Life Insurers Profit as Retirees Fear Outliving Cash by Alexis Leondis
…
Payouts among insurers vary significantly, said Weatherford of NAVA. Monthly payments range from $629 to $745 for a $100,000 investment by a 65-year-old male, according to a survey of six issuers by Hueler Companies, a Minneapolis-based data research firm and provider of an independent annuity platform.
An annuity is a comforting in that you cannot outlive your annuity payment. However, there are drawbacks also. Having a portion of retirement financing based on annuity payments does help planning. Social security payments are effectively an annuity (that also increases each year, to counter inflation). While living off social security payments alone is not an enticing prospect, as a portion of a retirement plan those payments can be valuable. If you have a pension that can also serve as an annuity.
It can make sense to put a portion of retirement assets into an annuity however I would limit the amount, myself. And the annuity payout is partially determined by current interest rates, which are very low, and those now the payout rates are low. If interest rates stay low, then you lose nothing but if interest rates increase substantially in the next several year (which is certainly possible) the payout for annuities would likely increase.
Choosing to purchase an annuity is something that should be done after careful study and only once you understand the investment options available to you. Also you need to have saved up substantial retirement saving to take advantage of the option to buy enough monthly income to contribute substantially to your retirement (so don’t forget to do that while you are working).
Related: Many Retirees Face Prospect of Outliving Savings – Spending Guidelines in Retirement – Retirement Tips from TIAA CREF – Social Security Trust Fund
The recent performance of investments can be discouraging. However, the most damaging reaction to your financial future is to reduce your contributions to retirement savings. IRAs and 401(k)s are great ways to save for retirement. In fact the recent performance has convinced me to increase my contributions. This is for two reasons.
First, I had been somewhat optimistic in my guesses about investment returns. The current decline means that investments in the S&P 500 have returned about 0% over the last 10 years. That is a horrible performance and it will take many years to even bring that up to a bad performance. So if you reduce your long term investment performance expectations you need to add more while you are working (or reduce your retirement expectations – or work longer).
Second, I think now is a very good time (long term) to be investing. I think the declines in the markets (both the stock market and real estate market) now provide good investment opportunities. Of course I could be wrong but I am willing to make investments based on this believe. And I believe there are plenty of place real estate prices may still be too high, but I believe there are also good buys.
A third reason worth considering is the damage done to the economy over the last 10 years and the costs of dealing with that today. Those costs are going to have long term impacts. Likely the economy will be stressed paying for the over-indulgences of the past for quite a long time. That means the risks to those in that economy will increase. And therefore having larger reserves is a wise course of action to survive the rough times ahead. Those rough times include a substantial risk of inflation. Investing to protect against that risk is important.
I would recommend starting with at least a 200 basis point increase in retirement contributions. For example, if you were saving 10% for retirement, increase that to 12%. If you have not added to your IRA for 2008, do so now (you have until April 15th to do so). In fact, if you haven’t added to your IRA for 2009, do so now.
Related: How Much Will I Need to Save for Retirement? – Nearly half of all workers have less than $25,000 in retirement savings – Investing – What I am Doing Now
Retirement Myths and Realities provides some ideas from former Boeing President, Henry Hebeler:
…
My father used to tell me to save 10 percent of my wages all the time for retirement. And so I did. I never looked at any retirement plan; we didn’t have retirement planning tools in those days.
…
I think the number is closer to 15 (percent) to 20 percent — that’s from the time when you’re a relatively young person, say, 30 years old or something like that.
…
A retiree’s inflation rate is about 0.2 percent higher than the normal Consumer Price Index. When you retire, you have medical expenses that continually increase. You have more need for this service and the unit cost is increasing much faster than inflation.
…
Now, if you’re going to retire at 80 years old, you could actually have a bigger number than 4 percent. If you’re going to retire around 65 or so, 4 percent is not a bad number. Some people are now saying 3.5 percent instead of 4 percent. If you’re going to retire at 55, you’d better spend a lot less than 4 percent because you’ve got another 10 years of life that you’re going to have to support.
He makes some interesting points. I agree it is very important for people to become financially literate and take the time to understand their retirement plans. Just hoping it will work out or trusting that just doing what someone told you are very bad ideas. You need to educate yourself and learn about financing your retirement.
I am not really convinced by his idea that you need to start saving 15-20% for retirement at age 30. But that is a decision each person has to make for themselves. Of course there are many factors including how much risk you are willing to accept, when you plan on retiring, what standard of living you want in retirement…
Related: How Much Retirement Income? – posts on retirement – Saving for Retirement – Our Only Hope: Retiring Later
The economy (in the USA and worldwide) continues to struggle and the prospects for 2009 do not look good. My guess is that the economy in 2009 will be poor. If we are lucky, we will be improving in the fall of 2009, but that may not happen. But what does that mean for how to invest now?
I would guess that the stock market (in the USA) will be lower 12 months from now. But I am far from certain, of that guess. I have been buying some stocks over the last few months. I just increased my contributions to my 401(k) by about 50% (funded by a portion of my raise). I changed the distribution of my future contributions in my 401(k) (I left the existing investments as they were).
My contributions are now going to 100% stock investments (if I were close to retirement I would not do this). I had been investing 25% in real estate. I also moved into a bit more international stocks from just USA stocks. I would be perfectly fine continuing to the 25% in real estate, my reason for switching was more that I wanted to buy more stocks (not that I want to avoid the real estate). The real estate funds have declined less than 3% this year. I wouldn’t be surprised for it to fall more next year but my real reason for shifting contributions to stocks is I really like the long term prospects at the current level of the stock market (both globally and in the USA). The short term I am much less optimistic about – obviously.
I will also fully fund my Roth IRA for 2009, in January. I plan to buy a bit more Amazon (AMZN) and Templeton Emerging Market Fund (EMF). And will likely buy a bit of Danaher (DHR) or PetroChina (PTR) with the remaining cash.
Related: 401(k)s are a Great Way to Save for Retirement – Lazy Portfolio Results – Starting Retirement Account Allocations for Someone Under 40
Scott Adams does a great job with Dilbert and he presents a simple, sound financial strategy in Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, page 172, Everything you need to know about financial planning:
- Make a will.
- Pay off your credit cards.
- Get term life insurance if you have a family to support.
- Fund your 401(k) to the maximum.
- Fund your IRA to the maximum.
- Buy a house if you want to live in a house and you can afford it.
- Put six months’ expenses in a money market fund. [this was wise, given the currently very low money market rates I would use "high yield" bank savings account now, FDIC insured - John]
- Take whatever money is left over and invest 70% in a stock index fund and 30% in a bond fund through any discount broker, and never touch it until retirement.
- If any of this confuses you or you have something special going on (retirement, college planning, tax issues) hire a fee-based financial planner, not one who charges a percentage of your portfolio.
Pension Funds Beg Congress to Suspend Billions in Contributions
Instead of money, they want legislation to suspend a federal law that would make them pump billions of dollars into retirement plans to offset stock-market losses as many struggle to find enough cash just to stay in business.
So lets see, you minimally fund the pension plan for your workers and make optimistic projections about investing returns. The market goes down, and you are now so far underfunding your pension that the law requires you to add funds to the pension. Your solution, go cry to the politicians. How sad. If Pfizer or IBM are having cash flow problems that is amazing. They really should be able to manage their cash better than that. Their most recent quarterly reports do not indicate cash flow problems. Yes I understand we have a credit crisis so if GM were having problems I wouldn’t be surprised (but you know what – they aren’t, in this area).
…
GM was notably absent from the five-page list of companies and organizations asking Congress for relief from the asset thresholds. GM said its pension plans had a $1.8 billion deficit as of Oct. 31, down from a $20 billion surplus 10 months earlier. At that level, GM’s plans would top the pension law’s 2008 asset threshold.
I think companies need to meet their obligations. If they choose to minimally fund their pensions without understanding that financial market are volatile, then they will have to pay up as required by law. When times are good you see all these CEOs taking advantage of pension fund “excesses” to reward themselves. They need to learn that you don’t raid your pension funds (either by taking cash out or not funding current investments – because you claim the assets are already sufficient). Pension funds are long term investments and you cannot manage as though the target value is the minimum amount allowed by law (unless you are willing to pay up cash every time your investments don’t meet your predicted returns). This is very simple stuff.
Feds Rethink Rules on Retirement Savings
Among the possible changes: allowing taxpayers to delay taking required withdrawals from their individual retirement accounts, 401(k) plans and other similar accounts this year — or at least reducing the amount that must be withdrawn. Also under consideration are various ways to provide tax relief for people who already have made their required withdrawals for this year.
This is silly. Everyone in the situation of having to make a withdrawal has know about the requirement for years. My guess is this has been the law for over 20 years. Yes, the stock market is down. Yes, being forced to sell now would be bad. And how does providing “tax relief” to those who already made required withdrawals make any sense? Why not just have the treasury send checks to every American, who had a loss on an investment this year, equal to the amount of their loss? (By the way this is sarcasm – they should not really do that). These people have lost any sense of what investing, planning, responsibly… are.
First, knowing you have required withdrawals from your IRA, you should not hold those assets in stock (I suppose you could have significant cash assets outside your IRA and chose to just use the next option). Second, you can buy the stock outside your IRA at the same minute you sell them in the IRA. What is the big deal: the cost should be about $20 in stock commission for each stock – you save that much each time you fill up your gas tank lately (compared to prices this summer). All that not having to withdraw funds does is let those wealthy enough not to need a small amount of their IRA or 401(k) savings by the time they are 70 1/2 to keep deferring taxes on their investment gains.
Therein lies one of the major problems. This year’s distributions are based on Dec. 31, 2007, levels — a time when market prices generally were far above today’s deeply depressed values. As a result, “millions of Americans are forced to withdraw larger-than-anticipated amounts from already-depleted retirement funds,” says David Certner, legislative policy director at AARP, an advocacy group that represents nearly 40 million older Americans.
