The documentary brings you back to what they considered the golden age of working. You'd get a gold watch and a pension when you retired. Unfortunately, like how most remember the past, it wasn't as good as it used to be. The documentary discusses how pensions were perfect, and there was nothing wrong with them. Except for the fact the documentary fails to mention today the remaining private and public pensions are way underfunded. Today pensions plans like California's CalPERS are delusional, and still expecting 8% annual return in this low FED funds rate environment.
Don't forget at the time the US was a global powerhouse with little competition from abroad. With the improvements in medical technology, the longevity of people has also dramatically increased since that period as well. Meaning the amount needed to fully fund a pension was much less than it is now.
The truth of the matter is that there is no free lunch – risk is risk. The risk and responsibility was simply transferred from the employer to the employee. Unlike the title of the program, all investing to a degree is a “gamble”. There's no such thing as a risk free investment.
The documentary shows retirement planning failures, including mistakes by the narrator. However, it's hard to feel sorry for these individuals. One individual was interviewed in front of a new Macbook Pro with stainless steel appliances in the background. The documentary oddly enough didn't talk to anyone who is successful. That's typical of any documentary because it goes against the narrative.
The interesting part is the intro with economist Robert Hiltonsmith from DEMOS (a very left of center think tank). Robert has only $8,000 in his retirement account. Now granted he's only 31 years old, but it plays into the patsy card. Keep in mind he was educated to be an economist. What was his excuse compared to the other individuals? Robert certainly should know better than saving only 3% of his salary. That “hope”, as he called it, isn't a savings strategy. Ironically from my experience many economists make out to be poor investors.
Unfortunately, with most of these types of programs you never hear from the opposing viewpoint. If you do, you get dumbfounded interviews like the JP Morgan and Prudential guests. Though the deer-in-the-headlights moments were justified. High-fee and actively managed plans are a terrible way to invest for retirement. Many retirement plans overcharge for investment services and can eat as much as 30% of your returns over time. It's critical for you to know how much your 401(k) is costing you.
The most important lessons learned from the documentary were:
- Fees matter a lot!
- Your investments should be index based funds
If your employer doesn't offer good fund choices, you should lobby for better options. Though in the case of the host Martin Smith questioning the funds in his 401(k) plan seems suspect. As the owner of the business, Martin certainly should have had known better because he picked the plan administrator! If not, shame on him for not researching. Hopefully he's improved the fund options available to his employees.
For the many others with no retirement plan option available, try lobbying for one. Worst case: find a better job that does offer a retirement plan, use an IRA account, and there is always taxable savings. Just because your company doesn't offer a retirement plan doesn't excuse you from saving for retirement.
What's the real issue?
Retirement accounts are certainly flawed, but not in the way discussed in the documentary. At least with recent changes in transparency, you will know how much your 401(k) is costing you. I consider this new law a “good thing”, and it certainly was needed. However, you can't legislate stupidity away. How many check their quarterly statement? How many bother to educate themselves and plan early for retirement? Unfortunately, far too many. As Fidelity recently mentioned, the average retirement account is only $397,400 for someone near retirement age. This is certainly concerning and not nearly enough for retirement. Many Baby Boomers are relying on Social Security to significantly supplement their retirement income.
The real issue is some can't, and many don't, save enough for retirement. While fees and actively managed funds do hurt returns – it doesn't matter if you don't have enough money to retire. Poor human behavior is the real problem. The question then becomes should we: let individuals make their own decisions, “nudge” them and setup default settings for retirement, or via government force require savings? Unfortunately, if the last option is used it's typically an all or nothing proposition. Otherwise known by the force of a gun. For someone like me who's responsible, I certainly would love to opt-out of Social Security. Though I can understand to a degree why it exists for others. The problem is I have no choice in the matter and get punished for others' poor investment decisions.
Ironically, I think the annual retirement limits are too low. Though with recent discussions by our government it appears they want to cap the tax deferral and dissuade savers from saving “too much”. My concern as of late is our government will go against the existing retirement laws and somehow tax prudent savers who did plan for retirement. All in the name to equalize outcomes for those who weren't prudent.
