(What Is) The Most Important Retirement Number

What’s the most important number when it comes to retirement?

Once upon a time it might have been considered to be “65”—that traditional age for retirement—but even though it’s the default in many retirement calculators, until recently it hadn’t even been the most common age for actual retirement. Heck, it’s not even “good enough” for full Social Security benefits these days.[i] 

Perhaps a more precise focus number in retirement planning is the one that purports to provide some level of financial security in retirement[ii]—indeed, some years back there was a commercial that prompted folks to determine their “number”—a reference to a financial result that was deemed necessary to “retire the way you want” (and perhaps when you want, though that wasn’t part of the “pitch”).

But while that was (and is) “A” number, in order to get to it, for it to have any semblance of actually fulfilling that promise (premise?), you had to first get to several other numbers; how long you expected to live in retirement is a big one—and one dependent on another number, the age at which you planned/hoped to retire—not to mention how much you expected to need in order to live in retirement.  And that, generally, if somewhat unartfully, is typically considered to be dependent on yet another number—a percentage of the amount you lived on PRE-retirement—all of which might well turn out to be dependent on yet another number—the financial resources available to you. And that likely turns out to be a product of several other numbers—personal savings, pensions, Social Security—and yes, that’s even more math, as those often depend on other…numbers, as they are impacted by markets, taxes, drawdown rates, etc... 

Little wonder that surveys show that so many haven’t made even a single attempt to make that retirement readiness assessment—and that includes “guessing” at it.

Well, for my money (literally) there may not be one single most important number about retirement, but if you’re ever going to have decent shot at achieving a modicum of the peace of mind that long-term financial security provides, you need to have at least a sense of things, a reality “check” if you will. To that end, the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s annual 401(k) Day[iii] education campaign is a great place to start in terms of pulling together the numbers that will both tell you how much you need—as well as the all-important how much you have—to do the math, to—in the words of this year’s 401(k) Day campaign—“know your numbers.”[iv]

Let’s face it, if that most important number is when can you afford to retire—or at least to not have to rely on a regular paycheck—well, it may feel like you need a crystal ball—but you’ll have a better shot at accurately predicting that future if you start with some sense of not only where you want to be (and when), but where you are. 

So, whether you’ve never done “the math”—or done it a zillion times—this 401(k) Day it’s worth taking another look—to make sure things (still) add up—and to do that, you first need to know the numbers—your numbers—the most important number of all. 

- Nevin E. Adams, JD 

[ii] Though these days I suppose that is more accurately described as that point in life when you no longer depend on a regular paycheck. 

[iii] For the past several years, the day after Labor Day has been designated 401(k) Day (yes, there’s a tie-in with labor/workers, but just as significantly, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was signed into law by then-President Ford on the day after Labor Day in 1974).

[iv] For plan sponsors[iv]—and those who support their efforts—the campaign also brings forth some important numbers about the retirement plan that has been, and will likely continue to be, such an integral component of the financing of those longer-term goals and aspirations. Significantly, along with benchmarking resources like PSCA’s Annual Survey of Profit-Sharing and 401(k) Plans, it can also help you assess how your plan and plan design matches up against—well, the “competition.”

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