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

What If There Was No ERISA?

 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 individual accounts would have a significant negative impact. That said, you might be surprised at the size of that impact. 

The research notes that, when aggregated across all four income categories, the probability of Gen X households running short of money in retirement (granted, this is running short by as little as $1[ii]) would increase from 47% under the status quo to 59%. Millennials would fare worse, with the aggregate probability increasing from 44% to 69%, and Gen Z households would see their exposure soar from a risk of 37% in today’s environment to what the researchers termed a “devastating 72%” without individual account retirement plans. 

The paper also projects the outcomes across various income and education demographics, as well as industry, gender and race. To sum it up, single females, Hispanic Americans, and non-Hispanic Black Americans were found to be at a higher risk of retirement shortfalls. Needless to say perhaps – though the paper does – “[t]he elimination of DC participation and savings would drastically reduce the probability of a successful retirement, particularly for middle-income groups, as they heavily rely on these plans.”

Considering the positive impact of those individual accounts – albeit one limited by the status quo reality of access – it should come as no surprise that a projection that greatly broadens that access – alongside automatic enrollment and auto-escalation (as proscribed in the Automatic IRA Act of 2024) notably improves retirement prospects. Indeed, the researchers find that it could substantially improve retirement outcomes, with an aggregate average wealth ratio increase of 23.8% – and that’s assuming an opt-out rate of 30%![iii]   

All in all, just like good old George Bailey, it’s easy to underestimate the potential impact of the individual account regime that ERISA ultimately fostered – until you are able to imagine what things would be like without it. That said, this research affirms the positive impact – and puts some numbers behind it – while also affirming policy considerations for the future. 

Did I hear a bell ringing…

 - Nevin E. Adams, JD 

---

[i] With a title nearly as long as the paper itself “The Evolution of Retirement-Income Adequacy Under ERISA With a Focus on Defined-Contribution Plans: A Review of the Status Quo, Counterfactual Evidence, and an Analysis of Changes for the Future.”

[ii] Also worth noting, this analysis, unlike most other projection models – takes into account the potential impact of long-term care expenses.

[iii] Which turns out to be close, but less than opt-out rates in a number of the current state-run IRAs.

(Let’s) Never Forget

  It’s hard to believe that today there are people in the workforce who weren’t even alive on Sept. 11, 2001.

In fact, it’s been labeled a defining event for Millennials – a date marker between those who were alive on that date and those (Generation Z) who weren’t. That said, the passage of time has surely dimmed the memory even for many who did live through it. More’s the pity.

Odds are if you were “here” on that most awful of days, you’ll remember exactly where you were. 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.

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.

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.

I’ve thought back on that day – and that feeling – many times since then. Even today, I can still feel that ache of being kept apart from those I love as if it were yesterday – but I also draw comfort from that memory of that biker gang driving by me flying our nation’s flag.   

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 on that day sacrificed their lives so that others could go home. How many still put their lives on the line every day, here and abroad.

We take a lot for granted in this life, nothing more cavalierly than there will be a tomorrow to set the record straight, to right wrongs inflicted, to tell our loved ones just how precious they are.

This week as we remember that most awful of days, and the loss of those no longer with us, let’s never forget – and take a moment – together – to treasure what we have – and those we have to share it with still.

Peace.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD