Nevin's Data "Points"

   For years, the retirement industry has been obsessed with one key problem: people aren’t saving enough. Now, “suddenly,” we have another. Retirees aren’t spending “enough.” There’s a certain irony in that. After decades of urging discipline, restraint, and delayed gratification, we’re now concerned that retirees are  too  disciplined — that they’re depriving themselves of the very retirement they spent a lifetime preparing for. Some of that is clearly a byproduct of the defined contribution system itself. We’ve spent years focusing workers on how much they can accumulate, not how much they can spend. Defined benefit plans answered a very different question: What will I get? Defined contribution plans leave retirees staring at a balance and wondering how long it will last.  And once the paycheck stops, that question gets very real, very fast. Because while you can model returns, you can’t model life. Inflation, healthcare costs, longevity—those aren’t just var...

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 c...

Pundits have long worried that retirees wouldn’t have accumulated enough to live on in retirement, but the data suggests that most retirees aren’t exactly burning through their retirement savings. I remember my one and only conversation with my father about retirement income. He had already decided to quit working, and had gathered his assorted papers regarding his savings, insurance, etc. for me to review. Determined to “dazzle” Dad with my years of accumulated financial acumen, I proceeded to outline an impressive array of options that offered different degrees of security and opportunities for growth, the pros and cons of annuities, and how best to integrate it all with his Social Security. And when I was all done, he looked over all the materials I had spread out before him, then turned to me and said – “so how much will I have to live on each month?” See, my dad, like many in his generation, were accustomed to living within their means. And, according to new ...

“Replacement rates”—roughly defined as the percentage of one’s pre-retirement income available in retirement—arguably constitute a poor proxy for retirement readiness. Embracing that calculation as a retirement readiness measure requires accepting any number of imbedded assumptions, not infrequently that individuals will spend less in retirement. While there is certainly a likelihood that less may be spent on such things as taxes, housing, and various work-related expenses (including saving for retirement), there are also the often-overlooked costs of post-retirement medical expenses and long-term care that are not part of the pre-retirement balance sheet. That said, replacement rates are relatively easy to understand and communicate, and, as a result, they are widely used by financial planners to facilitate the retirement planning process. They are also frequently employed by policy makers as a gauge in assessing the efficacy of various components of the retirement system in ter...