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.

“Difference” Strokes

In response to concerns that tomorrow’s retirees will run short of money, we are often told to save more, to work longer, or – as often as not these days – to work longer AND save more. Certainly working and saving longer can do wonders in terms of stretching your retirement nest egg.

However, the timing of the retirement decision is often not within an individual’s control. In fact, the Retirement Confidence Survey has consistently found that a large percentage of retirees leave the work force earlier than planned. In fact, nearly half (45 percent) of retirees reported that they were in this situation in 2011 (see EBRI Issue Brief No. 355, March 2011, The 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey: Confidence Drops to Record Lows, Reflecting “the New Normal”).

Real-world data have shown (and shown for some time now) that the median retirement age for Americans is not even as old as 65 (it’s been 62). Still, EBRI research has shown that working longer – even working past the age of 65 – is no guarantee of a financially satisfying retirement. In fact, a June 2011 Issue Brief titled “The Impact of Deferring Retirement Age on Retirement Income Adequacy” ) notes that, even if a worker delays his or her retirement until age 80, just 61.7% of the lowest preretirement income quartile households would have a 50 percent probability of not running out of money in retirement.

What Matters


The research notes that how workers fare financially after retirement is directly tied to three factors: their salary level at retirement, how long they work beyond 65, and whether they save in a defined contribution retirement plan during their working lifetime. In fact, the report notes that “a major factor that makes a difference” in their ability to meet basic and uninsured health-care costs in retirement is “whether they are still participating in a defined contribution plan after the age of 65.” How much difference? At least a 10 percentage point difference in the majority of the retirement age/income combinations.

Ultimately, the research should remind us of a couple of things: first, that the assumption that we’ll be able to work past “normal” retirement age is just that—an assumption. Second, and more important, even if that assumption pans out, it cannot be assumed that it will, in and of itself, prove to be sufficient.

But finally, and significantly, there is at least one thing individuals can exercise some control over in the “here and now” – their current—and continued—participation in defined contribution plans.

And that’s something that can directly—and significantly—make a difference in building a financially viable retirement.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1) Admittedly, except for those in the lowest income quartile, this would be a small percentage of the population, depending on your expectations of success (see “Short” Comings ). Still, according to the EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model (RSPM) baseline results, the lowest preretirement income quartile would need to defer retirement age to 84 before 90 percent of the households would have a 50 percent probability of success.

You can read more about how these factors impact retirement income adequacy HERE

“Short” Comings

In this business you are frequently asked “how much should people save for retirement?” Some try to answer that question with a degree of specificity that can be somewhat simplistic.

Let’s face it, even if those close enough to retirement to have a sense of what their pre-retirement income level is (and, flawed as that can be, most projections start from that assumption as a baseline for what you’ll want/need to spend in retirement—see “Replacement” Window ), most struggle to turn that into a real savings figure.

Ultimately, of course, a reliable answer to that retirement savings question requires an understanding of the individual’s goals and/or financial needs—and, predicated on certain assumptions, there are any number of tools that can help individuals set a target and (based on that) establish a savings plan.

However, the planning question that almost never gets asked is: “And how certain do you want to be of achieving that target?”

Asked that question, I suspect most individuals would respond, “100%.” Unfortunately, much of the modeling that is being used to help individuals set those targets is based on averages: things such as average life expectancy, average investment experience, and—in the really in-depth models—average health care expenditures in retirement.(1) As a result, those models (useful as they might be in terms of framing a planning discussion) produce a result that will fall short…50% of the time.

In fairness, some of those shortfalls could be small. After all, if you’re a dollar short, you’re still short a dollar. But in some cases those shortfalls could be larger—much larger, in fact(2).

And that’s a fact worth keeping in mind.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD


(1) For more information on these kinds of projections—and EBRI’s Retirement Readiness Rating—see EBRI Issue Brief No. 344

(2) For a more detailed discussion about those projected shortfalls—and how they can vary according to such factors as gender, marital status, and income levels—see the October 2010 EBRI Notes, Vol. 31, No. 10.

Above “Average”

Every so often an industry survey will come out with an “average” 401(k) balance(1). The specific numbers vary, but they are consistently less than even the most optimistic would see as sufficient to provide a financially viable retirement.

Now, in fairness, the validity of an “average,” while mathematically simple, depends heavily on its components. Most are no more than the total of all the balances of those in the 401(k), from those just entering the workforce (and thus, by definition, with negligible balances) – and with decades to go to retirement – to those who are perhaps just days away from that point. Looking at no more than the “average,” you can’t tell how many are in which category. So, while the average can, over time, provide a sense of the direction in which things are moving, it tells you very little about the adequacy of that savings to fund an individual retirement.

One way to help provide a more meaningful measure is to segment those balances by specific age demographics. In fact, EBRI has long provided not only an average 401(k) balance, but also totals for different groups. To give you a sense of the difference that can make, at year-end 2010, while the average 401(k) balance was $60,329, the average 401(k) balance for those in their 60s – at least for those with 20 years of tenure – was $159,654.

In fairness, $159,654 may not look like very much to have saved by someone in their 60s. But even then, there are many things we don’t know about that person’s individual circumstances. We don’t know if they have a defined benefit pension, for one thing, nor do we know if they have savings outside their workplace. Perhaps just as significantly, we don’t know if that average takes into account their accumulated savings in all defined contribution plans, including those savings that might have been rolled into individual retirement accounts (IRAs) along the way.

In testimony before the Senate Finance Committee last fall(2), EBRI Director of Research Jack VanDerhei noted that “[p]articipation in a retirement plan through current employment at a specific moment in time does not tell the full story of a worker’s preparedness for retirement or the availability of some form of retirement income from an employment-based retirement plan.” He went on to caution, “Unfortunately, the ‘success’ of these plans are sometimes measured by metrics that are not at all relevant to the potential for defined contribution plans to provide a significant portion of a worker’s pre‐retirement income. For example, some analysts will merely report the average balance in defined contribution plans (most commonly the 401(k) subset of this universe) and attempt to assess the value of these plans by determining the amount of annual income that this lump sum amount could be converted to at retirement age. Of course, this concept does not adjust for the fact that the vast majority of 401(k) participants are years, if not decades, away from retirement age. Moreover, even if one does look at the average balances for workers near retirement age, it is obviously not correct to look only at the 401(k) balance with the employee’s current employer. For example, an employee age 60 may have very recently changed jobs and rolled over a substantial account balance from his previous employer to an IRA.”

Sure enough, as I sit here today, I have three separate 401(k) accounts at three separate employers, a rollover IRA, and a SEP.

Anyone trying to glean a sense of my retirement prospects while looking only at my current 401(k) balance surely wouldn’t feel very optimistic.

But then, they’d only be looking at part of the picture.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

(1) Including EBRI – see “401(k) Plan Asset Allocation, Account Balances, and Loan Activity In 2010”

(2) A copy of the testimony is available here. See also “Tax Reform Options: Promoting Retirement Security”

Replacement “Window”

There is an old adage that cautions about the consequences “when you assume…”

And yet, the business of retirement planning is replete with any number of so-called “common wisdom” rules of thumb. Doubtless many have well-intentioned origins – to make complicated concepts easier to grasp, and thus to address.

One of the more pervasive notions is that a realistic target for retirement savings can be determined by accumulating a sum that will provide an income stream equal to a percentage of one’s pre-retirement earnings – a sum that is generally expressed as 70-80% of what you earn prior to retirement. This starting point - generally called
a "replacement ratio" - includes any number of imbedded assumptions, perhaps most significantly that the individual will need to spend less post-retirement, generally understood to be on things such as taxes, housing, and various work-related expenses (including saving for retirement).

Moreover, the replacement rate approach represents, at best, an indirect approach in evaluating whether retired workers can maintain their standard of living in retirement – because what matters is not how much you have to spend, but how much you need to spend. A recent research report sponsored by the Society of Actuaries’ Pension Section, “Moving Beyond the Limitations of Traditional Replacement Rates”, also highlights the limitations of relying on replacement rates. A recent paper published by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College (“How Much to Save for a Secure Retirement”) acknowledges that “the most direct approach would be a comparison of household consumption while working with consumption after retirement” – before launching into a discussion that instead draws on a relatively simplistic series of assumptions , not the least of which is that the goal of retirement saving is a replacement rate of 80-percent of one’s pre-retirement income.

The problem is that these assumptions are just that – and, as a result, in some cases that 80% will be more than is required – and for some it will, unfortunately, be less. Furthermore, most of the assumptions underpinning such replacement ratio targets are implicitly using a 50 percent probability of success.

Additionally, these replacement rate models tend to ignore one – or more – of the most important retirement risks; investment risk, longevity risk, and risk of potentially catastrophic health care costs.

The reality is that there is no “correct” single replacement rate, but the factors that undermine those simplistic rules of thumb are quantifiable. Those factors, and the importance of probabilities in retirement planning are detailed in “Measuring Retirement Income Adequacy: Calculating Realistic Income Replacement Rates (EBRI Issue Brief No. 297).

After all, it isn’t what you have accumulated at retirement that matters, it’s how much you have left at the end of it.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

'Under' Covered?

One of the more pervasive statistics bandied around about the voluntary retirement system is that only about half of working Americans are covered by a workplace retirement plan.

It’s a data point that is widely and openly presented as fact—not only by those inclined to dismiss the current system as inadequate, but even by some of its most ardent champions, who see that result as a call to action for expanded access to these programs.

There’s only one problem: It doesn’t tell the whole story.

A 2011 EBRI report found that in 2010, 77.6 million workers worked for an employer/union that did not sponsor a retirement plan and 91.0 million workers did not participate in a plan. However, focusing in on employees who did not work for an employer that sponsored a plan, 9.0 million were self‐employed.

Of the remaining 68.5 million:

• 6.2 million were under the age of 21, and
• 3.7 million were age 65 or older.
• 32.0 million (approximately) were not full‐time, full‐year workers, and
• 17.2 million had annual earnings of less than $10,000.

Now, admittedly, many of these workers would fall into several of these categories simultaneously (they might, for instance be under age 21, make less than $10,000 in annual earnings, and not be a full‐time, full‐year worker).

But if you adjust these numbers so that only workers who work full-time, full‐year, make $10,000 or more in annual earnings, and work for an employer with 50 or more employees, only 17.4 million workers (or 26.7 percent) would be included among those working for an employer that did not sponsor a plan.

Of course, another way to look at this last number is that 73.3 percent of these workers with those characteristics worked for an employer that DID sponsor a retirement plan in 2010.

And that’s a lot more than 50 percent.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

Pension Penchants

On Dec. 8, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) convened a forum on “the Future of Pensions.”

The forum was structured around two separate panels of experts (including EBRI President and CEO Dallas Salisbury) who spoke to an audience of pension industry thought leaders on the current retirement landscape, as well as potential enhancements and solutions.

Among the insights/observations shared in the session:

• In 1975, among those over age 65, 23 percent had pension/annuity income; in 2010, that had risen to 33 percent.


• According to EBRI’s Retirement Readiness Rating (RRR) 57 percent of those under age 65 were considered to be at risk of not having sufficient retirement resources to pay for “basic” retirement expenditures and uninsured health care costs, a figure that had declined to 45 percent in 2010.

• In fact, a world in which 30-year job tenure (and associated pension benefit) was never a reality for 80 percent of the nation’s workers. Rather, it was a myth that led “too many to do too little for too long,” leaving many with no retirement resources other than Social Security. Today, more Americans will retire at far more fiscally appropriate times, with more assets from which to draw.

• Financial insecurity looms large, but has increased consumer awareness of the situation, the need to prepare, and the possibility of scaling back retirement expectations.

• Today, about 18 percent of those over age 65 are still in the workforce; 10 years ago, just 11% were.

• People assume they will be able to work longer—but the data indicate they won’t be able to, for reasons outside their control.

• Regulation/legislation does impact/influence the decision by employers to offer workplace retirement plans.

• Employers are rational when it comes to offering benefits—and they consider both shareholder value and employees in their decision-making.

• Employees are also rational when it comes to making decisions; health care a more immediate concern for many than retirement.

• People make rational decisions, but they also tend to be inefficient about those decisions.

• Americans are far too optimistic—they assume that their pay will continue to increase, despite data that indicates that it plateaus for many in their mid-40s. They assume that they will save more later, but they don’t.

• National retirement plan participation rates of 50 percent include workers (part-timers, those under 21) that aren’t normally covered by these plans.

• Health care costs impact certainty/predictability of benefit programs and individual savings rates.

• It’s not how much you have at retirement, it’s how much you have at the end of retirement.

• Guaranteed returns are very expensive.

• The better we understand retirement risks, the better we’ll be able to mitigate them.

• Social Security offers universal defined benefit (DB) coverage—and offers a critical foundation for other retirement solutions to build on.

• If employers are going to take on the risk of offering a DB plan, there has to be some reward beyond just doing right by their retirees.

• Predictability is a key factor in employer decision-making on retirement plan designs.

• Regulations tend to be “one size fits all,” but employers are not, and vary greatly.

• “If you tell employers they can never take it out, they will never put it in.”

• Providing lifetime income in a low interest rate environment is very expensive.

• Employers care about retirement income—don’t drive them away from providing these programs.

• Investment risk, interest rate risk and longevity risk represent the major DB risks for employers. These risks are shifted to workers in the shift to defined contribution (DC) retirement plans, but the impact is very different. Investment risk and interest rate risk have an immediate impact on employer, but not on the individual saver. However, employers have the ability to pool (and thus mitigate) longevity risk—an option not available to individual savers.

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

IMHO: Working “Outs”?

Last week the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on “promoting retirement security.”

While options were presented to improve things (see “Industry Groups Urge No Changes to Retirement Savings Tax Advantages”), the discussion quickly veered toward a debate on whether and how well—or poorly—the current system is working.

That said, listening to the witnesses,1 one might well have thought they were discussing completely different systems—from one that is striking a good balance between incentivizing employers and encouraging participants to one that is all about providing tax benefits for saving to those who don’t require such enticements; from one that is putting too much responsibility on individual savers to one that has managed to, on a voluntary basis, draw the support of roughly eight in 10 workers. One that has failed, and seems unlikely to ever deliver a real retirement income solution—or one that has the potential to make that a reality.

Metrics Systems

As always, the devil is in the details—and perhaps in the definitions underlying those details. As the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s (EBRI) Dr. Jack VanDerhei pointed out in testimony submitted for the hearing, “Unfortunately, the ‘success’ of these plans issometimes measured by metrics that are not at all relevant to the potential for defined contribution plans to provide a significant portion of a worker’s pre‐retirement income.” Among those metrics, VanDerhei cited such things as the “average” 401(k) balance and what it would provide in retirement income (with no adjustment for the reality that many, if not most, of the participants in the denominator of that calculation are years, if not decades, away from retirement age), and even the focus on what the average balance is for workers nearing retirement age—but only applying that calculation to the 401(k) balance with the employee’s current employer.2


Judy Miller, Chief of Actuarial Issues/Director of Retirement Policy, American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, outlined several “myths” in her testimony, including the notion that the current tax incentives are dramatically tilted toward upper-income workers,3 that those incentives cost the government money (there is a cost to the government’s deferral of taxation, of course, but the government does get its money eventually, albeit generally outside the government’s projection windows), and that only about half of working Americans have access to a workplace retirement plan. Miller noted the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) found that 78% of all full-time civilian workers had access to retirement benefits at work, with 84% of those workers participating in these arrangements—a far cry from the “common wisdom” that too many in our industry still parrot.4

In fact, the devil in that particular statistic depends on whom you want to include as the “relevant” workforce—or perhaps the point you want to make.

There are some things we do know. First, given the opportunity, the vast majority of workers save for retirement via their workplace retirement plan, and that, outside those structures, they don’t. We know that the vast majority of workers that are automatically enrolled in such programs stay enrolled, that most who have their rate of savings automatically increased leave those increases in place. We know that workers whose deferral rates are set by default don’t change those defaults. We know that workers tend to save at the level of the employer match, when a matching contribution is available. We also have, thanks to EBRI, an emerging body of evidence that the current structures can produce, alongside Social Security, reasonable levels of retirement income.

We also know that most employers that offer a workplace retirement plan contribute something of value to those plans: an employer contribution, a matching contribution, and/or the time/expense of running the plan—or more than one of the foregoing. Moreover, there is strong anecdotal evidence that, lacking the incentives of the current tax structures, fewer employers will offer—or support—those programs than do at present.

Therefore, based on what we do know, it would seem that we should (1) to continue to encourage the establishment of defaults high enough to better ensure a satisfying outcome without undermining participation, and (2) to provide for systems that will move those default savings thresholds higher over time.

More importantly, IMHO, we should do everything we can to encourage more employers to offer, and to continue to offer, these programs.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

1 Arguably, the best days of our current voluntary savings structures are ahead of us, but the sheer data on retirement savings accumulations in defined contribution plans and individual retirement accounts are impressive. During the hearing, Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) noted that “more money has been set aside for retirement in defined contribution plans and IRAs than in Social Security.” Hatch said, “The Social Security Trust Fund holds $2.6 trillion in Treasury securities. But private, employer-based defined contribution plans hold $4.7 trillion. And IRAs hold even more: $4.9 trillion.”

2 For a broader discussion on this topic, see also “IMHO: Comparison ‘Points’

3 In her testimony, ASPPA’s Miller noted that households with incomes of less than $50,000 pay only about 8% of all income taxes, but receive 30% of the defined contribution plan tax incentives. Households with less than $100,000 in AGI pay about 26% of income taxes, but receive about 62% of the defined contribution plan tax incentives.

4 EBRI’s Jack VanDerhei offers an insightful analysis of these numbers in Appendix B of his testimony. I commend it to your review.

London "Bridges"

I was in London for a few days last week, and while it afforded a good opportunity to visit with a number of providers in the European retirement plan market, the primary purpose of my trip was to acknowledge the fund manager and consultant standouts recognized by PLANSPONSOR Europe (which has just celebrated its one-year anniversary).

The luncheon itself was fascinating: As is often the case with such gatherings here, many of the attendees were well-acquainted with each other, a number had common employment histories and, as in the U.S., even those who worked for competing firms at the moment seemed to sense that it could change at any time.

Once we got past the potential impact of the latest Icelandic volcanic ash cloud, the traffic disruptions attendant with President Obama’s visit (which, of course, had been impacted by the latest Icelandic volcanic ash cloud), and the beautiful weather (which, fortunately, was apparently completely unaffected by the latest Icelandic volcanic ash cloud), the discussion turned to “shop.”


The group had some interesting questions for me:

Why are American pensions so heavily invested in stocks?

For the record, this audience apparently felt that a 60/40 allocation to stocks/bonds was the mirror image of a prudent allocation. Of course, every fund is different, and every fund’s allocation is different. I mentioned that I thought that, certainly over the long haul, American pensions have likely benefited more than they have suffered from their exposure to equities. However, regardless of the realities, I know that those who make those decisions believe that. One of the consultants at my table asked a corollary to the first question: why more American pensions haven’t adopted a stronger LDI (liability-driven investment) focus.

To that, I offered three observations: First, I think most American plan sponsors still believe they can, in fact, do “better” by pursuing alpha. Second, while I think most American plan sponsors who have given some thought to LDI are intrigued with the concept, they aren’t quite convinced that the “theory” will work in reality. But finally, I sense that more have embraced the concept than is probably appreciated, albeit in baby steps (purists will, of course, argue that incremental adoption can actually serve to undermine the effectiveness, but…).

Are target-date funds now totally discredited?

The question was actually posed in a way that suggested that, whether they were or not, they should be. That said, my short answer here was, absolutely not; that while 2008 had certainly shaken some, the rebound in the markets seemed to have taken much of the edge from that issue. I noted that while I’ve seen data that suggest some are more interested in something other than a pure “date-based” allocation approach, and that, while there is more discussion around the whole “to versus through” retirement date design, my sense was that most providers hadn’t made significant shifts to their approach (or assumptions), and that few plan sponsors (and no participants) had made any changes in their target-date fund, or allocations to that suite.

In sum, I told this audience that I thought that the market rebound had given our industry a second chance on target-date designs—but that I wasn’t sure anyone was taking advantage of that, sadly.

Why are Americans so opposed to annuities?

I told the audience that I have, on more than one occasion, noted that if we could figure out how we taught participants that annuities were “bad,” and could deploy that to teach them how retirement savings were good, we’d be on to something. That said, I still think that there is a behavioral issue here—one that makes individuals reluctant to hand over a large pot of money today to someone else (particularly a large, faceless institution) so that they can have little pieces of that returned to them over a long period of time. That the annuity ostensibly is expensive, that the individual may lack trust in the institution to which they are expected to hand over a life’s savings, that they can’t access those funds in an emergency—those are also legitimate issues.

