Nevin's Data "Points"

I saw an interesting event headline the other day. It said simply, “Trust is an economic stimulus package.” A short, and somewhat simplistic, assessment to be sure. And yet, IMHO, one that may well lie at the heart of our current economic turmoil; trust – or perhaps more accurately, the lack thereof. Trust was surely at issue when the financial system ground to a halt last fall, with investors anxiously pulling back funds from institutions that were similarly concerned about the financial integrity of those to which they had extended credit. In response, the federal government first tried to broker deals between troubled firms and what turned out to be soon-to-be-troubled firms…and then decided to sit on the sidelines when the second “opportunity” emerged, leaving everyone to wonder if the government would step in or not – and if so, how (and how much)? Under stress (if not duress), the first big bailout was pressed through – but the articulated plan for its dispersal was abruptly

I’ve spent most of my life, certainly my adult life, confident that Americans, certainly in large part, are reasonable and rational. I have not, unfortunately, always been as sure of certain subsets of the population, notably politicians. On numerous occasions during the political season just past, as one outrageous claim after another was laid at the feet of one candidate or another (and sometimes both), I heard (and was heard to utter) “rebuttals” of a sort—“They’d NEVER do that,” for example, or at least, “They’d never get away with that.” Granted, sometimes I’d say those words—and yet wonder if, this time, “they” actually might. One’s position on such things is inevitably interwoven with one’s comfort with the idea, of course. “Anything’s possible” can be both an anthem of positive change and an ominous portent of doom. Those were the kinds of reactions that last fall’s hearings on the impact of the markets on retirement engendered, certainly in terms of the reactions to comme

We got another verdict on those infamous revenue-sharing lawsuits last week. Not a verdict in the sense of a Perry Mason trial, perhaps - but we did have two sides presenting their case to a judge who, once again, basically felt that the plaintiffs didn’t make their case. Personally, I find this entire class of revenue-sharing lawsuits abhorrent. Not that I don’t think there are some real issues to be had with regard to how some plans are being charged, and how some of those revenue-sharing arrangements are perhaps being abused. Rather, I resent them because, in large part, I think the cases brought to date—at least as I understand the facts—are probably not where the real problems lie. They do, however, represent huge piles of money—and if you’re a contingent-fee lawyer, that is (to borrow Willie Sutton’s famous phrase) “where the money is.” Consequently, back in 2007, when U.S. District Judge John Shabaz of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin tossed—and

In one of the more memorable sound bytes of the Presidential campaign just past, candidate Obama tried to explain the rationale underpinning his economic philosophy as a belief that we should “spread the wealth.” Of course, it remains to be seen just how much wealth will be spread, and to whom (and from whom) – but, like it or not – there are also certain redistributive principles at work in our retirement plans. And while I think it’s fair to say that no new ground was broken, a recent paper, “The Structure of 401(k) Fees,”,published by the Center for Retirement Research (CRR) at Boston College, highlighted the potential inequities that current fee structures may be imposing on plan participants (see “ Disclosure not the Only Issue with 401(k) Plan Fees ”). Setting aside for a moment whether the fees charged are fair, the paper highlighted a fact that, while obvious, is not always intuitive: When asset-based fees are the order of the day, as they surely still are for most retirement