Are We Worrying About the ‘Right’ Retirement Risks?

As if there wasn’t enough to worry about regarding retirement—a new research paper suggests we’re not worrying about the “right” things.

More precisely, that paper, published by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, was titled, “How Well Do Retirees Assess the Risks They Face in Retirement?” And, as you might suppose, the answer provided at the conclusion of the paper is—“not very well.” 

The premise of the paper relies on the author’s identification of five major risks in retirement, which turn out to be:

  • Longevity risk (the risk of outliving one’s resources)
  • Market risk (the financial risk not only from the markets, but from things like the housing market)
  • Health risk (the risk of unexpected medical and long-term care expenses)
  • Family risk (the risks arising from divorce, death, or the unexpected illness of an adult child)
  • Policy risk (notably the sustainability at current benefit levels of Social Security)

Arguably, all of these are legitimate risks that need to be considered and dealt with as part of any reasonable retirement plan, though one might argue that even these aren’t exhaustive (consider, for example, inflation—but more on that in a moment).

The paper’s author performs some statistical alchemy and then determines that the three top risks retirees should be worrying about are:

(1) longevity; (2) health; and (3) market.

But, according to the author’s analysis retirees are most worried about are:

(1) market; (2) longevity; and (3) health.

Now, despite the headlines[i] that followed the publication—and aside from the specific ordering—those actually seem to match up pretty well to me. However, the “point” seems to be that retirees are more worried about the market than they “should” be, that the bigger risks to their retirement are that they might outlive their savings—and/or that their bad health might drain them faster than expected—but they’re focused on the market impact on savings. Bottom line: retirees are worried about the “wrong” things.

At this point, a couple of points should be made. First, the assessment of what these retirees are worried about was drawn from 2016 data. And secondly, the conclusions about what retirees are concerned about are gleaned from a series of questions in that databank[ii]—which, with the “help” of the author’s calculations, are turned into those weighted sentiments of concern. And then, having crafted some subjective sense of the relative concerns of those elements, the author purports to establish the “objective” benchmark against which they are to be judged. 

Market risk falls relatively low on this scale because of his assumed 20-year investment horizon in retirement, though retirees may lack that confidence, particularly these days.

The paper’s author concludes by highlighting the need to educate the public on these various retirement risks (and presumably their relative importance, based on their likely impact), most specifically the need for lifetime income products (to shield against the longevity risk) and long-term care support (to buffer against the health care concerns).

Now, I’d argue that a judgment based on subjective 2016 data doesn’t tell us much about what retirees (particularly these days) are actually concerned about—and even if it did, it doesn’t seem to me that there’s enough difference in priorities to matter. 

To me, it’s not so much which risks retirees are concerned about, much less their ordering—but that they are aware of the potential risks and seeking help on how best to mitigate them. But what I do think is important—and here I agree with the study’s author—is (more) education about the multiple potential risks to retirement security—and not just for those already in retirement, but for those of us still trying to make preparations against those risks. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD

[ii] The source data—the Health and Retirement Study (HRS)—asks respondents to assess the probability of various outcomes. The respondents give a number from 0 to 100, where 0 means absolutely no chance and 100 means absolutely sure to happen. And for these purposes, the questions ranged from “the probability that stocks will be worth more next year than they are today,” to the chance of gaining 20% or more over the next year and the chance of losing 20% or more, to the probability of the probability of spending $1,500 or more in the coming year on health care.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Do Roth and 401(k) Pre-Tax Holders Really Spend Differently?

Image
An interesting—and somewhat counterintuitive—report came out last week, one that cast doubt on the “common wisdom” regarding Roth versus traditional pre-tax savings. The assumption underlying the research [i] was that those who had not yet paid taxes on their savings (the traditional pre-tax savings) would be hesitant to tap into those savings and trigger taxes, certainly more so that individuals that had already paid those taxes. Instead, the research suggested that the opposite occurred; that individuals who had saved on a pre-tax basis actually withdrew more/sooner—but with a twist.  This they hailed as good news. They noted that the research suggests investing in a CT (current-taxed, or Roth) plan could help ease concerns about outliving funds—because they spend at a lower rate (though they saw this as a negative for those who saved on a deferred tax (DT) basis).  They even managed to find a silver lining in the “cloud” of faster spending by the pre-tax crowd beca
Read more

Is the 401(k) Really a ‘Horrible’ Retirement Plan?

Image
  A recent “news” post about a blog post finds some curious “faults” with the 401(k). The news item carried the provocative title “ ‘Rich Dad’ Robert Kiyosaki Reveals Why the 401(k) Is a ‘Horrible’ Retirement Plan .” It originally ran on GoBankingRates.com, but was subsequently picked up in syndication on Yahoo Finance (at least). For the uninitiated, Robert Kiyosaki is one of those “I’ll help you get rich the way I did” types, providing that road map via books (notably “Rich Dad, Poor Dad”) and seminars. He offers comparisons to decisions made by his dad (poor dad) in contrast to those of the father of his best friend (rich dad).  Suffice it to say that his dad worked hard and saved the old-fashioned way—which is NOT his advice to you. That’s included previous pearls of wisdom like “ Why Saving Money is the Wrong Way to Prepare for Retirement .” Apparently rather than saving for retirement, we’re supposed to “look for an investment that will pay for your desired standard of living. Ma
Read more

Shifting the 401(k) ‘Balance’?

Image
A week or so ago, I came across an announcement that IBM was making changes to its 401(k). More specifically that, effective next year they were going to replace their matching contribution in their 401(k) with an employer contribution to a cash balance plan. [i] In the days that followed, the news was picked up in a couple of different trade publications—the implication being that this might be signs of a new shift in plan design. Heck, even Teresa Ghilarducci weighed in , championing the “evolution” to a defined benefit structure from the “flawed” 401(k). She never misses an “opportunity.” Readers here are likely familiar with the basic concepts of a cash balance design. Technically a defined benefit plan, it’s generally referred to as a “hybrid” because it also has a number of participant-friendly aspects that it shares with a defined contribution plan, notably an account balance (though it’s a “notional” one) that is shared with participants. The benefits accumulate
Read more