The biggest investing failing is not saving any money – so failing to invest. But once people actually save the next biggest issue I see is people confusing the investment risk of one investment in isolation from the investment risk of that investment within their portfolio.
It is not less risky to have your entire retirement in treasury bills than to have a portfolio of stocks, bonds, international stocks, treasury bills, REITs… This is because their are not just risk of an investment declining in value. There are inflation risks, taxation risks… In addition, right now markets are extremely distorted due to the years of bailouts to large banks by the central banks (where they are artificially keeping short term rates extremely low passing benefits to investment bankers and penalizing individual investors in treasury bills and other short term debt instruments). There is also safety (for long term investments – 10, 20, 30… years) in achieving higher returns to gain additional assets – increased savings provide additional safety.
Yes, developing markets are volatile and will go up and down a lot. No, it is not risky to put 5% of your retirement account in such investments if you have 0% now. I think it is much riskier to not have any real developing market exposure (granted even just having an S&P 500 index fund you have some – because lots of those companies are going to make a great deal in developing markets over the next 20 years).
I believe treating very long term investments (20, 30, 40… years) as though the month to month or even year to year volatility were of much interest leads people to invest far too conservatively and exacerbates the problem of not saving enough.
Now as the investment horizon shrinks it is increasing import to look at moving some of the portfolio into assets that are very stable (treasury bills, bank savings account…). Having 5 years of spending in such assets makes great sense to me. And the whole portfolio should be shifted to have a higher emphasis on preservation of capital and income (I like dividends stocks that have historically increased dividends yearly and are likely to continue). And the same time, even when you are retired, if you saved properly, a big part of your portfolio should still include assets that will be volatile and have good prospects for long term appreciation.
Related: books on investing – Where to Invest for Yield Today – Lazy Portfolios Seven-year Winning Streak (2009) – Fed Continues Wall Street Welfare (2008), now bankers pay themselves huge bonuses because the Fed transferred investment returns to too-big-to-fail-banks from retirees, and others, investing in t-bills.
I have posted about the need to save money while you are working numerous times. Here is a good article looking at the large number of people that have failed to do so and are now retiring.
Retiring Boomers Find 401(k) Plans Fall Short
…
Vanguard long advised people to put 9% to 12% of their salaries—including the employer contribution—in their 401(k) plans. The current median amount that people contribute is 9%, counting the employer contribution, Vanguard says.
Recently, Vanguard has begun urging people to contribute 12% to 15%, including the employer contribution, because of the stock market’s weak returns and uncertainty about the future of Social Security and Medicare.
…
Experts estimate Social Security will provide as much as 40% of pre-retirement income, or $35,080 a year for that median family. That leaves $39,465 needed from other sources. Most 401(k) accounts don’t come close to making up that gap.
The median 401(k) plan held $149,400, including plans from previous jobs, according to the Center for Retirement Research. To figure the annual income from that, analysts typically look at what the family would get from a fixed annuity. That $149,400 would generate just $9,073 a year for a couple, according to New York Life Insurance Co., the leading provider of such annuities— less than one-quarter of the $39,465 needed.
Just 8% of households approaching retirement have the $636,673 or more in their 401(k)s that would be needed to generate $39,465 a year.
Knowing exactly what is needed for retirement is difficult. But knowing what is a responsible amount is not. It is certainly no less than 8%, and is likely the 12-15% figure Vanguard recommends. If you start at 10% from the time you join the full time workforce (in your 20’s) then you have some flexibility you can see how thing look when you are 30, maybe 12% is sensible, maybe 15%, maybe 10%. If you fail to save for a decade however, you are likely to need to be at 15%, or higher.
Read more
In the USA we fail to save nearly enough for retirement by and large. And fail to save emergency funds or prepare for economically difficult times. We by and large chose to spend today and hope tomorrow will be good rather than first establishing a good financial safety net before expanding spending.
When people are debating withdrawing from their retirement account it is actually not the important decision it seems to be (normally). Normally the important decision was years before when they chose to take on consumer debt and not to build up an emergency fund. And when they failed to just build up saving beyond that which could be used for nice vacations, a new car, or to live on in economically challenging times.
If someone had been saving 15% of their salary in retirement since they started working if they took an amount that left them at 10% that is hardly a horrible result. While someone that was already behind by say adding just 3% to retirement savings and they took out all of it that would be much worse.
And we should remember even having a retirement account to withdraw from might put you ahead of nearly 50% of the population (and our state and federal governments, by the way). If you have to resort to withdrawing from your retirement account don’t think of that as the failure. The failure was most likely the lack of savings for years prior to that. And as soon as possible, re-fund your retirement account and build up a strong emergency fund, even if that means passing spending on things you want.
Related: Retirement Savings Allocation for 2010 – 401(k)s are a Great Way to Save for Retirement – Save Some of Each Raise
401(k), IRAs and 403(b) retirement accounts are a very smart way to invest in your future. The tax deferral is a huge benefit. And with Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s you can even get tax exempt distributions when you retire – which is a huge benefit. Especially if you don’t retire before the bill for all the delayed taxes of the last 20 years starts to be paid. The supposed “tax cuts” that merely shifted taxes from those spending money the last 10 years to those that have to pay for all the stuff the government spent on them has to be paid for. And that will likely happen with higher tax rates courtesy of the last 10 years of not paying the taxes to pay for what the government was spending.
When looking at your 401(k) and 403(b) investment options be sure to pay close attention to expenses for the funds. Some fund families try to get people to investing in high expense funds, that are nearly identical to low expense funds. The investor losses big and the fund companies take big profits. Those people serving on the boards of those funds should be fired. They obviously are not managing with the investors interests at heart (as they are obligated to do – they are suppose to represent the investors in the funds not the friends they have making money off the investors).
Here is an example (that I ran across last week) expense differences for funds that have essentially identical investment objectives and plans in the same retirement plan options: .39% (a respectable rate, though more than it really should be) for [seeks a favorable long-term rate of return from a diversified portfolio selected to track the overall market for common stocks publicly traded in the U.S., as represented by a broad stock market index.], .86% [for “The account seeks a favorable long-term total return, mainly from capital appreciation, by investing primarily in a portfolio of equity securities selected to track the overall U.S. equity markets based on a market index.”]. Do not rely on your fund provider to have your interests at heart (and unfortunately many companies don’t seek the best investment options for their employees either).
The .47% added expense isn’t much to miss for 1 year. However, over the life of your retirement account, this is tens of thousands of dollars you will lose just with this one mistake. Personal financial literacy is an easy way to make yourself large amounts of money over the long term. It isn’t very sexy to get .47% extra every year but it is extremely rewarding.
$200,000 at 6% for 25 years grows to $858,000
$200,000 at 6.47% for 25 years grows to $958,000
So in this case, $100,000 for you, instead of just paying the fund company a bit extra every year to let them add to their McMansions. In reality it will be much more than a $100,000 mistake for you if you save enough for retirement. But if you save far too little (as most people do) one advantage is the mistake will be less costly because your low retirement account value reduces the loss you will take.
Related: 401(k)s are a Great Way to Save for Retirement – Retirement Savings Allocation for 2010 – Many Retirees Face Prospect of Outliving Savings
Read more
When It Comes To Retirement, 67 Is The New 55
These moves follow several recent age increases across Europe and among U.S. states. Faced with one of the worst pension shortfalls in the country, Illinois in March lifted the retirement age for new state workers from as low as 55 all the way to 67.
…
“If their parents are going to retire at 65 after working 40 years, they need to plan for about a 20-year investment horizon,” he says. “For my students’ generation, with life expectancy going up about a month a year, in their cases they have maybe 25 years in retirement they have to plan for.”
…
Greece, until recently, allowed workers in more than 580 job categories considered hazardous to retire with full pensions as early as age 50 for women or 55 for men. In response to its fiscal crisis, that country has raised the retirement age to 65 for most workers.
In Ireland, the government has proposed gradually raising the retirement age from 65 to 68. Hungary raised its retirement age in 2008 from 62 to 65 — one big reason why the ruling Socialists got trounced in parliamentary elections in April.
We have not raised retirement age along with our increasing longevity. That is workable, if you save enough extra during your work life to enjoy a longer retirement. However, we are not saving even enough to retirement properly even if the life expectancy had not increased over the last 50 years.
Governments have failed to take a sensible retirement strategy for dealing with longer life expectancies. They can lower benefits, move back the retirement age or increase the amount they put aside to pay benefits. Most likely it takes a combination of all 3, or at least 2 of the options. As I have said for a long time one smart move governments should make is to make it easier to ease into retirement by going part time. This is good for the economy and good for people and helps deal with the problem of extending the retirement age too far (where many that age have trouble working full time).
Related: USA State Governments Have $1,000,000,000,000 in Unfunded Retirement Obligations – How Much Will I Need to Save for Retirement? – Add to Your 401(k) and IRA
Retiring overseas has been growing in popularity over the recent decades. A lower cost of living and health care systems that work are two of the big draws. Americans Who Seek Out Retirement Homes Overseas
…
She said a minimum amount for a comfortable retirement in a number of appealing places — Cuenca, Ecuador, and La Barra, Uruguay, being two examples — would be about $1,200 a month.
Mr. Holman said that if you purchased a home in Medellin, you could live quite comfortably on less than $2,000 a month. As time goes on, retirement hot spots change along with countries’ economic and political situations.
Ms. Peddicord said she used to recommend Ireland, Thailand and Costa Rica, but no longer does. She cited the high cost of living in Ireland, the anti-foreign sentiments in Thailand, and the growing crime rates both within and outside of San Jose, the Costa Rican capital.
…
“In Panama, for example, your rent could be $1,500 a month for a two-bedroom apartment in a nice building in Panama City with a doorman and a pool,” Ms. Peddicord said, “or it could be $200 a month if you choose instead to settle in a little house near the beach in Las Tablas, a beautiful, welcoming region.”
Lee Harrison, an American who retired to Ecuador several years ago and then moved in 2006 to Uruguay, said there were a wide range of financial issues to consider before making the leap to retire abroad.
For example, he recommends that retirees maintain a bank account and credit cards in their country of origin as well as in their new country, to facilitate money transfer. He also said that retirees should investigate their home country’s system of sending pension money to retirees abroad, as well as their new destination’s ability to accept electronic bank transfers.
Retirees also should request help from a tax adviser and make certain their move doesn’t trigger the need for a new will.
…
Financial considerations aside, advisers say that when making the decision to retire abroad, most retirees find that the journey itself is the reward.
“I know lots of people who retired to one country and then decided to move again somewhere else but never back” to their home, Ms. Peddicord said. “I don’t know of anyone who has decided to move back full-time after having had a taste of living abroad.”
Living overseas is something a significant portion of people in the USA have no interest in at all. But for those that like the idea there are appealing options with some strong benefits. At the same time you need to understand the significant change this bring to your life and plan for it I suggest visiting the location several times over the years – before you retire.
Related: In the USA 43% Have Less Than $10,000 in Retirement Savings – Many Retirees Face Prospect of Outliving Savings – Saving for Retirement
Failing to pay for the deferred costs of current expenditures gets all those practicing credit card budget thinking in trouble. That includes lots of individuals. But it also includes many governments. They pay huge rewards to special interests and act like they think the cost doesn’t exist. Only an extremely financially illiterate society could elect so many of these people. We have not learned that in the modern financial economies financial illiteracy is a huge societal problem (along with scientific illiteracy).
Padded Pensions Add to New York Fiscal Woes
Such poor financial management by public sector organization (California is horrible also) are causing huge damage to those living in such poorly managed states.
The use of public money for outsize retirement pay really stings when budgets don’t balance, teachers are being laid off, furloughs are being planned
…
Roughly one of every 250 retired public workers in New York is collecting a six-figure pension, and that group is expected to grow rapidly in coming years, based on the number of highly paid people in the pipeline.
…
Thirteen New York City police officers recently retired at age 40 with pensions above $100,000 a year; nine did so in their 30s.
…
Before Yonkers adopted a richer pension formula for police in 2000, for instance, it was told the maximum cost would be $1.3 million a year. But instead, the yearly cost is now $3.75 million and rising. David Simpson, a spokesman for the mayor of Yonkers, said pension cost projections were “often lowballs,” so the city could get stuck. “Once you give something, you can’t take it away,” he said.
It isn’t complicated. So long as you elect people that are financial illiterate and only care about granting favors to special interests, not the consequences of doing so, you are setting yourself up for a great deal of pain once your credit card bill comes due.
Related: NY State Raises Pension Age to Save $48 Billion – Charge It to My Kids – Bogle on the Retirement Crisis – Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children
…
According to Sharpe, who is also the founder of Financial Engines, the typical 4% rule recommends that a retiree annually spend a fixed, real amount equal to 4% of his initial wealth, and rebalance the remainder of his money in a 60%-40% mix of stocks and bonds throughout a 30-year retirement period.
What’s more, he shows the price paid for funding what he calls “unspent surpluses and the overpayments made to purchase its spending policy.” According to Sharpe, a typical rule allocates 10%-20% of a retiree’s initial wealth to surpluses and an additional 2%-4% to overpayments.
…
The only problem with what academia knows to be right and what’s practical in the field — even by Sharpe’s own admission — is this: “Many practical issues remain to be addressed before advisers can hope to create individualized retirement financial plans that maximize expected utility for investors with diverse circumstances, other sources of income, and preferences,” Sharpe wrote in his paper.
…
Meanwhile, Stephen P. Utkus, a principal with the Vanguard Center for Retirement Research, agrees that the 4% rule is flawed. But he also notes, as did Sharpe, that there’s no practical mechanism to replace it with and that further research is required.
I think this is exactly right. The proper personal financial actions in this case are not easy. The 4% rule is far from perfect but it does give a general idea that is a decent quick snapshot. But you can’t rely on such a quick, overly simplified method. At the same time there are simple ideas that do work, such as saving money for retirement is necessary. The majority of people continue to fail to take the most basis steps to save money each year for retirement.
Related: Spending Guidelines in Retirement – How Much Will I Need to Save for Retirement? – Bogle on the Retirement Crisis
There are several personal finance basics that everyone must account for. Retirement requires the most planning and accumulating the largest amount of money. Luckily if you plan ahead you have a long time for compounding to work in your favor. Unfortunately most people continue to fail to make even the most minimal efforts to save for retirement: 43% have less than $10k for retirement
The percentage of workers who said they have less than $10,000 in savings grew to 43% in 2010, from 39% in 2009, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s annual Retirement Confidence Survey. That excludes the value of primary homes and defined-benefit pension plans.
Fewer workers report that they and/or their spouse have saved for retirement (69%, down from 75% in 2009 and 72% in 2008. Moreover, fewer workers say that they and/or their spouse are currently saving for retirement (60%, down from 65 percent in 2009).
27% say they have less than $1,000 in savings (up from 20% in 2009).
46% report they and/or their spouse have tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved for a comfortable retirement by the time they retire.
What is a very rough estimate of what you need? Well obviously factors like a pension, social security payments, age at retirement, home ownership, health insurance, marital status… make a huge difference in the total amount needed. But something in the neighborhood of 15-25 times your desired retirement income is in the ballpark of what most experts recommend. So if you want $50,000 in income you need $750,000 – $1,250,000. Obviously that is difficult to save over a short period of time. The key to saving for retirement is a consistent, long term saving program.
Related: Retirement Savings Survey Results (2007) – How Much Will I Need to Save for Retirement? – Personal Finance Basics: Long-term Care Insurance
There was a $1 trillion gap at the end of fiscal year 2008 between the $2.35 trillion states had set aside to pay for employees’ retirement benefits and the $3.35 trillion price tag of those promises, according to a new report released by the Pew Center on the States. The shortfall, which will have to be paid over the next 30 years by state and local governments, amounts to more than $8,800 for every household in the United States.
The figures detailed in Pew’s report, The Trillion Dollar Gap, include pension, health care and other non-pension benefits promised to both current and future retirees in states’ and participating localities’ public sector retirement systems.
Pew’s numbers likely underestimate the bill coming due because the most recent available data do not account for the second half of 2008, when states’ pension fund investments were particularly affected by the financial crisis. Additionally, most states’ accounting methods spread the investment declines over a period of time–meaning states will be dealing with their losses for several years.
“While the economic crisis and drop in investments helped create it, the trillion dollar gap is primarily the result of states’ inability to save for the future and manage the costs of their public sector retirement benefits,” said Susan Urahn, managing director, Pew Center on the States. “The growing bill coming due to states could have significant consequences for taxpayers—higher taxes, less money for public services and lower state bond ratings. States need to start exploring reforms.”
In fiscal year 2008, states’ pension plans had $2.8 trillion in long-term liabilities, with more than $2.3 trillion reserved to cover those costs. Overall, states’ pension systems were 84 percent funded—above the 80 percent funding level recommended by experts. Still, the unfunded portion–$452 billion–is substantial, and states’ performance is down slightly from an 85 percent combined funding level in fiscal year 2006. Pension liabilities have grown by $323 billion since 2006, outpacing asset growth by almost $87 billion.
Retiree health care and other non-pension benefits, such as life insurance, create another huge bill coming due: a $587 billion total liability to pay for current and future benefits, with only $32 billion–or just over 5 percent of the cost–funded as of fiscal year 2008. Half of the states account for 95 percent of the liability. Because of a 2004 Governmental Accounting Standards Board rule, the full range of non-pension liabilities was officially reported in fiscal year 2008 for the first time across all 50 states.
Many state and local governments continue to provide very large pay to state and local government employees and often use very generous retirement packages as a way of disguising the true cost of the pay packages they provide.
Related: NY State Raises Pension Age to Save $48 Billion – True Level of USA Federal Deficit – Charge It to My Kids – USA Federal Debt Now $516,348 Per Household – Politicians Again Raising Taxes On Your Children – Consumer Debt Reduced below $2.5 Trillion
Read more