More choice, less action

Forty-seven retirement funds may represent genuine breadth. They also represent forty-seven opportunities to postpone choosing. The provider faces a real problem. People differ in retirement date, risk tolerance, fees and desired involvement. Hiding those differences would be irresponsible. Presenting every option with equal weight transfers the responsibility without transferring the expertise needed to use it.

Reduce the first decision rather than the underlying range. Ask only the questions that materially change suitability. Offer a defensible default, state the assumptions and expose the full set for people who want it. “Popular” is weak evidence when earlier defaults created the popularity. “Best” requires a sentence explaining for whom.

Reversal matters. Guidance becomes coercion when changing later requires a telephone call, three forms and the patience of a saint. Show how to move, what it costs and which consequences follow.

Then measure participation, later switching and unsuitable choices. A shorter menu that increases enrolment while trapping people in a poor default has solved the provider’s number rather than the saver’s problem.

The revised journey asks three questions and presents two plausible funds plus the default. The other forty-five remain one level deeper. The next report includes the number who started saving, the number who reviewed the choice later and the assumptions under which the default was offered.