다양한 연령대의 사람들이 자신의 여명이 얼마일지에 대하여 오판하고 있다. 평균적으로 50대와 60대의 경우 자신이 75세까지 살 확률이 약 20%이고 85세까지 살 확률이 5%에서 10%라고 과소평가하고 있다. 분석에 따르면, 65세 때 인터뷰 한 1940년대에 태어난 남성의 경우 75세까지 생존할 확률을 65%라고 봤는데, 이는 공식적인 확률인 83% 보다 훨씬 낮았다. 여성도 마찬가지로, 객관적 수치인 89% 보다 낮은 65%를 예상했다.
이 연구는 IFS(Institute for Fiscal Studies)의 연구자들은 개인들이 예상하는 기대여명을 Office for National Statistics의 공식 생존율과 비교한 결과이다.
이 분석이 중요한 이유는 더 많은 사람들이 살아있는 동안 자신의 은퇴 생활에 필요한 소득을 만들어야 하기 때문이다. “50대, 60대 및 70대에 여명을 너무 짧게 예상하면 실제 생존기간 동안 쓸 돈을 빨리 쓸 수 있다.”라고 IFS의 경제학자이자 보고서 작성자인 David Sturrock는 말한다. 반면에 최고령대임에도 여명을 과대 평가하는 사람들은 여생이 얼마남지 않았음에도 남은 재산을 소비하는 것을 지나치게 꺼리는 경향이 있다. 여명을 잘못 판단하면 은퇴생활의 수준이 낮아질 위험이 있다.
60세의 미망인과 홀아비를 포함하는 일부 그룹은 여명에 대해 다른 사람들보다 더 짧게 예상했다. 80세까지 생존할 수 있는 객관적인 확률은 각각 77%와 67%였지만, 이 그룹의 응답은 49%와 39%로 상당한 차이를 보였다. 이는 미망인과 홀아비들은 은퇴 소득을 조기에 소진하기 쉽다는 것을 뜻한다. 반대로, 70대와 80대 노령자들은 평균적으로 90세 이상으로 살 가능성에 대해 지나치게 낙관적인 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 이들은 훨씬 더 오래 살 것을 예상해서 너무 적게 소비하게 된다.
최근의 정책 변화로 인해 퇴직후 소득을 제공하는 종신연금상품의 판매가 침체되었다. 대신, 55세 이상의 대부분 사람들은 퇴직소득을 현금 저축계좌 또는 주식시장 기반의 인출 프로그램(drawdown plan)에 넣어서 퇴직후 생애소득을 조달하고자 한다. 연금사업자 AJ Bell의 선임 분석가인 Tom Somby는 다음과 같이 말한다.
"기대여명을 과소 평가하면 일찍 은퇴자산을 소비할 위험이 있다. 연금강제 전환 폐지(pension freedom)로 사람들이 퇴직자산을 낭비했다는 명백한 증거는 없지만, 몇몇 사람들은 비용을 차감한 실질수익률이 5%로 예상됨에도 매년 10% 이상을 인출하고 있다. 기대여명에 대한 과소 평가, 은퇴자산의 투자수익에 대한 과대 평가와 과잉 지출은 은퇴자들의 미래에 대재앙이 될 것이다."
Older Britons pay the price for underestimating lifespans
Josephine Cumbo
April 17, 2018
What does the chart show?
It shows the extent to which people in various age groups are misjudging how long they are likely to live.On average, those aged in their 50s and 60s underestimated their chances of survival to age 75 by about 20 percentage points and to 85 by around 5 to 10 percentage points.According to the analysis, men born in the 1940s who were interviewed at age 65 reported a 65 per cent chance of making it to age 75, far lower than the official estimate of 83 per cent. For women, the equivalent figures were 65 per cent and 89 per cent.
How was the work carried out?
Researchers from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think-tank, compared individuals’ reported expectations of survival with official survival rates from the Office for National Statistics.
Why is this analysis important?
It matters chiefly because many more people are shouldering responsibility for making their retirement income last as long as they live. “When people underestimate their chances of surviving through their fifties, sixties and seventies they may save less during their working life, and spend more in the earlier years of retirement than is appropriate given their actual survival chances,” says David Sturrock, an IFS research economist and author of the report.“In contrast, people who overestimate their survival chances at the oldest ages may show an undue reluctance to spend their remaining wealth near the end of life. By misjudging their longevity, individuals risk having a lower standard of living in retirement than would otherwise be possible.”
What else did the analysis find?
Some groups were gloomier than others about their survival chances, including widows and widowers at age 60. While their official chances of surviving to age 80 were 77 per cent and 67 per cent respectively, responses from these groups found they thought they had a 49 per cent and 39 per cent chance of reaching 80 — a huge gulf in both cases.This implies that widows and widowers could be more prone to prematurely exhausting their retirement income.Conversely, the analysis found older people in their 70s and 80s were, on average, overly optimistic about the likelihood of living to age 90 and beyond. This could mean they spend too little of their income in the belief it will have to stretch out much longer.
Should policymakers take notice of these findings?
Recent policy changes have led to a slump in sales of annuities — products which provide a secure retirement income for life. Instead, most over-55s choose to put their pension cash into cash savings accounts, or stock market-based “drawdown” plans, where they have to make decisions about how to make their money last.Tom Selby, a senior analyst with AJ Bell, a pension provider, says if large numbers of people significantly underestimate their life expectancy they risk running out of money early.There was no clear evidence that savers were squandering their pension pots in the wake of the pension freedoms, he said. “However, our own research shows a significant minority are making annual withdrawals of 10 per cent or more, with the average person expecting post-charges investment returns of 5 per cent.
“The combination of underestimating life expectancy, overestimating investment returns and overspending could create a perfect storm for future retirees,” added Mr Selby.
4% 법칙은 1994년 MIT의 William Bengen이 Journal of Financial Planning에 투고한 것이다.
누구나 매년 은퇴자산 포트폴리오에서 4% 이내로 인출해서 쓴다면, 적립해 놓은 은퇴자산의 원금을 너무 일찍 써버리는 곤궁한 상황을 피할 수 있다는 것인데, 이 만병통치약 같은(ubiquitous) 이야기의 전제는 해당 포트폴리오의 40% 정도를 주식형 자산에 배분하여 운용하는 것이다.
물론 최근의 저금리로 인해 반신반의하는 의견들이 분분하지만, 다시금 4% 법칙에 힘을 얻는 연구결과가 나왔다.
Atlanta's Capital Investment Advisors의 대표인 Wes Moss는 주식의 수익률을 5%, 채권은 2% 그리고 인플레이션을 3%로 가정하고 1929년부터 2009년까지 82개의 퇴직시점에서 시나리오를 토대로 4% 법칙이 여전히 유효하다는 주장을 하고 있다.
Extending Bengen's research on the proper rate at which to draw down retirement assets using 25 more years of data shows the rule can still work
Feb 4, 2019 @ 3:59 pm
By Wes Moss
Those of us who have been in the financial advisory business for years can sometimes take established rules of thumb for granted – so much so that the nuances of such guidelines may get lost.
Take the 4% rule. When I started talking more about this ubiquitous rule last year, I performed my own informal survey. Over the course of a month, I asked several financial advisers if they knew the rule. Most indicated that they were indeed familiar with this guideline. But when pressed, many of those money "pros" were unable to articulate the rule's details and intricacies.
Although it sounds as though it should be simple, in practice there are complexities of the 4% rule that can lead to confusion over time. Still, it is a rule that I believe all financial advisers should fully understand.
The 4% rule was originally developed by William Bengen, a financial planner from MIT. Mr. Bengen published his study in 1994 based on data through 1992 in the Journal of Financial Planning.
Through his research, Mr. Bengen found retirees can take 4% of their initial retirement assets and increase that amount every year to account for inflation, assuming a 50% to 75% portfolio allocation to stocks. In Mr. Bengen's study, applying the 4% rule led to a worst-case scenario of an investor's money lasting 35 years. Thus, the 4% rule was born.
Of course, there is debate over whether the 4% rule remains a useful and pragmatic tool. Last year, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Forget the 4% Rule: Rethinking Common Retirement Beliefs." The piece touted the opinion of Wade Pfau, a professor at the American College of Financial Services, who believes, based on his research, that the 4% rule is obsolete and should be replaced with a more conservative 3% rule.
The article prompted me to research the state of the 4% rule. As a financial professional, I wanted to arrive at my own conclusion about the continued viability of this landmark rule.
I couldn't find research that extended beyond Mr. Bengen's groundbreaking study's original dates. So I took it upon myself to update the study's figures with an additional 25 years of data to bring it into the present day.
My team's work recreated the study with retirement withdrawals beginning every year from 1929 to 2009 — 82 separate retirement starting points. We used actual market data until 2017 and ran multiple simulations with historically conservative average return estimates thereafter: 5% for stocks, 2% for bonds and 3% for inflation.
What I found was that 70% of the time (58 of the 82 scenarios), retirement funds lasted 50 years or more. The remaining 30% of the time, the money "ran out," with the worst-case scenario in our study being 29 years.
So, my answer is yes, the 4% rule can still work.
I also added a few important pieces to my study that would hopefully assist other financial advisers in speaking to their clients about withdrawal rates.
We all know that hard-line rules and scolding don't work in the real world. I developed some guidelines around the rule to offer buffers, or safety zones, that give high-end (the danger zone at 6%) and low-end (the "Buffett" zone at 2%) parameters for ongoing conversations with clients.
The primary goal of this research and the accompanying safety zones is to help financial advisers understand the nuances of the 4% rule and be able to explain these intricacies to their clients cogently and pragmatically.
If, for instance, you sit down with a couple who are spending "too much," perhaps now you can simply remind them that the spending level isn't sustainable, and that they need to move into a middle- or low-safety zone of withdrawals soon.
Our bottom line is to ensure that our clients are in a safety zone within the 4% rule. Understanding the rule, its implications and the buffers I have identified are a great way to have that conversation.
확정급여형 제도에서 근로자는 퇴직후에 무조건 회사로부터 약정된 퇴직급여를 받는다? 그렇지 않을 수 있습니다. 우리나라는 회사가 퇴직근로자에게 일시금을 지급하는 연분지급제도(pension equity plan)를 도입하고 있지만, 미국은 그렇지 않아서 퇴사한 근로자에게 종신토록 회사가 책임지고 연금을 줘야합니다. 그런데 그 곳간(pension pot)이 바닥을 드러내면 어찌될까요?
미국 목수 연합의 BD(Carpenters Pension Plan)가 이꼴이 되어서 퇴직근로자에게 줘야할 돈은 4억6천만 달러인데 갖고있는 돈은 턱없이 부족한 2억27백만달러라고합니다. 곳간의 49.3%만 채워져있는거죠.
Southwest Ohio Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Plan, Independence, was approved to reduce benefits as part of a plan to remain solvent, according to the Treasury Department's website listing applications under the Kline-Miller Multiemployer Pension Reform Act of 2014.
The pension fund has 5,487 participants, of which 4,312 will be affected by benefit reductions averaging 14.7%, which would go into effect in March. At the time of the pension fund's June 2018 MPRA application, it was 49.3% funded, with $227 million in assets and $460 million in liabilities as of plan year 2017. Without benefit cuts, the pension fund was projected to be insolvent by 2036.
The next step is for participants and beneficiaries of the pension fund to vote on the proposed suspensions, which will go into effect unless a majority of them vote to reject them.
To date, the Treasury Department has approved 13 MPRA applications for benefit suspensions and denied five; another three applications are under review.
뉴욕 금융감독원(NY DFS)은 메트라이프 생명보험회사에 대하여 검사를 실시한 결과 13천명의 계약자에게 연금을 지급하지 않은 사실에 대하여 1,975만달러(약 222억원)의 벌금을 부과하고 189백만달러를 계약자에게 소급하여 지급해야한다고 2019년 1월28일 발표하였다. (메트라이프는 이미 123백만달러를 계약자에게 소급하여 지급한 상태이다.)
퇴직자에게 연금을 직접 지급해야하는 부담을 덜고자하는 기업들이 메트라이프 등 몇명 생명보험회사에 기업연금을 이전하였다. 따라서 기존 퇴직연금제도하에서 수급권이 있는 퇴직자들은 이 생명보험회사들의 단체연금 형태로 정기적으로 연금을 받게된다.
그러나, 2017년 메트라이프는 이 수급권자 중 수천명을 찾을 수 없었다고 감독당국에 자진신고하였고, 과소적립된 책임준비금을 510백만달러 더 쌓을 것이라고 2018년 2월에 밝힌 바가 있다.
"이 조치은 그간 메트라이프의 관리업무실패로 피해받은 계약자의 승리이며, 감독당국은 업무개선 요구 등을 통해 계약자를 보호하기 위해 노력하겠다"고 Maria T. Vullo 감독원 수석감독관이 말했다.
DFS SUPERINTENDENT VULLO ANNOUNCES THAT METLIFE WILL PAY A $19.75 MILLION FINE AND PROVIDE $189 MILLION IN RESTITUTION TO POLICYHOLDERS FOR FAILURES RELATED TO PENSION BENEFIT TRANSFERS
DFS Examination Revealed Insurer Violated Legal Requirements Governing Its Administration of Group Annuity Contracts, Procedures for Searches Against the Social Security Death Master File, and Variable Annuity Replacement Processes
Insurer Unlawfully Released Reserves on In-Force Annuity Contracts for Its Pension Transfer Business and Failed to Promptly Settle Group Annuity Pension Claims
$123 Million in Restitution Already Paid to Consumers Whose Benefits Were Lost or Delayed
Financial Services Superintendent Maria T. Vullo today announced that the Department of Financial Services (DFS) has entered into a consent order with MetLife Insurance Company, under which the insurer will pay a penalty of $19,750,000 for violations of New York Insurance Law stemming from a DFS examination which found that the insurer failed to properly locate and pay benefits to thousands of New York insureds and beneficiaries. As part of the consent order, MetLife will also pay retroactive benefits to policyholders in New York State and elsewhere totaling more than $189 million. The insurer has already paid $123 million of the approximately $189 million to consumers whose group annuity benefits had been lost or delayed, and will pay the remainder going forward.
“Today’s action is a victory for policyholders, whose benefits were not paid due to MetLife’s failures, with the Department taking the necessary action to protect consumers,” Superintendent Vullo said. “The restitution and other corrective actions mandated under this consent order will ensure that consumers are paid the benefits to which they are entitled and that an appropriate fine is paid and procedures put in place to prevent this from happening again. The Department appreciates MetLife’s cooperation in self-reporting its claims issues, resolving these matters, and committing to full restitution to all eligible beneficiaries.”
In addition to the benefits that have already been paid during the course of the DFS examination, MetLife is projected to make the following restitution to consumers:
$63 million set aside for expected death claims or escheatment based on a Social Security Death Master File process that DFS is requiring the insurer to use to identify life insurance and annuity contract holders who have died or where beneficiaries are unaware that they are entitled to benefits;
$1.85 million in monthly payments to consumers as the company completes a group annuity remediation process; and
$1.5 million in restitution to consumers whom the insurer failed to provide with accurate comparisons of fees and expenses when transferring from an existing to a new variable annuity contract.
In today’s consent order, MetLife was cited for violations dating back to 1992 and extending to 2017, including:
Improperly released reserves for 13,712 group annuity certificates, resulting in a subsequent reserve increase of more than $500 million;
Failure to adequately search for group annuity certificate holders to whom it owed pension benefits;
Failure to perform a cross-check against the Social Security Death Master File for group annuitants where a Social Security number was missing or a number was invalid;
Failure to take reasonable efforts to confirm the death of an insured and timely commence outreach to beneficiaries where it did not have specific information in its administrative systems;
Failure to research and timely commence outreach where certain variations of an insured’s information existed in its administrative systems;
Failure to ensure that variable annuity replacement disclosure statements were accurate and compliant with the law; and
Failure to present consumers with an accurate comparison of the fees and expenses between existing and proposed variable annuity contracts.
