Nevin's Data "Points"

Last week, a trio of academics rolled out a plan to “save” Social Security—by undermining the 401(k). Their “ plan ” is diabolically simple, though not unique. They’d just take away the tax preferences that support and encourage employment-based retirement plans—and “give” that money to Social Security.  It was admittedly an odd combination—Alicia Munnell, director and founder of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (which often has pretty negative things to say about the private retirement system [i] ), and Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, who has traditionally been a voice of reason on such matters—pointing to actual tax filing data to refute claims of a retirement crisis. Then again, Biggs, a former principal deputy commissioner of the Social Security Administration, and now a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, has recently been nominated by President Biden to serve on the Social Security Advisory B

Despite long being called the “third rail” of American politics, Social Security—or more precisely its viability—has reemerged as an issue in the 2024 presidential campaign. It came up most recently in a mini-GOP debate between former U.N. ambassador/South Carolina governor Nikki Haley and Florida governor Ron DeSantis. Haley reaffirmed her previous statements that changes would be required to shore up the financial viability of that system (and, arguably more critically, Medicare)—taking pains to emphasize that she wasn’t calling for changes that would impact current/close-to-retiring individuals.  For his part DeSantis—to whom the question was initially posed—maintained that there was no need to raise the age for full retirement benefits (apparently due to COVID’s impact on life expectancy), as though that were the only potential remedy required [i] (he did express confidence that something would be worked out long-term). And both former President Trump and Presiden

Two headlines on NAPA Net caught my eye this past weekend—provocative “what if” type questions. I’m talking about “ Will Retirement Income Solutions Finally Break Through in 2024? ” and “ Will Managed Accounts (Finally) Take Hold as QDIAs? ” Both, of course, included the word “finally” in the title(s)—no doubt because the underlying premise has been touted in previous years, but (mostly) come to naught.  And yet even now, both were basically based on predictions of organizations/individuals that have—as my friend John Sullivan put it—“a dog in the fight.” More specifically, the former finds heightened plan sponsor interest expressed (in an annuity-friendly trade survey)—and provisions in the original SECURE Act. And the latter finds a similar level of interest by plan sponsors in trading out target-date funds as QDIAs for managed accounts—on a premise that fees in the latter will decline and that recordkeepers will be able—and plan participants willing—to incorporate mo

There is a “common wisdom” in our business that suggests that all plan sponsors are, more or less, alike; that large plans are the inevitable early adopters of trends that, sooner or later, trickle down to plans of all sizes. Consequently, those who make their living trying to discern trends and patterns frequently focus on the behaviors in evidence at larger programs—figuring that, in three years or so, those same characteristics will emerge across the spectrum. There’s some logic to that perspective—and at least anecdotal evidence to support it. Human beings—including plan fiduciaries—frequently draw comfort and solace from the experience of others, and smaller programs can hardly be faulted for adopting plan designs and approaches that have been “vetted” by programs with more copious resources. Sure enough, there are areas in which larger programs once dominated—but over time those variances have disappeared. For example, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of A