Nevin's Data "Points"

For all the good press and positive results that automatic enrollment gets, one might well expect that every plan would embrace it. And yet today, nearly a decade after the passage of the Pension Protection Act, many still don’t. So, why don’t all plans use automatic enrollment — and what can you do about it? Here are the primary objections that I have heard from plan sponsors — and some possible responses. Cost. The simple reality is that automatic enrollment “works,” which is to say that overnight, it has the very real potential of transforming a long-standing plan participation rate of 67% or 75% to 95% or greater. The other simple reality is that when you take that likely increase in participation rate (generally from 70% to 95% or so), and then figure out the increase in matching dollars that would result — well, it can be a sudden budget jolt, particularly when you think about it applying to an employee population that is likely more tenured and highly compensated. Per

Working with retirement plans is a complicated, challenging and constantly changing process. That said, there are certain constants — and things that bear repeating and/or reconsidering from time to time. Since I published my first list of 15 last fall (one of my most popular, as it turns out), I’ve gotten several very good suggestions — and had an epiphany or two. Here are a few (more) points to ponder: Cheaper isn’t always better, unless it’s the only difference. Sometimes you do get what you pay for — but not always. If you’re not doing anything “wrong,” you probably aren’t doing anything much. You can spend a lot of money in court being right. A fund whose allocation is based solely on date of retirement is sure to miss something, but not as much as a fund whose allocation doesn’t take that into account. If you don’t know how much you’re paying, you’re likely paying too much. Don’t assume that those who aren’t saving via your workplace retirement plan know what they

Ours is a business where surveys and trends often shape not only perceptions, but policy — though sometimes the conclusions drawn, and even the premise itself — make me go “huh?” Here’s a sampling: Citing a drop in deferral rates as a failure of automatic enrollment. Every so often a personal finance writer will stumble across an industry survey that shows that the average deferral rate in 401(k) plans has declined, a problem they attribute to automatic enrollment adoption. We all know what is going on here ; individuals who take the time to fill out a form and enroll in the plan manually tend to defer at a higher rate than do those who are automatically enrolled, the latter typically at a modest 3% rate. On the other hand, automatic enrollment has a dramatic impact on raising the participation rate. The rest is just math — more people, saving at lower rates = a lower average deferral rate. Now, those individuals automatically enrolled at a 3% rate may draw down the average de

Will your portfolio pick up with the Panthers, or will it get bucked by the Broncos? That’s what adherents of the so-called Super Bowl Theory would likely predict. The Super Bowl Theory holds that when a team from the old National Football League wins the Super Bowl, the S&P 500 will rise, and when a team from the old American Football League prevails, stock prices will fall. It’s a “theory” that has been found to be correct nearly 80% of the time — for 39 of the 49 Super Bowls, in fact. It certainly proved to be the case this past year, following Super Bowl XLIX, when the New England Patriots bested the Seattle Seahawks 28-24 to earn their fourth Super Bowl title. It also “worked” in 2014, when the Seahawks bumped off the Denver Broncos, a legacy AFL team, and in 2013, when a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback rescued a victory by the Baltimore Ravens — who, though representing the AFC, are technically a legacy NFL team via their Cleveland Browns roots. Admittedly, the fact