Nevin's Data "Points"

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 incorporat...

A recent report—and a new wave of litigation—reminds us that all target-date funds are not designed the same.  We all know that target-date funds are different, even if their names sometimes suggest otherwise.  Different management teams both set and monitor asset allocations—allocations that can vary widely with regard to the type and quantity of underlying assets. Fees can certainly be different, and some favor a reliance on passive investing versus an active engagement. But the difference that can often account for many of the other differences is the glide path, and more specifically the glide path’s “goal”—and here I am referring to the difference between funds that opt for a “to” retirement versus a “through” retirement focus.  Now, admittedly it’s a “target date” fund, not necessarily a retirement date fund—and indeed if those were once upon a time considered one and the same, that’s apparently no longer the case. Indeed, and as a recent stream of li...

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...