Comments on: Annals of dubious research, 401(k) loan-default edition A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: traducere romana daneza Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:05:02 +0000 A large stage, and not simply due to the fact we tend to won, though the way we won, Battle each other send He Kelly mentioned. Were feeling enjoy for the purpose of Forty five or so minutes, we really competed your safety, Battle each other safety. Naturally this was a team, No. Psshflbt. Try to remember Last year the age the states chugs combined in 5% growth as you move the world devolves into pandemonium in addition to anarchy. Stock exchange trading realizes almost all and has now telegraphed this unique to all of us (the same as these people telegraphed to all of us the period regarding To begin with fifty percent if you the market industry to time peaks with October 2007).

By: breezinthru Tue, 31 Dec 2013 18:11:20 +0000 Wow.

It must have taken a helluva long time to research all that. Either you are paid by the minute and receive bonuses per the written word or you are trying to serve greater masters.+

Litan clearly has contrived data to serve his own goals.

By: TuckerP Fri, 14 Sep 2012 15:00:45 +0000 Did Felix bother to scroll to the bottom of the Protect My 401K webpage? It clearly says “Powered by Custodia Financial.” Felix’s evil hypothesis that the authors were engaged in a cover up seems overstated. Perhaps the blog should be retitled “Annals of Conspiracy Theories.”

By: sylvan Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:54:09 +0000 Not really news that another journalist made up their story, or that they lacked integrity, or disclosed their conflicts. Just another profession up for sale, along with bankstas, accountnots, and slimy politicians. And why not attack economics, since it is a science based on data? So we now deny evolution, and genetics and all biolgical science basically since they are all driven by evolution..a fertilized zygote is a person, for example.., climate change, Keynesian stimulus, Federal Reserve, etc. etc. It is hard to believe how stupid all the arguments have become and how hard it is to find unadultered news, as evidenced by the study showing long term conservative bias. Shame on what used to be the profession of journalists.

By: FelixSalmon Tue, 14 Aug 2012 13:58:48 +0000 @Strych, it *is* a JPG! les/2012/08/defaults.jpg

By: fresnodan Tue, 14 Aug 2012 09:42:40 +0000 Dilbert:
I didn’t have real numbers, so I just made some up.
Studies show that accurate numbers are no more useful than made up numbers.
Questioner: how many studies show that?
Dilbert: 87.32%

(I added the 0.32 to give it added cachet)

By: Strych09 Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:01:53 +0000 Felix, you can’t post a .tiff file to the web and expect that most browsers will render it.

Can you convert the above figure following the text “…the researchers found that the number of terminations, and the number of defaults, remained pretty steady:” to JPEG and re-post it after editing this page to reference the new file?

Thanks in advance.

By: QCIC Mon, 13 Aug 2012 21:50:54 +0000 Great footwork. Sadly this is indeed what most of the scholarly work going on in Washington is. Even at the most socially responsible and best meaning places. And don’t even get me started on the irresponsible ones…

By: newyork1 Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:00:49 +0000 Fascinating piece. I’d like to add a few clarifications. As the CTO of a TPA that does design and administration of retirement plans, there are a couple points you might find interesting.

Plans allow people to borrow money they deferred or (in some cases, but not all) contributions the company made that the participant has vested. These loans rarely default because of the way they are paid back. As long as the person is employed, the loan repayment is taken out of their paycheck automatically. If the person leaves their company, then the loan goes into arrears. At which point, an administrator makes a decision about whether the loan defaulted.

One other clarification. Someone who is an “Active Participant” does not mean they have an account with retirement funds. Both table A1 and A1(a) clarify this in their footnotes. 2 is particularly important. “Active participants include any workers currently in employment covered by a plan and who are earning or retaining credited service under a plan.”

What the 72M and 61M numbers count are people who work at a company where they are eligible to participate in the plan. It does not mean that there are 72M 401(k) accounts with balances in them.



By: KidDynamite Mon, 13 Aug 2012 17:26:38 +0000 unscientifically, Felix, I think this is your longest post ever!