Spending Their Inheritance?

 Apparently, Baby Boomers have some ‘splainin to do.

Yes, after decades of being blamed for everything from the demise of defined benefit pensions to the price of housing, Boomers are now being castigated for something else: spending the money that their children were (apparently) counting on inheriting.

Indeed, there’s been a lot of talk about the so-called “Great Wealth Transfer” — and lately a fair amount of consternation that Boomers might actually spend some of that wealth before they die.

Which got me wondering: How much did the Boomers actually inherit from their parents?

Turns out, for most, not all that much.

Back in 2011, researchers at Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research[i] took a specific look at that question. They estimated that about two-thirds of Boomer households would ultimately receive an inheritance.

And that median expected inheritance was ... (just) $64,000.

Now, $64,000 is certainly nothing to sneeze at. But neither is it the kind of generational windfall suggested by much of the current discussion about the wealth Boomers are now supposedly “obligated” to leave behind.

And remember that was the median among those expected to receive an inheritance.

ad space

Roughly one-third weren’t expected to receive any … at all.

An Inheritance ‘Average’?

Federal Reserve data[ii] provides some additional perspective.

Looking at inheritances received between 1995 and 2016 — a period during which many Boomers would have been receiving inheritances from their parents, btw — more than half, 55%, were worth less than $50,000. Another 30% were between $50,000 and $250,000.

Only about 6% exceeded $500,000, and just 2% topped $1 million. But those million-dollar inheritances accounted for roughly 40% of all the dollars inherited.

In other words, a relatively tiny number of enormous inheritances can make the overall inheritance “pie” look a whole lot bigger than the slice received by a typical family. And remember, even then they weren’t all that big.

So, what’s got everyone so stirred up?

As it turns out, Cerulli Associates — a credible source, but one whose projections often seem to run on steroids — recently estimated[iii] that an astonishing $124 trillion will transfer through 2048. Of that, $105 trillion is projected to go to heirs, while $18 trillion will go to charity.

Which means they estimate that nearly $100 trillion is expected to come from Boomers and generations older than them in what has been dubbed (drumroll, please) the “Great Wealth Transfer.”

But hold on a second. More than $62 trillion — half of that entire projected transfer — is expected to come from high- and ultra-high-net-worth households that comprise … just 2% of all households.

ad space

At this point you should be saying to yourself, “could this be (yet) another one of those situations where an enormous aggregate number tells us considerably less about the experience of a typical American than the click-baiting headlines suggest?

Great Expectations?

But wait — there’s more!

Not all that wealth is heading directly to Millennials and Gen X.

Cerulli further estimates that some $54 trillion will first transfer “horizontally” between spouses, with more than 95% of those assets going to women. Nearly $40 trillion is projected to move to widowed women in the Boomer and older generations before eventually moving on to heirs or charities.[iv]

Which means the Great Wealth Transfer isn’t really a single transfer at all. And it certainly doesn’t mean that there’s a $124 trillion check waiting to be divided among America’s children.

Yet that enormous number seems to have helped create some enormous expectations.

We’ve seen stories about “SKI” — Spending the Kids’ Inheritance — and Boomers “indulging” in travel, second homes and experiences rather than preserving their assets for their children. There’s even a growing presumption that parents should transfer wealth sooner, when their children can make better use of it.

Honestly, my wife and I have done some of that with our kids. But there’s something odd about treating an inheritance as though it were an obligation — particularly when the generation supposedly “shirking” that obligation largely built its own wealth without receiving anything remotely comparable.

To be sure, Boomers benefited from some extraordinarily favorable economic circumstances: decades of rising home values, a remarkable bull market in equities, relatively inexpensive higher education (RELATIVELY, mind you) and, for some (though not most, mind you), traditional pensions. Timing matters, and they (we?) had some pretty good timing.[v]

ad space

But they (we?) also saved, invested, paid mortgages, raised families — and accumulated much of the wealth we’re now discussing over decades. We did it despite wars, gas lines, stagflation. And let me point out, spending a fair amount of that on the kids now chomping at the proverbial bit of a potential inheritance.

Our parents generally didn’t leave us fortunes. Nor did we expect them to.

‘Will’ Power

None of this is an argument against leaving an inheritance.

Nor is it an argument against helping children or grandchildren while you’re still around to see the impact. Indeed, there are compelling reasons to do so if your circumstances and retirement security permit it.

But retirement planning has always had an awkward uncertainty at its core: You don’t know how long you’ll live, what markets will do, what inflation will be, or what health and long-term care might cost. And nobody wants to be a financial or physical burden on their kids if they don’t have to.

