Top 10 Pet Peeves About the Retirement Industry — Part II

Last week, I shared five of my Top 10 Pet Peeves about the Retirement Industry. Here’s the rest of the list.

Making “apples to oranges” comparisons of world pension systems.

Let’s face it — nobody wants to be “average.” And yet, there are now a handful of retirement industry consultants that, each year, publish a ranking of how the world’s retirement systems rate — and year after year the United States generally comes in about the middle of the pack.

Considering just how diverse these systems and the populations they serve are — one might well wonder at the need to rank them. But rank them they do, employing a relatively complex rating system to do so. The most recent was by Mercer — who, once again — held the U.S. in relatively poor esteem compared with the Netherlands, Iceland, Denmark and Israel. The Nordic countries are a perennial favorite here — though they all happen to be (much) smaller in population, and more culturally and racially monolithic than the U.S.

They all also have different approaches to taxes, and social infrastructure. Said another way, these rankings never consider the cost — both monetarily — to society and the mandatory worker contributions they require — and in terms of pre-retirement access to those funds. No, they myopically focus on the level of benefits provided and the security of those promises — not irrelevant considerations, of course — but one that glosses over some of the choices that might have to be made — or eliminated — in order to achieve them.

Not that Americans might not be willing to make them — if they were told what they were. But labelling the American system (slightly above) “average” isn’t telling the whole story.

Ignoring the existence and impact of Social Security.

Once upon a time, we talked about retirement as having three legs: Social Security, workplace savings/pensions, and personal savings. But to a number of vocal pundits, the full burden has been put … on the 401(k). A system that, as I noted previously, everybody decries as never being intended to be a retirement plan.

Well, before there was a 401(k) — and even before the advent of ERISA — there was Social Security, a program designed to provide retirement income to working Americans. It remains absolutely integral to even the most rudimentary retirement planning calculation, and with good reason. But it too was “never intended” to provide a full replacement of pre-retirement income in retirement, though it does for many lower-income Americans. 

That said, despite a looming financing shortfall — and a fairly widespread notion that those benefits aren't "enough" for a full retirement income replacement, you don't see headlines in the New York Times — or folks going on book tours — proclaiming that program was a "mistake" the way some do about the 401(k). The reality is that Social Security — like the 401(k) — has undergone significant changes in scope, funding, and mission since its 1935 inception. While deliberate, it might fairly be termed “mission creep.”

The (other) reality is that the 401(k) actually does a pretty good job of what workplace savings was always designed to do — supplement the foundation that Social Security provides — and yes, even for lower-income individuals. It has been — and continues to be — an essential element of retirement security for middle-income workers, for whom Social Security benefits alone likely fall short of their pre-retirement income levels and needs. It, like Social Security, is an essential element of the three-legged stool. But we need to quit carrying on like the 401(k) should be expected to be THE retirement income source (and that it’s a failure if it doesn’t).   

Using compounding “Magic” to make mountains our of molehills.

Albert Einstein is said to have called compounding the eighth wonder of the world. While that certainly applies to finances and savings growth, it can also be used to exaggerate financial issues. 

For example, a couple of years back a firm (that was in the business of capturing IRA rollovers) put out a jaw-dropping statistic that claimed there were $1.35 trillion in “forgotten” 401(k) accounts?  That’s TRILLION, with a “T”. 

That jaw-dropping number was the headline from a report titled, “The true cost of forgotten 401(k) accounts,” authored by “the Capitalize research team” — and yes, if accurate, that would mean that about a fifth of all 401(k) assets have been “forgotten.” Sound suspicious? Here’s another data point: The report goes on to estimate that these 24.3 million accounts that have been “forgotten” have an average balance of… $55,400 per account. 

Now, numbers like that are generally reserved for emails regarding a Nigerian prince. Fortunately, these authors showed their “math” — and — suffice it to say they pulled a couple of actual data points, extrapolated a much larger reality from those data points, and did a couple of rounds of multiplication to expand the population impacted, and the compounded the financial impact. And if that weren’t enough, they further extrapolated that impact to be an ongoing annual expansion of the problem. 

