MONEY retirement planning

1 out of 3 of Workers Expect Their Living Standard to Fall in Retirement

skinny piggy bank
Getty Images

But you don't have to be among the disappointed. Here's how to get retirement saving right.

One third of workers expect their standard of living to decline in retirement—and the closer you are to retiring, the more likely you are to feel that way, new research shows.

That’s not too surprising, given the relatively modest amounts savers have stashed away. The median household savings for workers of all ages is just $63,000, according to the 16th Annual Transamerica Retirement Survey of Workers. The savings breakdown by age looks like this: for workers in their 20s, a median $16,000; 30s, $45,000; 40s, $63,000; 50s, $117,000; and 60s, $172,000.

Those on the cusp of retirement, workers ages 50 and older, have the most reason to feel dour—after all, they took the biggest hits to their account balances and have less time to make up for it. If you managed to hang on, you probably at least recovered your losses. But many had to sell, or were scared into doing so, while asset prices were depressed. And even you did not sell, you gave up half a decade of growth at a critical moment.

Despite holding student loans and having the least amount of faith in Social Security, workers under 40 are most optimistic, according to the survey. That’s probably because they began saving early. Among those in their 20s, 67% have begun saving—at a median age of 22. Among those in their 30s, 76% have begun saving at a median age of 25. Nearly a third are saving more than 10% of their income.

Workers in their 50s and 60s are also saving aggressively, the survey found. But they started later—at age 35. And with such a short period before retiring they are also more likely to say they will rely on Social Security and expect to work past age 65 or never stop working.

Interestingly, the younger you are the more likely you are to believe that you will need to support a family member (other than your spouse) in retirement. You are also more likely to believe you will require such financial support yourself. Some 40% of workers in their 20s expect to provide such support.

By contrast, that expectation was shared by only 34% of those in their 30s, 21% of those in their 40s, 16% of those in their 50s and 14% of those in their 60s. A similar pattern exists for those who expect to need support themselves—19% of workers in their 20s, but only 5% of those in their 60s.

Workers are also looking beyond the traditional three-legged stool of retirement security, which was based on the combination of Social Security, pension and personal savings. Those three resources are still ranked as the most important sources of retirement income, but workers now are also counting on continued employment (37%), home equity (13%), and an inheritance (11%), the survey found.

Asked how much they need save to retire comfortably, the median response was $1 million—a goal that’s out of reach for most, given current savings levels. Strikingly, though, more than half said that $1 million figure was just a guess. About a third said they’d need $2 million. Just one in 10 said they used a retirement calculator to come up with their number.

As those answers suggest, most workers (67%) say they don’t know as much as they should about investing. Indeed, only 26% have a basic understanding and 30% have no understanding of asset allocation principles—the right mix of stocks and bonds that will give you diversification across countries and industry sectors. Meanwhile, the youngest workers are the most likely to invest in conservative securities like bonds and money market accounts, even though they have the most time to ride out the bumps of the stock market and capture better long-term gains.

Across age groups, the most frequently cited retirement aspiration by a wide margin is travel, followed by spending time with family and pursuing hobbies. Among older workers, one in 10 say they love their work so much that their dream is to be able stay with it even in their retirement years. That’s twice the rate of younger workers who feel that way. Among workers of all ages, the most frequently cited fear is outliving savings, followed closely by declining health that requires expensive long-term care.

To boost your chances of retiring comfortably and achieving your goals, Transamerica suggests:

  • Start saving as early as possible and save consistently over time. Avoid taking loans and early withdrawals from retirement accounts.
  • In choosing a job, consider retirement benefits as part of total compensation.
  • Enroll in your employer-sponsored retirement plan. Take full advantage of the match and defer as much as possible.
  • Calculate retirement savings needs. Factor in living expenses, healthcare, government benefits and long-term care.
  • Make catch-up contributions to your 401(k) or IRA if you are past 50

Read next: Answer These 10 Questions to See If You’re on Track for Retirement

MONEY Health Care

How to Cushion the Costs of Long-Term-Care Insurance

box with styrofoam peanuts
Victoria Snowber—Getty Images

Policies that help pay for nursing care can be costly. Here's what you can do to keep down the price.

A lengthy stay in a nursing home could wipe out your savings—the national average for a shared room in a nursing home is $77,380 a year. Long-term-care insurance can protect you and your family, but the policies are increasingly expensive and not always needed.

The decision to buy a policy—something I’m grappling with now—comes down to many factors, including what assets you have to protect, whether or not you want to leave behind an estate, your ability to pay premiums for decades, and your odds of needing care in the first place. But if you end up on the side of buying insurance, you have options to keep down costs.

How to Insure Yourself for Less

Buy just enough coverage to provide a cushion. “We advise insuring for a core amount and planning on using other sources if that runs out,” says Claude Thau, a long-term-care expert at Target Insurance Services in Overland Park, Kans. It’s like the peace of mind you get from having a fixed annuity in retirement. You lock into enough income to cover your housing and utilities, say, and fund travel and entertainment with other savings. Even modest long-term-care insurance will cut down your out-of-pocket costs.

The cushion approach appeals to me. The Department of Health and Human Services projects that the average 65-year-old will need three years of long-term care, but about two-thirds of that time will be spent at home, with the rest in either a nursing home or assisted-living facility.

I’m leaning toward insuring for that level of coverage, knowing that if my wife or I need more care, we have sufficient assets to pay our way. That would come out of our financial legacy. But so would excess premium payments over 30 years for coverage we didn’t need. I’m comfortable with that tradeoff.

Keep long-term affordability in mind. These policies have been around for decades, but only in the past five years have buyers filed claims in big numbers—exposing an underwriting disaster. MetLife, Unum, and Prudential are among dozens of insurers that have quit the long-term-care business. Others, including industry leader Genworth, have absorbed huge losses and won state approval to boost premiums on older policies to stay afloat.

New policies incorporate more realistic assumptions—and prices reflect that. “These policies have gone up so dramatically it makes them hard to recommend,” says Clarissa Hobson, a financial planner in Colorado Springs.

Can you be sure double-digit premium hikes are over? Long-term-care experts say the industry is on firmer actuarial footing. “By far, the worst is behind,” says Michael Kitces, director of research at Pinnacle Advisory Group.

Yet others are skeptical. “The baby boomers aren’t even there yet,” says Jane Gross, author of A Bittersweet Season: Caring for Our Aging Parents—and Ourselves. “What’s going to happen when boomers start making claims?” Gross, 67, bought a policy in her fifties and began to regret it soon after.

Think hard about how much you need. When you shop for a policy, the variables include the daily benefit (often $100 to $200), how much the benefit goes up for inflation (3% or 5%), how long payments last, from a few years to no cap, and the so-called elimination period, or how long before insurance kicks in.

A 90- to 100-day elimination period is virtually standard (92% of policies). You can adjust the daily benefit to save, but since nursing-home costs vary widely, first check local prices to get a sense of what you might face.

Inflation protection is an important lever. For years experts recommended policies with benefits that grow 5% a year to keep pace with medical inflation, and to be safe most still do. But that option costs about two-thirds more than a 3% adjustment.

Going with 3% may be fine, says David Wolf, a long-term-care insurance planner in Spokane. The cost of in-home care and assisted living is rising less than 2% a year, he says. Nursing-home rates are going up 5% a year, but stays are shorter than they once were.

Note that while premiums are tax-deductible, the write-off is capped based on age ($1,430 in 2015 for ages 51 to 60). And they are deductible only to the extent that they, along with other medical expenses, exceed 10% of your income (7.5% if you’re 65 or older).

Money

Buy a little flexibility. Three years is the most popular benefit period. As a couple, odds are only one of you might spend more time in a nursing home. A shared benefit can help you insure against that financial catastrophe.

Rather than five years of coverage each, you buy 10 years to be split as needed—five and five, say, or two and eight. A 60-year-old couple can expect to pay about 15% more for a shared policy with six years of total benefits than for a joint policy with three years of benefits each, says Wolf, but in exchange you have a better shot at covering a single long stay in a facility.

Don’t wait too long to shop. The average age of a buyer is now 57, down from 67 a dozen years ago, and it’s easy to see why. Premiums go up modestly before age 55. The curve steepens after that, with the sharp turn at 65, when prices begin to rise about 8% a year, says Jesse Slome, director of the American Association for Long-Term Care.

What’s more, you are fast approaching an age when your health can lead to higher premiums, if it does not render you ineligible altogether. “By 65, almost everybody has some kind of medical condition,” Slome says. Once you reach your sixties, the average denial rate jumps from 17% to 25%.

Gather multiple quotes. For the same coverage, the highest-cost policies can cost twice as much as the cheapest ones, Slome says. Go with a broker who sells coverage from at least five insurers and specializes in the field. Search for an agent at aaltci.org.

Know what it takes to collect. Stalling and claims denials sometimes command frightful headlines, but just 1% of denials are without merit, the federal government reports. Still, make sure you know exactly when your claim will qualify. One common hang-up is home care. Especially with an old plan, your policy might require a licensed home health aide when all you need is less-skilled (and less costly) help with simple chores.

The Alternatives to Insurance

If you decide against a traditional long-term-care policy—or are turned down—you have other insurance options. None provide as much coverage for care. But they have the advantage of guaranteeing you cash in old age or a legacy for your heirs.

How other policies can help. Hobson likes hybrid life insurance policies, which let you draw on the death benefit to pay for long-term care, or leave it to your heirs if none is needed. But the upfront cost is steep, and the premiums are not tax-deductible.

A deferred annuity is another option. For a single premium now, you lock in guaranteed income for life at age 82 or 85, which can go toward long-term care or anything else. Or if you can afford to self-insure and want to preserve money for your heirs, you can buy a whole life policy with a death benefit equal to your assets.

The bottom line (for one). I’ll probably end up in a shared policy with six or eight years of care. My wife is younger than I am. She may be able to help me if that time comes. So I will need less coverage, leaving her with more, assuming she outlives me. And by then she can sell the house if need be.

But I’m not quite sold on this either. If I invest at 8% the $7,500 a year I would spend on reasonably complete coverage, I could amass $343,214 in 20 years. That would be taxable and amount to less than half the benefit I’d enjoy with a long-term-care policy. But it would be mine no matter what. What I am sure of: I will keep weighing the options until we’re settled on a plan. I won’t leave either our care as we get older or our kids’ inheritance to fate.

Previous: Do I Really Need a Long-Term Insurance Plan?

MONEY Health Care

Do You Really Need a Long-Term Care Plan?

Shout

Doing the math on long-term care insurance is no easy chore. Here's how to navigate this high-stakes decision.

Millions of boomers are wondering how to prepare for the possibility of needing costly care some day. Count me as one of them. At age 58, I am in the sweet spot for buying long-term care insurance—assuming I want it at all. After weeks of research, I still haven’t decided. But I have sorted out the moving parts.

What I’ve found is that the rising cost of both care and the insurance that pays for it is only one piece of the puzzle. New types of insurance give me more options to mull over. And recent research calls into question how common lengthy nursing-home stays really are, leaving me to think harder about the odds of needing coverage.

What’s more, I have to be concerned about the health of an industry that I would need to rely on for the next three decades. Insurers badly miscalculated how many policyholders would make claims, leading to a mass exodus of big players from the business in recent years.

The upshot: drastic price hikes from the insurers who remain. A typical long-term-care policy written 10 years ago has seen annual premiums rise about 70%, says Michael Kitces, director of research at Pinnacle Advisory Group. Even so, those old policies are cheaper by half than what a person nearing 70 has to pay for the same coverage today.

That’s because the insurers that have stayed in the business have jacked up the price of new policies. Those premiums rose an average of 8.6% last year alone, reports the American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance. For some, the price hikes are even worse. Today, for example, a healthy 55-year-old man would pay $2,075 a year for comprehensive single coverage—up 17% from last year.

All in all, the answer to the question Do you need long-term-care insurance? is a personal one—and far from easy. Here’s how to think through the decision.

The Promise of Insurance

Long-term care is something you hope you never need. Or at least you hope that when and if you aren’t entirely self-sufficient, your spouse or another family member can pitch in. But when you need more of a hand with daily activities than a lay helper can provide, or around-the-clock or more expert medical care becomes a must, you’ll have to pay for a professional.

The national average for a shared room in a nursing home is $77,380 a year, according to the Genworth 2014 Cost of Care Survey, but the tab can go much higher—$120,000 is typical in Massachusetts, for example. Even assisted living, where you get just some one-on-one help and basic medical care, averages $42,000 a year.

Medicare covers 100 days in a nursing home if you are recovering from an illness or injury and showing improvement, but it offers no help at assisted living or in your home. Medicaid picks up the tab for a nursing home and some in-home help only after you have all but exhausted your savings (in some states, the program helps with assisted living too).

Enter long-term-care insurance, which reimburses you for at least a portion of the cost of a nursing home, assisted-living facility, adult day care, or in-home help. To qualify for benefits, you must be unable to perform two of these six day-to-day activities—bathing, dressing, moving from bed to chair, using the toilet, eating, and maintaining continence—and a medical pro must expect your disability to last at least 90 days.

How to Decide If You’re a Candidate

You may figure you’ll roll the dice and fund your care out of savings. In fact, sales of long-term-care policies fell by 24% in 2014 and are down 65% from 2004 levels, reports LIMRA, an insurance industry trade group. Just 13% of people 65 and older have a policy, according to estimates by Anthony Webb, a senior economist at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. Here’s how to make the call.

Start with what you’re worth. The rule of thumb is that you’re a candidate to buy long-term-care insurance if you have between $200,000 and $2 million in assets. With less, you can’t swing the premiums and don’t have enough to protect. Medicaid will cover most of the costs of care after you whittle your savings down to as little as $2,000 if you’re single. With $2 million, you can reasonably plan on paying your own way. But even in that doughnut hole, the answer isn’t always clear.

Understand the true odds. You may have heard figures that make rolling the dice seem like a foolish bet. One frequently cited stat is that 70% of Americans who reach 65 will eventually need some sort of long-term care.

But a recent paper from the Center for Retirement Research paints a less alarming picture. As the graphic below shows, a high number of people will need nursing-home care at or after 65, but only a small portion will remain long enough to run up big bills. Half of men and 39% of women stay less than 90 days, before most long-term-care policies even kick in. The average stay for a man is less than a year; for a woman, a year and a half.

Previous studies had estimated that a long-term-care policy made financial sense for 30% to 40% of 65-year-olds. The CRR pegged that number around 20%. “We’re getting more people going into care for a shorter period of time,” says Webb. “That’s what’s driving down the value of insurance.”

Money

Ask yourself what you’re insuring. At its root, long-term-care insurance is about protecting your estate. A desire to preserve a legacy for their three adult children is why Craig and Jan Klaas, both 60, bought a soup-to-nuts policy. Last year Jan’s mother died after eight years in a facility. Her father had spent two years in a nursing home. “I’ve seen people get wiped out,” says Craig, a financial planner in Rockford, Ill. “I do not want my estate at risk.”

Without coverage, you’ll still get care, funded by savings and Medicaid, if needed. But paying for it could deny your children an inheritance.

See if you even have a choice. Insurers have stepped up medical screening. Overall, 30% to 40% of applicants are turned down for health reasons, says Jesse Slome, director of the American Association for Long-Term Care. Your chances are better when you’re younger. Still, 17% of 50- to 59-year-olds are disqualified, up from 14% in 2009. Common reasons include chronic health problems like diabetes and arthritis, or any condition that can leave you incapacitated. A denial from one insurer, adds Slome, will often lead to automatic denials from others.

Check your family tree. It’s not just your health that counts. Since last year, Genworth has also been considering your parents’ health when you apply for a policy. With early-onset dementia or coronary artery disease in the family, you might not qualify for the best rate.

You should take your family history into consideration too. Half of all claims are triggered by care associated with dementia. On the other hand, says Howard Gleckman, senior fellow at the Urban Institute, a history of cancer may argue for less or no coverage because patients usually have a decent quality of life until just a few months from the end. That’s a cold calculation, but one you shouldn’t ignore.

Next: If you’re ready to explore your options, here’s how to keep down the costs of long-term-care insurance.

MONEY retirement planning

One Thing Successful Retirement Savers Have in Common

Gold Eggs
Getty Images

With the markets rebounding, workers with 401(k)s feel more confident about retirement. Everyone else, not so much.

Retirement confidence in the U.S. stands at its highest point since the Great Recession, new research shows. But the recent gains have been almost entirely confined to those with a traditional pension or tax-advantaged retirement account, such as a 401(k) or IRA.

Some 22% of workers are “very” confident they will be able to live comfortably in retirement, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute 2015 Retirement Confidence Survey, an annual benchmark report. That’s up from 18% last year and 13% in 2013. But it remains shy of the 27% reading hit in 2007, just before the meltdown. Adding those who are “somewhat” confident, the share jumps to 58%—again, well below the 2007 reading (70%).

The heightened sense of security comes as the job market has inched back to life and home values are on the rise. Perhaps more importantly: stocks have been on a tear, rising by double digits five of the last six years and tripling from their recession lows.

Those with an employer-sponsored retirement plan are most likely to have avoided selling stocks while they were depressed and to have stuck to a savings regimen. With the market surge, it should come as no surprise that this group has regained the most confidence—71% of those with a plan are very or somewhat confident, vs. just 33% of those who are not, EBRI found. (That finding echoes earlier surveys highlighting retirement inequality.)

Among those who aren’t saving, daily living costs are the most commonly cited reason (50%). While worries over debt are down, it remains a key variable. Only 6% of those with a major debt problem are confident about retirement while 56% are not confident at all. But despite those savings barriers, most workers say they could save a bit more for retirement—69% say they could put away $25 a week more than they’re doing now.

At the root of growing retirement confidence is a perceived ability to afford potentially frightening old-age expenses, including long-term care (14% are very confident, vs. 9% in 2011) and other medical expenses (18%, vs. 12% in 2011). The market rebound probably explains most of that, though flexible and affordable new long-term care options and wider availability of health insurance through Obamacare may play a role.

At the same time, many workers have adjusted to the likelihood they will work longer, which means they can save longer and get more from Social Security by delaying benefits. Some 16% of workers say the date they intend to retire has changed in the past year, and 81% of those say the date is later than previously planned. In all, 64% of workers say they are behind schedule as it relates to saving for retirement, drawing a clear picture of our saving crisis no matter how many are feeling better about their prospects.

Those adjustments are simply realistic. Some 57% of workers say their total savings and investments are less than $25,000. Only one out of five workers with plans have more than $250,000 saved for retirement, and only 1% of those without plans. Clearly, additional working and saving is necessary to avoid running out of money.

Still, many workers have no idea how much they even need to be putting away. When asked what percentage of income they need to save, 27% said they didn’t know. And almost half of workers age 45 and older have not tried to figure out how much money they need to meet their retirement goals, though those numbers are edging up. As previous EBRI studies have found, workers who make these calculations tend to set higher goals, and they are more confident about reaching them.

To build your own savings plan, start by using an online retirement savings calculator, such as those offered by T. Rowe Price or Vanguard. And you can check out Money’s retirement advice here and here.

Read next: Why Roth IRA Tax Tricks Won’t Rescue Your Retirement

MONEY Investing

Why Wary Investors May Keep the Bull Market Running

running bull
Ernst Haas—Getty Images

Retirement investors are optimistic but have not forgotten the meltdown. That's good news.

Six years into a bull market, individual investors around the world are feeling confident. Four in five say stocks will do even better this year than they did last year, new research shows. In the U.S., that means a 13.5% return in 2015. The bar is set at 8% in places like Spain, Japan and Singapore.

Ordinarily, such bullishness following years of heady gains might signal the kind of speculative environment that often precedes a market bust. Stocks in the U.S. have risen by double digits five of six years since the meltdown in 2008. They are up 3%, on average, this year.

But most individuals in the market seem to be on the lookout for dangerous levels of froth. The share that say they are struggling between pursuing returns and protecting capital jumped to 73% in this year’s Natixis Global Asset Management survey. That compares to 67% in 2013. Meanwhile, the share of individuals that said they would choose safety over performance also jumped, to 84% this year from 78% in 2014.

This heightened caution makes sense deep into a bull market and may help prolong the run. Other surveys have shown that many investors are hunkered down in cash. That much money on the sidelines could well fuel future gains, assuming these savers plow more of that cash into stocks.

Still, there is a seat-of-the-pants quality to investors’ behavior, rather than firm conviction. In the survey, 57% said they have no financial goals, 67% have no financial plan, and 77% rely on gut instincts to make investing decisions. This lack of direction persists even though most cite retirement as their chief financial concern. Other top worries include the cost of long-term care, out-of-pocket medical expenses, and inflation.

These are all thorny issues. But investing for retirement does not have to be a difficult chore. Saving is the hardest part. If you have no plan, getting one can be a simple as choosing a likely retirement year and dumping your savings into a target-date mutual fund with that year in the name. A professional will manage your risk and diversification, and slowly move you into safer fixed-income products as you near retirement.

If you are modestly more hands-on, you can get diversification and low costs through a single global stock index fund like iShares MSCI All Country or Vanguard Total World, both of which are exchange-traded funds (ETFs). You can also choose a handful of stock and bond index funds if you prefer a bit more involvement. (You can find good choices on our Money 50 list of recommended funds and ETFs.) Such strategies will keep you focused on the long run, which for retirement savers never goes out of fashion.

Read next: Why a Strong Dollar Hurts Investors And What They Should Do About It

MONEY 401(k)s

1 in 3 Older Workers Likely to Be Poor or Near Poor in Retirement

businessman reduced to begging
Eric Hood—iStock

Fewer Americans have access to a retirement plan at work. If you're one of them, here's what you can do.

A third of U.S. workers nearing retirement are destined to live in or near poverty after leaving their jobs, new research shows. One underlying cause: a sharp decline in employer-sponsored retirement plans over the past 15 years.

Just 53% of workers aged 25-64 had access to an employer-sponsored retirement savings plan in 2011, down from 61% in 1999, according to a report from Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economics at the New School. More recent data was not available, but the downward trend has likely continued, the report finds.

This data includes both traditional pensions and 401(k)-like plans. So the falloff in access to a retirement plan is not simply the result of disappearing defined-benefit plans, though that trend remains firmly entrenched. Just 16% of workers with an employer-sponsored plan have a traditional pension as their primary retirement plan, vs. 63% with a 401(k) plan, Ghilarducci found.

Workers with access to an employer-sponsored plan are most likely to be prepared for retirement, other research shows. So the falling rate of those with access is a big deal. In 2011, 68% of the working-age U.S. population did not participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. The reasons ranged from not being eligible to not having a job to choosing to opt out, according to Ghilarducci’s research.

She reports that the median household net worth of couples aged 55-64 is just $325,300 and that 55% of these households will have to subsist almost entirely on Social Security benefits in retirement. The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College and the National Institute on Retirement Security, among others, have also found persistent gaps in retirement readiness. Now we see where insufficient savings and the erosion of employer-based plans is leading—poverty-level retirements for a good chunk of the population.

At the policy level, we need to encourage more employers to offer a retirement plan. On an individual level, you can fix the problem with some discipline. Even those aged 50 and older have time to change the equation by spending less, taking advantage of tax-deferred catch-up savings limits in an IRA or 401(k), and planning to stay on the job a few years longer. That may sound like tough medicine, but it’s nothing next to struggling financially throughout your retirement.

MONEY Financial Education

Kids and Money: The Search for What Really Works

piggy banks with chalkboard saying "savings 101"
Getty Images

A new study aims to understand the effectiveness of the money lessons kids learn in school.

Those who oppose integrating financial education into our nation’s classrooms have long argued money lessons don’t actually change behavior. Slowly, evidence to the contrary is emerging. But much more proof is needed before personal finance will be taken as seriously as math, science, or history.

That line of thinking underlies a new $30 million commitment from professional services firm PwC, which in 2012 launched its Earn Your Future program, designed to help educators gain the tools and knowledge they need in order to teach kids about money. PwC pledged $100 million worth of service hours from its employees and $60 million in cash over five years.

This new commitment is all cash, and a good chunk of it takes aim at a research void: finding what teaching methods and strategies result in lasting behavior change among students who study personal finance. PwC has teamed with two major universities to analyze financial education programs in grade schools and colleges with the goal of understanding how students learn and apply money lessons.

“Financial capability techniques are still evolving,” says Shannon Schuyler, corporate responsibility leader at PwC. “We need to make sure that as we are implementing them into classrooms, we are measuring their effectiveness and adjusting our strategy and approach based on the findings from sound research.”

Critics say this may all be a waste of resources. They argue that marketing messages overwhelm the common sense you might learn as a young student, and that the financial landscape changes so fast that anything you learn about, say, bank fees and cell phone packages quickly becomes obsolete.

Such issues have been studied for years. We have a global library of some 1,400 papers on the subject. But only recently has this research begun to hone in on what really works. In a groundbreaking study in February, researchers at the University of Wisconsin Center for Financial Security tied personal finance lessons in school to higher credit scores among young adults. Other recent research sponsored by H&R Block found remarkable attitude changes in students following a nine-week personal finance course, including that 92% said learning about money management was very important and 80% wanted to learn more.

The new PwC commitment will also fund research into how iPads and other mobile technologies can speed learning of financial concepts—even as the firm sets aside more funds for good old-fashioned learning from print. A colorful six-page magazine through Time for Kids, Your $, spotlights financial literacy for kids. The print version is being distributed in New York schools and will roll out in Chicago this month. It is also available online.

Policymakers in the U.S. and around the world are embracing financial education as a way to help prevent or minimize the effects of another financial crisis. In the U.S., the Obama administration has made its priorities clear—it wants clean data that can be analyzed and used to find proof of financial education strategies that work. We seem to be moving that direction.

MONEY wall street

Shhh…E.F. Hutton Is Talking Again

A storied financial brand far removed from its glory days makes a comeback, modeled after...Uber?

Bring back shoulder pads and the mullet. E.F. Hutton, another 1980s throwback, is in the financial services business again. The big question: Is this once iconic brand worth anything?

Hutton is launching the website Gateway to connect investors with independent financial advisers, estate lawyers, accountants, and insurance agents. The firm will vet its roster of financial pros, which individuals can access for free.

But this is really about helping advisers find clients. The advisers will pay Hutton a fee based on revenue they collect from clients that find them on the site. Stanley Hutton Rumbough, the grandson of legendary founder E.F. Hutton, is leading the brand’s revival from within a relatively new entity called E.F. Hutton Financial, which was incorporated in Colorado in 2007 and has no legal relationship with the old E.F. Hutton. The new firm likens itself to car service Uber in that it takes a small cut of the business it generates for advisers.

Hutton was a Wall Street heavyweight 40 years ago and is best known for its advertising slogan: “When E.F. Hutton talks, people listen.” The firm’s ads ran for years and typically featured crowds of people leaning in to hear the advice of a Hutton broker. (That’s one in the video above.) This was a powerful image during the bull market that started in 1982. After the lost decade of the 1970s, investors were getting excited about stocks again. The Hutton ad suggested that only through a broker could you gain an investing edge.

In some ways, the suggestion was ironic—coming just ahead of the massive insider trading scandals of the late 1980s, when dozens of Wall Street players, including Ivan Boesky and Michael Milken, were found to have skirted the rules for their own advantage. So much for the broker edge, which in those cases anyway was about illegal stock tips sometimes in exchange for suitcases full of cash.

Hutton became embroiled as well, and in 1985 pleaded guilty to 2,000 counts of mail and wire fraud, and paid more than $10 million in penalties in connection with a check-kiting scheme. The firm would make bank withdrawals and deposits in such a way that it gained illegal access to millions of dollars interest free for days at a time while waiting for the checks to clear.

A further irony lies in reams of new data that show that over the long haul stock pickers tend to underperform simple, low-cost index funds. Over time, the fees that active fund managers charge overwhelm their ability to pick winning stocks. This is now so well understood that the good old-fashioned stockbroker is a dinosaur. Today, industry leaders like Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley employ financial advisers or wealth managers who counsel clients in all aspects of their money life.

Founded in 1904, Hutton ran into capital issues following the 1987 stock market crash and disappeared in 1988 amid a spate of mergers that included Shearson Lehman Bros., American Express, Smith Barney, Primerica, and Citigroup. Former Hutton executive Frank Campanale tried reviving the brand three years ago. Campanale ditched the effort for a job with the established asset manager Lebenthal and Co., but continues to have a financial stake in the Hutton brand.

With a checkered past and four decades removed from glory, you have to wonder how much the Hutton name is worth. Then again, Michael Milken has resurfaced as a philanthropist and neon is back in style. Power up the flux capacitor, Doc. We’re going back the future.

Editor’s note: This article was updated to clarify that: 1) E.F. Hutton Financial is a different company from the original E.F. Hutton brokerage that ran into legal troubles in the 1980s; and 2) Mr. Campanale has retained a financial interest in E.F. Hutton Financial since his departure.

 

MONEY retirement planning

Why Your Empty Nest May Be Hazardous to Your Retirement

150317_RET_CutSpending
Alamy—© Mode Images / Alamy

You may want to live a little when your kids leave home. But what you do with that money can make or break your retirement, a new study finds.

How well prepared you are for retirement may come down to one simple question: what do you do with money that once would have been spent on your kids?

In recent years, two common models of retirement preparedness in America have begun to draw vastly different pictures. The optimal savings model, which looks at accumulated savings, concludes that only 8% of pre-retirees have insufficient resources to retire comfortably. The income replacement model, which looks at the level of income that savings will generate, concludes half the working age population is in deep trouble.

These two models incorporate many different assumptions, which is why they can reach contradictory conclusions. For one thing, the optimal savings model assumes savings are held in something like a 401(k) plan and drawn down over time. The income replacement model assumes savings are converted to lifetime income through an annuity at retirement.

Accounting for these and many other differences, researchers at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College have concluded that the key variable in retirement readiness is empty nest spending patterns. “If households consume less once their kids leave home, they have a more modest target to replace and they save more between the emptying of the nest and retirement,” the authors write. This creates a financial comfort level that those who spend the same amount—most likely on themselves—have greater difficulty achieving.

When the more conservative empty nest spending assumptions of the optimal savings model are applied to the income replacement model, the level of retirement preparedness is similarly optimistic. What the paper cannot answer, however, is which model accurately reflects the way empty nesters behave.

“Do parents cut back on consumption when kids leave, or do they spend the slack in their budgets?” the authors write. “No one really knows the answers.” How households react when kids leave the fold is not well understood, they say.

Yet that’s a problem for academics. You can control the way you act. The upshot is that if you resist the temptation to spend instead of save the money your kids were costing you, retirement readiness may be at your fingertips.

Read next: 5 Ways to Know If You’re on Track to Retire Early

MONEY Retirement

Don’t Save for College If It Means Wrecking Your Retirement

150311_RET_SaveRetNotCollege
Mark Poprocki—Mark Poprocki

When you short-change retirement savings to pay for the kids' college, they may end up paying way more than the price of tuition to support you in later life.

Making personal sacrifices for the good of your children is Parenting 101. But there are limits, and financial advisers roundly agree that your retirement security should not be on the table.

Still, parents short-change their retirement plans all the time, often to set aside money for Junior to go college. More than half of parents agree that this is a worthwhile trade-off, according to a T. Rowe Price survey last year. Digging into the reasons, the fund company followed up with new results this month. In part, researchers found:

  • Depleting savings is a habit. Parents say it is no big deal to steal from retirement savings. Some 58% have dipped into a retirement account at least once—most often to pay down debt, pay day-to-day living expenses, or tide the family over during a period of underemployment.
  • Many plan to work forever. About half of parents say they are destined to work as long as they are physically able—so why bother saving? Among those who plan to retire, about half say they would be willing to delay their plans or get a part-time job in order to pay for college for their kids.
  • Student debt scares them. More than half of parents say spending retirement money is preferable to their kids graduating with student debt and starting life in a hole. They speak from experience. Just under half of parents say they left college with student debt and it has hurt their finances.

We love our kids, and the past seven years have been especially tough on young adults trying to launch. So we shield them from some of life’s financial horrors, indulging them when they ask for support or boomerang home—to the point that we have created a whole new life phase called emerging adulthood.

Yet you may not be doing the kids any favors when you rob from your future self to keep them from piling up student loans today. Paying for college when you should be paying for your retirement increases the likelihood that they will end up paying for you in old age, and that is no bargain. They may have to sacrifice career opportunities or income in order to be near you. You’ll go into assisted living before you become a burden on the kids? Fine. At $77,380 per person per year for long-term care, it could take a lot more resources than the cost of borrowing for tuition.

It sounds cold to put yourself first. But the reality is that your kids can borrow to go to school; you cannot borrow to retire. So get rid of the guilt. Some 63% of parents feel guilty that they cannot fully pay for college and 58% feel like a failure, T. Rowe Price found. Nonsense. Paying for college for the kids is great if it does not derail your savings plan. But if it does that burden must become theirs. That’s Parenting 101, rightly understood.

Read next: Don’t Be Too Generous With College Money: One Financial Adviser’s Story

Your browser is out of date. Please update your browser at http://update.microsoft.com