It's no secret this whole retirement saving thing kinda drives the average 401(k) employee nuts (see "The Five Killer Concepts that Most Confuse Retirement Savers," FiduciaryNews.com, May 3, 2016).

In all phases of the retirement-saving process, we see the same behavioral warning signals. In most cases, a paralysis of choice exists. Much work has been done to reduce or even eliminate the burden of choice.

We can do more, but first we need to fully understand those areas of most concern.

We can categorize these areas into three broad categories.

I. The System

This represents the very basic idea of saving for retirement itself. It spans from the justification for saving in the first place to the timing of when to start saving, to where and how to save, to how much to save.

Each of these elements contains its own array of choices, options, and opinions. Complicating matters is the fact there are no definitively "right" choices. The validity of each decision depends on the unique set of circumstances of each individual retirement saver.

When presented with too many choices or any generally confusion dilemma, the inertia of indecision takes over. As a result, no action is taken, which often means people aren't saving.

That's generally recognized as "not a good thing" and behavioral researchers have devised tools to address this. These tools eventually became the plan design features of auto-enrollment and auto-escalation.

These two "autos" are a step in the right direction, but they only address part of the systemic issues with retirement saving.

Perhaps the biggest issue is misdirected focus, which brings us to our next area of concern.

II. Technical Jargon

There's an allure to jargon. Among some folks, it's a badge of honor to be conversant in the vernacular.

For others, it's simply "cool." But for many, it's an insurmountable barrier, something they see as prerequisite to advancement. Yet, if it this prerequisite is insurmountable, what does that tell them about their prospects of advancement?

Right. They don't have any prospects.

When did investing become cool? Was it the Tulip thing? For a long time, the whole concept of "earning interest" was considered a sin, so I'm pretty sure investing wasn't always cool.

On the other hand, there's that other Bible story about the guys who were given money and the one that came back with the best return was considered the best steward. (Incidentally, I think it was that same story where the guy who was too afraid of losing the stake he was given and who therefore didn't do anything with it got in a whole heap of trouble for not doing anything with it.)

Nonetheless, there's this expectation that retirement savers must also be retirement investors.

Now, you and I both know that's not true, but retirements savers – remember, they're not the rocket scientists – don't know that.

We might design plan menu options into categories, we might speak into generic rather than product specific terms, heck, we might even give them a single default option, but the focus on investing instead of saving persists.

I believe we know the correct way to deal with this, but it would require us to violate some of our fundamental beliefs pertaining to self-determination.

We'll leave that one for a future discussion, mostly because, before we can get to that, we need to overcome the third general problem.

III. The Industry

Sorry folks, but nobody trusts you. This may or may not be your fault, but it probably is your fault.

It's likely most everyone associated with the financial services industry is guilty of a sin of omission. (The ones that aren't are guilty of sins of commission and gave us all this black eye to begin with.)

Think of it this way. Many wise people have long held the belief that the investment adviser profession should rise to the level of the medical, legal, and accounting professions. In terms of certification, education, and the wearing of fancy suits, that makes a lot of sense.

But there is a big difference that no one talks about. We don't talk about it because it's so pervasive we can't imagine anyone questioning the premise. Indeed, we naturally assume it's virtually un-American to even consider it.

Are you ready to read what it is?

Competition.

Yep, you don't see one group of doctors aggressively trying to steal patients from another group of doctors. Nope. Once you're a patient with one doctor, you stay there until and unless you decide to seek an alternative. To a lesser degree, this is true of both lawyers and to an even lesser degree with accountants. Instead of cutthroat competition, these professionals either joyfully work together with each other as a community of professionals, or they simply ignore someone else's territory.

Can the financial profession ever duplicate that?