Nevin's Data "Points"

  It’s been said that a crisis is a terrible thing to waste. But what if it’s a figment of your imagination? “Crisis” is a word much bandied about these days, most particularly as a label applied to retirement—by foes and fans alike. Indeed, while not so long ago headlines posed that premise as a question (“Is there a retirement crisis?”), it is now generally posited as a current reality (often accompanied by an exclamation point)—even though an examination of objective data (and a clinical application of the term “crisis” [i] ) suggests otherwise. To a certain extent, such hyperbole is understandable; “crisis” is, after all, one of those descriptors that cry out for swift and decisive action—and the industry of employee benefits has had its fair share. Let's be honest - claiming that we are in the middle of a crisis is most assuredly a better bet in terms of getting a book deal, a televised interview, or hundreds of thousands of “clicks.” And certainly over the course of my career

Of  all the promising provisions in the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022, one of the most expensive (as the federal government does math, anyway) is likely to be one of the most challenging to implement. It’s not effective till 2027, so there’s still some time to figure it out—but I’m talking about the new Saver’s Match—a significantly retooled and expanded version of the Saver’s Credit (which is more properly referred to, at least by the IRS, as “ Retirement Savings Contributions Credit ”).  As with the precursor Saver’s Credit, the Saver’s Match is focused on increasing the savings of lower-income workers by—in addition to what an employer may match—making a matching contribution from the federal government. The match has a maximum value of $1,000 at a rate of $0.50 per dollar contributed by a worker, up to $2,000 annually.  The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) has  estimated  (from tabulations of tax filers with W-2 (wage) income) that 69 million had incomes eligible for the Saver’s

   Last week, a new report claimed to find a big jump in a so-called “magic” number for retirement, based on what survey respondents said they thought they’d need. As though they’d know. It garnered quite a bit of  coverage , including an article in  The Wall Street Journal  (and a comment from none other than Teresa Ghilarducci). While the “magic” number of $1.46 million didn’t seem astronomical (Professor Ghilarducci even commented that people often OVER-estimate their needs), that number jumped dramatically from $1.27 million a year ago—something the  authors  attributed to concerns about inflation. There are many problems with reports like this—none of which the breathless reporting of the conclusions acknowledged: (1) It’s an  average —while we get some breakdown on age brackets, we know nothing about their incomes, where they live, their health, etc.  What someone needs (or thinks they need) living in New York City is (or should be) considerably different from the projections of

  I’m rarely at a loss for words, but I was recently asked a question that gave me …pause. It was a simple question really—John Sullivan and I were being interviewed on the  401(k) Specialist podcast —and Brian Anderson asked “which session are you most looking forward to at the NAPA 401(k) Summit?” I was only too happy to defer to John while I gave the question some thought. But in truth, it was a little bit like asking a parent to name their favorite child.  Now, there are some sessions I am more interested in than others—but to pick one?  Well, I just couldn’t do it—and fortunately Brian didn’t try to box me in (I did allude to a specific affinity for the  LIVE Nevin & Fred podcast session , however).   In fact, we do approach our content a bit differently than most, I think. While it’s gotten to be pretty common for events to boast of the pedigree of their steering bodies, many, perhaps most—are essentially no more than figureheads to the actual agenda development. They’re a gr