Telling retirees simultaneously that they must make their money last for an unknowable lifetime — and that they should feel guilty if there isn’t enough left over afterward — seems like an interesting, if conflicted, set of expectations.

So perhaps before criticizing Boomers for spending their children’s inheritance, we should remember how much inheritance most of them started with.

For a lot of them — most of them — the answer was pretty simple.

Not much.

ad space

An inheritance is a wonderful thing to receive.

It just shouldn’t be a retirement plan. And it shouldn’t undermine one, either.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] See How Important Are Inheritances for Baby Boomers? – Center for Retirement Research.

[ii] See Federal Reserve Board - How Does Intergenerational Wealth Transmission Affect Wealth Concentration? Accessible Data.

[iii] See https://www.cerulli.com/press-releases/cerulli-anticipates-124-trillion-in-wealth-will-transfer-through-2048

[iv] Wealth management practices, take note!

[v] Of course, they/we also lived through some pretty tumultuous market cycles.

What If There Was No ERISA?

 New research puts a new twist on “A Wonderful Life” – answering the question, what if there hadn’t been an ERISA?

ERISA is, of course, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 which just turned 50. The analysis[i] – put together by Morningstar Retirement’s Director of Retirement Studies Jack VanDerhei and Associate Director of Retirement Studies Spencer Look – first looks at the current “status quo” retirement readiness impact (more specifically, retirement readiness shortfalls). It then looks at the potential result if there had been no ERISA – or, perhaps more precisely if there had been no individual account retirement plans (defined contribution and IRAs), though allowance was made for the probability of saving to an IRA. 

Now, anyone with a realistic assessment/awareness of the limited availability of traditional pension plans in the private sector (before AND after ERISA’s passage) can hardly be surprised to find that the absence of individual accounts would have a significant negative impact. That said, you might be surprised at the size of that impact. 

The research notes that, when aggregated across all four income categories, the probability of Gen X households running short of money in retirement (granted, this is running short by as little as $1[ii]) would increase from 47% under the status quo to 59%. Millennials would fare worse, with the aggregate probability increasing from 44% to 69%, and Gen Z households would see their exposure soar from a risk of 37% in today’s environment to what the researchers termed a “devastating 72%” without individual account retirement plans. 

The paper also projects the outcomes across various income and education demographics, as well as industry, gender and race. To sum it up, single females, Hispanic Americans, and non-Hispanic Black Americans were found to be at a higher risk of retirement shortfalls. Needless to say perhaps – though the paper does – “[t]he elimination of DC participation and savings would drastically reduce the probability of a successful retirement, particularly for middle-income groups, as they heavily rely on these plans.”

Considering the positive impact of those individual accounts – albeit one limited by the status quo reality of access – it should come as no surprise that a projection that greatly broadens that access – alongside automatic enrollment and auto-escalation (as proscribed in the Automatic IRA Act of 2024) notably improves retirement prospects. Indeed, the researchers find that it could substantially improve retirement outcomes, with an aggregate average wealth ratio increase of 23.8% – and that’s assuming an opt-out rate of 30%![iii]   

All in all, just like good old George Bailey, it’s easy to underestimate the potential impact of the individual account regime that ERISA ultimately fostered – until you are able to imagine what things would be like without it. That said, this research affirms the positive impact – and puts some numbers behind it – while also affirming policy considerations for the future. 

Did I hear a bell ringing…

 - Nevin E. Adams, JD 

---

[i] With a title nearly as long as the paper itself “The Evolution of Retirement-Income Adequacy Under ERISA With a Focus on Defined-Contribution Plans: A Review of the Status Quo, Counterfactual Evidence, and an Analysis of Changes for the Future.”

[ii] Also worth noting, this analysis, unlike most other projection models – takes into account the potential impact of long-term care expenses.

[iii] Which turns out to be close, but less than opt-out rates in a number of the current state-run IRAs.

‘The 37-Year-Olds Are Afraid of the 23-Year-Olds Who Work for Them’

I recently stumbled across a provocative article in the New York Times with that intriguing headline.

Honestly, I laughed out loud (drawing my wife’s quizzical attention on an otherwise quiet Saturday morning) when I read it. I’m a (proud) Boomer, of course, and while Gen X basically slipped quietly into the workplace (much to their frustration), Millennials (to my experience) landed with a bang, upending traditional norms of business and meeting etiquette, demanding a voice that seemed well beyond their experience (and, yes, sometimes knowledge)—and, frustratingly (certainly for those of us who played by a different set of rules at their age), getting it. 