More recently, there was a report from Vanguard that claimed that job-changing could cost your retirement $300,000. That was a jaw-dropping number on its own (p.s., if a projection is jaw-dropping, beware) — particularly when you get into the report and find that it’s based on a projection based a median participant making $60,000 per year. 

Most of the coverage focused on the impact resulting from participants who had been auto-enrolled, and then auto-escalated to a point, changed jobs, and then (re)started participation at a new plan, (re)auto-enrolled at a lower deferral rate than where they left off at their old plan. The problem there, of course, isn’t the job change itself, it’s the individual not taking the time/energy to adjust the rate of savings with the new plan. By the way, job changers with VOLUNTARY enrollment saw NO decrease in savings rates. 

But as you look deeper into the report, the researchers also focus on folks getting a raise with the job change (10%, on average, they assume), but not commensurately increasing their deferrals — so, on a relative basis, the report calls this a reduction in savings (this is the way government does tax math, by the way). Moreover, there were job changers that saw even higher raises with the job change — and, according to the math here, “suffered” a commensurately larger decrease in savings — at least relative to the rates at which they were saving previously.

Ultimately, of course, this makes it sound like people are LOSING retirement savings, when in fact it’s really more about leaving money on the table (and they admit that there are a multitude of reasons why folks might legitimately be saving differently along with a job change).

Still, the headlines have been trumpeting this as a scary development — one that some are (already) saying means that the 401(k) design is flawed, and not equipped to deal with today’s job changers. 

Except, of course, that the median job tenure of the American workforce is pretty much unchanged since WWII.   

The bottom line? If the headline is jaw-dropping, go look at the methodology and fine print. 

Claiming that 401(k)s are only for the “rich.”

Well, first off, you need to get those folks to tell you who they consider rich. There’s certainly an argument to be made that those making higher incomes might well get a “bigger” benefit from the pre-tax preferences — but studies have shown that constraints like non-discrimination tests and 402(g) limits bound those in such that the benefits higher income workers receive are in rough proportion to their income(s). 

Indeed, if those “upside-down incentives” were the only forces at work, one might reasonably expect to find that the higher the individual’s salary, the higher the overall account balance would be, as a multiple of salary. However, a couple of years back — drawing on the actual administrative data from the then-massive EBRI/ICI 401(k) database, and specifically focusing on workers in their 60s (broken down by tenure and salary), then-EBRI Research Director Jack VanDerhei found that those ratios hold relatively steady. In fact, those ratios are relatively flat for salaries between $30,000 and $100,000, before dropping substantially for those with salaries in excess of $100,000 (see here).

The reality is that the 401(k) has been remarkably equitable in encouraging participation, even among workers of very modest incomes. For them — and for the middle class, generally — the 401(k) has been the only way they (can) save.

Referring to recordkeeping as a “commodity.”

For years, recordkeeping services — complex and difficult as they can be to provide accurately and consistently (not to mention profitably) — have been characterized (some might say disparaged) as a “commodity,” while fee compression (and the aforementioned complexities) continue to fuel consolidation in that industry. 

Honestly, as a former recordkeeper (though it’s been awhile), I’ve never understood how anyone who had any real appreciation for a business as varied, complex, and demanding as that of keeping up – and keeping up accurately – with individual participant accounts over the course of a working career – would be willing to refer to those services as “interchangeable.” Or why any firm that provides those complex services in these challenging times would be willing to let others do so. Certainly, any participant, plan sponsor, or advisor who has seen the integrity of that data put at risk by clumsy and inattentive hands can attest to the impact that a failure to do so. Indeed, I’m shocked by the leaders in our industry who label it as such — leaders that I think might well feel differently if they had spent even a small amount of time in those shoes.