All that notwithstanding, I think things could change—and perhaps change dramatically—if American plan sponsors were, in any credible way, encouraged to connect this post-employment investment decision to their workplace retirement plans. The reality today is that most plan sponsors see this as an extension, rather than a reduction, of liability (and with reason, IMHO); there is a palpable sense that product development is still ongoing (and that the best model isn’t yet on the market); and beyond that, we all know that the Labor Department is evaluating alternatives/approaches as well.

In sum, employers have no compelling reason to jump in here, alongside several key indicators that suggest doing so could be expensive and/or premature. Consequently, they are inclined to wait—and until that dynamic changes, it seems unlikely that participants will be overcoming their current reluctance, either.

Lessons Learned

Asked to share insights on “lessons learned” by the American pension system, I noted a couple. First off, I noted that I thought we had never helped workers appreciate the value of a pension, and that, certainly from a financial standpoint, employers had probably never fully appreciated what it would take to fulfill that promise. Moreover, that we were only just beginning to focus on helping workers appreciate what it would take to provide a lifetime of post-retirement income—and that, for some, that message would come too late to be of value. That whereas workers once blithely assumed that the market would “fix” their savings shortfalls, today’s most common unrealistic assumption was that they would simply be able to work longer (this, by the way, is a problem of a different ilk for employers in the UK, who might actually have to provide that employment).

One lesson that I thought we were only recently beginning to “get” was that, if retirement security is going to rely on a defined contribution system—particularly one where “defaults” are driving utilization—you can’t be coy about what it’s going to take. And defaulting people into these programs at contribution levels that don’t even maximize the match, much less come close to what needs to be saved to achieve financial security in retirement—well, that is literally setting people up…to fail.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

Cost of Living "Adjustment"

A couple of weeks back, the Social Security Administration announced that, for the second year in a row—but only for the second time since 1975—there would be no cost of living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security recipients.

Of course, this close to an election, it should come as no surprise that some went scurrying to introduce legislation that would provide some kind of supplemental funding to the nation’s seniors; similar actions were undertaken a year ago, ostensibly in the interests of economic stimulus, as well as the importance of supporting those on fixed incomes. But this election year is one unlike most, perhaps any, in our memory—and concerns about the federal budget deficit have, thus far, overcome the political class’s natural inclinations in such matters.

Whether or not you are on a fixed income, it’s hard to credibly argue that prices aren’t rising on everything from food to gasoline to utilities; from real estate taxes (those reassessments never come as rapidly when prices decline, do they?) to the monthly cable bill. That said, there is a formula on which things are based, one that has, perhaps more often than not, worked to the benefit of those drawing Social Security benefits. It is a formula that, in 2009, provided those beneficiaries with a 5.8% increase in benefits, the largest in a quarter century. That’s right—did YOU get a 5.8% increase in 2009?


Now, some of this is the timing in the formula, which considers the period from September of one year to the next. For example, in the year that provided a 5.8% increase, if the formula had been applied from December to December (rather than September to September), the COLA would have been 0.8%, not 5.8%. Some of it is because the COLA is calculated on an index that considers the purchases that current workers make, rather than retirees1. And yes, some of it is because the Social Security benefit is never adjusted downwards—even when there is a decline in the cost index it tracks2. In fact, the real reason that Social Security recipients/beneficiaries 3 aren’t getting a cost of living adjustment next year is not because prices haven’t gone up, but rather because prices haven’t yet risen above the level of September 2008 (remember $4/gallon gasoline?).

However, for retirees accustomed to an annual, upward adjustment in their benefits, the lack of an increase surely came as something of a shock4, particularly after politicians found a way to smooth it over the previous year (and may yet again).

The good news for Social Security beneficiaries is that, at least under current law, their annual benefits do not decrease and retain the potential to increase based on adjustments, however imperfect, in a designated cost of living index5. Certainly, in a time when many have been asked to absorb a cut in pay or lost their jobs completely, with a family to support, there are worse things than living on a “fixed” income.

Still, it should serve as a reminder to us all that planning for retirement should look beyond the income we happen to be drawing when we leave the workforce. After all, if the income we have at retirement isn’t enough to adjust to the costs of living in retirement - It might well cost us an adjustment in how, or how well, we live through retirement.


—Nevin E. Adams, JD

1 There were no automatic COLAs in Social Security until 1975 (see http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p1.html)

2 Consider that, if costs were adjusted for downward as well as upward moves, last year benefits would have been cut by 2.7%.

3 Disabled workers and their dependents account for 19% of total benefits paid, according to the Social Security Administration (see http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pressoffice/basicfact.htm).

4 I never cease to be amazed at what a high percentage of retirement income Social Security provides—not because it was designed that way, mind you, but rather because it remains relatively constant in an otherwise variable pooling of retirement income sources. The Social Security Administration notes that Social Security provided at least 50% of total income for just over half (52%) of aged beneficiary couples and 73% of aged non-married beneficiaries. Moreover, it was 90% or more of income for more than one in five aged beneficiary couples and 43% of aged non-married beneficiaries, though “total income” in this calculation excludes withdrawals from savings and non-annuitized IRAs or 401(k) plans. Overall, the Social Security Administration says that Social Security benefits represent about 40% of the income of the elderly.

5 More information about the COLA is at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/cola/2011/factsheet.htm. An interesting 2009 webcast on the subject titled “What Happened to My Social Security COLA?” is viewable at http://www.blip.tv/file/2629162, and a transcript is available at http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/econ-sec/transcript_forum_090921.pdf For more information on some of the alternative COLA indexes, the AARP Public Policy Institute has published a fact sheet on the consumer price index and how it impacts Social Security Benefits at http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/ppi/econ-sec/fs160.pdf

Live Long and Prosper?

I’ve been a huge “Star Trek” fan all the way back to when I had to watch the original episodes on a tiny black-and-white, 13-inch television set with rabbit ear antennas (and, yes, adorned with aluminium foil). Unlike most of my friends at the time, my favorite character was Mr. Spock, whose understated strength, brilliant mind, and quiet commitment to logic had an appeal to a young kid who fancied himself to have all those attributes (thankfully, my ears weren’t pointed).

Perhaps as a result, early on, I mastered the “infamous” Vulcan salute that many people struggle to perform unassisted (it consists of raising your hand and spreading your fingers apart between the middle and ring finger), and the Vulcan greeting/blessing that accompanied the gesture—“Live long and prosper”—always struck me as being as elegant as it was simple.

While we all hope to prosper and live long, a recent Issue Brief released by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College reminds us of the financial challenges that are often attendant with living long, but that tend to be glossed over in retirement planning. That particular study claimed that those who are in good health heading into retirement had better brace themselves for higher, not lower, health-care costs in retirement—since the researchers determined that the expected present value of lifetime health-care costs for a couple turning 65 in 2009 in which one or both spouses suffer from a chronic disease (defined in that research as diabetes, cancer, lung disease, heart disease, or stroke) is $220,000, while the comparable tally for a healthy couple was projected to be—$260,000 (see “Being Healthy Could Cost You More in Retirement”). Now, as usual in such matters, there is a certain amount of interpolation and extrapolation at work. Still, without wandering into the statistical “weeds,” a primary reason for that somewhat counterintuitive finding is that people in good health can expect to live significantly longer than their less-healthy counterparts—and thus, according to the report, are at risk of incurring health-care costs over more years(1).

Now, the point of the report wasn’t to encourage an unhealthy lifestyle; rather, it seemed designed simply to underscore the need to set aside money (2)—and a significant amount of money at that—for health-care expenses in retirement, regardless of how healthy you are (or expect to be).

Healthy or not, all other things being equal, the longer we live, the longer we must rely on our retirement savings. Not surprisingly, confronted with the potential of outliving one’s retirement savings, participants frequently fall back on an assumption that they will simply work longer. Now, that’s a good solution, at least in theory; saving, rather than spending, for additional years can do wonders to shore up one’s financial security—as long as you can count on being able to actually remain employed, that is. Unfortunately, even those physically able and willing to do so don’t always have that option.

That’s a reality that participants don’t always appreciate—and, IMHO, one that is all too often shrugged off in the retirement planning process.

The better option, if one hopes to both live long AND prosper, is to prepare as though you won’t have the time or the luxury to do so; to take action here and now, rather than banking on the opportunity to “make good” later on.

Anything else would be—illogical.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD

1 The report also acknowledges that, over those longer lives, those relatively healthy individuals may, nonetheless, eventually contract one of those chronic diseases.
2 More precisely funding. The report notes that “Households that delay purchasing insurance until their health declines run the risk of facing higher premiums, or for long-term care insurance, being denied coverage altogether.”