Nevin's Data "Points"

Each year the good folks at Beloit College produce a “Mindset List” providing a look at the cultural touchstones that shape the lives of students about to enter college. So, in what ways will their retirement plans differ from those of their parents? In the most recent list (they’ve been doing it since 1998), the Beloit Mindset List notes that for the class of 2020 (among other things): There has always been a digital swap meet called eBay. They never heard Harry Caray try to sing during the seventh inning at Wrigley Field. Vladimir Putin has always been calling the shots at the Kremlin. Elian Gonzalez, who would like to visit the U.S. again someday, has always been back in Cuba. The Ali/Frazier boxing match for their generation was between the daughters of Muhammad and Joe. NFL coaches have always had the opportunity to throw a red flag and question the ref. Snowboarding has always been an Olympic sport. John Elway and Wayne Gretzky have always been retired. So, what abo

One could hardly read the headlines this past week without experiencing a certain sense of déjà vu. After all, it’s been not quite 10 years since the then relatively obscure St. Louis-based law firm of Schlichter, Bogard & Denton launched about a dozen of what have come to be referred to as “excessive fee” lawsuits. Not that the recent batch of suits targeting multi-billion dollar university plans are a mere recounting of the charges leveled against their private sector counterparts. No, in the years since then the Schlichter law firm has sharpened their pencils, and their criticism. Those early suits focused on what, in comparison to the most recent waves, seem almost quaintly simplistic: allegedly undisclosed revenue-sharing practices, the use of non-institutional class shares by large 401(k) plans, the apparent lack of participant disclosure of hard-dollar fees (which even then were disclosed to regulators), and even the presentation of ostensibly passive funds as actively

As human beings, we’re drawn to perspectives, including surveys and studies that validate our sense of the world. This “ confirmation bias ,” as it’s called, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms our preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. It also tends to make us discount findings that run afoul of our existing beliefs. In its simplest terms then, when you see a headline that confirms your sense of the world, you’ll be naturally inclined to embrace and remember it as a validation of what you already perceive reality to be. Even if the grounds supporting that premise are shaky, sketchy, or (shudder) downright scurrilous. Here are some things to look for – likely in the fine print – as you evaluate those findings. There can be a difference between what people say they will (or might) do and what they actually will. No matter how well targeted they are, surveys (and studies that incorporate the outcome of surveys) must rely on w