Friday, September 11, 2026

When Memory Becomes History

 A quarter-century is a long time.

Long enough for children born after Sept. 11, 2001, to have now finished college, entered the workforce and begun building lives and families of their own.   

Long enough for the images that remain painfully vivid to some of us to have become history to millions of others.

ad space

But 25 years is not long enough to forget.

Those of us who lived through that day still remember where we were when we heard — or, perhaps more accurately, when we finally understood. We remember the images, the uncertainty and the urgent need to hear the voices of those we loved. We remember a day on which thousands of people left home for an ordinary Tuesday and never returned.

As it happened — and I have shared this story before — I was travelling from one coast to the other — heading to speak at a conference early on that bright Tuesday morning in 2001. In fact, I was in the middle of that cross-country flight, literally running from one terminal to another in Dallas, Texas when my cellphone rang. I was annoyed — the hour was early, my flight in had been late, and the timing between that and my connection was uncomfortably short — particularly for a flight that was in another terminal. 


The call was from my wife — I assumed she was simply checking to see if I had landed safely — and she was, though not for the reasons I thought. See, I had been on an American Airlines flight heading for Los Angeles, after all — and at that time, not much else was known about the first plane that struck the World Trade Center beyond it being an American Airlines flight headed to LA. I was breathless — could hardly make out what she was saying from the noise in the terminal. I was sure I was misunderstanding what she claimed to have seen on TV.

ad space

Would that I had…

And then as I slowed, for the first time it sank in — and I saw what my subconscious mind had seen, but not registered — the crowds surrounding the TV monitors throughout the terminal.

My first thought was to try and get on a flight back home — fortunately my travel agent’s first thought was to get me a hotel room. They’d be in short supply shortly — and, sure enough, on that most awful of days — I wound up stranded in a hotel room hundreds of insurmountable miles away from family and friends. It was, without a doubt, the longest day — and loneliest night — of my life.

In fact, I was to spend the next several days at that Dallas hotel. There were no planes flying, no rental cars to be had — nowhere to go for what turned out to be three interminably long days. As that long week drew to a close, I was finally able to get a rental car and begin a long two-day journey home. It was a long, lonely drive, but one that gave me a lot of time to think, though most of that drive was a blur, just mile after endless mile of open road with nothing but AM talk radio to fill the void.

ad space

And then, somewhere in a remote section of Arkansas, I spotted something approaching in my rearview mirror. There hadn’t been much traffic on the road — in fact, it had been a couple of hours since I had seen anyone at all, so the movement caught my eye. As they came into focus, I saw it was a group of bikers — at least a couple of dozen of them, spread out across the highway — led by a particularly “scruffy” looking guy with a long beard and lots of menacing tattoos on a big bike. Out in the middle of nowhere, all alone on this deserted highway — well, I was nervous to say the least as they pulled alongside.

And then, as the lead cyclist pulled past me, I saw unfurled behind him on that big bike an enormous American flag.

At that moment, for the first time in 72 hours, I felt a sense of peace — the comfort you feel inside when you know you are going … home.

Twenty-five years later, the memories remain vivid for those of us who were there — but memory is inevitably personal, imperfect and perishable. That is why remembering cannot be left only to those who remember.

ad space

We must tell the stories — not merely of how the attacks happened, but of the lives lost, the courage displayed and the countless acts of kindness that followed. We must explain to those who weren’t yet born why an enormous flag carried by a stranger on an empty Arkansas highway could bring comfort to someone desperate to get home.

On not a few mornings since that awful September day, I’ve thought about how many went to work, how many boarded a plane, not realizing that they would not get to come home —not just that day, but ever again. How many sacrificed their lives so that others could go home. And how many still put their lives on the line every day, here and abroad, to keep us safe.

We take a lot for granted in this life, perhaps nothing more cavalierly than the assumption that there will always be a tomorrow — to set the record straight, to right a wrong, or simply to tell those we love how precious they are.

A quarter-century later, let’s remember those who never made it home. Let’s treasure those with whom we are still fortunate enough to share ours.

ad space

And — for the sake of those who can’t remember that day — let’s keep telling them why they should.

Never forget.

  • Nevin E. Adams, JD

Saturday, September 05, 2026

‘Success,’ More or Less?

 What does it mean to have a 75% probability of success?

