Nevin's Data "Points"

Every year about this time, we get reports from firms that purport to tell us how much time is spent in preparations for the NCAA basketball tournament—and, no, not by the teams and coaches. The “studies” (ironically, they’re always put out by firms that are in the business of helping people find jobs) generally make some assumptions about the amount of time people spend on the workplace pools as well as how many people will participate, and their compensation levels, and—voila—the productive time ostensibly “lost” to these activities. Now, they make a lot of assumptions to get to that result, including the assumption that, but for these pools, people would be doing nothing but working. But the results give journalists something easy—and “fun”—to write about, and the rest of us to read and talk about (some day someone should do a study on how much time and money is wasted writing and reading about those “studies”). Our lives are filled with such reports: perhaps valid points that are

Last week brought to light an aspect of 401(k) litigation that doesn’t generally get a lot of coverage—and the participant-plaintiff was presented with a $50,000 bill. Now, at some level, this case was “just” another stock drop suit where some kinds of accounting issues contributed to a sudden (and ostensibly unexpected) drop in the price of company shares, including those held in the company’s 401(k) plan.1 These types of cases have cropped up one after another in the wake of the market downturn, and while the fact patterns behind the drop in share price vary slightly, the suits themselves allege pretty much the same thing: The plan fiduciaries kept the stock as a plan investment after it was no longer prudent to do so; to wit—after it suffered a precipitous drop in value. Most of these cases don’t seem to get very far, the courts either deferring to a “presumption of prudence” (see “IMHO: Prudent Mien?” or, as in this case, finding that ERISA 404(c)’s safe harbor provided shelter

There’s been a lot of talk coming from Washington of late about the need to have “an adult conversation” with the American people. That conversation ostensibly includes discussion around the need to make changes to how this country spends its money and/or how much it needs to fund that spending. Almost certainly that “adult” conversation means decreasing entitlement benefits and/or increasing the tax “contributions” we make to fund those entitlement benefits. The politicians wonder if we’re ready for it; personally, I think the politicians are the only ones who aren’t. Still, when someone talks about the need for an “adult” conversation, what they mean is that we need to talk about things you’d probably just as soon not think about, much less talk about. Those are generally serious topics with painful choices. Regardless, we’re only just beginning to have those “adult conversations” with retirement plan participants. Sure, we talk about the need to save as much as they can, beginn

Last week the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued two reports focused on 401(k) plans: one on target-date funds, the other on potential conflicts of interest. As seems to be its custom in such reports, the GAO communicates its conclusion in the titles: “Key Information on Target Date Funds as Default Investments Should Be Provided to Plan Sponsors and Participants” and “Improved Regulation Could Better Protect Participants from Conflicts of Interest”—and, IMHO, there’s little controversy in those statements. The reports themselves offer a great informational primer on target-date fund designs and issues (you’d be surprised how many plan sponsors still don’t quite grasp the concept of “glide path”) as well as the fee structures and revenue-sharing components that underlie the 401(k) retirement savings system. Both reports acknowledge that efforts are already under way to remedy the shortfalls the reports identified in both, while at the same time promoting solutions to those