Nevin's Data "Points"

Delegates to last week’s NAPA DC Fly-In Forum were treated to a discussion about a proposal touted as “rescuing retirement.” But the math (still) doesn’t seem to work. And it’s likely to kill the 401(k) (or at least its tax benefits). Here’s how. The proposal itself isn’t new – its the Guaranteed Retirement Account (GRA) concept initially introduced by the New School’s Professor Teresa Ghilarducci, now somewhat modified, and embraced by Hamilton E. (Tony) James, President and COO of money management Blackstone. This newest version was rolled out earlier this year. Writ large there seem to be two significant differences in this newest version (packaged in a nice 119-page softbound book, Rescuing Retirement ): James’ involvement, which lends some investment cred to the assumptions of the proposal; and a reduction in the mandatory contributions from employer and employee (the original proposal called for 5%, the new one only 3%). The Ghilarducci/James team firmly believes that th...

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...