Single Best Answer?

A mainstay of multiple-choice test instruction is the admonition to select the “single best answer.” Now, generally there really is only one valid answer, but there are times when the questions posed are sufficiently imprecise, or the potential answers specific, that more than one response is viable. That’s where the test architect can always fall back on their notion of “best” answer– because, even if a credible argument can be made for an alternative, it’s a lot easier to grade when there’s only a single, pre-determined result.

When it comes to projecting possible outcomes in situations where there might be hundreds, perhaps thousands, or even millions of different results, it’s not uncommon to pick a single point to focus on. For example, projections in financial analysis might use the most likely rate of claim, the most likely investment return, or the most likely rate of inflation, whereas projections in engineering analysis might use both the most likely rate and the most critical rate. That choice provides a point estimate, one that ostensibly provides a best single estimate for purposes of analysis.

The downside of this approach, of course, is that it does not fully cover the fact that there is a whole range of possible outcomes, some more probable, some less. The alternative, a stochastic modeling, doesn’t just pick a single likely result, but uses random variations to look at what a broad range of conditions might be like. It does this based on a set of random outcomes, projects results, and then repeats with a new set of random variables. In fact, this process is repeated thousands of times.
When the modeling is done, you can look at a distribution of outcomes – and with that not only consider the most likely estimate, but what ranges are reasonable as well. It is, quite simply, a more complete and realistic assessment of potential outcomes, because, unlike so-called “deterministic” models that rely on picking a single point of experience, it includes a wide range of possibilities.

Deterministic models can predict outcomes under a few economic and demographic scenarios but don’t generally present a distribution of the wide range of scenarios that could arise from different combinations of economic and demographic variable values. Only stochastic models – like that embodied in the EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM) - can measure the "risk" of their performance measure values, because stochastic models, using Monte Carlo methods, are based on probability distributions. Said another way, stochastic modeling brings into account the volatility and variability of experience that are part of living in the real world.

Those deterministic models may offer a “single” answer, but life is rarely that simple – and projections that attempt to help us make better decisions about the future needn’t be.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

1. The EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model®(RSPM) simulates 1,000 alternative retirement paths for each household to explicitly model investment, longevity and stochastic healthcare risks (i.e., nursing home and home healthcare costs).

2. More information on stochastic versus static/deterministic modeling can be found here.

”Macro” Management

Last week, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) outlined his overall goals for comprehensive tax reform, noting that he planned to use both the Domenici-Rivlin debt reduction plan and the fiscal recommendations of the president's Simpson-Bowles Commission(1) as the“starting points for full-scale tax reform,” citing the former in commenting that “‘Everything must be on the table' when it comes to tax and entitlement reform." The New York Times last Monday reported a “Push for a Fiscal Pact Picks Up Speed, and Power,” even as other published reports suggested that lawmakers would look to defer those votes until after the November elections.

Those headlines echoed the sense that EBRI CEO and President Dallas Salisbury outlined last month to the EBRI board of trustees at their spring meeting—a sense that broad-based tax reform would be the focus of Congress, with fiscal issues driving a focus on the macro impact of policies rather than the micro outcomes that might result. While there’s an acknowledgement that the“devil’s in the details,” there is also a growing sense that sweeping change is needed, and that—whatever the potential negative effects at the micro level, enacting change would be supported because it was seen as “best for the nation and the economy.”

Salisbury cited a meeting at which a senior congressional staffer noted that when Congress did act, it would include changes in the tax treatment of retirement plans—“we just can’t tell you what.” Later at that same meeting, a more senior official made it even clearer that those issues would be part of the equation, going so far as to outline about a half dozen specific provisions under consideration. Salisbury highlighted as“the most telling words in that senior staffer’s presentation” that “the biggest roadblock to meaningful action toward a rational retirement policy was“inter-industry competition”—the competition of firms within the retirement plan industry lobbying for different provisions, all of which carry a cost to the federal government, but with no one willing to suggest ways to pay for their proposals.

“If there is a message,” Salisbury noted, “it is that whatever the government is willing to spend on retirement in the future is less than they are now willing to spend.” Not that there isn’t interest in broader policy objectives, such as increasing the number of individuals covered by retirement programs; however, the sense is that the expense to the government of any new initiatives (such as “automatic”IRAs) would have to come from current tax preferences for other programs. “It’s less than a zero sum game,” Salisbury told the group.

Salisbury cited the comments made by Jim VandeHei, executive editor of Politico, at another recent event, who spoke of a dynamic of policy and party volatility in the near-term, with, at the extreme, control of at least one house of Congress changing every two years for the next decade. VandeHei noted that with the electorate so polarized, at the margins, he expects the presidential election in a number of states to be decided by extremely narrow margins, such as 1,000 to 4,000 votes. Moreover, because of the primary process, the extremes rule in both political parties. The resulting political polarization means that fiscal constraints dominate all discussions on Capitol Hill.

