Articles About Retirement Planning

Conventional wisdom suggests that retirees should own a “moderate” amount of equity exposure at the time of retirement – to help their portfolio grow and keep up with inflation for a long time horizon – and then slowly decrease their exposure to equities over time as they age and their time horizon shrinks. However, recent research has suggested that the optimal approach might actually be the opposite, to start with less equity exposure early in retirement when the portfolio is largest and most exposed to a significant market decline, and then “glide” the equity exposure slightly higher each year throughout retirement.

As it turns out, though, a better approach may be to accelerate that rising equity glidepath a bit further; after all, the last bit of equity increase in the last year of retirement isn’t really likely to matter. Instead, the better rising equity glidepath approach is to just increase equities in the first half of retirement until it reaches the target threshold, and then level off. For instance, instead of gliding from 30% to 60% in equities over 30 years, glide up to 60% over 15 years and then maintain that 60% equity exposure for the rest of retirement (assuming it’s consistent with client risk tolerance in the first place).

Notably, accelerating the glidepath also reduces the amount of time that the portfolio is “bond-heavy” – a particular concern for many in today’s low-interest-rate environment. In the end, though, it may be even more effective to simply take interest rate risk off the table by owning short-term bonds instead; while such an approach leads to less wealth “on average”, in low-return environments rising equity glidepaths using stocks and Treasury Bills can actually be superior to traditional portfolios using stocks and (longer duration, e.g., 10-year Treasury) bonds, even though Treasury Bills provide lower yields!

Read More...

The bankruptcy code exists to ensure the orderly resolution of situations where the debts and obligations of an individual exceed their assets and their ability to pay their creditors. As a matter of public policy, though, the function of bankruptcy is not merely to facilitate the liquidation of an individual's assets to satisfy their debts, but also the determination of what assets should be protected/exempted even in bankruptcy to allow them to maintain a basic standard of living, in recognition that truly forcing people to liquidate all of their assets to satisfy their debts may simply leave them impoverished wards of the state, ultimately relying on the government and fellow taxpayers for support. Accordingly, the bankruptcy code often protects key assets like a personal residence/homestead, along with retirement accounts.

In the new Supreme Court decision of Clark v. Rameker, though, the courts have acknowledged that while the bankruptcy code is intended to protect the retirement accounts of debtors, it is not meant to protect the inherited IRAs that debtors may have been bequeathed by someone else who, by definition, will clearly no longer be using it for their own retirement. Noting that inherited IRAs do not permit contributions, have ongoing distribution requirements regardless of age and retirement, and have no early withdrawal penalties associated with them, the unanimous Supreme Court decision acknowledged that inherited IRAs are effectively "freely consumable" by the beneficiary, and thus should be freely available to the creditors of the beneficiary as well.

For those who were counting on the bankruptcy code to protect an inherited IRA, the Supreme Court decision will now leave them exposed. From a proactive planning perspective, the Clark decision will likely make it far more appealing for spousal beneficiaries to roll over inherited retirement accounts rather than leaving them as inherited IRAs, and non-spouse beneficiaries may increasingly prefer to inherit retirement accounts via a trust on their behalf, taking advantage of the "see-through" trust regulations to ensure the inherited IRA can still stretch its distributions to the trust itself. On the other hand, the acknowledgement by the Supreme Court that a retirement account effectively ceases to be a preferential account (for asset protection purposes at least) after the death of the original owner also raises the question of whether Congress' recent proposals to curtail the use of stretch IRAs altogether and force most beneficiaries to use the 5-year rule may soon come to pass as well!

Read More...

The approach of “save a percentage of your income” is a staple of retirement planning. While much debate exists about the exact ideal percentage, the concept is relatively straightforward – have savings to be one of the slices of your income pie, ideally automate the process with an ongoing percentage of your income that always gets saved first, and you’ll be well on your way to retirement.

Yet the reality is that saving something like 10% of your income also implicitly means you’re spending the other 90%, and continuing to do so over time means you'll also be saving (only) 10% and implicitly increasing your standard of living by 90% of ever raise you receive in the future. As a result, your standard of living rises as fast as your retirement savings, which means the amount needed to reach retirement gets larger and larger given the retirement costs to be supported, and in the end it’s surprisingly difficult to ever reach retirement at all as the goal forever outpaces the savings to reach it!

By contrast, an alternative approach is to try to spend “just” 50% of each pay raise you receive in the future (implicitly saving the other 50%). The end result of such an approach is that increases in the standard of living are more controlled and rise far more slowly, savings grow exponentially (to more than 20% of income within just a decade, even from a starting point of 0%!), and you can even retire early… all while feeling like your lifestyle is steadily rising as you’re still committed to spending more every year, just not increasing as rapidly as saving 10% of your income (and spending the rest)!

Read More...

The employer pension plan has been a part of the employee benefits landscape for nearly 140 years. Yet the reality is that after a tremendous rise in the decades after World War II, the availability of the defined benefit plan has been in decline for over 30 years, as the defined contribution plan has risen to take its place.

Yet unlike a pension plan that was paid in addition to an employee’s salary, the defined contribution plan often amounts to little more than an employee saving his/her own money in the first place, perhaps plus a moderate match that is losing its purpose as a behavior incentive when more and more plans include automatic enrollment and automatic escalation of contributions in future years.

All of which raises the fundamental question: if employers simply paid a greater salary (with a raise equivalent to what the match would have been) and let employees choose whether to save, is there really any need for a 401(k) plan at all? And with the MyRA coming soon – which once in place, could be easily modified in the future to include automatic enrollment, and higher contribution limits similar to what 401(k)s allow today – could we be witnessing the beginning of the end of the 401(k) plan altogether?

Read More...

Most retirement research assumes that retirees spending from a portfolio will seek to maintain a "real" inflation-adjusted standard of living throughout their retirement, just as they implicitly would have if their portfolio had been paid out as a steady pension with an annual cost-of-living adjustment. However, despite the simplicity of this assumption, retirement research has increasingly shown that retirees actually experience a decline in real spending through their retirement, as the early "go-go" years transition to less active "slow-go" years and then finally wind down in a series of "no-go" years with little discretionary spending.

In a new study contributing to the literature on this subject, David Blanchett of Morningstar has issued a new study entitled "Estimating the True Cost of Retirement" that finds in reality, real retiree spending decreases slowly in the early years, more rapidly in the middle years, and then less slowly in the final years, in a path that looks less like a slow and steady decline and more like a "retirement spending smile" instead. Implicit in these results is an acknowledge that, despite the common fears, even the uptick of health care expenses in a retiree's later years are not enough to offset all the other spending decreases that tend to occur as retirees transition into the "no-go" years and other discretionary expenses fall significantly.

The implications of this research are not only that financial planners should be more cognizant to assume some level of real spending decreases throughout retirement (Blanchett's research suggests this may be especially true for more affluent retirees who tend to have more discretionary spending that winds down over time), but also that the traditional research may be somewhat overestimating the amount of funds needed to retire in the first place, as a lower average spending level across all the retirement years means it simply may not take quite as much to retire as is typically assumed or modeled in a typical financial plan!

Read More...

Setting a proper time horizon is a crucial step in planning for retirement, and is typically done by making a reasonably conservative estimate of life expectancy... perhaps with a few extra years for padding, depending on a client's preferences.

Yet in many cases, planners adopt a uniform "standard" assumption for clients, without adapting it to even the most basic client circumstances, like whether the client is a single person or a married couple, despite the material difference between individual and joint life expectancies. Similarly, while the reality is that there's a high likelihood that a married couple will live several decades in retirement, the odds are overwhelming that for much of that time period, only one - but not both - of them will be alive.

As a result, it may be time for planners to begin to adopt more nuanced life expectancy assumptions for clients, at a minimum making a distinction between individuals and married couples, and with reductions in the later years for married couples to acknowledge the fact that while it's likely one may be alive, it's very unlikely that both will live through the entire time horizon. Otherwise, simply choosing an arbitrarily long time horizon for clients, paired with a high standard of Monte Carlo success, may actually result in an unnecessarily constrained retirement lifestyle!

Read More...

As the US continues to struggle with its retirement savings woes, a wide range of solutions have been proposed to try and address the problem, with varying degrees of success and adoption. From defined benefit and defined contribution plans, from nudges to mandatory contributions, there is little consensus on the best way forward.

In a new paper, behavioral finance researcher Meir Statman makes the case that the primary reason many proposals have fallen flat is that they do not properly segment prospective retirees, as the needs and issues – and potential solutions – are substantively different depending on whether the target is the wealthy, the poor, or the middle. And even amongst the middle, the needs of the steady earners and savers is far different than those who may have the income by are struggling to save due to spending.

Once viewed from this perspective, Statman finds that many of our current solutions become more clearly ineffective – for instance, annuities don’t help the wealthy and upper-middle who don’t need them, and don’t help the poor and much of the lower-middle who can’t afford them. In turn, Statman suggests that perhaps a better solution is to actually implement a form of mandatory retirement savings – already implemented or being rolled out in many countries around the world – as those who are having trouble making the choice to save may find it “easier” when it is no longer a choice at all, while the wealthy and steady-middle that financial planners already save may be little impacted as they were already likely to save already!

Read More...

Helping clients stay the course in the midst of market volatility is a challenge for any advisor, and one that is only exacerbated when those clients are taking retirement cash flow distributions. As the retirement research has shown, when market volatility occurs in the midst of ongoing withdrawals, there is a "sequence risk" that too many bad returns in a row can deplete the portfolio before the good returns finally show up.

While planners do their best to help clients stay invested, retirement researcher and financial planning practitioner Jon Guyton suggests that the best approach may be to craft a "Withdrawal Policy Statement" (WPS) for clients. Similar to an Investment Policy Statement (IPS), the goal is to articulate a series of parameters and guidelines about how retirement withdrawals will be funded from the portfolio, to clarify how to respond when a market calamity strikes and determine, in advance, what steps will be taken to keep the plan on track.

Of course, the reality is that any such changes that are planned in advance could simply be decided in the moment as well. Yet given how emotional a scary market environment can be, Guyton makes a compelling case that having a WPS in place may help to ensure that clients don't do anything rash. After all, we might all say we have a plan to deal with a market decline, but is it really a plan if the guidance about how to fund withdrawals in the midst of market volatility hasn't been written out in advance?

Read More...