MONEY 401(k)s

Are You a Saver or an Investor? It Matters in a 401(k)

Close-up piggy bank
Fuse—Getty Images

Most 401(k) participants see themselves as savers, new research shows. And it's holding them back.

The venerable 401(k) plan has many failings and is ill suited as a primary retirement savings vehicle. Yet it could do so much more if only workers understood how to best use it.

The vast majority of 401(k) plan participants view themselves as savers, not investors, according to new research. As such, they are less likely to allocate money to 401(k) plan options that will provide the long-term growth they need to retire in comfort.

Only 22% of workers in a 401(k) plan in the U.S., U.K. and Ireland say they are knowledgeable about investing, State Street Global Advisors found. This translates into a low tolerance for risk: only 27% in the U.S., 15% in the U.K., and 10% in Ireland say they are willing to take greater risk to achieve better returns.

This in turn leads to sinking retirement confidence. Only 31% in the U.S., 26% in the U.K., and 16% in Ireland feel they will save enough in their 401(k) plan to fund a comfortable retirement, the survey shows.

The faults of 401(k) plans are well documented and range from uncertain returns to high fees to failing to provide guaranteed lifetime income. Economic activists like Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School and author of When I’m Sixty-Four, have been arguing for years that we need to return to something like the traditional pension.

But the switch to 401(k) plans from traditional pensions has taken more than three decades. A broad reversal will be slow too, if it comes at all. In the meantime, workers need to understand how to best use their 401(k) or other employer-sponsored defined contribution plan. Like it or not, these plans have become our de facto primary retirement savings vehicles.

At a basic level, plan participants of all ages must begin to embrace higher risk in return for higher rewards. The State Street survey reveals broad under-exposure to stocks, which historically have provided the highest long-term returns. A popular rule of thumb is to subtract your age from 110 to determine your allocation to stocks. But the latest research suggests that even just a few years from retirement you are better off holding more stocks.

There is much more to making the most of your 401(k) plan than just adding risk. You need to contribute enough to capture the full employer match and be well diversified, among other things. But it all starts with understanding that saving in a secure fixed-income product is not investing, and it is not enough to get you to the promised land.

Yes, the financial crisis is still fresh and the market’s deep plunge is an all-too-real reminder that stocks have risk. But just five years later the market has fully recovered, and 401(k) balances have never been plumper. Fixate on the recovery, not the downturn. A diversified stock portfolio almost never loses money over a 10-year period. It took the Great Depression and then the Great Recession to produce 10-year losses, which were less than 5% and disappeared quickly in the recovery.

If you feel nervous about investing in stocks, consider opting for a target-date retirement fund, which will give you an asset mix that shifts to become more conservative as you near retirement. While they may not suit everyone, target-date funds tend to outperform most do-it-yourselfers, research shows. With your asset mix on cruise control, you can focus on saving, which is enough of a challenge.

MONEY retirement planning

4 Simple Rules For Juicing Up Your Retirement Fund

Juicing a lemon
Tooga—Getty Images

These basic yet effective moves can help you get the investment gains you need without taking on outsize risk.

With financial pundits incessantly speculating about where stock prices are headed or blathering about a seemingly endless stream of “revolutionary” new investment products, you could easily get the impression you need to constantly revamp your retirement portfolio. But guess what? You don’t.

In fact, you’re more likely to hurt your retirement prospects by focusing on the ups and downs of the market and overdiversifying into fad investments. A better strategy: stick to a few simple but effective principles that can help you get the investment gains you need without incurring outsize risks.

Here are four tips that can help you add juice to your retirement portfolio’s performance and boost your odds of achieving retirement security.

1. Focus on building a portfolio, not picking funds. Many people think smart investing starts with selecting specific funds. But that approach is backwards. Before you start homing in on individual funds or any other type of investment, you need an overall plan.

Specifically, you want to put together a portfolio that not only includes stock and bond funds, but a broad range of both (growth and value stocks, large shares and small; government and corporate bonds). The aim is to create a diverse group of investments that don’t all move in synch with one another. This way, when one part of your portfolio is getting routed, another part can be racking up gains—or at least not get battered as badly.

The mix of stocks and bonds you own should be based on factors such as your age, your investing goals and your tolerance for risk. Generally, the younger you are, the more of your money you’ll want in stocks.

For guidance on creating such a portfolio, you can check out the investing tools in the Real Deal Retirement Toolbox. If you find the idea of building your own portfolio daunting, consider a target-date retirement fund, an all-in-one fund that includes a diversified mix of stocks and bonds and that becomes more conservative as you age. Though far from perfect, target funds are a good choice for people who can’t or don’t want to build a portfolio on their own.

2. Seek to track, not beat, the market. Aspiring for “average” results by investing in index funds or ETFs that track the performance of market benchmarks strikes some as an admission of failure. It shouldn’t. If you earn the average market return—or something close to it—you can grow your retirement stash substantially over time.

If ten years ago you had invested $10,000 in a total stock market index fund—a fund that tracks the entire U.S. stock market—you would have earned an annualized return of almost 9% and be sitting on a stash worth more than $23,000 today.

Sure, some funds did better. But most didn’t, and it’s hard if not impossible to identify in advance the ones likely to outperform. Indeed, S&P Dow Jones’s latest “Persistence Scorecard” shows that very few funds can consistently outperform their peers. Besides, what sometimes looks like superior performance is just a fund taking on a lot more risk, which makes it more vulnerable to market setbacks.

If you stick to broadly diversified stock and bond index funds, you can avoid the whole fund-picking racket, and fare much better than investors who are constantly seeking out hot funds.

3. Control your emotions. When the markets are surging, people tend to get overconfident about their investing abilities and underestimate the risk they’re taking. That’s one reason investors pour so much money into stocks after the market’s been on a run.

By contrast, in the wake of a market crash investors become overly cautious and often dump stocks and huddle in bonds and cash, even though stocks are usually more attractively priced after big downturns.

You’re much better off avoiding this emotional roller-coaster ride and maintaining your composure. Once you’ve created a portfolio of stocks and bonds that makes sense for you, you should largely avoid tinkering with it whatever the market is doing, except to rebalance back to your original asset mix periodically (say, once a year). By taking your emotions out of the game and adhering to the simple disciplined strategy of rebalancing back to your target stocks-bond mix, you’ll avoid the classic investor mistake of loading up on assets when they’re likely overpriced and selling after they’ve taken a beating and may be bargains.

4. Rein in costs. People tend to gravitate toward investments that have recently posted the highest returns. But returns are highly volatile. And a fund or stock that’s topping the performance charts one year may be an also-ran the next.

Expenses, on the other hand, are much more predictable. A fund that has much higher management fees than its peers will probably stay that way—its costs aren’t likely to go down. And since each dollar you pay in expenses lowers your net return, bloated fees act as a drag on a fund’s performance. Over the long-term that can seriously stunt the size of your retirement nest egg.

That’s why low-cost funds tend to outperform their high-fee counterparts over long periods of time. Which is another argument to stick mostly to index funds, which typically have some of the lowest expenses around. You can screen for low-cost funds by going to the Basic Screener in the Tools section of Morningstar.com. (The tool is free, but registration is required.)

There are no guarantees in investing. But if you follow the four tips above, you should be able to substantially boost the value of your nest egg without subjecting it to undue risk.

Walter Updegrave is the editor of RealDealRetirement.com. He previously wrote the Ask the Expert column for MONEY and CNNMoney. You can reach him at walter@realdealretirement.com.

More from RealDealRetirement.com:

Why Saving Trumps Investing When It Comes To Retirement

10 Tips To Supercharge Your Savings

Worried You’ll Outlive Your Nest Egg? Tilt the Odds in Your Favor

MONEY Social Security

The 5 Key Things to Know About Social Security and Medicare

No need to panic, but both Social Security and Medicare face long-term financial challenges, this year's trustees report finds. There's still time to make fixes.

If you worry about the future of Social Security and Medicare, this is the week to get answers to your questions. The most authoritative annual reports on the long-term health of both programs were issued on Monday, and while the news was mixed, there are reasons to be encouraged about our two most important retirement programs.

Under the Social Security Act, a board of trustees reports annually to Congress on the status and long-term financial prospects of Social Security and Medicare. The reports are prepared by the professional actuaries who have made careers out of managing the numbers and are signed by three cabinet secretaries, the commissioner of Social Security and two publicly appointed trustees—one Republican, one Democrat.

Here are my five key takeaways from this year’s final word on our social insurance programs.

* Imminent collapse nowhere in sight. Social Security and Medicare face long-term financial problems, but there’s no cause for panic about either program.

Social Security’s retirement program is fully funded for the next 19 years. It has $2.8 trillion in reserves, and that figure will rise to $2.9 trillion in 2019, when the surplus funds will begin depleting rapidly as baby boomer retirements accelerate. Although you’ll often hear that Social Security spends more annually than it receives in taxes, the program actually took in $32 billion more than it spent last year, when interest on bond holdings and taxation of benefits are included.

