Nevin's Data "Points"

  I recently picked up a book that states “why (almost) everything you know about the US retirement system is wrong” — and it’s definitely worth a read. The book — titled  The Real Retirement Crisis: Why (Almost) Everything You Know About the US Retirement System Is Wrong   — is the work of American Enterprise Institute senior fellow Andrew Biggs — and it’s a comprehensive assessment of any number of the misstatements, mischaracterizations, flawed assumptions and downright obfuscations that plague any realistic assessment of the nation’s retirement system. Indeed, he argues that “factoids, however compelling, are no substitute for facts.”   The Goal Biggs outlines the goal of a retirement system as one that “allows individuals to maintain their preretirement standard of living in retirement.” In that regard, he (and academics generally) would say that lower-income individuals' preretirement are well-served by Social Security’s benefit structure. Indeed, the argu...

   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...

New research puts a new twist on “A Wonderful Life” – answering the question, what if there hadn’t been an ERISA? ERISA is, of course, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 which  just turned 50 . The  analysis [i]  – put together by Morningstar Retirement’s Director of Retirement Studies Jack VanDerhei and Associate Director of Retirement Studies Spencer Look – first looks at the current “status quo” retirement readiness impact (more specifically, retirement readiness shortfalls). It then looks at the potential result if there had been no ERISA – or, perhaps more precisely if there had been no individual account retirement plans (defined contribution and IRAs), though allowance was made for the probability of saving to an IRA.  Now, anyone with a realistic assessment/awareness of the  limited availability of traditional pension plans  in the private sector (before AND after ERISA’s passage) can hardly be surprised to find that the absence of ...

I’ve long relished telling “newbies” to the retirement space that ERISA was the   second   big executive act of then-newly enshrined President Gerald R. Ford—less than one month after he took office.  In fairness—and I’m not exactly a kid—I was barely out of high school when that event occurred.  I’ve never had a benefits program (retirement OR healthcare, and us retirement geeks tend to forget that ERISA also has sway over workplace health plans) that wasn’t operating under its auspices—and so, talking about what ERISA has done/changed requires going back before my personal experience. And yet, despite the disparaging acronym “Every Ridiculous Idea Since Adam,” what ERISA has accomplished—and what has emerged in its aftermath—seems truly remarkable to me.  ERISA is, of course, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974—and on Labor Day 2024, that legislation will be 50 years young. Not that ERISA created either the concept or the reality of pensions an...

  I’m not sure how old I was when I first saw “Night of the Living Dead”—but I have long been intrigued by stories of a zombie apocalypse—where mindless beings inexplicably rise from the dead, with no memory of their past, just a relentless (and apparently insatiable) hunger for…well, “us.” That is perhaps an unfortunate comparison to  last week’s hearing  by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, one ostensibly held to focus on how we were going to stave off the retirement “crisis” by…bringing “back” [i]  defined benefit plans. [ii] There were two fundamental premises underlying the hearing; first that there is, in fact, a retirement crisis, and second, that the restoration of defined benefit plan designs would remedy that situation.  There remains in many circles (including last week’s hearing) a pervasive sense that the defined contribution system is inferior to the defined benefit approach—a sense that seems driven not by what the...