Needs "Assessments"

My eating habits have always tended toward what my mother politely calls “finicky.” Oh, she tried repeatedly over the years to broaden my horizons but without much success. My wife has similarly tried to expand and improve my dietary choices over the years, but even with the admonition of needing to set a good example for my kids, (my) old habits die hard. In exasperation, she’ll frequently say, “Have you ever even tried _____?”

One of the more surprising findings from the 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey was that fewer than half of respondents indicate they (or their spouse) have EVER tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved so that they can live comfortably in retirement.

What’s even more surprising, of course, is that that percentage has held fairly consistent for the past decade, “peaking” at 53 percent in 2000, before slipping to 38 percent in 2002.[1] It’s recovered since, of course, but still—in this day and age, with so many free and easy-to-access tools available, despite the pressures of daily life and finances, it’s hard to imagine that so many have still not even bothered to make a single attempt to do so.

As you might expect, some are more likely to do a retirement savings needs calculation than others. Married workers are more likely to have done so than singles, and the likelihood of doing the calculation increases with household income, education, and financial assets. Moreover, workers reporting that they, or their spouse, have an IRA, defined contribution, or defined benefit retirement plan are more than twice as likely as those who do not have these to have done a calculation (56 percent vs. 25 percent).

There do appear to be benefits—both emotional and tangible—to doing a retirement needs calculation. Consistent with prior RCS findings, despite having set higher savings goals,[2] workers who have done a retirement savings needs calculation are more likely to feel very confident about affording a comfortable retirement (25 percent vs. 13 percent who have not done a calculation in this year’s survey). In fact, a previous EBRI analysis found that those using an online calculator appeared to set more adequate savings targets, as measured by the probability of not running short of money in retirement.[3]

So, why haven’t more done a retirement needs calculation? Perhaps they’re nervous about the time and energy it might take to do one; maybe they’re worried they don’t know enough to do the calculation; it might even be, particularly if they’ve made no preparations for retirement, that they are afraid to find out the answer.

Whatever their rationale, a great place to start figuring out what they -or you- will need is the BallparkE$timate,^® available online at www.choosetosave.org[4]

It’ll be good for you—will likely improve your retirement prospects—and you might even enjoy it.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

More information from the 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey, the longest-running survey of its kind in the nation, is available in the March 2014 EBRI Issue Brief, “The 2014 Retirement Confidence Survey: Confidence Rebounds—for Those With Retirement Plans,” online here.

[1] Even among those who have made an attempt, the methods of calculation reported have been quite “varied”—according to the 2013 Retirement Confidence Survey, workers often guess at how much they will need to accumulate (45 percent), rather than doing a systematic retirement needs calculation. Eighteen percent each indicated they did their own estimate or asked a financial advisor, while 8 percent each used an online calculator or read or heard how much was needed.

[2] Workers who have done a retirement savings needs calculation tend to report higher savings goals than workers who have not done the calculation. In this year’s RCS, 29 percent of workers who have done a calculation, compared with 15 percent of those who have not, estimate they need to accumulate at least $1 million for retirement. At the other extreme, 17 percent of those who have done a calculation, compared with 37 percent who have not, think they need to save less than $250,000 for retirement.

[3] See “A Little Help: The Impact of On-line Calculators and Financial Advisors on Setting Adequate Retirement-Savings Targets: Evidence from the 2013 Retirement Confidence Survey,” online here.

[4] Organizations interested in building/reinforcing a workplace savings campaign can find a variety of free resources at www.choosetosave.org, courtesy of the American Savings Education Council (ASEC). Choose to Save® is sponsored by the nonprofit, nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute Education and Research Fund (EBRI-ERF) and one of its programs, ASEC. The website and materials development have been underwritten through generous grants and additional support from EBRI Members and ASEC Partner institutions.

Predict-Able

Retirement planning is a complex and highly individualized process, but many people find it easier to start by focusing on a single, specific target number.

