Nevin's Data "Points"

   Every few months another headline pops up lamenting the inadequacy of the “average” 401(k) balance. The implication is usually the same: Americans aren’t saving enough, retirement is in peril, and the numbers prove it. The problem isn’t that the math is wrong. The problem is that the math is answering the wrong question. I’ve noted before how misleading averages can be — and, frankly, medians aren’t a lot better when it comes to tracking 401(k) savings. The issue isn’t the arithmetic; it’s the reality of how people actually work and save. Because people change jobs. And when they change jobs, they change 401(k)s — and 401(k) providers. They might leave the balance behind with the old employer (something that happens a lot). They might roll it over to an IRA (which probably happens a lot as well), in which case it disappears from 401(k) tracking altogether. Or they might roll it into their new employer’s plan — though that still seems to be the minority outcome. Regardless o...

   Last week, I shared a   list of things that make 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 the rest of the list:  Reporting on average  —  well, anything (see  Why an Average 401(k) Balance Doesn't 'Mean' Much ) . You name it, if it involves numbers from widely varied sources, individuals, or different time periods, somebody in this industry will report it as an arithmetic average. This industry continues to insist on reporting average 401(k) balances, average fees, average estimates on retirement needs, and more recently “forgotten” average account balances. I get it. Averages are widely considered to be a middle of the pack assessment of reality. But that’s only true when you are averaging things that are similar, and more importantly real. I...

A recent headline screamed that 401(k) savings rates have “stagnated” – but that’s missing the point. Several of them, actually. “Stagnated” in this case apparently means that the average savings rate in 2018 — both employee and employer contributions — was 10.6%, roughly the same as the 10.4% rate reported in the survey in 2004. The point seems to be that, despite roughly a decade of automatic enrollment and other plan design enhancements, Americans aren’t saving any more. That’s a perfectly obvious point to draw from those two datapoints – in this case from the recent 2019 How America Saves report from Vanguard which, while it only covers plans recordkept by Vanguard, the experience of 1,900 plans and 5 million participants in the survey always provides some interesting insights. First a couple of basics; what do you suppose the odds are that we have the same plans (and participants) in the 2004 and 2019 surveys? Exactly. So, while it may not be apples to or...

Nobody likes to be thought of as “average” – so why do people spend so much time worrying about the “average” 401(k) balance? These averages are reported with some regularity by any number of providers (based on the records for which they have access), and sometimes by academics drawn from government databases. 1 The short (and less cynical) answer to “why” is most likely that the math is “easy.” You simply take the total assets (from whatever recordkeeper/plan balances you have), divide it by the number of participants in that group, and “voila” – you have an average. 2 Now, when you stop and think about it (and many don’t), you realize that doing so adds together the balances of individuals in widely different circumstances of age and tenure – everything from those just entering the workforce (and who have relatively negligible 401(k) balances) with those who may have been saving for decades. It can also, in the case of government databases, add together those that...

In recent days, we’ve gotten updates on average savings rates and 401(k) balances, and while for the very most part the reports have been positive and “directionally accurate,” I’ve always taken such findings with a grain of salt. Not so many in the press. Indeed, the press coverage of those reports is generally quite negative, in the “how can people possibly retire on those small amounts” vein. Here are four things to keep in mind about those “average” 401(k) balances. Your average 401(k) balance may not be based on very many plans or participants. Some reports of plan design trends and average balances may do so based on a relatively small customer base, and/or homogenous plan size. That doesn’t mean the results are without value – but let’s face it, sample size matters in discerning trends. The average 401(k) balance in a universe of 50 plans is surely less instructive than one that is a hundred times that size. In all surveys, sample size matters. And when it comes to avera...

Every so often an industry survey will come out with an “average” 401(k) balance (1) . The specific numbers vary, but they are consistently less than even the most optimistic would see as sufficient to provide a financially viable retirement. Now, in fairness, the validity of an “average,” while mathematically simple, depends heavily on its components. Most are no more than the total of all the balances of those in the 401(k), from those just entering the workforce (and thus, by definition, with negligible balances) – and with decades to go to retirement – to those who are perhaps just days away from that point. Looking at no more than the “average,” you can’t tell how many are in which category. So, while the average can, over time, provide a sense of the direction in which things are moving, it tells you very little about the adequacy of that savings to fund an individual retirement. One way to help provide a more meaningful measure is to segment those balances by specific ag...

Every year about this time, we get reports from firms that purport to tell us how much time is spent in preparations for the NCAA basketball tournament—and, no, not by the teams and coaches. The “studies” (ironically, they’re always put out by firms that are in the business of helping people find jobs) generally make some assumptions about the amount of time people spend on the workplace pools as well as how many people will participate, and their compensation levels, and—voila—the productive time ostensibly “lost” to these activities. Now, they make a lot of assumptions to get to that result, including the assumption that, but for these pools, people would be doing nothing but working. But the results give journalists something easy—and “fun”—to write about, and the rest of us to read and talk about (some day someone should do a study on how much time and money is wasted writing and reading about those “studies”). Our lives are filled with such reports: perhaps valid points that are...