Nevin's Data "Points"

One of my favorite parts of the NAPA 401(k) Summit is a comprehensive annual survey we do of advisors in attendance at the Summit I call the Summit Insider . It’s a unique opportunity to get the perspective of hundreds of retirement plan-focused advisors in a unique window of time. A chance, if you will, to see what’s on the collective minds of a very special group of individuals. Like the networking experience of the Summit itself, it’s a chance to see what is actually on the minds and driving forces for the nation’s leading advisors. Sometimes it’s a validation—sometimes a repudiation—but it’s always insightful, all the more so in view of this year’s (record-breaking) response to the Summit Insider questionnaire. Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve shared some insights in the NAPA-Net daily—but if you’re looking for a quick sense of the advisor perspective(s) on business practices, industry trends, team building, or future focus—well, here you go: There have been BIG

An update of a so-called “study” has been making the rounds—again—and its authors have doubled-down (and then some) on the assumptions in an updated version. I’m referring to something called “ The True Cost of Forgotten 401(k) Accounts (2023) ”—an update to a report circulated about a year ago of the same title (sans the “2023” qualifier) by a firm called Capitalize. The first report claimed that there was $1.35 trillion in “forgotten” 401(k) accounts—the latest iteration has upped that number to $1.65 trillion. That’s right, $1.65 TRILLION. Not that the report’s authors make it hard to be incredulous about their results. Their executive summary claims that a full 25%—that’s a full QUARTER—of all 401(k) plan assets are, by their definition, “forgotten.” And if you’ve ever “left behind” a 401(k) account at a previous employer—well, apparently you’ve “forgotten” that account by their definition.   Now if that definition of “forgotten” winds up being more credible than t

A new WSJ op-ed says that 401(k)s “too often lead employees to make financially harmful mistakes.”  And yes, advisors are (apparently) part of the problem. The “problem”—at least according to the op-ed authors is that, left to their own devices participants are said to be inclined to overindulge in bad investment choices; choices they claim are the result of plan sponsors’ ignorance of how their workforce is actually using the options—an ignorance born of advisors failing to provide that information. Advisors, they comment, who “don’t have any financial incentive to provide such information, or to design plans in ways that would tend to reduce diversification mistakes to begin with.” Now I can’t speak for every advisor, but I know plenty who are actually devoting a fair amount of time and energy to tracking—and sharing, certainly in the aggregate—the asset allocation decisions of the participants in the plan with the plan committee. Beyond that, no small number of par

I’ve been getting a lot of … comments … of late about my version of “retirement.” I heard it both a couple of weeks back speaking at an event sponsored by The Standard—and again last week at the NAPA DC Fly-In Forum—that I was setting a poor example for retirement aspirations (all good-natured, and generally followed by a quick comment that they were glad to see me nonetheless).  So much for long walks on the beach or reading in a rocking chair, I suppose. But it’s my first “go” at retirement, after all—no practice rounds (even my vacations over the years have been a bit “busy”) beyond the “space” provided by COVID’s lockdowns. That said, my days are definitely different now. And, though it’s perhaps not apparent from the content I (still) produce in any given week (blame the plaintiffs’ bar—if they’d quit suing, I’d have less to write about), I’m pleased to report that I’m (beginning) to ease into new daily patterns; (more) time on the treadmill, actually reading books