Salisbury noted that proposals to reduce Social Security, the sole source of retirement income for 37 percent of today’s retirees—or Medicare—will widen the current retirement savings gap, as will any reduction in retirement plan tax preferences, or that of workplace-based healthcare programs. “That diminishes an individual’s ability and/or willingness to retire—and that has an impact on employers, and workforce management,” he noted. That also means less capacity in the retired population to consume goods and services—a potentially critical factor in the nation’s future economic growth as well.

As we approach the end of 2012, there is potential for massive political and economic chaos, Salisbury said, because of the concurrent scheduled expiration of the Bush administration tax cuts, the impact of federal budget sequestration and its automatic spending cuts due to hit at year-end, the end of the (extended) payroll tax “holiday,” and the likely need to approve an increase in the nation’s debt ceiling shortly thereafter. The sense is that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) will have less control in the next Congress than the current one, assuming Republicans maintain the majority in that chamber. Meanwhile, in the Senate, regardless of which political party wins control, “60 is the new 50”—meaning that a super-majority of votes will be needed to break a filibuster and pass major legislation..

Salisbury suggested that “it’s all going to happen during the last breathing moments of the current Congress,” reflecting a sense that lame-duck members of the U.S. House and Senate – those who won’t be part of the next Congress - will be willing to cast otherwise politically risky votes in order to make something meaningful happen. The strategy: Let everything “hit the fan” on December 31, which would, among other things, restore higher tax rates. At that point, ANY change that reduces those “new” rates can be seen as a tax cut, rather than an increase. In effect, that means that the current Congress can vote for things on January 2 that would have been tagged a tax hike on December 31, but that on January 2 will be deemed a tax cut. This would all have to occur in the narrow window between the end of the calendar year and the start of the new 113^th Congress. Newly elected (but not yet seated) lawmakers avoid even having to vote, noted Salisbury. (Incidentally, the New York Times reported on a similar scenario this past week, a month behind Salisbury.)

Salisbury said that the highest probability for this outcome is if the status quo emerges from the 2012 election – the Senate split 50/50, the House remains in GOP control, and President Obama is reelected—“because all three will have a huge stake in things being solved, since they are going to have to live with it over the next four years.”

On the other hand, he noted, if there is a change in the balance of power—such that one party doesn’t have to live with the consequences of it, that the result can be blamed on the other party—lawmakers might defer action.

In any event, Salisbury noted that if the 2012 election produces the “status quo” in party alignments, that by early January, we will not only know what the Supreme Court has decided on healthcare, we may know what the tax status of workplace plans and programs like Social Security and Medicare, and then we can know what we’ll be dealing with. If action is deferred, there will be no letup from uncertainty.

“The macro, not the micro is driving policy,” Salisbury noted. “This is about saving the economy.” But with everybody focused on macro, he added, “HR execs will have to deal with the impact on the micro.” And, with trust in employers very high by both current workers and retirees,“individuals are likely to turn to employers even more than they do today to help them achieve health and financial security, including retirement security.”

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Notes

(1) EBRI has run multiple simulations on these proposals, and their potential impact on retirement savings. See EBRI Notes, March 2012, “Modifying the Federal Tax Treatment of 401(k) PlanContributions: Projected Impact on Participant Account Balances;” EBRI Issue Brief #360, July 2011, “Employment-Based Health Benefitsand Taxation: Implications of Efforts to Reduce the Deficit and National Debt;”and EBRI Issue Brief #364, November 2011, “Tax Reform Options: Promoting Retirement Security.”

Returns “Engagement”

An acquaintance of mine once remarked, “you can’t solve a savings problem with investment returns.” Yet, participants frequently focus on the returns of their retirement savings investments.

Consider that during the month of May, major stock indexes like the Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 were off 6 percent. But, according to an EBRI analysis, the estimated average 401(k) account balance¹was down less than 3 percent during that same month, both due to the inflow of ongoing contributions and more diversified portfolio holdings.

That determination is based on estimates from the EBRI/ICI Participant-Directed Retirement Plan Data Collection Project—the largest, most representative repository of information about individual 401(k) plan participant accounts. In fact, as of December 31, 2010, the EBRI/ICI database included statistical information on about 23.4 million 401(k) plan participants, in nearly 65,000 employer-sponsored 401(k) plans, representing $1.414 trillion in assets.

Using that database, which includes demographic, contribution, asset allocation, and loan and withdrawal activity information for millions of participants, EBRI has produced estimates of the cumulative changes in account balances—both as a result of contributions and investment returns— for several combinations of participant age and tenure.

While the estimated monthly movements² are interesting, they aren’t nearly as important as the perspective the database offers on long-term trends. For example, while the financial crisis of 2008 had a significant impact on retirement savings balances, as of June 5, 2012, more than 94 percent of the consistent participants in the database are estimated to have balances higher than they did at the pre-recession market peak (October 9, 2007).

During election cycles, voters are frequently asked “are you better off now than you were four years ago?” The answer, at least when it comes to consistent participants and their retirement savings accumulations, would seem to be “yes.”

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Notes

¹ For “consistent” participants, that is, participants assumed to be in the 401(k) plan at the beginning and end of the specific reporting period.

