Nevin's Data "Points"

As if retirement savers didn’t have enough problems, last week Fidelity Investments reminded us how much money we’re going to need for health care. According to Fidelity’s annual estimate, an average couple retiring in 2009 would need $240,000 set aside by age 65 in order to pay for health-care expenses in retirement (see “ Retiree Health Care Estimate Jumps 6.7% ”). Worse, that’s up from $225,000 in 2008—and even worse, the 2009 figure is 50% higher than the $160,000 Fidelity estimated in 2002 would be required. Even those workers who still have employment-based retiree health benefits to supplement Medicare, but who must pay their own premiums, need to set aside a hefty amount, according to a 2008 EBRI report; men would need between $102,000 and $196,000 in current savings (50th and 90th percentiles, respectively), while women would need between $137,000 and $224,000, respectively, due to their greater longevity, according to the report (see “ EBRI Pinpoints Retiree Health Expenses

Like many, perhaps most, Americans I have viewed the unraveling “Bonusgate” scandal with a mixture of disgust and incredulity. Essentially, the federal government, operating in crisis mode to restore the financial system and markets to “normal” - extracted through a kind of political blackmail (“you have to approve this now without questioning, or this will be on your hands”) enormous sums of money that they handed over, largely without condition, to allow certain firms to stay in business. Those firms, right or wrong, are still in business – and, much to the consternation of the American public, have then proceeded to conduct business as usual. That, of course, means honoring their financial obligations and – like it or not – that includes those now-infamous bonuses. Of course, the American public is struggling to understand how a company that is so badly off it has to take on millions, and in AIG’s case, billions, of taxpayer dollars, can afford such apparent “largesse”. And, of

A survey published this past week by Fidelity noted that workers cited health insurance, retirement savings plan matching contributions, and dental insurance as the three most important benefits, with health insurance ranking as No. 1. That study (see Workers Underestimate Cost of Providing Health Benefits ) offered some interesting perspectives on health care and the expenses associated with that benefit. The good news was that workers very much prize this benefit – and in large part (72%) believed that what they got through their workplace was better than, or at least as good as, what most other companies offer. That said, more than half (61%) noted that they were paying more than they once did, but were getting the same – or less – in terms of benefits than they did in 2007. However, a more striking finding in that Fidelity study, IMHO, was that more than half (53%) thought that that health insurance benefit was costing their employer less than $5,000/year, when a more typical r

A couple of months ago, I started getting e-mails from readers curious about the announcements of plans reducing and/or suspending their matching contributions. As the weeks passed—and the number of reports grew—so did the inquiries. Those first inquiries were clearly seeking assurances that the announcements did not constitute a trend, that this was still just something a (very) few employers were embracing. Indeed, that was my sense of things (see " IMHO: Trend Spotting ", borne out not only by one of our weekly surveys (see " SURVEY SAYS: What Are Your Plans for Your Match? ", but also in a couple of industry reports as well (see " 83% of Employers Surveyed do not Expect Employer Contribution Changes "—and I was happy to provide those assurances (and links to those surveys) to any and all who asked. However, in recent weeks, those inquiries have taken on a different tone; this new wave of inquiries seems to be seeking validation, if not vindication.