Nevin's Data "Points"

  A new study shows how a proposed government-run retirement program said to increase coverage could actually undermine the nation’s retirement readiness. The  report  — by Morningstar’s Spencer Look and Jack VanDerhei (yes, that Jack VanDerhei) — considers the potential effects of the Retirement Savings for Americans Act (RSAA) on retirement-income adequacy for Generation Z and millennial workers. The  proposed legislation  — which aims to expand retirement coverage for American workers by creating a federal retirement plan for those not covered through their employer — has been introduced in both the House and the Senate. [i]   The legislation has been positioned as a means of helping close the coverage gap — of creating not only an opportunity for those without access to a retirement plan at work to save for retirement, but to receive the incentive of a matching contribution from the federal government. How then, would such a proposal undermine the natio...

Perhaps because of the recent full moon, the nation’s 401(k) “haters” were out in force. Yes, last week we were “treated” to a  Bloomberg op-ed  with ideas on how to “fix” America’s broken retirement savings system, a back-handed compliment (of sorts) on SECURE 2.0 in  Forbes  from Teresa Ghilarducci, and the trifecta was completed with an academics op-ed in the  Washington Post  alleging that the current retirement system is “built for the rich.”  Most of the criticism was focused on the same old myopic view on taxes and tax preferences—all flavored through the prism of a highly biased preference for the involvement of the federal government in such matters, rather than the private sector. Key Points So, let me take a couple of minutes to make a few points that always seem to be glossed over: Tax deferral is not tax avoidance. Those contributions and earnings will be taxed (though generally outside the 10-year budget scoring window Congr...

 A new paper rehashes (and embraces) some old beliefs, blatantly ignores the full impact of workplace savings, disregards the reality that deferrals are temporary—and kills a lot of trees in the process.   The diatribe’s author, perhaps because he’s affiliated with a law school, perhaps because the paper (provocatively titled “ The Great American Retirement Fraud ”) is so long (82 pages), managed to get what amounts to a long-winded pontification published by the Social Science Research Network [i] —a network that normally publishes research.  There’s little new here, and painfully little substance—though he does affix a label—“the Retirement Reform Project”—to the “conspiracy” he crafts between employers, investment management firms, advisors and those that support their interests. At the crux of this imagined conspiracy is none other than Rob Portman and Ben Cardin. Yes, that Portman and Cardin!   Reform ‘School’? Indeed, he claims this “...

A reader recently commented, “Nevin: You are continually berating those who question various aspects of 401(k) plans as if the current structure is ‘perfect.’ It isn’t.” That comment was inspired by a recent column of mine critical of a proposal rumored to be under contemplation by the Biden campaign—one that would “trade” the current tax preferences of 401(k) deferrals for a flat government tax credit. It’s a proposal that is intended to direct more of the same amount of government expenditure (when the government doesn’t take money from your pay, it’s considered an expense) to lower income individuals, in that a flat dollar credit would ostensibly be worth more to lower income individuals than the deferral of taxes under the current system.  Now that reader went on to offer a comment  in support of that intent, explaining that  “…one of the biggest challenges we face is getting lower paid people to participate. Credits will give bigger benefits to...

That’s the premise behind a recent column by Morningstar’s John Rekenthaler, who writes that “the plans are as good as they can be under the current framework – and that's not good enough.” I had the pleasure of meeting John a number of years back – and I’ve been keeping up with his writing ever since. His columns are thoughtful and thought-provoking, his perspectives rational and well-reasoned, his commentary nearly always not only interesting, but entertaining. But on this one  – well, let’s just say we disagree. John acknowledges that his views on the 401(k) have “evolved,” and that while he has long been in the camp that called for improvements in the current system, a “defender” of the 401(k) – but now, apparently, he’s calling for an “overhaul.” ‘Leaky’ Assumptions He doesn’t fault the current system for its perceived shortcomings; he notes that the 401(k) wasn’t designed to be a solution for the general public’s retirement, saw the growth in the 1980s...

In recent weeks, I have been distressed to see a pair of reports by what are sometimes affectionately referred to as 401(k) “haters” — but that’s not what I find most troubling. One, by the Economic Policy Institute, is innocuously titled, “ The State of American Retirement ,” but it might be more honestly subtitled, “How 401(k)s have failed most American workers.” The other is a formalized (and slightly updated) version of Teresa Ghilarducci’s Guaranteed Retirement Account (GRA) proposal titled, “ A Comprehensive Plan to Confront the Retirement Crisis .” Both reports tread familiar, and misguided, ground. Misguided and misleading as these kinds of reports are, they’re not new or even original. I’d almost be inclined to simply ignore them. That is, until I see headlines like, “ The Plan That Could Render Your 401(k) Obsolete ,” or “ These Depressing Charts Show the Different Ways 401(k)s Fall Short ,” reported with a straight face by the personal finance press. The latter, which ju...

Thanksgiving is a special time of year — and one on which it seems fitting to reflect on all for which we should be thankful. Here’s my 2015 list: I’m thankful that so many employers voluntarily choose to offer a workplace retirement plan — and that so many workers, given an opportunity to participate, do. I’m thankful that so many employers choose to match contributions or to make profit-sharing contributions (or both). Without those matching dollars, many workers would likely not participate or contribute at their current levels — and they would surely have far less set aside for retirement. I’m thankful that the vast majority of workers defaulted into retirement savings programs tend to remain there — and that there are mechanisms (automatic enrollment, contribution acceleration and qualified default investment alternatives) in place to help them save and invest better than they might otherwise. I’m thankful that trends that suggest that more plan sponsors are extending tho...