more than just about providing options for Retirement Income. Its also addressing an issue with social justice and helping us become a more perfect union. I wanted just to ask jack a question about the 3 glitch in the ppa itself. Is there somewhere in the bill, jack, where theres a reference to 3 as a starting point and youre not necessarily required to escalate from there . Because perhaps that legislation inadvertently caused a lot of people to use 3 and create the issue that the wall street journal story brought up. Havent read ppa for about ten years, so i might be a little bit rusty on the details. I dont know if mark is here yet, but i would bet anything that the vast majority of the people who came in at 3 were coming in because of what was written back in the 90s when they were getting the guidance that a 2 or 3 default was going to be okay with irs and the treasury. Whether or not you are basically going to be compelled to follow 3 for anything other than safe harbor, i dont think that was the intent of ppa, certainly. Great. So were going to move on to our next thing. Please join me in thanking a wonderful panel. [ applause ] and ida is going to introduce our keynote speaker. Thanks, jeremy. So when i started out this morning saying there was a room full of experience, was i wrong . Its really been an amazing conversation. And honestly an amazing set of careers dedicated to these issues and the path forward. So its my pleasure to get the opportunity to introduce yet another one of the leaders who has amassed many years of experience and many years of expertise to share with us today from an industrys perspective on the unfinished agenda of the ppa. From one particular companys perspective. So please join me in welcoming edward f. Murphy who im going to call ed for the rest of the introduction. He is president of empower retirement with over 8 million savers, 35,000 plans. And serving all segments of the employer sponsored Retirement Plan market. Ed brings as i said over 30 years of experience to his role with empower and has been with putnam since 2009 and in 2014 took over the role as president of empower. Prior to that he was head of defined contribution and investment and prior to 2009, he was in executive leadership with fidelity for 20 years. A lot of publications, a lot of thought leadership exhibited by you, ed, and also youre frequently here in d. C. I think it might be your second home. Speak ing with congress, department of labor, department of treasury, the irs, around many of the kinds of conversations about reform and inclusion and expansion of retirement saving systems and their effectiveness to our policy leaders. Earlier this week, at the spark conference, an industry conference that was here you got headlines for your call to your peers in industry to speak with one collective voice on Public Policy issues relating to expanding and improving retirement saving systems in this country. So i want to thank you for that leadership. I cant wait to hear what you have to say. I know we have slides for you, ed, if i can invite you up and everybody please give a warm welcome to ed murphy. [ applause ] good morning, everyone. Thank you, ida, and thank you to the Aspen Institute for hosting this event. I do think its timely, particularly in light of the election and what we can expect in 2017. I think were optimistic about the opportunity for retirement legislation. Today is an interesting day for us at empower, we have 5,000 associates. And were really busy today. Our call volumes are up 25 . As weve got 8 million americans that we support, but one of the things thats interesting is unlike years ago when we would have periods of volatility like this in the market, were not seeing the panic selling and capitulation. I think investors through their own experience, are not reacting hastily. They realize that the investments they have in Retirement Plans are 20, 30, 40 year investments. So i think thats good to see. Particularly with the market down 500 points. I think this is a great group we have here today. Many of you were involved in helping to shape the pension protection act of 2006 and others are working on the next iteration as we look to build off the ppa. I have a little bit of a multimedia show here, but some really interesting data, Empirical Data we want to share with you. Im going to cut right to the chase. And say the keys to solving americas Retirement Savings challenge are right in front of our noses. First,