In addition to the fine and restitution, MetLife must take the following corrective measures:
Establish and maintain full statutory reserves for all group pension certificate holders;
Pay retroactive benefits with interest to already retired group certificate holders or their surviving beneficiaries; and
Send letters to all group annuity certificate holders no later than 5 years prior to the normal retirement date, including a certified letter around the normal retirement date, and letters at least every five years thereafter until the insurer pays benefits, escheats benefits under the Abandoned Property Law, or definitively determines that it has no payment obligation.
The consent order requires MetLife to retain a third-party servicer that specializes in locating beneficiaries who are due pension benefits and have not been paid. The insurer will be responsible for paying all expenses incurred by the third-party servicer.
The order also mandates that MetLife provide DFS with four detailed remediation plans providing for remediation or restitution to policyholders or their beneficiaries. Under the plans, the insurer will be required to undertake such activities as utilizing an enhanced death database which includes data from sources in addition to the Social Security Death Master File.
일본의 평균 수명은 84세로 세계에서 가장 높다. 이는 인구의 상당수가 노인이라는 것을 의미(미국인의 15 %, 독일인의 21 %가 65 세 이상인 반면 일본은 28 %이다)하고 노인들이 많아질수록 건강관리 비용이 더 증가한다는 것을 의미한다. 2018년 일본정부는 공적 의료보험에 부과하는 비용 이외에 건강관리 및 간호사업을 위해 15조엔(총 지출의 15 %, 약153조원)을 책정했다. 공적부채가 GDP의 250 %에 육박하게 됨에 따라 비용절감 방안을 절실히 찾던 중 병원이 아닌 집에서 노인을 돌보는 것이 최선의 선택이라고 여기는 것 같다.
일본은 40세 이상인 사람들이 65세 이상인 사람들을 위해 장기요양보험을 위해 보험료를 납입하는 제도를 2000년에 도입했다. 보험료가 이 서비스 비용의 약 60%를 차지하고 정부는 나머지 비용을 지불한다. 75세 이상인 사람의 평균 연간 의료비는 942,000엔인 반면 이하인 사람은 221,000 엔에 불과하다. 전반적으로 노인 수가 증가하고 있지는 않지만, 노인들이 알츠하이머나 당뇨병을 앓고 있음에도 오래 살기 때문에 지출이 많은 것이다.
따라서 일본정부는 수년간 재택 간호를 장려해 왔고, 재택 방문을위한 특별 간호 시설의 수는 2014년 7,473개서 2018년 10,418개로 증가했다. 도쿄근방의 한 마을은 단순히 진료 및 약처방을 하는 것이외에 환자와 보호자에게 컨설팅을 해주고 모임을 주선하는 설치하기도 하였다. 그럼에도 일본인의 13%만이 집에서 임종하고 있다.
일본 정부는 퇴직 연령을 올리면 사람들은 더 건강하고 더 오래 세금을 낼 수 있다고 생각하고 있다. 정부는 또한 노인의 질병 발생률을 줄이기 위해 노력하고 있지만, 질병 예방을 위해 젊은이의 행태를 개선할 필요가 있다고 여기고 있다.
A greying society searches for ways to curb health-care costs
Print edition | Asia
| KUNITACHI AND ONOMICHI
IN A SUNNY room in a small apartment in the Tokyo satellite town of Kunitachi lies Yasuyuki Ibaraki, eyes closed and breathing laboured. Yukio Miyazaki, his doctor, who visits fortnightly from a local clinic, suspects that he does not have much time left: he has brain damage from a cerebral infarction, a tumour in his digestive system and is unable to swallow or talk. Reiko, his wife, feeds him through a tube to his stomach and clears phlegm from his throat. “He is from a close-knit family and is a quiet man, so I think it is better for him to be here rather than in a hospital,” she says, over green tea and grapes.
Life expectancy in Japan is the highest in the world, at 84. This is good news for its people, but means that an ever-higher share of the population is elderly. Fully 28% of Japanese are older than 65, compared with 15% of Americans and 21% of Germans. More old people, in turn, means higher health-care costs. Last year the government budgeted ¥15trn ($138bn, or 15% of its total expenditure) for health care and nursing, excluding the charges it levies for the public health-insurance scheme. With public debt at 250% of GDP, and debt service consuming a further 24% of spending, the government is looking desperately for ways to cut costs. It reckons caring for people at home is one of its best options.