The retirement trust fund will be depleted in 2034, at which point current revenue would be sufficient to pay only 77% of benefits—unless Congress enacts reforms to put the program back into long-term balance.

Medicare’s financial outlook improved a bit compared with last year’s report because of continued low healthcare inflation. The program’s Hospital Insurance trust fund – which finances Medicare Part A— is projected to run dry in 2030, four years later than last year’s forecast and 13 years later than forecast before passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In 2030, the hospital fund would have enough resources to cover just 85 percent of its expenditures. (Medicare’s other parts—outpatient and prescription drug services—are funded through beneficiary premiums and general revenue, so they don’t have trust funds at risk of running dry.)

Could healthcare inflation take off again? Certainly. Some analysts—and the White House – chalk up the recent cost-containment success to features of the ACA. But clouds on the horizon include higher utilization of healthcare, new medical technology and a doubling of enrollment by 2030 as boomers age.

* Medicare is delivering good pocketbook news. The monthly premium for Medicare Part B (outpatient services) is forecast to stay put at $104.90 for the third consecutive year in 2015. That means the premium won’t take a larger bite out of Social Security checks, and that retirees likely will be able to keep most— if not all—of the expected 1.5% cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) in benefits projected for next year. (Final numbers on Part B premiums and the Social Security COLA won’t be announced until this fall.)

* Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) requires immediate attention. The program faces a severe imbalance, and only has resources to pay full benefits only until 2016; if a fix isn’t implemented soon, benefits would be cut by 20 percent for nine million disabled people.

That can be avoided through a reallocation of a small portion of payroll tax revenues from the retirement to the disability program – just enough to keep SSDI going through 2033 while longer-range fixes to both programs are considered. Reallocations have been made at least six times in the past. Let’s get it done.

*Aging Americans aren’t gobbling up the economic pie. Social Security outlays equalled 4.9% of gross domestic product last year and will rise to 6.2% in 2035, when the last baby boomer is retired. Medicare accounted for 3.5% of GDP in 2013; it will be 3.7% of GDP in 2020 and 6.9% in 2088.

* Kicking the can is costly. There’s still time for reasonable fixes for Social Security and Medicare, but the fixes get tougher as we get closer to exhausting the programs’ trust funds. Social Security will need new revenue. Public opinion polls show solid support for gradually eliminating the cap on income subject to payroll taxes (currently $117,000) and gradually raising payroll tax rates on employers and workers, to 7.2% from 6.2%. There’s also strong public support for bolstering benefits for low-income households and beefing up COLAs.

Medicare spending can be reduced without resorting to drastic reforms such as vouchers or higher eligibility ages. Billions could be saved by letting the federal government negotiate discounts on prescription drugs, and stepping up fraud prevention efforts. And an investigative series published earlier this summer by the Center for Public Integrity uncovered needed reforms of the Medicare Advantage program, pointing to “tens of billions of dollars in overcharges and other suspect billings.”

Your move, Congress.

Related stories:

How to Fix Social Security—and What It Will Mean for Your Taxes

Why Taxing the Rich Is the Wrong Way to Fix Social Security

3 Smart Fixes for Social Security and Medicare

 

MONEY early retirement

How Much Money Do I Really Need to Retire at 55?

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: I’m 40 and can’t imagine working till I am 65. If I want to retire in my mid-50s, how can I make sure I have enough money to live a comfortable lifestyle?

A: How much you need to put away depends on the kind of lifestyle you want in retirement. A general rule of thumb is that you’ll need to replace 70% to 80% of your pre-retirement income to have a similar standard of living when you retire. So if you earn $100,000 a year, you’ll need roughly $80,000 in annual income. Some of that will come from Social Security (once you reach retirement age) and a pension, if you get one, so perhaps your portfolio will need to produce $50,000 to $60,000 of that income.

You’ll probably need less than your pre-retirement income because you’re no longer socking away a big chunk of your salary for retirement—and if you are aiming to retire early, you should be maxing out all your savings options and more. Your income taxes will likely be lower and many of the costs associated with working, such as commuting and eating lunch out, will disappear.

But if you retire at 55, you’re looking at funding four decades of retirement. That means you’ll need a much bigger cash stash than someone with a standard 30-year time horizon, says Charles Farrell, CEO of Northstar Investment Advisors and author of Your Money Ratios: Eight Simple Tools for Financial Security.

If you work till the traditional retirement age of 65, you should have 12 times your annual household income saved, says Farrell. For someone earning $100,000 a year, that’s $1.2 million (his figures take Social Security benefits into account). But if you want to quit work at age 55 and replace 75% of your income, you’ll need 18 times your annual income or $1.8 million. That assumes a 4% annual withdrawal rate, adjusted for inflation. “Not only does your money have to last longer but as you draw down your nest egg, your savings has less time to grow,” says Farrell.

If you’re not on track, it’s not too late. As you hit your peak earning years and big expenses fall away, such as college tuition for your kids, you may be able to power save, putting away much bigger chunks of money. Or you can adjust your goal. “Maybe 60 or 62 is more realistic than 55 or you can get by on less than you think,” says Farrell.

If you push back retirement to age 62, you’ll need 16 times your annual salary saved. If you really want to quit work at 55 and you’re willing to live on 60% of your pre-retirement income, you’ll need 15 times your annual income. Or if you can get by on 50% of your household income—say you pay off your mortgage or you significantly downsize your home to cut your post-retirement expenses—a nest egg of 12 times your final income may be enough.

Early retirement requires a willingness to stick to a lifestyle that allows you to save diligently throughout your career, while avoiding money drains like high interest rate debt. If this is your dream, it’ll be well worth the effort.

MONEY retirement planning

The 3 Key Numbers To Know for a Successful Retirement

If you start early, it's easier to make your strategy work. Here's how to figure out where you stand.

Retirement calculations are all about the numbers. How big will your nest egg be? How much money will you need to earn in retirement to maintain your pre-retirement standard of living? What type of investment returns should you plan for? How long will you live? Lee Eisenberg even wrote an entire book several years ago about “The Number.”

Let’s restrict today’s numbers to three key figures: 1) the percent of your pre-retirement income you will need to maintain your current standard of living during retirement; 2) the amount of money you will need to sock away to achieve this replacement rate, and 3) how much you can pull out of your portfolio each year and still have a good shot at not outliving your money in retirement.

The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College just issued a study that took a crack at the first two items. It said middle-income retirees should adopt retirement-income targets that would replace 71% of their pre-retirement incomes. To do so, they would need to augment their Social Security and other pensions with contributions to their private savings that would average 15% of their pay if they began saving at age 35 and retired at age 65.

The comparable figures for low-income earners were an 80% replacement rate and an 11% savings rate. This is mainly because Social Security’s progressive benefit structure replaces a higher percentage of pre-retirement income for lower earners. On the other end of the scale, high earners were found to need a replacement rate averaging 67% and a 16% private savings rate.

We could endlessly debate whether these replacement rates and savings targets should be a few percentage points higher or lower. But while some financial advisers may base client strategies on income replacement rates, I have never interviewed a retiree who did so. These numbers are just guides, so don’t get carried away with them.

The big point is that we need to save a lot and to start at early ages. And we’re not saving nearly enough. A second major point of the CRR research is that continuing to work past age 65 can erase a lot of the savings shortfalls for those who haven’t set aside enough.

For example, if that typical middle-income earner doesn’t begin saving for retirement until age 45, she would need to save on average an implausible 27% of her income to permit her to retire successfully at age 65. If she continued working to age 67, that saving rate would fall to a still-unlikely 20%. But if she kept working until age 70, she would need to save a realistic 10% of her salary to maintain her standard living in retirement.

If you have been a dutiful saver, or even if you haven’t, you still need to figure out how to spend down your nest egg. Such discussions often begin with what’s called the 4% rule, which will celebrate its 20th birthday this October.

Developed in 1994 by financial planner William Bengen, it said nest eggs had a good shot at lasting for 30 years if a person began by pulling out about 4%t of their savings in the first year. Whatever number of dollars that represented would determine each successive year of dollar withdrawals plus an adjustment factor to keep pace with inflation.

In a recent study comparing different retirement drawdown strategies, the American Institute of Economic Research said of the rule, “For a rough estimate of how much is needed for retirement, it’s not bad. But no simple financial rule can take into account the complexity of real life.”

Bengen himself says as much. “For most people, to be perfectly honest, applying a 4.5% rule is probably not wise, even dangerous, because there are very simple assumptions that I used to develop that rule,” he said in a radio interview last year.

AIER, an independent non-profit in Massachusetts, ran a slew of retirement spending scenarios that involved variations of withdrawing a constant amount of dollars each year, a constant percentage of nest egg assets or an increasing percentage of assets. This last approach is based on the notion that adverse investment returns are especially damaging during the early years of retirement.

Withdrawing smaller percentages in those early years can help minimize nest-egg depletion (but it would have been scant protection from the Great Recession’s market plunge). You then can afford to withdraw larger percentages in later years primarily because your savings will need to last fewer years as you get older.