² EBRI updates the change in 401(k) balances each month at http://www.ebri.org/index.cfm?fa=401kbalances. Here you will find both a listing of “Cumulative Change”, a projected cumulative percentage change in account balances for consistent participants since the last annual update of the database. Additionally, the monthly rate of change in average account balances is presented for those same individuals. For assistance on interpreting these results, please contact Jack VanDerhei at vanderhei@ebri.org

“Better” Pill?

As a growing number of Americans near and enter retirement, concerns about the cost of post-retirement health care expenses loom larger. In fact, worker confidence about their ability to pay for medical expenses after retirement was just half what they expressed about their ability to pay for basic retirement expenses (see EBRI’s2012 Retirement Confidence Survey).

Little wonder, since a recent EBRI Issue Brief noted that health-related expenses are not only the second-largest component in the budget of older Americans, they are the only component which steadily increases with age (see “Expenditure Patterns of Older Americans, 2001‒2009”).

Recognizing the potential financial impact, recent industry surveys have put a figure on the cost of post-retirement health care expense¹—a figure above and beyond that of merely living in retirement. EBRI has gone to great lengths to model the major risks to retirement income adequacy all the way back to the introduction of the EBRI Retirement Savings Projection Model (RSPM)® in 2003, including the incorporation of stochastic health care risks, such as nursing home and home health care costs.²

The RSPM has incorporated those expenses because, while those events will not be experienced by all retired households, or experienced to the same extent, when they do occur they can have catastrophic financial consequences for a household’s future retirement income adequacy. Many attempts to model retirement income adequacy either ignore this risk altogether, or just assume that all households purchase long-term care insurance at retirement—the former ignores a significant financial reality, while the latter glosses over reality.

Indeed, a major limitation of using income replacement rates as an accumulation target is that doing so generally fails to take into account these potentially catastrophic costs. How much difference does this make? A recently updated version of the RSPM³ shows that, with the financial impacts of long-term care (nursing home and home health care costs)modeled, 68 percent of single male Gen Xers are projected to have no financial shortfall in retirement. On the other hand, if those long-term care costs are ignored, fewer than one-in-ten would be projected to run short of funds in retirement. Similar results were found for single female and married Gen Xers.

The gaps are even more noticeable if you focus only on the situation of individuals with projected shortfalls in excess of $100,000. Ignoring long-term care costs, fewer than 1 percent of single male or married Gen Xers are projected to have shortfalls in excess of $100,000; however when you take those costs into account, approximately 18 percent of single males and 10 percent of families are now in this range, according to the model. The results are even more pronounced for single females, where ignoring those long-term care costs would indicate that fewer than 5 percent are modeled to experience shortfalls of more than $100,000, compared with approximately 34 percent when this reality is factored in.

It’s clear that those long-term care costs can be significant, and can have a dramatic impact on retirement security.

What’s less clear is why projections of retirement income needs and preparedness would continue to overlook them.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

Notes

(1) For more information, see “The Impact of Repealing PPACA on Savings Needed for Health Expenses for Persons Eligible for Medicare,” EBRI Notes, August 2011, online here.

(2) The Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM) was developed in 2003, and in 2010 it was updated it to incorporate several significant changes, including the impacts of defined benefit plan freezes, automatic enrollment provisions for 401(k) plans, and the recent crises in the financial and housing markets. EBRI has recently updated RSPM to account for changes in financial and real estate market conditions as well as underlying demographic changes and changes in 401(k) participant behavior since January 1, 2010. For more information on the RSPM, check out the May 2012 EBRI Notes, “Retirement Income Adequacy for Boomers and Gen Xers: Evidence from the 2012 EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model,®” online here.

(3) More information about this update will be published in June 2012 EBRI Notes.

Halfway, Honed

Last week we published¹ the results of an update of EBRI’s Retirement Readiness Rating from the Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM). That model, which has been modified over the years to take into account certain structural and market changes,² projects that more than half (56 percent) of Boomers and Gen Xers will be able to retire with enough money to cover the cost of basic retirement needs as well as uninsured health care costs, including stochastic expenses from nursing home and home health care.³

On the other hand, that same model projects that about 44 percent won’t have “enough” to cover those expenses.

It’s worth noting that the trends are positive. Even after the toll of the 2008 financial crisis, the 2012 number of those at risk of running short is some 5−8 percentage points “better” than what was found in 2003. Moreover, the analysis is able to point to some important trends; eligibility for a workplace retirement plan remains a significant factor in reducing the risk of running short⁴, while the more recent broad-based advent of automatic enrollment plan designs makes it ever more likely that those eligible to participate—particularly lower-income workers—do so.

The research does point out that lower-income households are much more likely to be at risk for insufficient retirement income,⁵ even though basic retirement expenses are modeled as a function of the household’s expected retirement income. In fact, the 2012 baseline ratings for Early Boomers range from a projection that 87 percent of the simulated lifepaths for the lowest-income households are at risk in retirement to only 13 percent of retired highest-income households.

Obviously, the reality of more than 4 in 10 Americans not having sufficient post-retirement wealth is of concern, though I find that many are pleasantly surprised at how high a percentage is expected to have sufficient assets. Indeed, whether one draws comfort from that finding likely depends on your expectations (and perhaps on which side of that line you think you might find yourself post-retirement).

