Nevin's Data "Points"

   Life is full of annoyances – all the better to appreciate the blessings that surround us. That said, there are things about the retirement industry that really bug me.  I recently had the privilege of being part of the Leafhouse National Retirement Symposium. The theme was unfiltered – the unvarnished truth.  And it seemed an appropriate forum to share some of the things about the retirement industry that really bug me.  Here’s the list: Using the average or median retirement balance as a proxy for retirement readiness. Generally speaking, retirement plans are comprised of a myriad of individual circumstances – participants of ages that run from late teens to beyond traditional retirement, savings behaviors based on income – and age – and company match… Not to mention that this might be only a half dozen years of a worker’s accumulation, with the rest on some other recordkeeping platform… Why any rational person would think that combining those disparate elem...

   Last week, a new report claimed to find a big jump in a so-called “magic” number for retirement, based on what survey respondents said they thought they’d need. As though they’d know. It garnered quite a bit of  coverage , including an article in  The Wall Street Journal  (and a comment from none other than Teresa Ghilarducci). While the “magic” number of $1.46 million didn’t seem astronomical (Professor Ghilarducci even commented that people often OVER-estimate their needs), that number jumped dramatically from $1.27 million a year ago—something the  authors  attributed to concerns about inflation. There are many problems with reports like this—none of which the breathless reporting of the conclusions acknowledged: (1) It’s an  average —while we get some breakdown on age brackets, we know nothing about their incomes, where they live, their health, etc.  What someone needs (or thinks they need) living in New York City is (or should be) con...

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...

Ours is a business where surveys and trends often shape not only perceptions, but policy — though sometimes the conclusions drawn, and even the premise itself — make me go “huh?” Here’s a sampling: Citing a drop in deferral rates as a failure of automatic enrollment. Every so often a personal finance writer will stumble across an industry survey that shows that the average deferral rate in 401(k) plans has declined, a problem they attribute to automatic enrollment adoption. We all know what is going on here ; individuals who take the time to fill out a form and enroll in the plan manually tend to defer at a higher rate than do those who are automatically enrolled, the latter typically at a modest 3% rate. On the other hand, automatic enrollment has a dramatic impact on raising the participation rate. The rest is just math — more people, saving at lower rates = a lower average deferral rate. Now, those individuals automatically enrolled at a 3% rate may draw down the average de...