So the notion that they were now feeling the same kind of pressures from the next generation of workers (a.k.a. Gen Z) was somewhat humorous to me in a “so, how do you like it?” kind of way.  

Yes, having lived through the not-so-subtle eye-rolling of younger co-workers (and the more recent dismissive “OK, Boomer” commentary), I couldn’t help but find some small modicum of comfort in the notion that that generation was, essentially, being hoisted on its own generational “petard.” 

The problem—particularly for those of us who still want to be seen as “cool”[i]—is that those boundaries are fluid and moving. It’s hard to keep up when you’re not naturally immersed in the culture of the day—it takes effort and persistence, particularly in an era where you lack the opportunity of that interaction in a physical workplace. And, honestly, one’s own experience (and sometimes what we’d label “common sense”) sometimes dictates that those new “norms” are likely only a passing fad (and one that you’d look foolish embracing, regardless).

‘Kids These Days’

Comfortingly enough, the article goes on tell us that researchers call this the “kids these days” effect—and note it has been happening for millennia. Moreover, the author notes that this phenomenon means that “each new generation, christened by marketers and codified by workplace consultants selling tips on how to manage the mysterious youth, can strike the people who came just before them as uniquely self-focused.”[ii]

When I was new to this business, I would joke that nobody comes out of college with plans about retirement, much less thinking about working with retirement plans. And yet, if you’re reading this, odds are you find yourself in at least the latter category. 

That said—and while much is made of the need to communicate “differently” about retirement with younger workers (see “Is It Time to Retire Retirement?”)—it’s never been easy to garner the attention of the not-nearly-ready-for-retirement generation(s) to focus on the financial necessities of that day in the (distant?) future when they’ll need to live on… something. 

‘Different’ Perspectives

There’s little doubt that “retirement” will be different for the next generation—and that the preparations our industry has long espoused could stand some updating. After all, there’ll be no golden watch, almost certainly no pension (if they’ve toiled in the private sector), and as for Social Security? Well, who knows? On the other hand, odds are their labors won’t be stymied by physical limitations, limited by locale—or perhaps even a commute longer than the path from their bed to their couch. Indeed, their work may be such that it never has to—or perhaps gets to—end. And—not insignificantly—they’ll also likely have a longer lifespan over which to consider those alternatives.[iii]

Let’s face it: New generations have long been disruptive to the “status quo,” to the “normal” state of affairs, to the protocols to which we’ve all become accustomed and/or established. Inevitably, when it’s our turn in that cycle, the pace of change is annoyingly slow, the receptivity to new ideas mind-numbingly obtuse—and when our perspective is the status quo… well, we see things differently.   

And all that likely means that if there’s anything to “fear” about those newer to the workforce, it’s that they might make the same mistakes we did.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] I’m sure that wanting to be seen as “cool” is probably no longer… 

[ii] And indeed, if there was ever a generation that was (once upon a time) dismissed by its elders as “uniquely self-focused,” it was mine.

[iii] They’ll also have some new tools to help—things like automatic enrollment, automatic escalation, target-date funds and managed accounts. 

Generations ‘Grasp’

If you’re still struggling to figure out how to reach Millennials (even if you are a Millennial), take heart – there’s (already) another generational cohort entering the workforce.

This new cohort is called Generation Z (at one point, Millennials were referred to as Gen Y, so…) – they are, generally speaking, children of Gen X – born in the mid-1990s, and separated from Millennials by their lack of a memory of 9/11.

Gen Z is, in fact, already entering the workforce – and, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, they currently comprise a quarter of the population. They are seen as being more “realistic” when it comes to life and working than Millennials, who have been characterized as more “optimistic.” Gen Z is said to be more independent and competitive in their work than the collaborative Millennials, more concerned with privacy (Snapchat versus Facebook), and are said to have a preference for communicating face-to-face. It’s said they’ll eschew racking up big college debt, and are said to be interested in multiple roles within a single employer, rather than multiple employers (role-hoppers versus job-hoppers). They have been called a generation of self-starters, self-learners and self-motivators – and they’ve never known a world without the Internet and a smartphone to bring it to their fingertips wherever they are.

Unlike previous generations, whose parents didn’t mention money or focus on financial topics with their kids, more than half (56%) of Gen Z have reportedly discussed saving money with their parents in the past six months. The result, according to researchers, is a young generation that “behaves more like Baby Boomers than Millennials,” is making plans to work during college, to avoid personal debt at all costs, and… to save for retirement. Indeed, 12% of Gen Z is already saving for retirement, according to a recent research report.

