Nevin's Data "Points"

So, how many 401(k) accounts do  you  have? At the moment, I have four—one from each of the employers in my career (including this one), all except the first one (that one went for law school and a house downpayment). Apparently I’m not alone. A recent  survey  of Plan Sponsor Council of America members found that only 18% of respondents had a single 401(k) account. Nearly as many (14.3%) had five. As it turns out, three was the most common response. I joke that it’s just “market research”—after all, what better way to assess the quality of various retirement plan offerings than to have your own 401(k) supported by some of the best? Sure, there’s been institutional pricing at one that I’d hate to lose, access to a specific managed account platform that I value, and a really cool online platform at another—and then, in the back of my mind, is a concern that the taxability detail might get “jostled” in the process—in short, plenty of reasons to rationalize my leaving them

This weekend is, of course, Father’s Day—but my dad’s decision to retire was driven more by time than timing.  Like many of his generation, once he got to 65, it was time to “retire.” He didn’t have a pension (fortunately for him, my mother did), though he had Social Security, and savings in a 403(b) plan that he contributed to later in life—reluctantly—once he saw Mom’s modest savings in her 403(b) account grow.   My dad was a man of (very) few words—at least spoken words. Conversations with him generally required… effort. Oh, he’d respond to direct questions, but his answers tended to be short and—well, direct. Again, like many of his generation, mostly he was content to let my mother be the conversationalist in family settings.    So, when Dad turned to me one weekend afternoon for some input on his retirement planning—well, I was surprised. Not that it didn’t warrant a discussion, mind you—but it was not something we had ever discussed—and more’s the pity. That said

Last week the Treasury Department’s Social Security Board of Trustees released its annual report in a classic case of good news, bad news. The  good news , of a sort, was that the date through which Social Security will be able to pay scheduled benefits was projected to be 2034—and while that’s not very far away, it was a year later than the prior year’s report had indicated. The  bad news , of course, is that without some kind of adjustment the program won’t be able to pay those scheduled benefits beyond 2034. [i] Now, that’s not the same as “going broke” or running out of money—but, as things stand now—assuming no adjustment is made—a possible outcome would be that the scheduled benefits paid would only be about three-fourths of “scheduled.” [ii] What’s weird is that it’s hard to find anybody who seems to think the problem  won’t  get fixed at some point—though the definitions of “fixed” vary—and  nobody  is willing to hazard a guess on who’s going to step up, much less

 A new report entitled “The Missing Middle” by the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) treads some all-too-familiar ground, myopically focusing on one element of the nation’s private retirement system. The articulated concern is, of course, the “middle”—an income grouping for which Social Security’s progressive structure doesn’t reach high enough to provide an adequate replacement income, but that lacks the more expansive financial wherewithal of those at the upper end of the income strata. According to the paper, the tax incentives that arguably existed at the birth of the 401(k) have been muted due to lower marginal tax rates and the expansion of the standard deduction—both of which serve to mitigate the tax burden on lower-income individuals—but in the process also arguably lessen the financial incentive for deferring taxes. And if that were not enough, the authors also argue that the “…tax benefits relating to investment returns may be less in a market