For those interested in a single number for health care expenses in retirement, a recent EBRI report provides that. Among other things, the report noted that a 65-year-old man would need $70,000 in savings and a woman would need $93,000 in 2012 if each had a goal of having a 50 percent chance of having enough money saved to cover their projected health care expenses in retirement. A 65-year-old couple, both with median drug expenses, would need $163,000 in 2012 to have a 50 percent chance of having enough money to cover health care expenses.¹

Determining how much money is needed to cover health care expenses in retirement is complicated. It depends on retirement age, the length of life after retirement, the availability and source of health insurance coverage after retirement to supplement Medicare, the rate at which health care costs increase, interest rates, market returns, and health status, among other things. That said, it is possible to project health care expenses with some accuracy, and EBRI’s recent analysis uses a Monte Carlo simulation model to estimate the amount of savings needed to cover health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket health care expenses in retirement.

However, those recent “single number” projections specifically excluded the financial impact of long-term care.

EBRI has long acknowledged the critical impact that health care expenses can have on retirement finances, and considering that EBRI has long incorporated both the costs of health care and long-term care in its Retirement Savings Projection Model® (RSPM), one might well wonder why this particular report specifically excluded those long-term care projections.

For all the complexity in those calculations, the reality is that everyone won’t have to deal with the expenses associated with long-term care. For those who will, the impact on retirement finances could be significant, even catastrophic.² That’s why EBRI has modeled their impact in the RSPM since 2003.

As noted above, for those interested in a single number, the recent EBRI report provides that, along with variations that permit one to take into account different likelihoods of success and gender/marital combinations. We are able to do that because we treat longevity risk and investment risk stochastically,³ and the fact that those expenses (and the costs of insurance) are, at least relatively, predictable.

But while it is possible to come up with a single number that individuals can use to start setting retirement-savings goals, it is important to bear in mind that a single number based on averages will be wrong for the vast majority of the population—and that those who rely exclusively on that single number run the risk of running short.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

¹ Unlike reports produced by a number of organizations, the EBRI report also provided estimates for those interested in a better-than-50-percent chance of success. See ”Savings Needed for Health Expenses for People Eligible for Medicare: Some Rare Good News,” online here.

² The EBRI Notes article above illustrates the difference: If you ignore the impact of nursing home and home health care expenses, more than 90 percent of single male Gen Xers were projected to have no financial shortfall in retirement—but when that impact was included, just 68 percent of that group was projected to have no financial shortfall in retirement. The error of ignoring nursing home and home health care costs is even more profound if one focuses on the percentage of individuals with shortfalls in excess of $100,000.

³ For an expanded description of the difference stochastic modeling can make, see “Single Best Answer.”
See also: “Employment-Based Retiree Health Benefits: Trends in Access and Coverage, 1997-2010”, and “Effects of Nursing Home Stays on Household Portfolios.”

“Storm” Warnings

Amidst the recent coverage of Hurricane Isaac, I was reminded that it was only a year ago that Hurricane Irene came barreling up the East Coast. We had just deposited my youngest off for his first semester of college, and then spent the drive home up the East Coast with Irene (and the reports of her potential destruction and probable landfalls) close behind. We arrived home, unloaded in record time, and went straight to the local hardware store to stock up for the coming storm.

We weren’t the only ones to do so, of course. And what we had most hoped to acquire (a generator) was not to be found—there, or at that moment, apparently anywhere in the state.

What made that situation all the more infuriating was that, while the prospect of a hurricane landfall was relatively unique, we had, on several prior occasions, been without power, and for extended periods. After each I had told myself that we really needed to invest in a generator—but, as human beings are inclined to do, thinking that I had time to do so when it was more convenient, I simply (and repeatedly) postponed taking action.

Life is full of uncertainty, and events and circumstances, as often as not, happen with little, if any warning. However, hurricanes you can see coming a long way off. There’s always the chance that they will peter out sooner than expected, that landfall will result in a dramatic shift in course and/or intensity, or that, as with Hurricane Katrina, the real impact is what happens afterward. In theory, at least, that provides time to prepare—but, as I was reminded a year ago, sometimes you don’t have time enough.

I suppose a lot of retirement plan participants are going to look back at their working lives that way as they near the threshold of retirement. They’ll likely remember the admonitions about saving sooner, saving more, and the importance of regular, prudent reallocations of investment portfolios.

The Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) has, for years now, chronicled not only the current state of retirement unpreparedness of many, but their awareness of the need to be more attentive to those preparations. Sure, you can find yourself forced suddenly into an unplanned retirement—in fact, retiree respondents to the RCS have long indicated that they stopped working sooner than they had planned.¹ But most of us have plenty of time, both to see that day coming, and to do something about it.

Ultimately, of course, what matters isn’t the time you have, it’s what you do² with it.

Nevin E. Adams, JD

¹ 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 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,” online here).

² A great place to start those preparations is to figure out what you’ll need, as millions of Americans have with the BallparkE$timate,® developed by the research team at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, and available online here.

Additionally, a wide variety of free tools and innovative resources, including free videos that can be used to share key savings messages with participants, is available here.

The Good Old Days

There’s been a lot of talk lately about the need to fix the “broken”401(k) plan. Some say it disproportionately benefits higher-paid workers, some claim it can’t provide a level of retirement income sufficient to meet lower-income needs, and still others maintain it can’t provide that level of security for anyone. And, as often as not, those sentiments arise as part of a discussion where folks wistfully talk about the “good old days” when everybody had a defined benefit pension, and people didn’t have to worry about saving for retirement.

Only problem is—those “good old days” never really existed, nor were they as good as we “remember” them.

Consider that only a quarter of those age 65 or older had pension income in 1975, the year after ERISA was signed into law. The highest level ever was the early 1990s, when fewer than 4 in 10 (both public-and private-sector workers) reported pension income, according to EBRI tabulations of the 1976–2011 Current Population Survey (in 2010, 34 percent had pension income).

Perhaps more telling is that that pension income, vital as it surely has been for some, represented just 20 percent of all the income received by those 65 and older in 2010. In the “good old days” of 1975, it was less than 15 percent.

In fact, in 1979, just 28 percent of private-sector workers were covered “only” by a defined benefit (DB) plan (another 10 percent were covered by both a DB and a defined contribution plan), according to Department of Labor Form 5500 Summaries. In other words, even in the “good old days” when “everybody” supposedly had a pension, the reality is that most workers in the private sector did not.

Even among those who worked for an employer that offered a pension, most in the private sector weren’t working long enough with a single employer to accumulate the service levels you need for a full pension. Nor is this a recent phenomenon; median job tenure of the total workforce has hovered about four years since the early 1950s (in fact, as EBRI’s latest research points out, the average median job tenure has now risen, 5.2 years).[i] For private-sector workers, fewer than 1 in 5 have ever spent 25 years or more with one employer. Under pension accrual formulas, those kind of numbers mean that even among the workers who qualify for a pension, many are likely to receive a negligible amount because their job tenure is so short.

Ultimately what this suggests is that, even when defined benefit pensions were more prevalent than they are today, most Americans still had to worry about retirement income shortfalls.

Indeed, Americans today do have some additional concerns: longer lives and longer retirements to fund, as well as the attendant issues of higher health care costs and long-term care. For most workers—past and present—the more savings options they have, the better; and the easier we make it for them to save, the better. That is the power of payroll deduction, matching contributions, and employer action.

When all is said and done, we’re all still challenged to find the combination of funding—Social Security, personal savings, and employment-based retirement programs—to provide for a financially satisfying retirement.

Just like in the “good old days.”

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] EBRI Notes, December 2010, http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_12-Dec10.Tenure-CEHCS.pdf

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.