Behavior ‘Patterns’

Now, as different as individuals in various generational cohorts can be, I’ve never been inclined to assign those behavioral differences to their membership in any particular cohort. Rather, I think there are things that younger workers are inclined to do (or not do) that workers in every cohort were inclined to do (or avoid) when they were younger. Do Millennials change jobs more frequently than their elders? Sure. But they didn’t invent the phenomenon; for a variety of reasons, younger workers have long been more inclined (or able) to pull up stakes and seek new opportunities (American private sector job tenure has actually been remarkably and consistently “short” running all the way back to WWII). Similarly, younger workers tend to put off saving (certainly for something as far away and obscure in concept as retirement), and when they do start saving, tend to save less than their elders. This was true of the Boomers, of Gen X and Millennials, and – despite their more rapid savings start – will almost certainly be true of Gen Z, left to their own devices.

That last part is a potentially critical difference, of course, in that today plan design differences like automatic enrollment were a relative rarity when the Boomers were coming into the workplace. Some of it is that – at least supposedly – their parents didn’t need to save because they had defined benefit pension plans to secure their retirement. But, even for those who were covered by those plans (and most weren’t) – the DB promise was of little value at a time when 10-year cliff vesting and 8-year workplace tenures were the order of the day. Moreover, Boomers would typically have had to wait a year to start contributing to their DC plan when they entered the workforce.

Headlines tout today’s improved behaviors – more diversified investments, an earlier savings start, a greater awareness of the need to prepare for retirement – as evidence of refined education efforts, or a heightened awareness of the need to save by generations who are more attuned to financial realities. Those are indeed welcome and encouraging signs.

Still, it seems to me that many in these newer generational cohorts are – as are their elders – really the beneficiaries of innovative plan designs – things like target-date funds, as well as automatic enrollment and contribution acceleration, and a heightened focus on outcomes – developed to overcome the behavioral shortcomings of human beings – regardless of their generational cohort.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

When You Assume...

The use of assumptions was the focus of a recent report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), which not only highlighted the assumptions used in two separate retirement studies, but illustrated a real problem with their results.

The EBRI report examined two earlier  studies — one by Pew Trusts, the other by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College — that purported to show that the retirement prospects for Gen Xers were worse than those of the Baby Boomers. The EBRI report not only highlighted the questionable assumptions, but took the time to quantify the impact (see “EBRI Report Calls Out Pew, CRR on Retirement Conclusions”). Such public criticisms are a rarity, as evidenced by the media coverage accompanying the release of the EBRI report.

As recently as a few years ago, I would have assumed that findings published by credentialed individuals associated with a reputable institution of higher learning could be taken at face value, if only because I assumed that if their methodologies were flawed, their findings would be taken to task by other similarly credentialed individuals.
Sadly, that does not seem to be the case.

The Pew report, though it went to some pains to determine appropriate rates of return to project out the future balances of both Boomers and Gen Xers, chose to completely ignore any future contributions.  Not so big a deal for those on the cusp of retirement perhaps, but what about those Gen Xers (defined as those Individuals born between 1965 and 1974) who are (just) 40? That’s at least a quarter century of contributions — and earnings on those contributions — completely disregarded by the Pew assumptions. Think that might tend to produce a lower retirement readiness conclusion about that demographic?

As for the report by CRR, the EBRI report explains how it relies on “wealth-to-income patterns by age group from the 1983–2010 Federal Reserve Surveys of Consumer Finances (SCF).” That certainly sounds like a credible source, but it also happens to be based on self-reported information and a perspective of 401(k)-plan designs and savings trends that pre-date the impact of automatic enrollment plan features that followed the passage of the Pension Protection Act of 2006. Not that you’ll find that acknowledged in the report, even in the footnotes. And yet data from the CRR’s NRRI are routinely cited in industry reports.

Projections about the future inevitably require some assumptions, and the EBRI report does as well. But it not only lays out its assumptions in great detail, it provides a wide range of findings associated with those various assumptions so that readers can draw their own conclusions based on the scenario(s) they think most likely to occur.

There’s an old adage that points out the inherent dangers in relying overly much on assumptions. It cautions that one should “never assume, because when you assume, you make an ‘ass’ of ‘u’ and ‘me.’”

That goes double for those who blindly rely on research findings drawn from assumptions poorly constructed and/or undisclosed.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

• See an earlier analysis of the Pew Trust report here.

• You can find a more comprehensive explanation of some of the issues associated with the CRR’s NRRI here.