Regardless of those expectations—and whether you find the picture to be one of a glass half full or half empty—the data give us all something to work with, and to work toward.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

¹ EBRI Notes May 2012, “Retirement Income Adequacy for Boomers and Gen Xers: Evidence from the 2012 EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model,®” online here. http://www.ebri.org/publications/notes/index.cfm?fa=notesDisp&content_id=5062

² The Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM) was developed in 2003, and in 2010 it was updated it to incorporate several significant changes, including the impacts of defined benefit plan freezes, automatic enrollment provisions for 401(k) plans and the recent crises in the financial and housing markets. EBRI has recently updated RSPM for changes in financial and real estate market conditions as well as underlying demographic changes and changes in 401(k) participant behavior since January 1, 2010.

A household’s simulated lifepath in retirement is considered to be at risk in the baseline version of the model if its aggregate resources in retirement are not sufficient to meet aggregate minimum retirement expenditures, defined as a combination of deterministic expenses from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (as a function of income) as well as some health insurance and out‐of‐pocket health‐related expenses, plus stochastic expenses from nursing home and home health care (at least until the point such expenses are picked up by Medicaid). The resources in retirement are assumed to consist of Social Security (status quo benefits for the baseline version of the simulation); account balances from defined contribution plans; individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and/or cash balance plans; annuities or lump-sum distributions from defined benefit plans; and net housing equity (in the form of a lump‐sum distribution at the point that other financial resources are exhausted). This version of the model is constructed to simulate "basic" retirement income adequacy; however, alternative versions of the model allow similar analysis for replacement rates and other thresholds.

⁴ For an idea of just much of an impact plan eligibility makes, consider that, according to the simulation results, Gen Xers with no future years of eligibility would run short of money in retirement 60.7 percent of the time, whereas fewer than 1 in 5 (18.2 percent) of those with 20 or more years of future eligibility would run this risk.

⁵ In addition to underlining the importance of automatic enrollment for the lowest income, this also underlines the importance of Social Security as a post-retirement income source for this group.

State “Capital”

I recently had the opportunity to attend The National Financial Capability Study Roundtable, where a variety of researchers (including EBRI’s Sudipto Banerjee) presented, discussed, and challenged a variety of research papers on topics ranging from financial literacy and retirement planning to financial advice, and from financial literacy and financial behavior to “Prohibition, Price Caps and Disclosure”. Taken as a whole, the day’s discussions focused on ways to better understand and measure the factors that appear to influence individual behaviors regarding their finances.

Simply stated, financial literacy is generally described as the ability to understand finance. More recently, some have begun to focus on financial capability¹. Research has shown that people with higher levels of financial literacy approach retirement with much higher levels of wealth. However, a growing body of research also suggests that most Americans have limited knowledge about concepts such as inflation, compound interest, and risk diversification at a time when they face an increasingly complex financial planning process alongside an expanding set of saving, investment, and decumulation options.

Drawing on data from the National Financial Capability Study (NFCS)², designed by the FINRA Investor Education Foundation (an ASEC member firm), Dr. Banerjee’s report³ noted that the chances of having a bad financial behavior decreases with age, and that the chances of exhibiting a bad financial behavior go down with education and income. Interestingly enough, full-time and part-time workers, homemakers, sick or disabled, and unemployed or laid-off individuals were all more likely to have bad financial behavior than self-employed people.

That said, the report specifically examined the role of where you live – specifically the state in which individuals live – in explaining financial literacy and behavior. It also ranked all U.S. states in terms of financial literacy and financial behavior of its residents.

Financial literacy and financial behavior are strongly associated with an individual’s age, income, education and other demographic characteristics. The study shows that, after controlling for the effect of these individual demographic characteristics, most bottom-ranked states had a statistically significant effect on their residents’ financial literacy and almost all states have a statistically significant effect on their residents’ financial behavior. However, the chance of exhibiting “worse”financial behavior increased as the financial behavior ranking dropped.

According to the report, this suggests that there might be factors shaping individual financial literacy and behavior other than individual demographic characteristics – and they might be influenced by the state in which people live.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

¹ The National Financial Capability Study identifies four key components of financial capability as (1) making ends meet, (2) planning ahead, (3) managing financial products, and (4) financial knowledge and decision-making. See http://www.finrafoundation.org/web/groups/foundation/@foundation/documents/foundation/p120535.pdf

² The National Financial Capability Study is available online at http://www.finrafoundation.org/programs/p123306

³ Banerjee’s paper, including the state rankings, is online at https://custom.cvent.com/09056B0B33C34EC2BECC8C4A235B766F/files/event/51EB0D7B12344774B422F6A615E9B8B9/0c08c7cd98d74c01bf954ad368275ff4.pdf. See also“How Do Financial Literacy and Financial Behavior Vary by State?” in EBRI Notes, November 2011 at http://www.ebri.org/publications/notes/index.cfm?fa=notesDisp&content_id=4936

“Opportunity” Costs

When I was 16, my family moved from a small town in Southern Illinois to the suburbs of Chicago. It was a move that was to change my life in ways I could not have even imagined at the time. Had that move not occurred, I’d likely have wound up at a different university, might well have chosen a different major, and almost certainly would never have stumbled across the college internship doing pension accountings that has, many years later, brought me here today.

As you might expect, those possibilities were not obvious to me at the time of that move. But looking back, the reality is that that move greatly expanded the life choices—and thus, the opportunities—available to me at a particularly critical point in my life.

At EBRI’s Research Committee meeting this past week, Research Director Jack VanDerhei shared the updated findings of the EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating (RRR), which will be published later this month. The Retirement Readiness Ratings measure the percentage of simulated life paths in retirement that are at risk of inadequate retirement income. Simply stated, a household’s simulated lifepath in retirement is considered to be at‐risk in the baseline version of the model if its aggregate resources in retirement are not sufficient to cover their aggregate minimum retirement expenditures(1). Previous research by EBRI has demonstrated that one of the most important factors contributing to retirement income adequacy for the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers is eligibility to participate in employment-based retirement plans.

In fact, the updated version or the RRR shows that the number of future years workers are eligible for participation in a defined contribution plan makes a tremendous difference in their at-risk ratings. For example, according to the simulation results, Gen Xers with no future years of eligibility would run short of money in retirement more than half (60.7 percent) of the time—a circumstance that would effect just 1 in 5 of those in that demographic with 20 or more years of future eligibility.

And, bear in mind, that’s the kind of difference in outcome that results from mere ELIGIBILITY, thanks to their likely participation when a program is available, boosted by design enhancements like automatic enrollment and contribution acceleration.

My kids have the chance to learn from my past—to ask about the availability of a workplace retirement savings plan during their job interviews—and to take early advantage of that opportunity.

After all, it’s hard to take advantage of an opportunity you don’t have.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1) In EBRI’s RRR, aggregate minimum retirement expenditures are defined as a combination of deterministic expenses from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (as a function of income and age) and some health insurance and out‐of‐pocket health‐related expenses, plus stochastic expenses from nursing home and home health care expenses (at least until the point such expenses are picked up by Medicaid). The resources in retirement will consist of Social Security (status quo benefits for the baseline version of the simulation), account balances from defined contribution plans, IRAs and/or cash balance plans, annuities or lump-sum distributions from defined benefit plans (unless the lump‐sum distribution scenario is chosen), and (in some cases) net housing equity (in the form of a lump‐sum distribution at the point that other financial resources are exhausted). This version of the model is constructed to simulate "basic" retirement income adequacy; however, alternative versions of the model allow similar analysis for replacement rates, standard‐of‐living, and other thresholds. More information on the RRR is available in the July 2010 EBRI Issue Brief online here.

Confidence Intervals

Last week, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) released a report that included responses from more than 70 percent of America’s Fortune 100 companies—a report that indicated that those employers could “save hundreds of millions of dollars a year under the new health care law by simply terminating health insurance for their workers and dumping these employees into taxpayer-funded health care exchanges.”

This, of course, follows recent arguments challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) before the United States Supreme Court—with a ruling anticipated by the end of June. At which point, regardless of the outcome, healthcare reform seems likely to remain an issue for the 2012 political campaign.

What remains to be known is what that will mean for employment-based health coverage⁽¹⁾—and American’s confidence in their health care system.

Last year, EBRI’s Health Confidence Survey⁽²⁾ noted that, in 2011, 57 percent of individuals with employment-based coverage were extremely or very confident that their employer or union would continue to offer health coverage. That was down from 68 percent in 2000, but most of that erosion occurred between 2000 and 2002.

Indeed, other than a one-year dip in 2010 (to 52 percent), the percentage who were extremely or very confident has remained just below 60 percent. And, for the very most part, individuals who had such coverage were satisfied with it (60 percent of those with health insurance coverage are extremely or very satisfied with their current plan, and 29 percent were somewhat satisfied—see this EBRI analysis, online here.

The 2011 HCS⁽³⁾ did highlight some areas of concern. While more than half (56 percent) said they were extremely or very satisfied with the quality of the medical care they have received in the past two years, just 18 percent were extremely or very satisfied with the cost of their health insurance, and only 15 percent were satisfied with the cost of health care services not covered by insurance. Moreover, the 2011 HCS also found that individuals have a low level of confidence that they can afford to purchase health coverage on their own—even if their employer or union gave them the money to do so.

This year’s Health Confidence Survey (HCS) will be fielded in July, allowing time for the Supreme Court’s ruling to come to light, so that survey respondents can better assess and reflect on its impact on their circumstances. In this, the 15^th annual HCS, the issues of health care cost, coverage, quality, and confidence in the future of the employment-based system are, if anything, more important than ever—and the need for a clear understanding of the American public’s attitudes on health care never greater.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Endnotes

(1) The Congressional Budget Office recently revised its estimates of the number of people projected to have employment-based coverage in the future. In a recent blogpost, Paul Fronstin, director of EBRI’s Health Education and Research Program, said: “As the CBO notes in a footnote for its 2019 estimates, as a result of PPACA, about 14 million fewer people are expected to have employment-based coverage (about 11 million individuals will lose access to employment-based coverage, and another 3 million will decline employment-based coverage and enroll in health insurance from a different source), while about 9 million will newly enroll in employment-based coverage under PPACA.”

(2) The HCS is co-sponsored by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy research organization, and Mathew Greenwald & Associates, Inc., a Washington, DC-based market research firm. The 2011 HCS data collection was funded by grants from 12 private organizations. Staffing was donated by EBRI and Greenwald & Associates. HCS materials and a list of underwriters may be accessed at the EBRI website: www.ebri.org/hcs If your organization would like to help underwrite the 2012 HCS, please contact Ken McDonnell, at (202) 775-6367, or e-mail: mcdonnell@ebri.org or Paul Fronstin at (202) 659-0670, or e-mail: fronstin@ebri.org

(3) Additional information from the 2011 HCS is online here.

What’s Next?

In just a couple of weeks, tens of thousands of students (including a daughter of mine) will graduate from college. For most, it’s a journey of joys, trials and tribulations, an education, not just from a textbook or a professor’s wisdom, but the insights that one can only get from actually living through a different stage of life. Those students set out upon that journey years ago, and, doubtless following careful deliberation and the counsel of friends, families, and a few trusted advisors, a course was set. A course that many “adjusted” – by choice and sometimes of necessity – over the course of the last few years, but a course for their future, nonetheless.

Now the question is – what will they do next?

As parents, we spend a lot of time, energy, and money trying to help our children make good choices, but at a certain point, most of us step back, grit our teeth (and sometimes close our eyes), and hope that they do. Those decisions aren’t always the ones we would make – but, ready or not, they are made, sometimes for the better, sometimes not.

Similarly, this industry has expended a lot of time, energy, and money over the years to try and help individuals make good decisions about preparing for retirement. A growing number of individuals are now entering this new stage in their lives, and we ask ourselves, “Are they ready?”

In answer to that question, we can look at their individual situations and make certain projections about that readiness, based on their health, their gender, their income levels pre-retirement, and their likely levels of spending post-retirement, among other things[i]. But what will ultimately matter is what they do next – and that’s a factor not just of how much savings they have (or think they have) at the point of retirement, or the amount of other resources they may have available then (and thereafter), but how those resources are now invested, how they are invested over time, and how - and when – those resources are spent.

The factors that influence those decisions, as well as their results and potential consequences will, of course, continue to be a key focus for EBRI[ii]in the years to come – just as EBRI’s nonpartisan gathering, analyzing, and modeling the impact of behavioral, plan design, and regulatory influences has provided critical insights on those individual preparations for nearly thirty-five years now.

It matters because knowing what this generation does “next” is likely to be an important part of helping the next generation do better.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i]See EBRI Issue Brief July 2010 for more information on the EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating™ at http://www.ebri.org/publications/ib/index.cfm?fa=ibDisp&content_id=4593. The 2010 update uses the most recent data and considers retirement plan changes (e.g., automatic enrollment, auto escalation of contributions, and diversified default investments resulting from the Pension Protection Act of 2006) as well as updates for financial market performance and employee behavior (based on a database of 24 million 401(k) participants). Results will be updated next month, in our May Issue Brief.

[ii]More information on the EBRI Center for Research on Retirement Income is available at http://www.ebri.org/research/retirement-research-centers/retirement-savings-income/. For information about becoming a Research Partner, contact Nevin Adams, at nadams@ebri.org.

"After" Math

Last week, EBRI Research Director Jack VanDerhei testified[i]before the House Ways & Means Committee on the subject of “Tax Reform and Tax-Favored Retirement Accounts”, a hearing described as considering “…the current menu of options for retirement savings—both with respect to employer-based defined contribution plans and with respect to IRAs.” According to Committee Chairman David Camp (R-MI), the hearing was to “…explore whether, as part of comprehensive tax reform, various reform options could achieve the three goals of simplification, efficiency, and increasing retirement and financial security for American families.”

That hearing preceded by just a day Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kurt Conrad’s (D-North Dakota) unveiling of his Fiscal Commission Budget Plan (see link here). That plan[ii]referenced the original Bowles-Simpson Fiscal Commission’s “Illustrative” Tax Reform option under which the exclusion for employer-provided health insurance would be modified, capping its value for five years and then phasing it out over 20 years, while retirement savings accounts would be consolidated, with a cap on tax-preferred contributions.[iii] 

While the prospects for actual legislation ahead of the November election seem unlikely, it is clear that concerns about the nation’s budget deficit will keep tax reform—and the tax status of workplace benefit programs—front-and-center in the weeks and months to come.
Appropriately enough, next month EBRI will host its 70^th policy forum, titled "’After’ Math: The Impact and Influence of Incentives on Benefit Policy.” At this semi-annual policy forum, panels of experts will deal with a variety of pertinent and timely issues, including the potential impact of changes to current tax incentives for employee benefits, and the “true cost” of tax deferrals. 
We’ll also talk about what 401(k)/defined contribution plans are delivering, and what individuals actually do after retirement with respect to their retirement savings, as well as optimal approaches on retirement income designs for defined contribution plans. We’ll even look around the globe for some potential lessons to be drawn from international comparisons.

It’s a day of information, interaction, and networking that you won’t want to miss.

However, seats are limited—reserve your place today. You can’t afford not to.

A copy of the full Policy Forum agenda, and registration information is online here.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i]A copy of Jack VanDerhei’s written testimony for the House Ways & Means Committee is available online here.

Video of the testimony is available in two sections, Part 1 and Part 2.

Additional information regarding the Ways & Means hearing is available online here.

[ii]See page 11, online here.

[iii]Last year an EBRI Notes article (July 2011, online here) analyzed the potential impact of those kind of changes on retirement savings.

Titanic Proportions

This weekend marks the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the now iconic RMS Titanic, at the time the world’s largest ocean liner. Its passengers included some of the wealthiest people in the world, as well as a large number of emigrants seeking a new life in North America. On the ocean liner’s maiden—and only—voyage, it carried 2,244 people, 1,514 of whom would perish as a result of a decision to carry only enough lifeboats to accommodate about half those on board. Despite that, the tale of Titanic’s closing hours is generally one of an orderly, “women and children first” evacuation, with the band playing on while passengers stood in line and waited their turn.

In an NPR report this week titled “Why Didn’t Passengers Panic on the Titanic?” David Savage, an economist and Queensland University in Australia, compared the behavior of the passengers on the Titanic with those on the Lusitania, another ship that also sunk at about the same time. Both involved luxury liners, both had a similar number of passengers and a similar number of survivors. But on the Lusitania, passengers panicked—and the survivors were mostly those who were able to swim and get into the lifeboats. The biggest difference in the reactions in these two similar circumstances, Savage concludes in the report, was time: The Lusitania, struck by a U-Boat torpedo, sank in less than 20 minutes, while the Titanic took approximately two and a half hours. Time enough, in the case of Titanic, according to Savage, for social order to prevail over “instinct.”

I’ve not yet seen anyone link the nation’s retirement prospects to the Titanic, though the importance of starting to save early, establishing a plan, and having a goal all fit within the moral of that example: Act while you have time, as you may not always have all the time you need, or the resources to take advantage of it. But what kind of time do Americans have?
The concept of measuring retirement security—or retirement income adequacy—is an extremely important topic, and EBRI has been working with this type of measurement since the late 1990s. When we modeled the Baby Boomers and Gen Xers in 2012, approximately 44 percent of those households were projected to have inadequate retirement income for basic retirement expenses plus uninsured health care costs; so the glass is more than half full, but just a bit. That’s a big percentage, but it’s still an improvement of 5‐8 percentage points over what we found in 2003, when the glass was, indeed, half empty. The improvement occurred despite the impact of the 2008 financial crisis, and the subsequent “great recession.”

In part, that is because the passage of time allowed more funds to be saved, but that improvement is largely due to the fact that in 2003 very few 401(k) sponsors had automatic enrollment (AE) provisions in place, and participation rates among the lower-income workers (those most likely to be at risk) was quite low. However, with the uptick in adoption of AE the past few years after passage of the Pension Protection Act (PPA), participation rates have often increased to the high 80 or low 90 percent—and that stands to make a big difference in shoring up the retirement financial security of many of those who need it the most. In fact, EBRI simulation results show that approximately 60 percent of the AE-eligible workers would immediately be better off in an AE plan than in a plan design relying on voluntary enrollment, and that over time (as automatic escalation provisions took effect for some of the workers) that number would increase to 85 percent.

The tragic loss of life on the Titanic is generally attributed to a shortage of lifeboats, while on the Lusitania, it was the lack of time to get people into the lifeboats available. For many of those looking ahead to retirement, plan design changes such as automatic enrollment and contribution acceleration look to be a real retirement life-saver, as they encourage both early action and the effective use of time.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD


While the lack of retirement income adequacy for the lowest-income households is a matter of concern, so is the rate at which they will run “short” of money during retirement. Indeed, as documented in our July 2010 Issue Brief (“The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating:™ Retirement Income Preparation and Future Prospects,”41 percent of early boomers in the lowest income quartile could run short of money within 10 years after they retire.

More information is included in recent testimony by Jack VanDerhei, EBRI research director, before the Senate Banking Committee, on "Retirement (In)security: Examining the Retirement Savings Deficit" (T-171), available online here.

Planning Ahead

April is Financial Literacy Month, and National Retirement Planning Week, sponsored by the National Retirement Planning Coalition (of which EBRI’s America Savings Education Council (ASEC) is a member) is April 9–13. Both events serve to remind us all of the importance not only of saving, but of establishing specific goals for saving.

I was pleased, therefore, this past month to help one daughter set up her first SEP-IRA—and even more pleased to about the same time learn that my other daughter was, of her own volition, making a conscious effort to set aside what seemed to her father to be a fairly substantial portion of her modest income in savings. These are things I knew to do when I was their age, of course, but things I must admit took me a few years to act on.

It’s easy, in the normal press of life, to put off thinking about retirement, much less thinking about saving for a period of life many can hardly imagine. We all know we should do it—but some figure that it will take more time and energy than we can afford just now, some assume the process will provide a depressing, perhaps even insurmountable target, while others don’t even know how to get started (see Goals Tending).

Here are five reasons why you—or those you care about—should save for retirement now:

Because you don’t want to work forever.

If you want to stop working one day, you are going to have to think about how much income you will need to live after you are no longer working for a paycheck.

Because living in retirement isn’t free.

Many people assume that expenses will go down in retirement—and, in fact, a recent EBRI Issue Brief ) noted “With the age 65 expenditure as a benchmark, household expenditure are lower by 19 percent by age 75, and 34 percent by age 85….” On the other hand, there are changes in how we spend in retirement as well—and they aren’t always less. That same EBRI report notes that health-related expenses are the second-largest component in the budget of older Americans, and a component that steadily increases with age. “Health care expenses capture around 10 percent of the budget for those between 50–64, but increase to about 20 percent for those age 85 and over.” And those spending shifts don’t take into account the possibility of a need or desire to provide financial support to parents and/or children.

Because you may not be able to work as long as you think:

Twenty-five percent of workers in the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey say the age at which they expect to retire has changed in the past year. In 1991, 11 percent of workers said they expected to retire after age 65, and by 2012 that has more than tripled, to 37 percent. Those expectations notwithstanding, half of current retirees surveyed say they left the work force unexpectedly due to health problems, disability, or changes at their employer, such as downsizing or closure (see “The 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey: Job Insecurity, Debt Weigh on Retirement Confidence, Savings”).

Because you don’t know how long you will live:

People are living longer and the longer your life, the longer your potential retirement, particularly if it begins sooner than you think. Retiring at age 65 today? A man would have a 50 percent chance of still being alive at age 81 (and a woman at age 85); a 25 percent chance of living to nearly 90; a 10 percent chance of getting close to 100. How big a chance do you want to take of outliving your money in old age?

Because the sooner you start, the easier it will be.

What are you waiting for? A good place to start is the BallparkE$timate,® and with the other materials available at www.choosetosave.org

- Nevin E. Adams, JD


More information about National Retirement Planning Week is available online here.

Information about the Spring 2012 American Savings Education Council (ASEC) Partners Meeting, with a focus this year on retirement planning is available online here.

“Generation” Gaps

If you think it’s complicated trying to determine an individual’s retirement funding needs, imagine trying to do so for all American workers. That was the topic of a Senate Banking subcommittee hearing last week titled “Retirement (In)security: Examining the Retirement Savings Deficit,” at which EBRI Research Director Jack VanDerhei was asked to testify.(1)

When EBRI modeled the retirement savings gap of Baby Boomers and Gen Xers earlier this year, we found that between 43 and 44 percent of the households were projected to be at risk of not having adequate retirement income for BASIC retirement expenses plus uninsured health care costs—though that was 5–8 percentage points LOWER than what we found in 2003. That’s right: In terms of that retirement savings gap, American households are better off today than they were nine years ago—even after the financial and real estate market crises in 2008 and 2009.

Measuring retirement income adequacy is an extremely important and complex topic, and one that EBRI started to provide back as far as the late 1990s. Our recent projections indicate that the average individual deficit number (for those with a deficit) ranges from approximately $70,000 for families, to $95,000 for single males, to $105,000 for single females.

Stated in aggregate terms, that would be $4.3 trillion for all Baby Boomers and Gen Xers in 2012. That’s a large number, to be sure, but still considerably smaller than some of the projections that have been put forth.

Here are four things that are sometimes overlooked that help explain the “gaps” in retirement projection gaps:

Some won’t have a retirement

The reality is that some people won’t make it to retirement. On an individual level, we may not know who they are, but in the aggregate we can project the impact with some precision.

You can’t ignore the impact of uniquely post-retirement expenditures.

Health care costs—and post-retirement health care costs particularly—remain a potential source of underplanning, both for retirement and retirement projections. The reality is that we spend differently in retirement than we do before retirement. Moreover, the costs of care, and particularly care such as nursing home and/or long-term care, loom large. And many won’t think or insure for that risk until it’s too late.

Tomorrow’s retirement will be funded differently.

Looking back, even only a few years, assuming that the income sources of current retirees will be available to future retirees glosses over the reality that a major shift in emphasis in retirement plan design has taken place. In the future, the proportion of retirees receiving traditional pension income will almost certainly decline, and the percentage relying on defined contribution savings (primarily 401(k)-type plans) as a primary source of post-retirement income is certain to increase. Projecting future retirement income flows based on the experience of today’s retirees is certain to miss the mark.

We’re already saving “better.”

Thanks to the growing popularity of automatic plan design trends—automatic deferrals, contribution acceleration, qualified default investment alternatives—many of today’s retirement plan participants are already saving earlier and investing more age-appropriately than ever before. There’s no reason to assume these trends won’t continue to extend and expand going forward. Projections based on pre-Pension Protection Act defined contribution trends are relying on yesterday’s news.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1) Video of the hearing is available online HERE. Dr. VanDerhei’s testimony is available HERE