After producing nearly 100 combinations of drawdown approaches, dollar and percentage amounts, AIER was refreshingly candid: “There is no winning strategy.” Bad market conditions can ruin even the most prudent drawdown plans. Booming markets can make lunkheads look like geniuses.

Don’t get me wrong. The numbers do matter. But successful retirements, which is what we all really desire, are governed by emotions. I’ll write about these next week.

Philip Moeller is an expert on retirement, aging, and health. He is an award-winning business journalist and a research fellow at the Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College. Reach him at moeller.philip@gmail.com or @PhilMoeller on Twitter.

Related stories:

 

MONEY IRAs

This Simple Move Can Boost Your Savings by Thousands of Dollars

Stack of Money
iStock

Last-minute IRA savers and those who keep their money in cash are paying a procrastination penalty.

Individual Retirement Account contributions are getting larger—an encouraging sign of a recovering economy and improved habits among retirement savers.

But there is an “I” in IRA for a reason: investors are in charge of managing their accounts. And recent research by Vanguard finds that many of us are leaving returns on the table due to an all-too-human fault: procrastination in the timing of our contributions.

IRA savers can make contributions anytime from Jan. 1 of a tax year up until the tax-filing deadline the following April. But Vanguard’s analysis found that more than double the amount of contributions is made at the deadline than at the first opportunity—and that last-minute contributions dwarf the amounts contributed throughout the year. Fidelity Investments reports similar data—for the 2013 tax year, 70% of total IRA contributions came in during tax season.

Some IRA investors no doubt wait until the tax deadline in order to determine the most tax-efficient level of contribution; others may have cash-flow reasons, says Colleen Jaconetti, a senior investment analyst in the Vanguard Investment Strategy Group. “Some people don’t have the cash available during the year to make contributions, or they wait until they get their year-end bonus to fund their accounts.”

Nonetheless, procrastination has its costs. Vanguard calculates that investors who wait until the last minute lose out on a full year’s worth of tax-advantaged compounded growth—and that gets expensive over a lifetime of saving. Assuming an investor contributes the maximum $5,500 annually for 30 years ($6,500 for those over age 50), and earns 4% after inflation, procrastinators will wind up with account balances $15,500 lower than someone who contributes as early as possible in a tax year.

But for many last-minute savers, even more money is left on the table. Among savers who made last-minute contributions for the 2013 tax year just ahead of the tax-filing deadline, 21% of the contributions went into money market funds, likely because they were not prepared to make investing decisions. When Vanguard looked at those hasty money market contributions for the 2012 tax year, two-thirds of those funds were still sitting in money market funds four months later.

“They’re doing a great thing by contributing, and some people do go back to get those dollars invested,” Jaconetti says. “But with money market funds yielding little to nothing, these temporary decisions are turning into ill-advised longer-term investment choices.”

The Vanguard research comes against a backdrop of general improvement in IRA contributions. Fidelity reported on Wednesday that average contributions for tax year 2013 reached $4,150, a 5.7% increase from tax year 2012 and an all-time high. The average balance at Fidelity was up nearly 10% year-over-year to $89,100, a gain that was fueled mainly by strong market returns.

Fidelity says older IRA savers racked up the largest percentage increases in savings last year: investors aged 50 to 59 increased their contributions by 9.8%, for example—numbers that likely reflect savers trying to catch up on nest egg contributions as retirement approaches. But young savers showed strong increases in savings rates, too: 7.7% for savers aged 30-39, and 7.3% for those aged 40-49.

Users of Roth IRAs made larger contributions than owners of traditional IRAs, Fidelity found. Average Roth contributions were higher than for traditional IRAs across most age groups, with the exception of those made by investors older than 60.

But IRA investors of all stripes apparently could stand a bit of tuning up on their contribution habits. Jaconetti suggests that some of the automation that increasingly drives 401(k) plans also can help IRA investors. She suggests that IRA savers set up regular automatic monthly contributions, and establish a default investment that gets at least some level of equity exposure from the start, such as a balanced fund or target date fund.

“It’s understandable that people are deadline-oriented,” Jaconetti says. “But with these behaviors, they could be leaving returns on the table.”

Related:

 

MONEY 401(k)s

How to Fix the 401(k) and Income Inequality in One Fell Swoop

A top economic adviser wants to cut the tax break for 401(k) savings for high earners and launch a new government plan with a generous match and low fees.

Two hot-button economic issues appear to be colliding: the failed 401(k) plan and growing income inequality. Both have been garnering headlines, and now a noted expert is tying them together through proposed reform.

Gene B. Sperling, a former White House economic adviser in both the Clinton and Obama administrations, wants to cut the tax advantage of 401(k) contributions to top earners. He also wants to create a government-funded universal 401(k) plan that would incorporate all the best parts of these plans—low fees, safety, a generous match, and automatic enrollment.

Presumably, a government-backed 401(k) plan also would offer an option like deferred annuities, which the industry has been resisting, and an easy way to convert some or all of your 401(k) balance to guaranteed lifetime income upon retirement. Both those provisions have had strong backing from the White House.

In a New York Times op-ed, Sperling blamed an “upside-down tax incentive system” for contributing to income inequality in America, adding “it makes higher-income Americans triple winners and people earning less money triple losers” as they save for retirement.

Currently top earners pay a federal tax rate of 39.6%, which makes their tax deduction for 401(k) contributions more valuable than the deduction for contributions of those in lower tax brackets. Top earners also have more tax-advantaged savings opportunities, and they benefit more from employer matches. The upshot, Sperling asserts, is that the top 5% of earners get more tax relief for saving than the bottom 80%. He proposes a flat 28% tax credit for saving, regardless of income.

His universal 401(k) plan also would skew toward lower income households with a dollar-for-dollar match up to $4,000 a year below certain income thresholds. Higher income households would be capped at 60 cents on the dollar—still about double the average match today.

Sperling isn’t the first to champion a universal 401(k) or fret publicly about income inequality. President Clinton floated universal accounts in 1999. Versions of this government-funded plan exist in parts of Europe, and Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School and author of When I’m Sixty-Four, has been arguing for years for private sector workers to be able to enroll in cost-efficient and professionally managed state-operated retirement programs.

So far the idea hasn’t gotten much traction. The debate in Washington has centered on Social Security and tax reform. Maybe this op-ed from a beltway insider is a sign that 401(k) reform—and income inequality—will heat up as an issue in the coming election cycle.

If so, paying for it all will surely be part of the debate. But not to worry, writes Sperling. Among other possibilities, we could cut the federal estate tax exemption. Currently a married couple can leave $10.7 million to heirs tax-free. Cutting the exemption to $7 million would free up billions to bolster the retirement accounts of lower earners and shore up some of what’s wrong with 401(k) plans today—and take a further whack at income inequality in the process.

Related:

Half of Workers Are on Track to Retire Well—Here’s How to Join Them

Why Your 401(k) Won’t Offer This Promising Retirement Income Option

This Nobel Economist Nails What’s Really Wrong with Your 401(k)

MONEY 401(k)s

Why Your 401(k) Won’t Offer This Promising Retirement Income Option

More investors are flocking to deferred annuities, which kick in guaranteed income when you're old. But 401(k) plans aren't buying.

Longevity risk—that is, the risk of outliving your retirement savings—is among retirees’ biggest worries these days. The Obama administration is trying to nudge employers to add a special type of annuity to their investment menus that addresses that risk. But here’s the response they’re likely to get: “Meh.”

The U.S. Treasury released rules earlier this month aimed at encouraging 401(k) plans to offer “longevity annuities”—a form of income annuity in which payouts start only after you reach an advanced age, typically 85.

Longevity annuities are a variation of a broader annuity category called deferred income annuities. DIAs let buyers pay an initial premium—or make a series of scheduled payments—and set a date to start receiving income.

Some forms of DIAs have taken off in the retail market, but longevity policies are a hard sell because of the uncertainty of ever seeing payments. And interest in annuities of any sort from 401(k) plan sponsors has been weak.

The Treasury rules aim to change that by addressing one problem with offering a DIA within tax-advantaged plans: namely, the required minimum distribution rules (RMDs). Participants in workplace plans—and individual retirement account owners—must start taking RMDs at age 70 1/2. That directly conflicts with the design of longevity annuities.

The new rules state that so long as a longevity annuity meets certain requirements, it will be deemed a “qualified longevity annuity contract” (QLAC), effectively waiving the RMD requirements, so long as the contract value doesn’t exceed 25% of the buyer’s account balance or $125,000, whichever is less. (The dollar limit will be adjusted for inflation over time.) The rules apply only to annuities that provide fixed payouts—no variable or equity-indexed annuities allowed.

But 401(k) plans just aren’t all that hot to add annuities—of any type. A survey of plans this year by Aon Hewitt, the employee benefits consulting firm, found that just 8% offer annuity options. Among those that don’t, 81% are unlikely to add them this year.

Employers cited worry about the fiduciary responsibility of picking annuity options from the hundreds offered by insurance companies. Another key reason is administrative complication should the plan decide to change record keepers, or if employees change jobs.

“Say your company adds an annuity and you decide to invest in it—but then you shift jobs to an employer without an annuity option,” says Rob Austin, Aon Hewitt’s director of retirement research. “How does the employer deal with that? Do you need to stay in your former employer’s plan until you start drawing on the annuity?”

Employees are showing interest in the topic: A survey this year by the LIMRA Secure Retirement Institute found 80% would like their plans to offer retirement income options. The big trend has been adding financial advice and managed account options, some of which allow workers to shift their portfolios to income-oriented investments at retirement, such as bonds and high-dividend stocks. Some 52% of workplace plans offered managed accounts last year, up from 29% in 2011, Aon Hewitt reports.

“The big difference is the guarantee,” says Austin. “With the annuity, you know for sure what you are going to get paid. With a managed account, the idea is, ‘Let’s plan for you to live to the 80th percentile of mortality, but there’s no guarantee you’ll get there.'”

Outside 401(k)s, the story is different. Some forms of DIAs have seen sharp growth lately as more baby boomers retire. DIA sales hit $2.2 billion in 2013, more than double the $1 billion pace set in 2012, according to LIMRA, an insurance industry research and consulting organization. Sales in the first quarter this year hit $620 billion, 55% ahead of the same period of 2013.

Three-quarters of those sales are inside IRAs, LIMRA says, since taking a distribution to buy an annuity triggers a large, unwanted income tax liability. But the action—so far—has been limited to DIAs that start payment by the time RMDs begin. The new Treasury rules could accelerate growth as retirees roll over funds from 401(k)s to IRAs.

“For some financial advisers, this will be an appealing way to do retirement income planning with a product that lets them go out past age 70 1/2 using qualified dollars,” says Joe Montminy, assistant vice president of the LIMRA Security Retirement Institute. “For wealthier investors, [shifting dollars to an annuity] is also a way to reduce overall RMD exposure.”

Could the trend spill over into workplace plans? Austin doubts it. “I just don’t hear a major thirst from plan sponsors saying this is something we should have in our plan.”

Related:

How You Can Get “Peace of Mind” Income in Retirement

The New 401(k) Income Option That Kicks In When You’re Old

Need Retirement Income? Here’s the Hottest Thing Out There

MONEY Get On The Right Path

Half of Workers Are on Track to Retire Well—Here’s How to Join Them

140618_money_gen_13
iStock

Save 15% of pay for 30 years and you will be fine, a new study shows. Save for longer, and it gets much easier.

The shift from traditional pensions to 401(k) plans hasn’t gone well for most workers. One in two U.S. households are destined for a lifestyle downgrade in retirement, data show, as guaranteed lifetime income from old-style pensions disappears. But new research finds that most families can stay on track to a comfortable retirement by regularly saving 15% of pay over 30 years. Start earlier, and you only need to put away 10%.

The news isn’t all bad if you’re starting late. Even folks past age 50 have time to adjust. But clearly those with the shortest windows to retirement have the steepest hill to climb—and probably need to start factoring in a longer working life and more austere retirement lifestyle right away.

The typical middle-income household headed by someone 50-plus, and with a projected retirement shortfall, would need to boost its savings rate by 29 percentage points to retire comfortably at age 65, according to the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. That would mean saving, say, 39% of every paycheck instead of 10%.

Calling this savings rate “unrealistic,” researchers Alicia H. Munnell, Anthony Webb, and Wenliang Hou conclude in their paper, “A better strategy for these households would be to work longer and cut current and future consumption in order to reduce the required saving rate to a more feasible level.” One thing the paper does not mention is that one in 10 U.S. workers is limited or unable to work due to poor health—and those past age 65 are three times more likely to have this issue, according to the National Health Interview Survey.

On a cheerier note, younger middle-income workers currently on track to fall short of retirement income still have time to realize their dreams by boosting savings just 7 to 13 percentage points (the younger you are, the lower the savings rate needed), research shows. The impact of starting early and letting your savings compound over more years cannot be overstated.

The typical wage earner planning to retire at age 65 in 2040 would need to build a nest egg of $538,000, the paper states. By purchasing an immediate annuity, you would replace 34% of pre-retirement income. Social Security would replace 36% of pre-retirement income—in all giving the household 70% of pre-retirement income, which is considered an acceptable minimum level. To reach this savings goal this household would have to save 15% of every paycheck starting at age 35. But if the household planned to work to age 70—or started saving five years earlier—it would need to save just 6% of every paycheck.

In general, the typical middle-income household must save enough to produce a third of its retirement income. Low-income households need only get a quarter of retirement income from savings. High-income households (with a more expensive lifestyle) need to save enough to produce half their retirement income, the paper found.

Related links:

Why It’s Never Too Late to Fix Your Finances

The Amazing Result of Actually Trying to Save Money

 

MONEY Social Security

How to Fix Social Security — and What It Will Mean for Your Taxes

As Baby Boomers retire, the Social Security trust fund is getting closer to running out of money, a new study finds.

Last week I explained why I thought it would be a bad idea to close Social Security’s long-term funding gap by simply making all wages — not just those up to the annual ceiling, which this year is $117,000 — subject to payroll taxes, thereby socking it to wealthier workers. That wasn’t a popular opinion among those who feel it only right to raise the levies on the top 1%, or even top 5%.

“When all other sources have been depleted soak the portfolio holders even more disproportionately,” one critic responded via social-media .

Tweets, unfortunately, don’t make great policy arguments. And as Social Security’s doomsday clock keeps ticking, it’s all the more urgent to come up with a balanced reform strategy and act on it. Last week the Congressional Budget Office projected Social Security’s trust funds would be depleted during calendar year 2030—a year earlier than its previous estimate. If this happens, the program could then pay only about three-fourths of its scheduled benefits.

How, then, to close the funding gap? Although I do not want to see the wealthy as the primary bill-payer for Social Security reform, I do think the payroll tax ceiling is set too low. Today that ceiling, which is $117,000 this year, captures about 83% of all wage income, but it used to apply to 90%. The reason for the decline is widening income inequality, as the upper end of the wage scale has soared disproportionately higher.

Raising the ceiling until it once again covers 90% of the nation’s wage income would help, somewhat, to improve Social Security’s finances, the CBO found. The big headline here is that hiking the ceiling to cover 90% of wages would require a huge jump—from a projected $119,400 in 2015 to $241,600. The steep hike is necessary because high-end earners are a relatively small slice of the U.S. population. Even so, raising the payroll tax ceiling, which more than doubles the amount of Social Security payroll taxes paid by wealthier earners, would close only 30% of the system’s projected 75-year actuarial deficit.

You might wonder why we don’t eliminate the ceiling altogether so all wages are subject to payroll taxes. Glad you asked. Eliminating the ceiling would still close only 45% percent of the deficit, according to CBO. Both these projections assume that wealthier people would also see their Social Security benefits increase.

To make a more significant reduction in the deficit, you could limit Social Security benefit increases for the wealthy to only an additional 5% of pre-retirement earnings. In that scenario, along with eliminating the earnings ceiling, we could close nearly two-thirds of the funding gap. Still, as I wrote last week, I think soaking the rich this way is nearly as bad as soaking poorer people. Soaking people is not what Social Security was or should be about. It’s about requiring people to set aside enough money through a mandatory payroll tax to provide them a modest level of retirement security.

For most people the payouts are, indeed, modest. In 2013 a 66-year old who had earned average wages during his or her working life would qualify for lifetime Social Security payments beginning at $19,500 a year. This amounts to 45% of average pre-retirement income. What’s more, most workers file for benefits early, which sharply reduces the level of income replacement.

Yet that’s pretty much how the program was designed, and even these low levels of replacement income have been enough for Social Security to be a spectacular success. Before the program began in the ‘30s, retirees had the highest poverty rate of any age group. Today they have the lowest. (Medicare gets major credit as well.)

Problem is, even as Social Security has worked well, the other parts of the retirement system have fallen apart. The move from defined benefit pensions to 401(k)s and other defined contribution plans has shifted enormous retirement risk from employers to employees, and the numbers show that many aren’t saving enough to meet their goals.

Given the looming retirement shortfall, there has been growing support to expand Social Security benefits, not contract them. That will be tough to do. As the CBO reported last week, under current rules Social Security’s long-term deficits will continue to balloon. Over the next 25 years, program income will amount to 5.2% of the nation’s gross domestic product, while program benefits will account for 6%.

The fundamental problem is the aging of America. As the wave of Baby Boomers moves into retirement, the number of people collecting Social Security is projected to rise by roughly a third from 58 million today to 77 million in 2024—and by nearly 80% to more than 103 million by 2039. By contrast, the work force, defined as people aged 20 to 64, is expected to increase by only 5% by 2024 and just 11% by 2039.

Something’s got to give. Higher taxes, in one form or another, are inevitable.

Philip Moeller is an expert on retirement, aging, and health. He is an award-winning business journalist and a research fellow at the Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College. Reach him at moeller.philip@gmail.com or @PhilMoeller on Twitter.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser