Marking Time — When Retirement Milestones Become Personal

  There’s something about a birthday that ends in zero that hits differently. And I have one of those this week.

I’ve spent more than half my professional life thinking, writing, and talking about retirement — how people get there, how they prepare (or don’t), and what it all means when work finally loosens its grip.

And yet, when you hit a milestone like this, “theory” gets very personal very fast.

Truthfully, this isn’t what I thought “this” would feel like. Not dread. Not triumph. Just … different. Though lately, I’ve been thinking about it more than I expected.

See, it’s not just another candle (you’d have to forewarn the local fire department). It’s a checkpoint. A round number that invites reflection whether you ask for it or not. Sure, it’s just another year. But it’s a whole other category of living.

That said — and I’m happy to be able to say this — I don’t “feel” my age.[i] Or what I thought it would be like to be this age.

What I am starting to feel — though only recently, and doubtless due to the approaching anniversary of my birth — is an appreciation of how I spend my time. 

No longer bound by office start and stop times, the “rigor” of commutes, the (seemingly) endless pattern of meetings and conference calls — time, and the opportunity to see and do “other” things beckons. 

ad space

You start to notice how you spend time, and who you spend it with. You’re more aware of what drains you — and what gives energy back. You get better (though it’s still a work in progress) at saying “no,” not because you’re tired, but because you’ve learned that every “yes” displaces something else.

There are a fair number of age markers in our business; age 50 for catch-ups, 59 ½ for penalty-free withdrawals,[ii] 62 for early Social Security withdrawals, 65 (as adjusted) for retirement/Social Security, and age 73 or 75 for RMDs (depending on your age). We’ve even recently added some others (ages 60-63) for “super” catchups. And let’s not forget the implicit retirement age “marker” associated with target-date fund selection. 

These markers give us an opportunity — an “excuse,” if you will, to engage with individuals along the way to help them consider different, and perhaps better, ways of financial preparation. Their advantage is you don’t need anything more than a calendar to anticipate and track them. Their limitation is that many arrive too late for truly meaningful course corrections — when time, compounding, and flexibility are already constrained.

If there’s a lesson in those age-based milestones, it’s this: milestones matter, but they don’t have to define you. They’re prompts, not verdicts. Invitations to take stock, adjust course, and — if you’re lucky — keep doing meaningful work with people you respect — and for people that need your support.

Because if you’ve learned nothing else by the time you reach a birthday that ends in zero, remember that the future is never guaranteed — and the time to make change — is finite.

• Nevin E. Adams, JD

 

---

[i] Some of you, surely, are thinking to yourself “and you sure don’t act it, either!”

[ii] I’m cognizant of the rule of 55, though I suspect many aren’t.

Markets Timing

As it happens, I’ll commemorate an anniversary of my birth this weekend.

It’s not a particularly significant one—it doesn’t end in a 5 or a 0, won’t trigger any new savings opportunities or impact (catch-up, RMD trigger, forbearance of withdrawal penalties, or Social Security)—but it is a birthday, and therefore a day upon which to reflect (and to wonder anew why we don’t make more fuss about our mothers, who—let’s face it—did the real work on that day).

Traditionally, on my birthday weekend (and the 4^th of July holiday), I have taken a look at my current asset allocations and, when circumstances warranted, rebalanced. There’s no magic to those points in time. It’s not the ONLY time I look (and act)—but it happens to be a time when, whatever is going on in the market, I have a calendar-driven opportunity to take a breath and take a longer view. And, let’s face it, this year has been a bumpy ride in the markets.

The mantra in times of volatile markets is, inevitably, “stay the course”—wise counsel in most situations, particularly since the impulse in such times is often action that one comes to regret in the fullness of time. However, for some, just sitting still and “taking” what the markets choose to inflict on your retirement savings can be excruciating. 

For me, anyway, this year will be a little different. Most significantly, as I near my “retirement” threshold, I’ll actually be shifting into a different pace of accumulation. And, for the first time in my working career, I will be doing it with my retirement savings accumulated into a single place (well, technically two—one for Roth, the other for the traditional pre-tax rollovers). That said, and my birthdate notwithstanding, I still have plenty of investment runway to ride.  

That said, and while my weekend should be a bit less structured than usual, here are some things I have traditionally done—that you, or those you support, may find useful—particularly with the current market uncertainties.      

Get started on rebalancing by changing the investment elections of NEW contributions, rather than transferring existing balances. It will take longer to realign the entire account, but at least you aren't realizing those as-yet-unrealized losses.

Increase current deferral rates. When you think about just how much cheaper those retirement plan investments are now, compared to a year ago, it's hard to pass up that kind of bargain. More so if you aren't yet saving at the maximum level of the match.

Consider automated rebalancing. Most providers now have in place mechanisms that will, on some preset frequency (monthly, quarterly, annually), automatically rebalance individual accounts in accordance with investment elections. It's a good way to keep things in balance without having to worry (or remember) about the best time to do so—calendared events notwithstanding.

Better yet, consider shifting to a target-date fund or managed account. You may well be wondering why I would go to the “trouble” of manually rebalancing my 401(k) when there are professionally managed solutions available like target-date funds and managed accounts. The reality is that only one of my previous 401(k)s had target-date funds available on their menu[i]—and I have taken advantage of that regular rebalancing by professionals to some advantage.

None of this has to wait for a birthday, of course. But doing so on a regular basis can be an effective way to ensure that you get that retirement wish when you blow out the candles!

Nevin E. Adams, JD 

---

[i] Another had a managed account option (that I didn’t care for).

The Birth of a Notion

"Unintended consequences” are generally a bad thing. But not always. The 401(k), for example.

This week we celebrated the birthday of the 401(k) – because it’s the anniversary of the day on which the Revenue Act of 1978 – which included a provision that became Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Sec. 401(k) – was signed into law by then-President Jimmy Carter.

That wasn’t the “point” of the legislation of course – it was about tax cuts (some things never change) – reduced individual and corporate tax rates (pulling the top rate down to 46% from 48%), increased personal exemptions and standard deductions, made some adjustments to capital gains, and – created flexible spending accounts. But it did, of course, also add Section 401(k) to the Internal Revenue Code.

That said, so-called “cash or deferred arrangements” had been around for a long time – basically predicated on the notion that if you don’t actually receive compensation (frequently an annual bonus or profit-sharing contribution in those times/employers), you don’t have to pay taxes on the compensation you hadn’t (yet) received. That approach was not without its challengers (notably the IRS) and, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), this culminated in IRS guidance in 1956 (Rev. Rul, 56−497), which was subsequently revised (seven years later) as Rev. Rul. 63−180 in response to a federal court ruling (Hicks v. U.S.) on the deferral of profit-sharing contributions. Enter the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which – among other things – barred the issuance of Treasury regulations prior to 1977 that would impact plans in place on June 27, 1974. That, in turn, put on hold a regulation proposed by the IRS in December 1972 that would have severely restricted the tax-deferred status of such plans. But ERISA also mandated a study of salary reduction plans – which, in turn, influenced the legislation that ultimately gave birth to the 401(k).

So, how did something that became America’s retirement plan get added to a tax reform package? Rep. Barber Conable, top Republican on the House Ways & Means Committee at the time, whose constituents included firms like Xerox and Eastman Kodak (which were interested in the deferral option for their executives), promoted the inclusion which added permanent provisions to “the Code,” sanctioning the use of salary reductions as a source of plan contributions. The law went into effect on Jan. 1, 1980, and regulations were issued Nov. 10, 1981 (which has, at other times, also been cited as a “birthday” of the 401(k)).

Now, it’s said that success has many fathers, while failure is an orphan. The most commonly repeated story is that Ted Benna saw an opportunity in this new provision, recommended it to a client (which, ironically, rejected the notion), but then promoted it to a consulting firm (Johnson & Johnson), which then embraced it for their own workers. The reality is almost certainly more nuanced than that, though Mr. Benna (who now derides what he ostensibly created) has managed to be deemed the “father” of the 401(k) by just about every media outlet in existence (it may be worth noting that while I am the father of three children, their mother was much more involved in the actual delivery).

What we do know is that in the years between 1978 and 1982, a number of firms (EBRI cites not only Johnson & Johnson, but FMC, PepsiCo, JC Penney, Honeywell, Savannah Foods & Industries, Hughes Aircraft Company and a San Francisco-based consulting firm called Coates, Herfurth, & England) began to develop 401(k) plan proposals, many of which officially began operation in January 1982.

Within two years, surveys showed that nearly half of all large firms were either already offering a 401(k) plan or considering one. Two years later the Tax Reform Act of 1984 (again, among other things) interjected nondiscrimination testing for these plans – and two years after that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 tightened the nondiscrimination rules further, and reduced the maximum annual 401(k) before-tax salary deferrals by employees. And yet, despite those – and a number of other significant changes over the intervening years – employers have continued to offer – and America’s workers have continued to take advantage of these programs.