I’ve never been particularly fond of the probability-of-success measures commonly used in retirement planning. It’s not that the calculations aren’t useful — or that I have a better crystal ball. I’m just not convinced that most people understand what the resulting percentage means, much less how to apply it to their retirement decisions.

After all, a 75% probability of success sounds like a grade — and not a particularly good one. It also sounds as though there is a 25% chance that your retirement will be a complete and unmitigated failure. Neither interpretation is necessarily accurate.

ad space

A new paper from David Blanchett at PGIM, aptly titled “Successfully Failing,” takes on that conventional measure and suggests that it may not simply be confusing. It may actually lead retirees — and those advising them — to make less-than-optimal decisions.

Success ‘Measures’

Probability-of-success calculations generally run a retirement strategy through hundreds or thousands of different scenarios. If the retiree’s assets last through the prescribed retirement period, the scenario is labeled a success. If the money runs out before the end, it is deemed a failure. 

It’s all — or nothing.

ad space

A scenario that comes up $1 short is a failure. So is one that comes up $100,000 short. A portfolio exhausted in the final month of a 30-year retirement receives the same failing grade as one depleted after 15 years.

For that matter, the success side can be just as uninformative. A plan that finishes the period with $1 remaining is successful. So is one that leaves the retiree with $1 million —though those outcomes may say very different things about how much the retiree could have enjoyed spending along the way.

In effect, probability of success answers one narrowly defined question: In how many of our modeled scenarios did the portfolio avoid hitting zero before a date we selected? That may be useful information for academics or retirement planners, but it doesn’t strike me as the question actual people are trying to answer.

Goal ‘Oriented?’

Blanchett suggests an alternative: goal completion percentage. Rather than sorting every outcome into one of two buckets — success or failure — it measures how much of the desired spending was actually funded.

ad space

Consider the paper’s simple example: a retiree wants to generate $100 annually for 10 years. Across 10 modeled scenarios, only half provide the entire $1,000. That produces a probability of success of just 50% — a number likely to send most retirees scrambling for the nearest spending cut. And yet, averaged across those same scenarios, 96% of the desired spending is funded.

Same assumptions. Same outcomes. Very different — and arguably much more useful —description of the result.

Most people can probably get their arms around being able to fund 96% of what they hope to spend. They can consider what comprises the other 4%, whether they are willing to do without it and what adjustments might close the gap. That seems more tangible than being told that their retirement plan has a 50% chance of “failure.”

ad space

It also acknowledges something these models frequently overlook: retirees (not to mention non-retirees) don’t generally set a spending plan on the day they retire and then blindly follow it for the next 30 years. They adjust. They postpone a trip, replace a car later than anticipated, reduce gifts or make other changes as their circumstances evolve. A disappointing market doesn’t automatically cause them to spend their portfolio down to zero without noticing.

Indeed, Blanchett estimates that viewing the same risks through goal completion rather than a traditional probability-of-success threshold could allow some retirees to spend 20% more without taking on additional risk. That is potentially a significant improvement in retirement — not because the investments performed better, but because the measurement did. Not to mention the understanding of what the measurement means.

Successfully ‘Failing?’

That said, goal completion percentage isn’t a perfect measure. Knowing that a plan funds 90% of projected spending still doesn’t tell us when the shortfall occurs — or what kind of spending will have to be sacrificed. Funding 90% of a budget containing substantial discretionary travel is different from funding 90% of one already pared down to food, shelter and healthcare.

ad space

Still, it gives retirees something that probability of success generally doesn’t: a sense of the size of the potential problem. And that creates an opportunity to make informed choices rather than merely reacting to the absolutism of a passing or failing grade.

After all, a retirement that delivers 96% of what you hoped for may technically have “failed” by some measures.

But a measurement that can’t help folks distinguish that kind of outcome from financial catastrophe surely has.

  • Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

Saturday, August 29, 2026

Kids, Confidence — and Causation

 It seems that having kids can be good for your retirement confidence.

At least that’s the headline regarding a new survey from Allianz Life that finds that Americans without children are significantly less confident in their ability to meet their retirement savings goal — 54%, compared with 72% of those with children.

Now I’m sure that result is supposed to be counter-intuitive because — let’s face it — kids are expensive. There’s food, clothing, childcare, education, healthcare and, in some cases, financial support long after they have theoretically “left” the nest. So, it would seem logical that Americans without children would have more money available for retirement — and greater confidence about their prospects.[i]

ad space
Parental Planning?

Well, as it turns out, it may not be children that account for the confidence — at least not directly. Rather, Allianz suggests that parenthood may provide a catalyst for financial planning. According to the survey, 62% of Americans without children don’t have a written financial plan, compared with 42% of parents.

There’s surely something to that. Having children has a way of bringing financial responsibilities into sharper focus. Suddenly, there are dependents to protect, college expenses to anticipate and estate-planning decisions to make. Even people who have been content to take their own financial future for granted may become more purposeful when someone else is counting on them.

But having a reason to plan isn’t the same as having the resources to succeed. Nor does confidence necessarily equate to readiness.

ad space
Confidence ‘Game’

Now, as a parent — and someone who believes that having a plan can not only inspire confidence, but help justify it — I’m reluctant to cast doubt on that conclusion.

That said, “Americans without children” is a broad category. It could include a 27-year-old who hasn’t had children yet, a 45-year-old who chose not to, someone (of indeterminate age) who wanted children but couldn’t have them, and an older adult who just never became a parent. Those individuals may have little in common beyond the survey category into which they have just been slotted.

Age alone could explain part of the confidence gap — as could marital status, household income, homeownership, employment, access to a workplace retirement plan, or whether the household has one income or two. At least from the published results, we don’t know whether the 18-point confidence difference persists after controlling for those factors.[ii]

ad space

There’s also the possibility that the assumed direction of cause and effect is backward. Perhaps having children causes people to plan and feel more confident. But it’s also possible that individuals who already feel financially secure are more willing to have children, while some who feel less secure decide they can’t afford to do so.

Then there’s the written financial plan. Having one may well increase confidence, but it could also simply be another manifestation of wealth, income or access to professional advice. More affluent households are likely both to have written plans and to feel more confident about retirement. The plan may contribute to that confidence without being its sole cause — or even the primary one. It may not even be a good or workable plan.

Let’s face it. The Allianz findings don’t establish that having children makes people better prepared for retirement. In fact, they don’t establish that having children is what produced the difference in confidence — only that parents in this survey were more confident.

ad space

Children may offer an incentive to plan — and perhaps an expectation of support later in life. But they also bring expenses that compete directly with retirement savings. Those without children may have fewer current obligations, but greater awareness that they will have to finance and manage more of their own care.

Look, far be it from me to discourage a healthy connection between having kids and retirement preparation. Having children can — and certainly should — provide plenty of motivation to plan for the future.

But, in and of themselves — and as much as they add to our lives — they’re no retirement plan.

ad space
  • Nevin E. Adams, JD

 


[i] Although among parents, those with one or two children were more confident than those with three or more, 74% versus 66%, respectively.

[ii] Indeed, survey participants generally needed annual household income of at least $50,000 for singles or $75,000 for married or partnered respondents — or at least $150,000 in investable assets. Consequently, the findings tell us less about lower-income households, where both the costs of raising children and the challenges of retirement saving may be even more pronounced.

Saturday, August 22, 2026

Spending Their Inheritance?

 Apparently, Baby Boomers have some ‘splainin to do.

Yes, after decades of being blamed for everything from the demise of defined benefit pensions to the price of housing, Boomers are now being castigated for something else: spending the money that their children were (apparently) counting on inheriting.

Indeed, there’s been a lot of talk about the so-called “Great Wealth Transfer” — and lately a fair amount of consternation that Boomers might actually spend some of that wealth before they die.

Which got me wondering: How much did the Boomers actually inherit from their parents?

Turns out, for most, not all that much.

Back in 2011, researchers at Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research[i] took a specific look at that question. They estimated that about two-thirds of Boomer households would ultimately receive an inheritance.

And that median expected inheritance was ... (just) $64,000.

Now, $64,000 is certainly nothing to sneeze at. But neither is it the kind of generational windfall suggested by much of the current discussion about the wealth Boomers are now supposedly “obligated” to leave behind.

And remember that was the median among those expected to receive an inheritance.

ad space

Roughly one-third weren’t expected to receive any … at all.

An Inheritance ‘Average’?

Federal Reserve data[ii] provides some additional perspective.

Looking at inheritances received between 1995 and 2016 — a period during which many Boomers would have been receiving inheritances from their parents, btw — more than half, 55%, were worth less than $50,000. Another 30% were between $50,000 and $250,000.

Only about 6% exceeded $500,000, and just 2% topped $1 million. But those million-dollar inheritances accounted for roughly 40% of all the dollars inherited.

In other words, a relatively tiny number of enormous inheritances can make the overall inheritance “pie” look a whole lot bigger than the slice received by a typical family. And remember, even then they weren’t all that big.

So, what’s got everyone so stirred up?

As it turns out, Cerulli Associates — a credible source, but one whose projections often seem to run on steroids — recently estimated[iii] that an astonishing $124 trillion will transfer through 2048. Of that, $105 trillion is projected to go to heirs, while $18 trillion will go to charity.

Which means they estimate that nearly $100 trillion is expected to come from Boomers and generations older than them in what has been dubbed (drumroll, please) the “Great Wealth Transfer.”

But hold on a second. More than $62 trillion — half of that entire projected transfer — is expected to come from high- and ultra-high-net-worth households that comprise … just 2% of all households.

ad space

At this point you should be saying to yourself, “could this be (yet) another one of those situations where an enormous aggregate number tells us considerably less about the experience of a typical American than the click-baiting headlines suggest?

Great Expectations?

But wait — there’s more!

Not all that wealth is heading directly to Millennials and Gen X.

Cerulli further estimates that some $54 trillion will first transfer “horizontally” between spouses, with more than 95% of those assets going to women. Nearly $40 trillion is projected to move to widowed women in the Boomer and older generations before eventually moving on to heirs or charities.[iv]

Which means the Great Wealth Transfer isn’t really a single transfer at all. And it certainly doesn’t mean that there’s a $124 trillion check waiting to be divided among America’s children.

Yet that enormous number seems to have helped create some enormous expectations.

We’ve seen stories about “SKI” — Spending the Kids’ Inheritance — and Boomers “indulging” in travel, second homes and experiences rather than preserving their assets for their children. There’s even a growing presumption that parents should transfer wealth sooner, when their children can make better use of it.

Honestly, my wife and I have done some of that with our kids. But there’s something odd about treating an inheritance as though it were an obligation — particularly when the generation supposedly “shirking” that obligation largely built its own wealth without receiving anything remotely comparable.

To be sure, Boomers benefited from some extraordinarily favorable economic circumstances: decades of rising home values, a remarkable bull market in equities, relatively inexpensive higher education (RELATIVELY, mind you) and, for some (though not most, mind you), traditional pensions. Timing matters, and they (we?) had some pretty good timing.[v]

ad space

But they (we?) also saved, invested, paid mortgages, raised families — and accumulated much of the wealth we’re now discussing over decades. We did it despite wars, gas lines, stagflation. And let me point out, spending a fair amount of that on the kids now chomping at the proverbial bit of a potential inheritance.

Our parents generally didn’t leave us fortunes. Nor did we expect them to.

‘Will’ Power

None of this is an argument against leaving an inheritance.

Nor is it an argument against helping children or grandchildren while you’re still around to see the impact. Indeed, there are compelling reasons to do so if your circumstances and retirement security permit it.

But retirement planning has always had an awkward uncertainty at its core: You don’t know how long you’ll live, what markets will do, what inflation will be, or what health and long-term care might cost. And nobody wants to be a financial or physical burden on their kids if they don’t have to.

Telling retirees simultaneously that they must make their money last for an unknowable lifetime — and that they should feel guilty if there isn’t enough left over afterward — seems like an interesting, if conflicted, set of expectations.

So perhaps before criticizing Boomers for spending their children’s inheritance, we should remember how much inheritance most of them started with.

For a lot of them — most of them — the answer was pretty simple.

Not much.

ad space

An inheritance is a wonderful thing to receive.

It just shouldn’t be a retirement plan. And it shouldn’t undermine one, either.

  • Nevin E. Adams, JD

 


[i] See How Important Are Inheritances for Baby Boomers? – Center for Retirement Research.

[ii] See Federal Reserve Board - How Does Intergenerational Wealth Transmission Affect Wealth Concentration? Accessible Data.

[iii] See https://www.cerulli.com/press-releases/cerulli-anticipates-124-trillion-in-wealth-will-transfer-through-2048

[iv] Wealth management practices, take note!

[v] Of course, they/we also lived through some pretty tumultuous market cycles.