Things That Make Me ‘Mad as Hell’

 So, what kinds of things get your blood “boiling?”

Some of you will recall that back in 1976 there was a movie called “Network” with a big cast that got nominated for a bunch of academy awards including best picture and director (didn’t win), as well as best actress and actor (won both, as well as best supporting actress and several others). The underlying premise of the movie was one of corporate greed, more specifically the extremes to which TV networks would go to garner ratings. The most extreme was allowing an aging network anchor named Howard Beale to remain on camera after he said he was going to blow his brains out on national TV.

Well, he didn’t — but he did wind up being positioned as a kind of “mad prophet” ranting about the ills of society, leading up to an evening where he encouraged similarly frustrated viewers to go to their respective windows and shout “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore!” While that frustrated call to action likely didn’t actually change anything — it apparently was good for ratings.

While we still have TV ratings (though I’m amazed at the mere slivers of population that these days constitute “winners” in the various time slots), these days it’s all about clicks, views, forwards, and impressions. 

And it was with that in mind last week I shared with those in attendance at the Leafhouse National Retirement Symposium (LNRS) a list of things that made me “mad as hell” — things that those in our industry generate, promote and often share as fact without any application of common sense, and no apparent appreciation for the damage done by their complicity in sharing such nonsense. 

Here's my list — of things that make ME “mad as hell” — in hopes that you’ll agree.

1. Reports that label as “abandoned,” unclaimed or “forgotten” account balances that have simply been “left behind.” See Talking Points: Third Time No Charm in ‘Forgotten Account’ Fantasy.

Seriously — does ANYBODY think that 20% of the total balances in the 401(k) universe is “forgotten?” And yet there were any number of retirement industry folks (and trade publications) that faithfully picked up and shared this third bi-annual report from Capitalize, which every year gets even bigger and more exaggerated (the “black magic” of compounding). 

Sure, there are SOME in that category — but TRILLIONS? This report is nonsense — and shame on you if you gave it legitimacy by passing it along with anything other than jaw-dropping incredulity. 

2. People who think “good faith compliance” with the law could include completely ignoring the law. See Talking Points: Braking ‘Breaking’ News.

Last month, the IRS surprised us all with the release of final regulations regarding the Roth “cap” on catch-up contributions. And then the rumors started. 

Let’s face it — the regulations were a LOOOONG time coming. So long in coming that there were some who were thinking (a) they weren’t coming at all, or (b) the IRS would simply push back the enforcement date (as they had previously). To their credit, most of the industry publications acknowledged the complexity of the read and indicated there would be more to follow. 

But then some misread the effective date of the final regulations (01/01/2027) as applying to the date on which the Roth cap on higher-income individuals would be applied — which had been set as 1/1/2026 in the preliminary regulations issued in January — and which the final regulations stated was NOT impacted by the final regulations. 

Worse — they somehow saw the IRS’ lenience in allowing for “good faith compliance” with the (admittedly) late issuance of the final regulations as allowing them to just ignore the 2026 date. And then there were the folks who, in their hurry to share that news, got on social media to do just that.

Folks — if you don’t KNOW the answer, don’t make matters worse (not to mention your credibility) by sharing it. 

3. Pretending like everybody used to have a defined benefit plan. See A Penchant for Pensions?

This one’s a “golden oldie” — a “myth” that keeps coming up. Indeed, in a recent Fortune article, Teresa Ghilarducci tried to explain away the lack of an apparent retirement crisis by claiming that older Boomers all had pensions.

The truth is that, at its peak, only 38% of workers in the private sector were ever covered by a pension. And “covered by” only means they worked for an employer that offered a pension. Only about 12% ever got a full pension from the plans they were covered by. You want to talk about a retirement crisis? Think about the one we’d have if we were relying on defined benefit plans.

4. Adding up 20 years’ worth of potential expense and presenting it as a lump-sum retirement savings target. See: Talking Points: A Health Care ‘Scare’

Are you ready to spend $86,000 on cable TV in retirement?

I know, crazy, right? And yet that’s the kind of math being used to get people’s attention about retirement these days. The most recent — an annual study by Fidelity that now estimates that a 65-year-old retiring in 2025 can expect to spend an average of $172,500 on health care and medical expenses throughout retirement. There are some lengthy caveats footnoted on that projection, but suffice it to say that the number is — and is certainly intended to be — an attention-grabber. 

And, let’s face it, a headline that said you’re going to need to spend $8,625 per year in retirement on health care (1/20 of $172,500) really doesn’t have the same impact — particularly if you are paying attention to what you are spending on health care prior to retirement, which may well be less than that.

In which case the headline might actually be something like “you might not have to spend as much in health care after retirement as you do now.”   

But where’s the panic button for THAT? 

5. Surveys that ask people who have never done a retirement-needs estimate to estimate the “magic number” they’ll need to save for retirement. See No 'Magic' in These 401(k) Retirement Numbers

Another annual report that makes my blood boil is one that purports to share a “magic” number for retirement, based on what survey respondents said they thought they’d need. As though they’d know.

It always garners a lot of coverage — generally climbs higher from the previous iteration — and is always positioned next to numbers from completely different people as to what they actually have accumulated, and always about half the magic number. 

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 someone living in Dubuque, Iowa.   

(2) It’s based on what people “think” (who have probably not given this any real thought).

(3) It’s surveying completely different groups of people a year apart, so drawing a trendline is a predictable, but dubious reality.

Let’s face it, stories like this serve mostly to fuel the concerns that responsible human beings already have as they try to look ahead to future decades in a time of tremendous uncertainty.

If they weren’t nervous before they saw these headlines, they surely are afterwards. 

Next week: The rest of the list — and what you can do about it/them.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD