TRIVIAL PURSUITS: How Many Times Has Niagara Falls Stopped Flowing?

Do you know how many times the Falls have stopped flowing and why?

On March 29th 1848, Niagara Falls ran dry during a weather related occurrence—a south-west gale blowing off of Lake Erie caused ice to jam and dam up at the mouth of the Niagara River causing the water flow to be severely restricted. The water over the Horseshoe Falls and American Falls was reduced to a trickle for approximately thirty (30) to forty (40) hours.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

In 1953, the water over a portion of the Horseshoe Falls nearest the Table Rock Pavilion was stopped by the building of a series of coffer dams to allow for remedial work to be done to the edge of the Falls. This was done to allow a more even water flow and to slow the rate of erosion.

In 1969, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built a series of coffer dams which stopped or rather reduced the water flow over the American Falls to a mere trickle. This was done to allow a study of the rock formations at the crest of the Falls and to study the feasibility of whether there was any possible way to remove the rock (talus) at the base of the American Falls. In the end, the engineers decided to let Mother Nature take its course.

Retirement Plan Review Focus Differs with Adviser Use

Unfortunately, on the bottom of the list of priorities during plan reviews for both sponsors that work with an adviser (27%) and those that do not (25%) is whether employees are saving enough.

The 2016 MassMutual Retirement Plan Review Study finds differences in plan review focus between retirement plan sponsors with an adviser as opposed to sponsors without an adviser.

During plan reviews, sponsors that work with an adviser typically prioritize satisfaction with their plan provider (79%), while sponsors without an adviser prioritize fees (73%). Other major considerations of plan reviews for sponsors that work with an adviser include performance of investments (76%), fees associated with the plan (71%), effectiveness of education and advice (50%), participation rate (45%) and time and effort to administer the plan (43%). For plan sponsors without an adviser, the order of other considerations is as follows: satisfaction with plan provider (71%), performance of investments (59%), participation rate (34%), effectiveness of education and advice (31%) and time and effort to administer the plan (28%).                                   

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Unfortunately, on the bottom of the list of priorities during plan reviews for both those that work with an adviser (27%) and those that do not (25%) is whether employees are saving enough. Tom Foster Jr., spokesperson and practice management leader for MassMutual Retirement Services, says, “Participation in the plan is certainly important too. But if every employee participates but each saves only 1% of his or her salary, it’s totally ineffective as no one will ever be prepared to retire.”

MassMutual points out that employees who work past the traditional retirement age band of 65 to 67 may cost employers significantly more for health care, disability and workers compensation insurance as well as salaries.

Many plan sponsors say they want to review their retirement plans more often than they currently do. Nearly three in five (57%) plan sponsors want advisers to help them review their retirement plans semiannually or more often, something that only 44% of sponsors report currently takes place.  However, sponsors who rely on advisers typically review their retirement plans more often than sponsors who do not use an adviser.

The study polled 565 employers that sponsor retirement plans, including 449 that worked with an adviser and 116 that did not, with retirement plan recordkeeping assets ranging from less than $1 million to as much as $75 million.

«