New York Life cuts initial deposit for annuity to attract youth – InvestmentNews

New York Life has lowered the initial deposit required to obtain a deferred-income annuity from $10,000 to $5,000 in hopes of attracting younger investors. The question is, should young investors care? I spoke with Darla Mercado, a reporter with InvestmentNews, about these recent changes.

Except in very rare cases, most young investors should avoid these products and instead focus on developing financial life skills:

Priorities are different for those in their 20s and 30s, noted Alan Moore, founder of Serenity Financial Consulting. “At that age it’s about savings habits, setting aside money for retirement and letting it work for you,” he said.

While it may make sense for clients who are close to retirement to think about tax-efficient withdrawal strategies and having money in accounts with different tax treatments, young clients can hold off on those tactics for a number of years.

I also believe that most young investors are looking to get out of debt. Very few are maxing out their 401(k)’s, IRA’s, are debt free, and still looking for tax deferred savings opportunities:

For younger people, “most aren’t looking for big tax-deferred savings; they want to pay down debt and student loans,” Mr. Moore added.

In short, these products rarely make sense for any client, especially investors in their 20’s and 30’s.

You can Click Here to read the article.

Alan Moore

 

Alan Moore is the founder of Serenity Financial Consulting. He is a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) and a Certified Retirement Counselor, author of the Serenity Financial Consulting Blog, and a featured contributor here on the California Institute of Finance

Singles swing into retirement with little savings

If you think it’s hard saving for retirement as a couple, trying doing it as a single. According to a study—described by one expert as the most intriguing of 2012—the amount of money singles in their late 60s have saved up for retirement is dramatically less than that of married-couple households.

In fact, the median married household had in 2008 nearly 10 times more saved up for retirement than the median single-person household, $111,600 vs. $12,500. (Savings, for the record, included 401(k)s and IRAs and all taxable savings and investment accounts, but it did not include Social Security, pensions, or housing wealth. And single, at least for the purpose of this research could mean divorced, widowed or unmarried for most/all of their life.)

The difference was also extreme at the extremes, according to a blog post by Steve Utkus, who oversees the Vanguard Center for Retirement Research.

In his review of the study, Utkus noted that the top 30% of married households had savings of $332,400 or more while the top 30% of single-person households had just $90,000 or more. The bottom 30% of married households, meanwhile, had less than $24,000 saved while the bottom 30% of single-person households had less than $800.

The paper, from the National Bureau of Economic Research, is titled “The composition and drawdown of wealth in retirement,” and is co-written by James Poterba, Steven Venti and David Wise. Read Utkus’ blog, Retirement: The married/single divide.

Financial savings of households with those ages 65-69 in 2008

Percentile 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Married $300 $6,000 $24,000 $55,000 $111,600 $190,000 $332,000 $518,000 $878,000
Single $0 $100 $800 $3,400 $12,500 $39,000 $90,000 $150,000 $380,000

Why the sharp divide?

So what’s going on? What explains this sharp divide?

According to Utkus, divorce is one reason why older single households have less money. When a couple separates, assets are divided, and savings can fall due to legal and other costs.

But divorce isn’t the main reason for singles having less money. If that were the case, Utkus wrote, he’d expect single-person figures to be just under half of those for married couples. But the gap is much wider than that. To be fair, the study doesn’t reflect the value of housing wealth which often becomes part of a divorce settlement, so it’s possible that the gap is not as wide.

The early death of a spouse is another reason why single households have less money than married households, according to Utkus. The all-too-familiar situation goes something like this: “One spouse, often the working male, becomes sick in his 50s or early 60s, loses work, and then dies prematurely,” he wrote. “The healthier spouse, often the female, may have a lower income or may not be working. She spends savings on living expenses and her husband’s medical costs. The loss of savings accelerates if they lose health insurance. Long-term care such as a nursing home can also accelerate the loss of assets. Medicaid, which can be used to pay for nursing care, doesn’t kick in until the household depletes most of its savings.”

And being single for most if not all of one’s life is yet another reason why single households have less money than married households. “When you live alone, you don’t benefit from the economies of scale of sharing costs with another person in the household, and so you may save less over your lifetime for a given level of income,” Utkus wrote. “If you lose your job, you don’t have the self-insurance that comes from having another household member with income and health benefits.”

So what lessons can be drawn from the findings? In general, if you’re single you’ll need to accumulate much more in your nest egg than your married counterparts, according to Utkus.

Plus, you need to make sure you have the right kinds of insurance in place. “You need also to protect against large, unexpected claims,” he wrote. And that means, having disability, life, and health insurance. “The new health care act may help when you lose workplace coverage—but of course you’ll still need to buy a policy,” he wrote.

But what one does to counteract the risks of being single depends also on the nature of the household.

Single for life

For instance, Utkus said, those who are single/unmarried for life tend to underestimate the amount of savings they need while those who are married/partnered tend to save more because they are saving for two rather than one.

“This, I believe, is still conjecture, but if it is true, it suggests that those not married need to make a special effort to save more than they might otherwise believe,” Utkus said. “Singles need to be aware that they are in a riskier position. There’s not second-income potential in the household, no sharing of living expenses. So they should be aggressive savers.”

Changes in marital status: divorce

As for those who are either divorced or want to protect against the risks associated with being divorced, Utkus had this advice: “Divorce can set back a retirement plan,” he said.

It raises cost of living (two live more cheaply together than on their own), and it reduces savings because of fees, such as lawyer expenses).

“Those getting divorced, particularly later in life, should do so with their eyes wide open,” he said. It’s best, he said, not just to consult a lawyer but also talk with a financial planner about the post-divorce financial situation. Among the things to address is whether and how to divide assets.

For the record, the Society of Actuaries (SOA) has published a guide to help you address some of the risks in retirement, including changes in marital status and becoming a widow or widower.

According to the SOA, divorce is a personal issue and there are no formal risk-management programs. But there are some things to consider. “At divorce, the law allows for split of private pension plan benefits covered by ERISA,” the SOA writes in its guide. “For this purpose, divorcing spouses need a properly drafted qualified domestic relations order (QDRO).”

And older couples who marry, especially those with children, may want a prenuptial agreement that defines each party’s rights to distribute or dispose of property as they wish, not as a court would decree, the SOA wrote.

The death of a spouse

Coming up with ways to protect against the risk of becoming a widow or widower requires more research, according to Utkus. “One of the unanswered questions in this area is the number of single-person households which arise due to death of a spouse and depletion of assets—either on health costs that are uninsured or on long-term care costs, such as nursing care or nursing-home care not covered by personal savings,” he said. “I think we need to know more about this area is clear. But if it is long-term care, it’s a complex issue.”

Study: Couples are more successful in saving

According to the SOA guide, it’s very difficult to predict which spouse will live longer in individual cases. But on average, women are widowed more often than men. And when that happens, there’s typically a decline in economic status. The SOA suggests that many financial vehicles can be used in combination to manage the death-of-spouse risk. Those include life insurance; survivor income in Social Security, pension plans and annuities, long-term care insurance, and savings. Wills and estate planning are important tools to provide for a surviving spouse. And a well-structured retirement-income plan can be an important source of stability for the surviving spouse. Read “Managing Post-Retirement Risks.”

Read related column, “True love means planning ahead.” That column detailed 10 ways husbands could help their wives survive widowhood.

Utkus said: “In many studies of retirement preparedness, getting divorced, becoming a widow or widower, or being single are risk factors associated with being financially unprepared for retirement. This important study (from Poterba, Venti, and Wise) reminds us why—and also suggests how, as individuals, we might counteract some of these risks.”

Retirement Expert: Robert Powell

 

Robert Powell is a featured writer on the MarketWatch Retirement blog, a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Finance, and  a Featured Contributor here on the CIF blog.

Why Your Retirement Number Doesn’t Matter

Yesterday we discussed how to calculate your personal net worth, what it means and how it relates to your retirement number. I also mentioned that when you calculate how much (or how little) income your net worth may generate, it could be depressing.

As I said, many people run the numbers only to learn that they need a net worth of $3, $4 or $5 million in order to retire. For most of these people, saving that much (even over 20 or 30) feels like a gargantuan task far beyond their abilities. If that describes you, don’t head down to the pharmacy to up your anti-depressant prescription. The reality is that your net worth isn’t all that important.

That’s right. Retirement is all about cash flow – not net worth. This point was brought home recently when I interviewed a woman with a net worth of over $6 million. You might think that a person worth so much would have no financial problems what-so-ever. But she was really struggling. That’s because she wasn’t earning anything on her investments. Instead, she was spending her assets down. As a result, she was scared.

How could she be earning so little? Easy. A big chunk of her net worth was in real estate that wasn’t earning any income. That’s because she operated her money-losing business in that property. And because she was losing money in her small business, she had to use the remainder of her assets to live on.

If you want to grow your nest egg it’s important to squeeze every bit of interest you can out of the banks.  EverBank is one company I think you should consider.  They pay more interest (even on checking accounts) than just about anybody else.

You might not share this woman’s problem, but I hope her situation illustrates the fallacy of focusing on net worth. Instead, you should keep your eyes on the prize – which is cash flow. So how do you maximize your retirement cash flow and make net worth a non-issue?

1. Social Security

There are various strategies you can use to squeeze more out of Social Security for you and your spouse. This is very situation-specific of course. Take some time to map out a Social Security benefit plan. You might really cash in by suspending your benefits (depending on your specific situation). The point is you might be able to generate a heck of a lot more money out of Social Security than you think if you investigate and do the right planning.

2. Part Time Work/ Side Business

Just because you stop working full-time, it doesn’t mean you have to stay home and watch Oprah re-reruns. If you run a mini-plan and determine that you’re going to need to supplement your retirement income, why not consider getting a part-time job or starting a side business? There is nothing wrong with doing that. And think about it this way. If you earn $30,000 in side income, that’s like having an extra $1,000,000 in retirement savings. How do I derive that number? Well….if you could earn 3% on your money, you’d have to invest $1,000,000 in order to generate $30,000. This gives you a new appreciation for the value of a side job or business I hope.

If this idea resonates with you, why not start looking into this now before the ax falls?

3. Spending

Of all the elements that make up your financial story, you have most control over your spending. If you could trim $600 a month, that’s $7,200 a year. Do you know how much you’d have to invest at 3% in order to generate $7200? Try $240,000.

What I’m saying is that if you can shave $600 a month from your spending – $20 a day – it’s like saving an additional $240,000 for your retirement. Makes you re-think that latte…..don’t it?

Start tracking your spending now in order to get in front of this issue. If you do so it will be easier for you to make the right decisions and put your spending on a diet now while it’s easier to do.

4. Investments

You may not need to do any of the above if your investment portfolio is large enough – and you invest it appropriately for retirement. The woman referenced above had plenty of money. She only needed to re position her assets in order to make sure they generate the income she needs.

If you are intimidated by a huge “magic number” for retirement, reconsider. You may not need to worry. Think about (and plan) your retirement cash flow. You may find that you are much closer to achieving your goals than you think.

What is your “retirement number”?  Does it matter to you?  Why or why not?

Neal Frankle

 

Neal Frankle is a Certified Financial Planner with more than 25 years of experience, author of the Wealth Pilgrim blog, and a featured contributor here on the “CIF Blog”!

Pension buyouts: Who wins and who loses?

Why are employers offering pension buyouts to former employees who have a vested right to a future pension? This is something many readers are asking about the buyout offers they’ve been receiving lately.

This post follows up my previous two posts that showed a pension buyout is unlikely to produce a higher retirement income, compared to simply waiting and receiving a monthly check from your pension plan. While the amount of retirement income is certainly a critical consideration when you’re deciding whether to accept a lump-sum buyout, there are other important considerations as well. This post addresses these issues and wraps up my series of posts on pension buyouts.

Employers are offering pension buyouts as part of a “pension de-risking” strategy. This means that they’re concerned about continued exposure to stock market volatility, and they’d also like to reduce their ongoing plan administration costs.

If your employer offers you a lump-sum cash-out, it’s really placing two bets:

    • That the assets in the pension trust will perform worse than the assumptions the IRS allows your employer to use when calculating lump-sum payments. Currently, the effective interest rates used for this purpose are around 4 percent to 5 percent per year. So employers are betting that their pension assets will consistently earn less than these percentages in future years.
  • That you and your co-workers will live longer as a group than the average life expectancy. Cashing you out now reduces their exposure should you live a long time. This is an important point — lump-sum cash-outs are based on average life expectancy.

If you accept your employer’s lump-sum offer, then you’re on the other side of these bets. In other words, you’re betting that you can invest the proceeds and consistently earn more than 4 or 5 percent per year. To achieve these results, you’ll need to take some risk in the stock market, since interest rates on bonds and CDs are currently below these levels. You’re also betting that you’ll die before your average life expectancy; for the general population, there’s about a 50-50 chance a person of that happening.

If you decline the lump-sum offer, then you’re betting that you won’t be able to invest the lump sum and consistently earn more than 4 or 5 percent per year, and that you’ll live beyond your average life expectancy.

Are there other considerations?

Yes. Some people would rather have access to their money immediately, and maximizing their retirement income isn’t a top priority. For these people, it might be more important for them to be able to leave their lump-sum payment as a legacy to their children or charities, an option that isn’t possible if they choose to receive a monthly income from the plan.

If I decline the offer, can my employer decide not to pay my monthly income?

Federal law requires that your former employer pay your monthly income according to the terms of the pension plan. It can’t change its mind and decide not to pay you. If another company acquires your former employer, the same rules apply.

What if I decline the buyout and my employer later goes bankrupt or is acquired?

Pension plan assets are held in a trust that is protected from creditors. Federal law requires that these assets be used to pay plan participants the pension that is owed them.

If your pension plan’s assets are insufficient to meet its obligations, then the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) will pay your benefit, subject to certain limits. The PBGC is a federal agency that guarantees private pensions. Corporate pension plan sponsors are required by federal law to participate in the PBGC’s pension insurance program.

In 2012, the maximum monthly pension payable at age 65 that the PBGC guarantees is $4,653 for a single life annuity and $4,188 for a 50-percent, joint-and-survivor annuity. Lower limits apply to pensions payable at earlier retirement ages. If your monthly pension is below these limits, then you don’t need to worry about the bankruptcy of your former employer.

Once again, if another company acquires your former employer, that company is required by federal law to adequately fund the pension plan of the company it purchased and participate in the PBGC program.

What happens if I decline the lump sum offer and die before my monthly income starts?

If you’re married when you die, then federal law requires that a monthly retirement income be paid to your surviving spouse when you would have been eligible to start payments. If you’re not married, then there’s no legal requirement for a death benefit, and any death benefit would depend on the specific terms of your pension plan.

If you’re single and are in poor health, this could be one reason to elect the pension buyout. But don’t let the lack of a death benefit influence you too much; if there’s a good chance you’ll survive until your retirement age, then the amount of monthly income could still be the deciding factor.

I’ve prepared a longer article on my website that goes into more details on the pros and cons of a lump-sum payment from a pension plan, including a checklist of reasons when it makes sense to elect a lump sum or the monthly income.

If you’re offered a lump-sum buyout, your election is one of the most important financial decisions you’ll ever make. It’s well worth your time and effort to learn as much as you can in order to make the best decision for your circumstances. Good luck!

Steve Vernon

 

Steve Vernon is a featured writer on the CBS MoneyWatch Retirement blog, a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Finance, and a Featured Contributor here on the CIF Blog

Should you accept a pension buyout?

Should you accept a lump sum cash-out of your pension from a former employer? A number of readers have received such an offer and have asked me whether this is a good idea. If you have a sizable pension, this is one of the most important financial decisions you’ll make, so it pays to carefully consider the pros and cons.

One of our readers sent me his cash-out election kit to analyze (To protect his privacy, I’ll call him “Jim” and refer to his former employer as XYZ Company.) Let’s take a detailed look at Jim’s offer. If you have a similar pension buyout offer, our considerations and conclusions for Jim will likely also apply to you.

Most Americans don’t have sufficient financial resources for a traditional retirement of “not working” starting in their mid-60s. As a result, they’ll need to squeeze the most reliable lifetime retirement income from their existing resources. So let’s take a look at Jim’s cash-out pension offer to see how he can maximize his retirement income.

Jim is 51 years old and is married to Jo, who’s 49. Jim worked for many years at XYZ Company, but he’s since terminated his employment with XYZ and now works for another company; in pension lingo, Jim is a “vested termination.” Most buyout offers made today are for former employees with a vested pension benefit who haven’t yet started their retirement income. These buyouts typically aren’t offered to retirees who’ve already started their pension, although Ford and GM made headlines earlier this year by offering buyouts to current retirees.

XYZ Company gave Jim a choice of one of the following options:

  • He can keep his lifetime monthly pension of $1,870 per month, starting at age 65
  • He can elect a lump sum of $126,000 that will be paid to him immediately
  • He can immediately start a lifetime monthly pension of $656 per month

If Jim elects the monthly pension, then he can also elect a joint-and-survivor annuity that would continue monthly income to his wife Jo after Jim passes away.

Because Jim is currently working, it makes no sense to start his pension immediately, so we’ll dismiss that option from the get-go.

So here’s the real question: If Jim takes the lump sum, can he generate a lifetime monthly income at age 65 that’s bigger than $1,870 per month? As it turns out, after working through the numbers, I determined that it will be hard for Jim to do this. I estimated Jim’s retirement income if he had elected the lump sum cash-out and used three different options to generate retirement income:

  • Option #1: Invest his lump sum now, and buy an immediate annuity at age 65
  • Option #2: Buy a deferred lifetime annuity from an insurance company that starts at age 65
  • Option #3: Invest his lump sum, and use systematic withdrawals at age 65 under the “4 percent rule”

The graph below compares the estimated retirement income under these three options to the retirement income he’ll get if he simply waits and takes the monthly retirement income from the XYZ Company Pension Plan.

The graph shows that it would be very unlikely for Jim to be able to generate a monthly income from his lump-sum payment that’s greater than simply taking the monthly retirement income from the XYZ Pension Plan.

Why does the XYZ Pension Plan generate more income than the three options? The answer depends on the specific option.

The first two options involve buying an annuity from a commercial insurance company. The IRS allows employer-sponsored pension plans to use actuarial assumptions for determining lump sum cash-outs that are more favorable than the assumptions that insurance companies use to price their annuities. In addition, insurance companies need to build in margins for profit and administrative expenses, while employers operate their pension plans on a nonprofit basis.

With the third option — systematic withdrawals — the so-called “safe” withdrawal rate is purposely set conservatively so the retirement savings can withstand “worst-case” scenarios (for example, the retiree living well beyond average life expectancies or experiencing poor investment returns).

Stay tuned for my next post on this topic, which explains my calculations in more detail. A third post will discuss considerations other than the amount of retirement income, and answers some questions that individuals commonly ask about these buyout offers.

Steve Vernon

 

Steve Vernon is a featured writer on the CBS MoneyWatch Retirement blog, a Research Fellow at the California Institute of Finance, and a Featured Contributor here on the CIF Blog