Now, it’s long been said that 401(k)s were never intended (nor designed) to replace defined benefit pensions – true enough.

However, in 1979, only 28% of private-sector workers participated in a DB plan, with another 10% participating in both a DB and a DC plan. In contrast, the Investment Company Institute notes that, among all workers aged 26 to 64 in 2014, 63% participated in a retirement plan either directly or through a spouse. As of June 2018, Americans have set aside nearly $8 trillion in defined contribution plans, and there’s another $9 trillion in IRAs, much of which likely originated in DC/401(k) plans.

Those who know how defined benefit (DB) plan accrual formulas work understand that the actual benefit is a function of some definition of average pay and years of service. Moreover, prior to the mid-1980s, 10-year cliff vesting schedules were common for DB plans. What that meant was that if you worked for an employer fewer than 10 years (and most did), you’d be entitled to a pension of … $0.00. And, as you might expect, certainly back in 1982, even among the workers who were covered by a traditional pension, many would actually receive little or nothing from that plan design. But then, certainly in the private sector those plans were funded, invested (and paid for) by the employer. Nothing ventured,¹ nothing gained, right?

The reality is that the nation’s baseline retirement program is, and remains, Social Security. But for those who hope to do better, for those of even modest incomes who would like to carry that standard of living into post-employment, the nation’s retirement plan is, and has long been, the 401(k). And – despite a plethora of media coverage and academic hand-wringing that suggests they are wasting their time, the American public has, through thick and thin, largely hung in there – when they are given the opportunity to do so.

That may not have been the intent of the architects of the 401(k), or its assorted foster “parents” over the years. But these days it’s hard to imagine retirement without it.

So, happy 40^thbirthday, 401(k). And here’s to 40 more!

Nevin E. Adams, JD

I know that some would argue that workers effectively bargained for lower wages in return for the pension benefit. Maybe once upon a time, certainly in labor situations where there actually was an active bargaining component. But I suspect that most non-union private sector workers post-ERISA felt no such trade-off. ↩

Birthday "Presence"

Just after Christmas my family flew to Chicago for a surprise – my mother-in-law’s 85th birthday. It was a huge success – she wasn’t expecting us – in fact, wasn’t expecting to have all three of her children and their families in town on that day.

Over the course of our time there, I heard her tell several people “I never thought I’d make it this long.” Now, my mother-in-law doesn’t look (or act) 85. Still, even by today’s lengthening longevity standards, 85 is a long time – and, even as we planned our surprise trip “home”, we couldn’t help but wonder how many more birthdays we’d have together.

None of us know how many birthdays we’ll have – and how many of those will happen during retirement. Indeed, contemplation of our personal mortality is something that most, IMHO, reserve for special, isolated occasions (some not even then, of course). And yet, one of the most important aspects of planning for a financially secure retirement is making some attempt to predict just how long that retirement is going to be.

There are simple ways to deal with this complex and sensitive issue, not least of which the cogitations of actuarial science imbedded in those ubiquitous retirement projection calculators. After all, it seem so much more emotionally palatable to know that the “average” 52-year-old is likely to live to “X” than it is to actually think about the years that personally remain on this mortal coil.

Other Variables

If there are limits to our ability (or willingness) to focus on retirement’s “duration”, we nonetheless have the ability to influence other key variables in the equation of a financially secure retirement. We can, as a growing number of workers suggest they will, postpone retirement’s commencement by working longer. Not just age, but health, influences our ability to do so – a pertinent concern at a time of year when New Year’s “resolutions” are in vogue. Today’s workplace is certainly more conducive to such concepts than it was for our parents – and yet, I’m always struck by data on just how many of today’s retirees “attained” that status involuntarily, and earlier than they had planned.

A more obvious choice –one at the core of today’s retirement savings campaigns – is to save more, and perhaps to save more earlier. Unlike employment choices that may ultimately lie outside our control – or the uncertain and sometimes tenuous nature of human mortality – we all make choices every day about how to spend – or not to spend – the resources at our disposal. Admittedly those are frequently difficult choices – how much more have you had to spend to fill your automobile tank this week than you did even a year ago – and yet a tough choice now could mean the difference in an impossible trade-off twenty years down the road.

Like my mother-in-law, we may not ever think we’ll “make it” as far as we actually do. But if we’re lucky enough to get there – surprised or not - we surely don’t want to arrive empty-handed.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD