Nevin's Data "Points"

  Every so often a report comes along that says less about retirement policy than it does about the temptation to reduce complex issues to a simplistic scoreboard — that fits a particular agenda.  Even if it amounts to jamming a square peg into a round hole. This week’s entry comes from a report arguing that 401(k) plans without private equity and other alternative investments “significantly outperformed” pension plans that invested heavily in those alternatives. The implication, of course, is that pension plans — and perhaps the experts managing them — somehow got it wrong. More precisely, it takes to task the decision(s) by those once-vaunted defined benefit plans for having the temerity to invest in … private markets (gasp!).  Now, there are plenty of reasons to approach the introduction of private markets to defined contribution plans with caution — and that was before the recent Labor Department proposal. [i] But any credible retirement plan professional understand...

   We’re often told (via surveys) of any number of retirement plan options that plan participants want. Should it matter? Most recently, we’re assured that participants are  clamoring to have access to private market investments . Before that, it was  cryptocurrency  — and for what seems like months now it’s all been about  retirement income . Apparently vast majorities of participants are eager to have access through their 401(k) to an array of complex financial instruments to which they have, thus far, been largely (or totally) barred — or so surveys say. Indeed, I’ve always been amazed that organizations are able to find so many ostensibly knowledgeable participants to weigh in on these complex topics — particularly since there is an abundance of (other) surveys that suggest that when it comes to financial matters, participants are, largely, clueless. Not that that seems to dampen their collective interest in these new options — though when given a chanc...

 Years back I remember being part of a Q&A with a group of plan sponsors—the focus was the challenge of not only getting, but keeping their plans in compliance, while also looking for creative ways to engage and encourage participants. Then at one point, a tired looking gentleman, expressing frustration with the pressures of audits and litigation, said: “I wish the DOL would just tell us what to do.”  I cautioned him at the time that he ought to be careful what he wished for—that he might just get it. Sure enough, in mid-March the Labor Department issued a “compliance assistance release” which was unique both in format and, arguably, focus. It reminded plan fiduciaries of the significance of their review and assessment of prudence of plan investments—and then said in no uncertain terms that it had concerns about the ability of cryptocurrency to meet those high standards. Indeed, the release plainly stated that those who did include such options could “expect ...

There are few things more annoying in my daily existence than those ubiquitous pop-up service agreement acknowledgements. I say annoying because they are inevitably long and “lawyerly”; there’s no way that they can readily be read (much less absorbed) in the medium in which they are presented; and the alternative to not accepting the conditions presented would seem to be to forego the update that you’ve been encouraged to accept, and that, at some point in the future would seem to have its own dire consequences. And so, probably like many, if not most, if not all, of you, means that I accept the terms, and acknowledge the disclaimers basically sight unseen (or at least unread). Last week  the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a case involving participant disclosures, specifically the issue of whether certain plan disclosures were sufficient to establish a participant’s “actual knowledge” of the design of Intel’s custom target-date series, which had been built incl...