What kind of 1984 newspeak is this? I mean this is absolutely ridicules. You have to withdraw the exact amount you knew on January 1st 2008. Nothing about that has changed in almost a year. How can the Wall Street Journal report this without pointing out the completely false claim.
Read more
Long term care insurance is an important part of a personal financial portfolio. It provides insurance for for expenses beyond medical and nursing care for chronic illnesses (assisted living expenses). So while looking at your personal finance insurance needs (health insurance, disability insurance, automobile insurance, homeowners [or rental] insurance [with personal liability insurance - or separate personal liability insurance] and life insurance don’t forget to consider long term care insurance.
Can You Afford Long-Term-Care Insurance?
…
AARP estimates that a 65-year-old in good health can expect to pay between $2,000 and $3,000 a year for a policy that covers nursing-home and home care.
“About 70 percent of individuals over age 65 will require at least some type of long-term care services during their lifetime. Over 40 percent will need care in a nursing home for some period of time.” – National Clearinghouse for Long-Term Care Information
Advice on buying long term care insurance from AARP, the Department of Health and Human Services and Consumer Reports.
Read more
401(k)s are a great way to save. Yes, today those that have been saving money have the disappointment of bad recent results. But that is a minor factor compared to the major problem: Americans not saving what they need to for retirement in 401(k)s, IRAs, even just emergency funds… Do not use the scary financial market performance recently as an excuse to avoid retirement savings (if you have actually been doing well).
The importance of saving enough for retirement is actually increased by the recent results. You might have to re-evaluate your expectations and see whether you have been saving enough. I am actually considering increasing my contributions, mainly to take advantage of lower prices. But another benefit of doing so would be to add more to retirement savings, given me more safety in case long term results are not what I was hoping for.
Now there can be some 401(k) plans that are less ideal. Limited investing options can make them less valuable. Those limited options could include the lack of good diverse choices, index funds, international, money market, real estate, short term bond funds… My real estate fund is down about 2% in the last year (unlike what some might think based on the media coverage of declining housing prices). And poor investing options could include diverse but not good options (options with high expenses… [ the article, see blow, mentions some with a 2% expense rate - that is horrible]).
But those poor implementations of 401(K)s are not equivalent to making 401(k)s un-viable for saving. It might reduce the value of 401(k)s to some people (those will less good 401(k) plans). Or it might even make it so for people with bad 401(k) options that they should not save using it (or that they limit the amount in their 401k). I don’t know of such poor options, but it is theoretically possible.
The tax deferral is a huge benefit. That benefit will only increase as tax rates rise (given the huge debt we have built up it is logical to believe taxes will go up to pay off spending today with the tax increases passed to the future to pay for our current spending).
And if you get matching of 410(k) contributions that can often more than make up for other less than ideal aspects of a particular 401(k) option.
Also once you leave a job you can roll the 401(k) assets into an IRA and invest in a huge variety of assets. So even if the 401k options are not great, it is normally wise to add to them and then just roll them into an IRA when you leave. If the plan is bad, also you can use an IRA for your first $5,000 in annual retirement savings and then add additional amounts in the 401k (if they are matching funds normally adding enough to get the matching is best).
401(k)s, 403(b), IRAs… are still great tools for saving. The performance of financial markets recently have been poor. Accepting periods of poor performance is hard psychologically. But retirement accounts are still a excellent tool for saving for retirement. Using them correctly is important: allocating resources correctly, moving into safer asset allocations as one approaches and reaches retirement…
Read more
Americans working past retirement
…
Twenty-nine percent of people in their late 60s were working in 2006, up from 18 percent in 1985, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nearly 6 million workers last year were 65 or over. Over the next decade, the number of 55-and-up workers is expected to rise at more than five times the rate of the overall work force, the BLS reported.
…
Working another three years — from 62 to 65, for example — and continuing to save 15 percent of salary could raise annual income from investments by 22 percent. Make it five years and boost savings contributions still higher — even better.
Putting off retirement also may enable people to delay when they start taking Social Security benefits, which can significantly increase payments.
“The longer the delay, the better” financially, said Fahlund. “To me the ideal would be 70, because you get the biggest Social Security benefit possible and all those additional years of employment. And it keeps you going mentally and physically too.”
The economic reality is retiring at 62 is not realistic for most people today. Retirement age has barely budged at life expectancy has increased by 20 years. I have long felt the best practice for the economy is to provide part time work to transition into retirement. This allows people to slow down their work lives, but not completely leave it behind. And the financial benefits are very helpful to all those that did not save enough early in their lives.
Related: Retirement Delayed, Working Longer – Our Only Hope: Retiring Later – Many Retirees Face Prospect of Outliving Savings – Retirement Savings Survey Results – Saving for Retirement – Spending Guidelines in Retirement – Tips To Allow Retiring Sooner