Without question, recordkeeping is not only a challenging business, it is expensive to stay current with technology, to keep processes and programs current not only with changes both in the laws and regulations, but the nuances of individual plan designs. And as if that weren’t enough, cybersecurity has recently emerged as a significant threat – little wonder in view of the enormous amount of sensitive financial data to which these “commodity” producers are entrusted.

Where recordkeeping does seem to have been “transformed” into a commodity business is in the pricing of those services. Like the gasoline drawn from a pump, economists would tell you that, since commodity products are “interchangeable,” they compete (only) on price – and to do so (profitably) requires that that you have to achieve economies of scale – and the continued downward pressure on fees for those services continues to force firms to exit or flee to the embrace of larger players.

Further fueling those trends, the plaintiffs’ bar has latched onto the “commodity” concept, having (apparently) determined that it is “appropriate” to be compensated for these services by a flat per-participant charge (it started at $35/participant, but has since moved lower). 

Regardless, my personal experience is that those who find themselves working with a service provider or TPA that views those critical services as a “commodity” will, in short order, be looking for a new one.

One More

Well, that’s my list, and while I worked hard to limit it to 10, I have one more to share; what really ticks me off is those who give a microphone (and/credibility) and SHARE those comments (however well-intentioned) to those who say any of the above. And that goes DOUBLE for those in this industry who should know better!

Got one (or more) you’d like to add? Do so in the comments!

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

10 Pet Peeves About the Retirement Industry

 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 elements and then either dividing them by the number of parts, or looking for some kind of middle grouping – well, it defies logic. And yet, this happens with distressing regularity. It’s worse than mush – it’s a mess – a nonsensical number that is easy to calculate, and completely meaningless. 

Asking people who have never tried to do a retirement needs calculation how much they’ll need for retirement – and then publishing that as an actual target.   

There is perhaps of some modest value in knowing how much people think they need for retirement – even if they have never actually sat down and tried to figure it out. Indeed, in recent weeks at least two major providers have done just that with headlines proclaiming that “magic” number. Setting aside for a moment the reality that it’s completely uninformed – the reality is that we know NOTHING about the incomes, lifestyle, health or residence of the individuals behind that “guess” (though USA Today actually took the time to ascertain the political affiliation of the respondents). 

And since we know nothing about their circumstances – and less about how they derived that number (much less how the uninformed choices of the survey population was construed into that final number) – well, why would anybody care? But while this COULD be a teachable moment – where the survey writers point out that the number might be wildly overblown, and the importance of doing an actual assessment…and then there’s…

Using survey results of people who have never done a retirement needs calculation to “prove” there’s a retirement crisis.

The aforementioned “reports” instead choose to present those “pulled out of their…” guesses as a valid conclusion, and one that not only confirms that (a) there is a retirement crisis (and just in case that point was missed, asking them AFTER they provide a retirement number), but that (b) there’s a crisis precisely because folks are never going to be able to achieve that made up number based on the average savings amount (see above).   

Saying there’s a retirement “crisis” without ever defining what that means.

“Crisis” is a word much bandied about these days, most particularly as a label applied to retirement — by foes and fans alike. Indeed, while not so long ago headlines posed that premise as a question (“Is there a retirement crisis?”), it is now generally posited as a current reality (often accompanied by an exclamation point) — even though an examination of objective data and a clinical application of the term “crisis” suggests otherwise.

For most in the retirement industry, it’s meant as a call to action – built on the notion that time is a valuable asset in helping retirement savings grow. But the dictionary definition is of an event or situation where disaster is imminent – something that calls for immediate, and potentially drastic action. And that is how the critics of the 401(k) see it, as they call for immediate drastic action to replace the 401(k) with some alternative (or to defund the 401(k) in order to build an alternative).  Those who claim there is a retirement crisis without context are, quite simply, fueling their fire.

Pretending that everybody used to have a defined benefit plan/pension – and that those who did received a full pension.

This is a hugely exaggerated myth – actually one built on another – and one invoked with growing frequency by those who claim that the 401(k) is an inferior model. One that was “never intended” to be a full retirement plan unlike its defined benefit pension cousin. What gets overlooked is just how few Americans in the private sector were actually covered by a defined benefit pension (29% at the peak), and even among those who were covered, how few actually worked for that employer long enough to qualify for a “full” pension (something on the order of 12% of those who were covered). 

Quite simply, only a very small minority of individuals (in the private sector) who were covered by a pension actually collected a full pension. If that was a plan design INTENDED to be a retirement plan, it didn’t do a very good job of it for most.

Next time: the rest of the list.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Preparing for ‘Landfall’

 The images and stories of the horrific path of destruction left by Hurricane Helene have been both eye-opening and heart-breaking – a tragic reminder of the uncertainty of life.

Who would have thought that a hurricane coming off the Gulf would wreak so much havoc in the hills of North Carolina and Tennessee? 

But as the recovery from Helene begins – and we now wonder what Milton will do, perhaps to many already struggling. As we sit here and pray for the best while many prepare for the worst, I’m mindful of my last serious brush with nature’s fury.

It was 2011, and we had just dropped our youngest off for his first semester of college in North Carolina, stopped off long enough in Washington, DC to check in with our daughters (both in college there at the time), and then sped home up the east coast to our then-home in Connecticut with reports of Hurricane Irene’s potential destruction and probable landfall(s) close behind. We arrived home, unloaded in record time, and rushed straight to the local hardware store to stock up for the coming storm.

We weren’t the only ones to do so, of course. And what we had most hoped to acquire (a generator) was not to be found — there, or at that moment, apparently anywhere in the state.[i]

What made that situation all the more infuriating was that, while the prospect of a hurricane landfall near our Connecticut home was relatively rare, we’d already had one narrow miss with an earlier hurricane and had then, as on several prior occasions, been without power, and for extended periods. After each I had told myself that we really needed to invest in a generator — but, as we know, inertia is a powerful force, and reasoning that I had plenty of time to do so when it was more convenient, I simply (and repeatedly) postponed taking action. Thankfully my dear wife wasn’t inclined to remind me of that at the time, but the regrets loomed large in my mind.[ii]

Retirement Ratings?

The headlines about a retirement “crisis” are once again out in full season — but like a tropical storm still well out to sea, there are widely varying assessments as to just how big it is, and — to borrow some hurricane terminology — when and where — it will make “landfall,” and with what force.

Most of the predictions are dire, of course — and while they often rely on arguably unreliable measures like uninformed levels of confidence (or lack thereof), self-reported financials and savings averages — it’s hard to escape a pervasive sense that some are in for rough weather, particularly in view of the objective data we do have — things like coverage statistics and retirement readiness projections based on actual participant data. Suffice it to say that when it comes to retirement — like hurricanes — those who don’t prepare will likely fare worse than those who do. 

Beyond that, the “after” impacts of storms like Katrina, and more recently, Helene — remind us that even those well inland can suffer egregious loss of property — and life. 

Life is full of uncertainty, and events and circumstances, as often as not, happen with little if any warning. Even though hurricanes are something you can see coming a long way off, there’s always the chance that they will peter out sooner than expected, that landfall will result in a dramatic shift in course and/or intensity, or that, as with some (like Helene) — the most devastating impact is what happens afterward, far from the focus on “landfall.”

In theory, at least, that long view tracking provides time to prepare — but, as I was reminded when Irene struck, sometimes you don’t have as much time as you think you have — and sometimes because while you had plenty of time, you just…didn’t.

Doubtless, a lot of retirement plan participants are going to look back at their working lives as they near the threshold of retirement, the same way I thought about that generator. They’ll likely remember the admonitions about (and their good intentions to) saving sooner, saving more, and the importance of regular, prudent reallocations of investment portfolios. Thankfully — and surely because of the hard work of advisors and plan sponsors — many will have heeded those warnings in time. But others, surely — and particularly those without access to a retirement plan at work — may find those post-retirement years (if indeed they can retire) to be a time of regret.

As retirement advisors are well aware, the end of our working lives inevitably hits different people at different times, and in different states of readiness. But we all know that it’s a “landfall” for which we need to prepare while we still can.

 - Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] I actually ordered one on Amazon during the drive that was said to be delivered in time – but, of course, wasn’t.

[ii] Ironically, a SECOND trip to the hardware store – this one for batteries for my wife – happened just as a fresh delivery of generators arrived. Bigger than we had planned/discussed, when she called to ask me if we should take one – without hesitation, I said “yes.”  We only used that generator that once, but it sure came in handy.

A Retiring Mind(set)

  I’ve written previously – albeit just a couple of times – about my decision to “retire.” Not that I don’t have stories to share, and perhaps even insights to impart.[i] I’ve mostly held off because (a) people keep telling me I “suck” at retirement, and (b) I have come to believe that every retirement experience is unique. 

That said, of late, I have become aware of just how many folks write and counsel about retirement – who are actually well short of that milestone. I’m not saying that guidance is irrelevant – I’m just saying that I have found that the reality is… different.

My good friend and podcasting partner Fred Reish (who hasn’t yet crossed over into retirement, it bears noting) came up with the idea of doing a podcast where we talk to retirement industry people about their retirement(s). We’ve now done three of those interviews – and I hope that you’ll come check them out. 

In the most recent episode,[ii] Fred thought it would be good to turn the tables, so to speak – and interview me about my experience(s). As I contemplated that discussion – bear in mind, I’ve already had the opportunity to share some of that experience with Fred – and considered my current retirement realities, I felt that we (and it was DEFINITELY a joint project with my wife) had – though perhaps accidentally at times – done a pretty good job. 

That said, and as unique as I (still) think each retirement is, there are a number of key touchpoints that I think are worth sharing here that gave us a solid foundation for “retirement.”

Can You Afford to Retire?

That turns out to be the $64,000 question (literally). It’s a question that our industry tries to help people answer in a variety of ways, generally with some relatively simplistic heuristics. It really requires the answer to two fundamental questions: (1) how much it will cost you to live in retirement, and (2) what financial resources do you have available to fund retirement. 

Since most people have NO idea of the answer to either of those questions 30 years in advance, we tend to provide the aforementioned heuristics; things like 70% of pre-retirement income as a stand in for the former, or a “swag” simplistic number like “15 times your current pay” (at, say age 30) as targets for the latter.

That said, there’s nothing like precision in planning. The good news is, the closer you get to a retirement date, the more accurate such projections are. The bad news is, the closer you get to a retirement date, the less time you have to fill in the reality gap. I will say this – we have been able to live comfortably on far less than 70% of pre-retirement income. 

Where Will You Live?

Let’s face it, a big part of “can you afford” is the cost of living – where you’re living. While there’s a lot of talk about downsizing or moving in retirement, statistics support the notion that many stay put, whether because of family or social connections – or just the comfort in being “home.” 

As it turned out, we did our budgeting based on where we were living at the time – which can be impacted based on where you plan to live in retirement (and then we decided to move to a more financially friendly locale).

(When) Will You Move?

We knew (pretty much from the day we moved in a decade earlier) that the multi-story home we had that accommodated us and three kids was not only more house than we needed, but would – at some point in the not-so-distant future – be impractical considering the inevitable physical declines that come with aging. So, yes – we were targeting ranches or split levels (which, at least in the areas we were considering, turned out to be a limiting factor).    

We decided to make that shift now, rather than later – let’s face it, moving is a big undertaking, and it doesn’t get any easier with age. And my wife wisely pointed out that if we were going to do some travelling (and we do) that it would make sense to establish our new “home base” first. 

We did so with several factors in mind. We were focused on (1) access to good healthcare, (2) proximity to a college – figuring that would be good for access to culture, concerts, economic impact, etc., (3) warmth, but with seasons (we’re not fans of winter), (4) no or diminished worries about mother nature (tornadoes, earthquakes, wildfires, or hurricanes (and then, Helene!), and an improved cost of living (including considerations of state income tax).     

When Should You Do This? 

My wife and I spent a lot of time talking about retirement – and we had done interim planning with a couple of financial advisors – though it didn’t get “real” until I crossed that age 65 “threshold.” Not that I hadn’t given it thought over the course of my career. Indeed, we had done some planning prior to that – and it pretty well validated our status.     

I was pretty focused on the financial side of things. Once we had outlined the costs[iii] – built in a monthly cushion – we had our target. The next item of business was to get a reading on Social Security – not only the timing of claiming, but – since both of us had Social Security benefits to claim – how/if we’d deal with joint and survivor issues. I’d highly recommend signing up for an account with Social Security (if you haven’t already done so) – and to take advantage of the calculators on their site to get a solid idea of what you can expect.    

Step two was to look at existing lifetime income options (if you’ve ever worked for an employer that offered a pension, even if it’s small, it’s worth considering). While full pensions in the private sector are rare, every little bit – particularly “little bits” that are guaranteed for life – helps.  

And then you see how the established lifetime income compares to the projected monthly costs. If there’s a gap – well then you look at your other assets (notably your 401(k) or 403(b)) – and then either figure out a plan for withdrawal, or a plan to acquire/invest in retirement income.

But that’s a topic for another post. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD 

---

[i] My retirement journey is still being mapped out – but of course I’ve written about it…some…

The Biggest Surprise About (My) Retirement (napa-net.org)

Retirement Industry Leader Nevin Adams to 'Retire' (napa-net.org)

My 'Retirement' Account (napa-net.org)

[ii] You can check it out at https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/nevin-adams5/episodes/Season-1--Episode-3-Nevin-E--Adams--JD-e2ouquf/a-abi5pcl (or on your preferred podcasting platform).

[iii] One big cost variable is health care premiums – Medicare – which, as I have written about previously (see The Biggest Surprise About (My) Retirement (napa-net.org)), is probably more complicated than you may appreciate – it was for me, though we’ve been pleased with the outcome.

A Retirement Crisis of Complicity

 A recent headline asks: “Why Aren’t We Talking About America’s Retirement Crisis?”  Really? It seems to me that that’s ALL we’re talking about!

Even more ironically, that headline appeared in an op-ed crafted by none other than Teresa Ghilarducci (and her new co-author, Christopher Cook) who, so far as I can discern, talks (and writes books) about little other than the so-called “crisis.” And this specific op-ed, as hers often do, got picked up in syndication (see this link for details).  

But then, this week I stumbled across a LinkedIn post from Andrew Biggs, which matter-of-factly stated, “After a period of trying-in-good-faith, I've concluded I have to be more, um, forthright in calling out, shall we say, misinformation regarding Americans' retirement income security.” Said another way, it appears that Mr. Biggs has come to the conclusion – as I have – that polite commentary and even-handed discussions are insufficient to put to bed what continue to be extreme mischaracterizations (and, in some cases, outright lies) about the true state of retirement in America.

Thankfully, in an article posted on Forbes (titled “Fact-Checking Cook and Ghilarducci on Retirement (Again),” Biggs once again takes to task a follow up to his earlier response to (yet) another set of exaggerated claims and assertions by the pair. 

Here’s the latest:

“Nearly half of today’s middle-class adults will be poor or near-poor in retirement.”

Now, that’s a pretty bold statement – and one made without much backing. Actually, the article links to work by the New School (where Ghilarducci is the Bernard L. and Irene Schwartz Professor of Economics at the New School for Social Research in New York City) and is based on “Authors’ calculation using the 2014 Survey of Income and Program Participation.” Note “author’s calculation.” 

Biggs provides his own analysis of data, noting that the Census Bureau defines “near poverty” as having an income between 100% and 125% of the federal poverty threshold, while, according to Census Bureau research, (only) about 6.9% of age 65+ Americans have incomes below the poverty line. He then notes that about 14.8% had incomes below 150% of the poverty line, which is above near-poverty – and that if you split THAT group in half, then around 12.9% of current seniors are either poor or near-poor – TODAY.  

But by most objective measures (Biggs cites the Social Security Administration and the Urban Institute), he suggests that elderly poverty will DECLINE in the coming decades. Beyond that, he comments – as he has previously – that the vast majority of Americans who are poor in old age were poor PRIOR TO retirement. So, where does the conclusion that “nearly half” will be poor or near poor come from? While some of that might be attributed to the specifics of the aforementioned “author’s calculation,” another subtle clue can be found in the reference to “according to internationally-recognized measures”; we’ve seen those in Ghilarducci’s recommendations before – those are the ones that unfavorably compare the economic standards of life in America to Kazakhstan.   

“Nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings and must rely solely on Social Security in old age.”

As it turns out, this is a two-fer – and Biggs breaks it down as follows. He points out – as he has previously – that the “nearly half of older Americans have no retirement savings” counts only individual retirement accounts. It completely ignores things like pensions (which, according to the Federal Reserve, Americans’ accrued benefits under traditional pensions top $16 trillion). It also excludes a taxable investment account, real estate, a farm or small business, and so forth. Biggs notes that, if you include all forms of retirement savings (and why wouldn’t you, unless you were trying to make a point?), you find a totally different picture. He cites the Federal Reserve, relying on its Survey of Household Economics and Decision-making, in finding that 88% of Americans aged 60 and over have retirement savings on top of Social Security. 

The second part – the level of reliance on Social Security – is also overstated. Biggs cites Social Security Administration researcher Lynn Fisher’s research using IRS data matched to government household surveys to examine how heavily retiree households rely on Social Security. She found that only 4.5% of elderly persons received all their income from Social Security for all of their income. “In other words, literally one-tenth of the figure Cook and Ghilarducci claim,” Biggs notes.  He also explains that the Census Bureau analyzed the number of seniors who receive at least 90% of their income from Social Security – just 12.2%, despite using a lower bar than Cook and Ghilarducci.

About 79% of people aged 62 to 70 can’t afford their pre-retirement living standards.

There’s plenty of actual IRS data – you know, the kind that people provide to the IRS under penalty of law – available to show that retirement income tends to compare favorably with pre-retirement.  Biggs turns to data from economists Peter Brady and Steven Bass that tracked incomes from ages 55 through 72 – and found that for the typical household, income drops by only 12% from age 55 to 65. Which, of course, means that the typical 65-year-old has a “replacement rate” of about 88%.  Beyond that, he explains that for the poorest 25% of seniors, their incomes increase in retirement.

And then there’s the alternative of just asking folks in retirement. Again, he references the Fed’s Survey of Household Economies and Decision-making which found that among 52-to-61-year-olds from 2019-2023, 76% said they were at least “Doing okay” – but among 62-to-70-year-olds, 82% did so. Among those age 75 and over, 86% said they were at least doing okay financially, the best in any age group. 

Of course, op-eds aren’t subjected to the same level of scrutiny as news – not that there’s been any shortage of news coverage on the topic of the looming retirement crisis. Let’s face it, there have been – and continue to be – a series of one after another industry survey that simply parrots the concerns of working Americans – the vast majority of which don’t seem to have ever tried to figure out their financial needs or reserves in retirement, apparently relying solely on the screaming headlines that assure them that retirement Armageddon is just over the horizon. It doesn’t help matters that retirement industry leaders echo and reinforce that perception.    

That said, and to answer Ghilarducci’s question, at least some of us are not just talking, but are actively working to forestall the retirement “crisis” she and others have been “promoting” for the past several years. No doubt, some will struggle in retirement – as they have prior to that date. But we need to quit excusing such “promotion” as anything other than hyperbole designed to sell books, inspire televised interviews and promote “solutions” that would undermine the amazing success of the private retirement system. 

If we don’t – well, we’re quite simply being a complicit enabler in helping spread that narrative by our silence.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD