Nevin's Data "Points"

Over the years, I’ve seen some convoluted ways to rationalize undermining the tax preferences of workplace retirement plans and substituting government tax credits — but a new one just may take the cake. “ A Behavioral Contract Theory Perspective on Retirement Savings ,” authored by Ryan Bubb and Patrick Corrigan from the New York University School of Law and Patrick L. Warren from Clemson University’s John E. Walker Department of Economics, starts off by assuming that workers are rational, though perhaps not rational in the way you or I might consider to be rational. However, I’ll accept as logical their assertion that rational workers will prefer saving through an employer-provided plan, rather than accepting a job that does not provide such a plan. They also claim to provide an analysis that “provides novel explanations for the use of low default contribution rates in automatic enrollment plans, the shift away from defined benefit annuities toward lump sum distributions in defin...

One of the things I have always enjoyed most about this job is the access to information—not only from our own research, but from any number of academic and professional organizations. It’s a lot to keep up with, of course, but it’s a great tapestry from which to construct a sense of where things are going, and what things need to get going. There are, of course, things to be wary of. For example, surveys conducted on behalf of organizations supportive of a particular view—that suggest that most people agree with that view—are an obvious eyebrow raiser. Studies based on samplings that are limited in size or scope aren’t inherently flawed, but should always be taken with a grain of salt (for example, a survey of large plans isn’t always illustrative or predictive of the behaviors of smaller programs). My personal favorite: “studies” by the purveyor of a particular good or service that indicate that what people really want is—more of that particular good or service. But there’s anot...

A couple of months ago, I started getting e-mails from readers curious about the announcements of plans reducing and/or suspending their matching contributions. As the weeks passed—and the number of reports grew—so did the inquiries. Those first inquiries were clearly seeking assurances that the announcements did not constitute a trend, that this was still just something a (very) few employers were embracing. Indeed, that was my sense of things (see " IMHO: Trend Spotting ", borne out not only by one of our weekly surveys (see " SURVEY SAYS: What Are Your Plans for Your Match? ", but also in a couple of industry reports as well (see " 83% of Employers Surveyed do not Expect Employer Contribution Changes "—and I was happy to provide those assurances (and links to those surveys) to any and all who asked. However, in recent weeks, those inquiries have taken on a different tone; this new wave of inquiries seems to be seeking validation, if not vindication. ...