Nevin's Data "Points"

What’s the most important number when it comes to retirement? Once upon a time it might have been considered to be “65”—that traditional age for retirement—but even though it’s the default in many retirement calculators, until recently it hadn’t even been the most common age for actual retirement. Heck, it’s not even “good enough” for full Social Security benefits these days. [i]   Perhaps a more precise focus number in retirement planning is the one that purports to provide some level of financial security in retirement [ii] —indeed, some years back there was a commercial that prompted folks to determine their “number”—a reference to a financial result that was deemed necessary to “retire the way you want” (and perhaps when you want, though that wasn’t part of the “pitch”). But while that was (and is) “A” number, in order to get to it, for it to have any semblance of actually fulfilling that promise (premise?), you had to first get to several other numbers; how l...

 Our industry has long fretted over how 401(k) participants will respond to volatile markets. And perhaps not surprisingly, these days the headlines are, generally speaking, full of “stay the course” assurances.    That said, as recently as a month ago the headlines—even OUR headlines read things like “Light 401(k) Trades in July Even as Wall Street Posts Strong Month, Hot July Brought Cool 401(k) Traders , July Brings Much-Needed Calm to 401k Trading Activity, 401(k) Trading Light in July Despite Market Gains.” As though this is a surprising result. In fact, as long as I can remember, our industry (or at least its headline writers) has long been somewhat amazed that participants have been as “resilient” in the face of volatile markets as they have—consistently—been over time. We’ve rationalized that ostensibly rational behavior in different ways, at different times. In 1987 (before there was daily trading in 401(k)s) it was said that the markets had ...