Nevin's Data "Points"

The headline in a recent  New York Times  piece cautions that “Confusing Options May Be Coming to Your 401(k). It Could Cost You.” Those “confusing options”? Retirement income. And, ironically, they might undermine support for the most significant piece of pro-retirement legislation in a decade. In fairness, the article  begins by acknowledging to its readers that there might soon be some “welcome changes to the rules governing their retirement savings plans,” but quickly moves on to take to task the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act of 2019 , which not only brings with it those welcome changes, but a key element that has some consumer advocates all atwitter (literally) – a fiduciary safe harbor for the selection of a lifetime income provider. For years the retirement industry has bemoaned the lack of a lifetime income option in defined contribution plans. Indeed, for all the vaunted talk of the so-called “DB-ificat...

Academics have long agonized over something they call the annuitization puzzle. Simply stated, the thing academics can’t quite understand is the reluctance of American workers to embrace annuities as a distribution option for their retirement savings. Some of that is because they assume workers are “rational” when it comes to complex financial decisions, specifically because “rational choice theory” suggests that at the onset of retirement, individuals will be drawn to annuities because they provide a steady stream of income and address the risk of outliving their income. Compounding, if not contributing to that belief, are surveys – albeit surveys generally published , if not conducted by, annuity providers (or supporters) that consistently find support from participants for the notion of reporting benefits as a monthly payout sum, if not the notion of providing a retirement income option. And yet, despite those assertions, in the “real” world where participant...