Nevin's Data "Points"

   I will confess that I am (still) of a mixed mind on imbedding retirement income solutions in 401(k) plans — and a new whitepaper on the implications of the new Investment Selection rule has done little to assuage those concerns. The Morningstar paper — aptly titled “ Guaranteed Income in DC Plans: Evaluating Target-Date Funds with Built-In Annuities ” — covers a lot of ground. That said, more than half the paper is background [i] — chronicling both the trend lines to date, as well as offering a readable description of the two primary types of retirement income options that have found their way into the target-date fund framework (and yes, they’re quite different!). Those trendlines have captured the attention (and doubtless recirculation) of the paper, particularly among proponents. But the “meat” of the paper considers the implications of applying the Labor Department’s “new” Investment Selection Rule (though its official label at present remains “ Fiduciary Duties in Sel...

  A new report suggests that small business owners broadly support state-run IRA programs — with the strongest backing among newer firms. Or at least they did. The just-published  survey  comes from Pew Charitable Trusts, which has previously (and consistently) chronicled support for these programs among small businesses.  This latest was conducted among employers in three states where that type of legislation has been introduced:  Massachusetts , Pennsylvania, and  Washington .  According to Pew, support is strong across the board: 84% of respondents in Massachusetts, 76% in Pennsylvania, and 73% in Washington favor establishing an automated savings program (ASP). The report also highlights bipartisan backing, with majorities of Republican, Democratic, and independent business owners expressing support.  It further finds “statistically significant” support among newer firms, those with moderate revenues, service-sector businesses, and — perhaps n...

  After years of anticipation — and months of litigation — the Department of Labor’s latest attempt to expand the definition of fiduciary investment advice is now dead. That said, and with apologies to Mark Twain, reports of the “death” of the fiduciary rule are somewhat exaggerated. The 2024 version — the so-called Retirement Security Rule — was  vacated , which, in legal terms, means we treat it as if it never existed. But ERISA’s fiduciary framework remains very much alive. Indeed, for advisors already serving as fiduciaries for retirement plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the practical impact of the recent court ruling is minimal. Advisors serving as 3(21) fiduciaries or 3(38) investment managers were — and remain — subject to ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty.  Many advisory firms, frankly, had already adopted procedures and business models that would likely have satisfied even the Obama-era fiduciary rule. Where the rule...

  I recently stumbled across a report that claimed a “Massive Gap Between Participant and Attorney Recoveries in ERISA Lawsuits.” That wasn’t exactly news to me, though it was a handy quantification [i]  of a subset of ERISA settlements to make the case that the per-participant recoveries in ERISA litigation pale in comparison to the 25%–33% “pay day” that the plaintiffs’ bar gets in cases where there is a settlement. The  report  — by Davis & Harman — focused on 27 settlements in 2025 involving (only) underperformance and excessive fee cases. In producing their conclusion, they employed some math that was arguably a bit “squishy” [ii]  — and the results are all over the board — but you didn’t need to rely on that to see — and appreciate — the huge gap between what wound up in the lawyers’ pockets versus participants. The rationale is, of course, that class action suits can be expensive to mount and pursue. The attorneys take on these cases, investing their ...

  By almost any measure, 2025 was a remarkable year for retirement plans — perhaps especially because it passed without any sweeping, system-altering legislation. Not that that is (necessarily) a bad thing. There was no SECURE Act moment, nor Pension Protection Act-scale reset. While retirement plans “ducked” the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, 2025 brought with it challenges of implementation, interpretation, and an extraordinary amount of litigation. Rules were finalized, challenged, and reconsidered; courts grappled with fundamental ERISA questions; a new Administration “recalibrated” long-held positions; and plan fiduciaries were reminded — again — that prudence is ultimately, if not immediately, judged by process, not outcomes. Taken individually, many of these developments might seem incremental. Taken together, they made 2025 one of the most consequential years for the retirement system in quite some time. Let’s take a look back at the year that was… January In the waning days ...