> The issue is that the money market fund was the default choice, which meant that while the new program helped people save more, it also led folks who would ha

> The issue is that the money market fund was the default choice, which meant that while the new program helped people save more, it also led folks who would have chosen better-performing funds to earn far less than they would have. Defaults are powerful! Does the data actually back this up? It seems to me like the cited data could also support that everyone who would have otherwise opted in still went and selected stocks. I can't see the full paper cited, but the abstract says: > Second, a substantial fraction of 401(k) participants hired under automatic enrollment retain both the default contribution rate and fund allocation even though few employees hired before automatic enrollment picked this particular outcome. This seems to be specifically not stating the conclusion that the article did.