Nevin's Data "Points"

I recently met some friends for lunch – but the only seats available were those high-back stools you basically have to climb up to in order to sit. But that wasn’t the worst of it. As it turned out, my seat…wobbled. Which is to say that it basically rocked even as I sat there. Now, I’m all about rocking chairs in the proper setting, but when you’re trying to eat a meal (or enjoy a cold beverage), it’s annoying – particularly if you are one of those lean on the table types – and especially when your seat is high off the ground.    And as I was sitting there desperately attempting to maintain my balance (it didn’t help that my companions found my predicament humorous), it called to my mind that retirement security has long been said to be based on the concept of a three-legged stool. While the reference is somewhat dated, Social Security benefits were said to be one leg of a three-legged stool consisting of Social Security, private pensions and personal savings/investm

I recently stumbled across an academic study that claimed to find a correlation between higher employer contribution rates and leakage. I will confess to a certain skepticism at that finding. There are, after all, a well-established series of things that contribute to leakage, broadly defined as distribution of retirement savings prior to retirement – but employer matching contributions – and certainly more generous matching contributions – have never been on that list. The study – innocuously titled “ Cashing Out Retirement Savings at Job Separation ” – spends most of its 20-odd pages talking about leakage, its impacts on retirement security, and some possible solutions.  That said, one needs read no further than the abstract of this paper to find its surprising conclusion regarding one such underlying cause; its authors “estimate that a 50% increase in employer/employee match rate increases leakage probability by 6.3% at job termination.” More specifically, “The high

I’ve been honored with a lot of praise and congratulations over the past couple of months about my “retirement” (and not a little skepticism about my understanding of the term) — but in quiet moments, there’s been one question that keeps coming up. That question — and it generally arises once topics like “what are your plans,” “are you going to move,” and “can your wife really stand having you around all the time” have been broached — is, quite simply, “how do you know when it’s time to retire?” Honestly, it’s a complicated question, and one to which the answer is deeply, even intimately, personal.  For many it’s not their choice, of course. Surveys suggest that for significant minorities the timing is imposed on them by external factors; a job layoff, a physical impediment, or perhaps caretaking responsibilities. While none of those were factors in my decision, at the outset, it’s worth bearing in mind that the “when” is not always in your control. For most people —

As we headed to San Diego last week, two things were uppermost in my mind. The Summit, of course — you don’t spend 10 months of your life focused on pulling together (and executing) the nation’s largest (and for my money, best) retirement plan advisor conference without running through your mind a constant list of things to be done, things that you think were done, but you’re not sure, and, of course — the things you COMPLETELY forgot about until the day before you fly out. The other thing was my father. See, April 1 was the anniversary of my father’s passing, and while it’s been 17 years, I still remember that day. It was unexpected — on a Saturday morning when such calls are inevitably good or awful news. I had just wrapped up my weekly column when I got that call — from my sister. My father, who had been battling cancer for several years now, had suffered a series of heart attacks. By the end of the day and, sadly, several hundred miles away from our home — he

A few weeks back, an industry friend commented that, while we had certainly done a great job promoting the NAPA 401(k) Summit, that campaign hadn’t fully captured the essence of what makes “the Summit” different. Let me try here. There are, admittedly, a lot of conferences out there — and most promote — as we do — the great content, compelling keynotes, robust networking and great accommodations.  Some of them actually deliver on those promises. But since everyone says they do, how do you know the difference? The most obvious metric is, perhaps growth. Time-pressed advisors don’t waste their time going to conferences that don’t deliver the “goods.” The Summit has now been around for more than 20 years — and it’s challenging to sustain consistent growth over that long a stretch. That said, when I arrived here back in 2014, my first Summit “here,” we had about 1,300 attendees — and about a third were advisors.  And we were pretty darned proud of that ratio. But this y