All Japanese pay a monthly premium to the public insurance scheme, either through their employer or the local municipality. In return they are entitled to treatment and drugs from public and private doctors and hospitals, although they must also pay a portion of the cost of treatment (a co-payment, in American parlance), subject to a cap. In 2000 Japan introduced an additional public insurance scheme for long-term care for those over 65, into which people must pay from the age of 40. It works the same way. The premiums and co-payments cover around 60% of the cost of the services provided; the government pays for the rest. And it is the old who cost the most. The government reckons that the average annual cost of health care for someone over 75 is ¥942,000, compared with just ¥221,000 for everyone else.
By the standards of ageing nations, Japan has managed to curb medical costs fairly well, says Naoki Ikegami of St Luke’s International University in Tokyo. The government sets fees for services to keep costs down (although that encourages providers to perform unnecessary procedures to make more money: Japan has more CT scanners relative to its population than any other country). It has also promoted the use of generic drugs, which are cheaper.
Life-giving, budget-busting
Nonetheless, the country has crept up to sixth place in the OECD’s ranking of the share of GDP spent on health care, behind France and America, but ahead of Italy and South Korea—two other ageing countries (see chart). It is not just that the number of old people is increasing; spending per person is rising, too, as people live longer with diseases like Alzheimer’s and diabetes.
Japan has promoted home care for many years, but it is pushing it harder now. The policy is especially beneficial given that the average hospital stay in Japan is three times longer than in the Netherlands, for instance. The health ministry reckons that 1m people will receive care at home in 2025—one-and-a-half times the current total. The number of special nursing units exclusively for home visits has risen from 7,473 in 2014 to 10,418 in 2018.
Last year a government panel suggested raising the amount doctors are paid for home visits and making consultations conducted via video-conferencing services eligible, too. It also proposed new rules to encourage care at home. Hospitals should be obliged to talk to social services when they discharge a patient, for example.
Some municipalities are already offering good care in the community. Onomichi, a small provincial city that is even older than the country as a whole, is one. Its medical facilities have 15-minute “care conferences” with doctors, nurses, family members and even dentists, to discuss how they will go about looking after people. “It used to be hard for hospitals to tell a patient to return home as there was no system for that; that has changed,” says Hisashi Katayama, a doctor.
Community care for specific diseases is improving, too. Take dementia, which currently affects 5m Japanese (4% of the population), and will afflict 6-7% by 2030. Rather than provide only institutional care and medicine, some towns, such as Matsudo, north-east of Tokyo, have set up cafés to offer advice and companionship to patients and their carers. Day centres that give respite to families tending to elderly relatives are common. Much more could be done: only 13% of Japanese die at home, although most say they want to.
But more widespread home care will not be enough to make Japan’s health care affordable. The government of Shinzo Abe wants to revamp the social-security system, which it reckons will help reduce health-care costs. Raising the retirement age, for example, will keep people active, healthier and paying tax for longer. The government also wants to try to reduce the incidence of diseases that affect older people, but have their origins in behaviour at a younger age. “We have tended to focus on the old, but we need to look at the younger to prevent disease,” says Kazumi Nishikawa of the economy ministry. He is particularly focused on giving people more information on what causes diabetes, which is on the rise in Japan, or exercises that can stem the progression of dementia.
People are likely to have to pay more for health care, too. Co-payments for many of those over 75 are only 10%, compared with 30% for everyone else. The government should start by doubling that to 20%, says Shigefumi Kawamoto, managing director of Kenporen, the national federation of health-insurance societies. “Some elderly people don’t have resources, but many do,” he avers. The government could exclude some items from coverage, he says, such as over-the-counter drugs.
Meanwhile, back in Kunitachi, Dr Miyazaki talks to Reiko about her husband’s condition. She is worried that her husband is getting worse, she says, and is anxious between visits. The doctor promises to come weekly from now on.
Harris Poll이라는 기관이 미국의 54~72세(64년생부터 54년생까지) 사이의 근로자 1500명을 대상으로 설문조사(Express Employment Professional)한 결과에 따르면 27%만이 은퇴준비가 잘되어 있다고 대답했다. 은퇴를 염두에 두고는 있지만 1/3의 사람들은 은퇴시기를 늦추고 있다. 그들은 계속 더 일하거나 시간제 아르바이트로 전환해서 일하다가 다시 복귀하고 싶어한다고 한다. 사무실에서 여전히 일을 하고 있다는 사실 자체가 자신이 지적이고 자신감있고 가치있는 존재라고 생각하게 한다고 말한다.
많은 고령 노동자들의 경우 노부모와 청년자녀를 도와야하고 생활비도 벌어야 하기에 일을 계속해야 한다고 한다. 매년 늘어나는 의료비도 대비해야 한다.
그러나 대다수 미국인들은 노후준비를 제대로 하지 않아서 2018년 갤럽의 설문조사에 의하면 46%의 사람들이 자신의 노후가 편안하지 않을 것이라고 생각하고 있다. (이는 2002년 32%에 비해서 상당히 높아진 수치이다.) 평균적으로 미국인들은 은퇴를 위해 5천달러를 저축하였고 5명중 한명은 전혀 적축하지 않고 있다.
따라서 가능하다면 은퇴를 늦추고 계속 일을 하는 것은 현명한 행동이 된다. Stanford대학교의 연구결과에 의하면 6개월간 은퇴를 미루고 일을 더하면 30년동안 1%의 추가적인 은퇴소득 증가효과가 있다고 한다.
은퇴를 늦추고 일을 더하는 것은 단순히 소득만의 문제는 아니다. 이들이 더 오래살며 더 건강해져서 노동시장에 남아있으므로 노동인구가 유지되는 것이다.
Retirement isn’t for everybody — or at least not every baby boomer.
The generation closest to retirement isn’t ready to leave the workforce, according to an Express Employment Professional poll of 1,500 U.S. workers between 54 and 72 years old, conducted by Harris Poll. Some have decided to extend their careers, others are dipping their toes into retirement by shifting to part-time work and then there are the retirees who decided they wanted to come back to work after all.
A majority of employed boomers, the generation born between 1946 and 1964, say they’re financially prepared for retirement (about 27% of them say they’re “very” prepared), according to the poll. Almost half had an age in mind for retirement — 66, on average — but for a third of participants, that age was delayed (and only 9% made it earlier). The desire to extend their careers might have to do with how these boomers feel when they are in the office: half or more of those who were still in the workforce said it made them feel knowledgeable, confident and valued.
But not all near-retirees are working longer because they want to keep busy. The participants who said they would never be able to retire said they felt frustrated, overwhelmed and old. Many elderly workers need to keep a job to pay for their living expenses, as well as help their elderly parents or young adult children. They also need to fund their own health care expenses in the future. Medical expenses rise every year, and even more so for the elderly. A 65-year-old couple who retired in 2018 could expect to spend $280,000 for health care in retirement, which does not include long-term care costs.
Many Americans are not financially prepared for retirement. Almost half — 46% — of Americans don’t expect to live comfortably in retirement, according to a Gallup poll from May 2018, a much higher figure than it was when Gallup first began tracking the sentiment of retirement preparedness in 2002 to 2004 (it was 32 to 36% then). Previous studies have suggested Americans have as little as $5,000 saved for retirement, and one in five have no savings at all, according to a 2018 Planning & Progress Study by Northwestern Mutual. Of the baby boomers surveyed, a third had between $0 and $25,000.
But delaying retirement, when possible, is a smart move for near-retirees, even if they do have a nest egg waiting for them. Postponing retirement for six months alone can equate to saving an additional 1% over 30 years, according to researchers at Stanford University, George Mason University, Cornerstone Research and Financial Engines, assuming that’s an option.
Postponing retirement isn’t all about money. Americans are living longer — and are healthier for longer — which keeps them in the workforce. There are also policy incentives for employees who work later into life, according to a study by Matthew Rutledge, a Boston University economics professor: the shift from pensions to 401(k) plans have incentivized employees to keep stashing away parts of their paychecks for their futures, and Social Security policy has workers holding out until full retirement age, or later, so they get the full amount of their benefit check, or more.
professionalpensions.com 에서 2018년 한해동안 가장 조회수가 높았던 20개 기사를 게시하였기에 이 기사들의 주요 내용을 다음과 같이 찾아가서 살펴보았습니다.
==============================
(1위) DB제도의 할인율 논쟁 (2018.5.29.)
전통적인 DB제도의 연금부채 산정시 높은 신용등급의 회사채수익률을 적용하는 것에 모두들 문제 제기를 해왔기에 할인율 논쟁이 새로울 것은 없으나, IFRS17 적용으로 많은 기업이 DB제도 도입을 꺼려하게 될 것이다. 회계기준위원회(ASB)가 투자수익률을 할인율로 제안했지만 받아들여지지 않았다.
(2위) 저소득자의 실질 수령액 문제 (2018.3.14.)
저소득근로자를 자동가입제도(Auto-enrlment)로 퇴직연금제도에 가입시키는데 있어서, 기업의 부담금 납입비율(contribution rate)이 5%로 상승하는 등 예외가 적용되는데, 이런 예외가 세금감면과 연결되어 스캔들이 발생하였다.
(3위) 연금수령 의무제도 폐지의 현황 (2018.1.5.)
영국의 연금수령 의무제도 폐지(pension freedom) 연금수령이 급감했으나, 사람들은 여전히 노후소득을 위해 연금을 필요로 하게 될 것이므로 전환점에 들어서게 될 것이다.
(4위) 비난받는 감독원(TPR) (2018.5.24.)
독립기구인 감독원은 연금보증기구(PPF)를 보호하고 기업의 지속가능한 성장이 이루어지도록 보호하는 역할도 수행한다. 따라서 일부 정책실패에 대한 행정관료들의 비난이 타당하지 않을 수도 있다.
(5위) 노동부 장관의 새해연설 : 연금활성화 방안 (2018.1.24.)
영국 고용노동부(Department for Work and Pensions)의 연금금융(Pension Finance Inclusion) 장관인 Guy Opperman씨가 새해연설을 하였는데, 주요내용은 다음과 같다.
은퇴자산 형성을 위한 영국 국민들의 자발적 저축이 최근 몇 년간 지속적으로 감소하고 있는데, 이를 극복하는 것은 정부만의 노력으로 되는 것이 아니고 금융소비자들과 파트너가 되어야만 가능하다. 그래서 정부는 2012년부터 자동등록(AE, Automatical Enrolment)제도를 실시하여 퇴직연금가입을 늘렸고 프랫폼을 만들어서 모든 이해관계자가 참여하도록 하였다. 또한 연금사기 방지 법안을 상정하고 소비자가 연금에 관한 좋은 자문을 받을 수 있는 환경을 조성하겠다.
(6위) 로이즈 판결과 수수료 (2018.11.1.)
Lloyds의 GMP(guaranteed minimum pension) 판결로 가입자들이 얻은 것은 거의 없고 엄청난 행정비용만 발생했다.
(7위) DB도입 기업의 어려움 (2018.1.22.)
기업 Carillion의 파산을 계기로 DB도입 기업의 어려움도 고려해야 한다.
이 기업은 연기금 적자가 확대되어도 16년동안 매년 주주배당을 확대하였다. 연기금 가입 근로자에게 손실을 끼치면서 주주에게 배당금을 지급하고 경영진에게 상여금을 지급하는 것은 잘못된 것처럼 보이지만, 이 기간 동안 기업은 많은 부담금을 납입하면서 연기금 재정적자를 메꾸려고 노력했던 측면도 있었다. 하지만 재정적자가 감소하면서 DB의 연금계리가정과 적용되는 할인율 등이 변경되면서 부채가 오히려 커지는 문제가 있었다. 따라서 정부는 단순히 DB도입 기업의 주주를 비난할게 아니라 연기금 재정부담 경감을 위한 DB제도 개선에도 노력해야 한다.
(8위) 연금 관련 옴브즈만의 판단관련 여론 (2018.8.9.)
2014년에 Northernumbria 경찰청은 Mr.N이 경찰 연기금에서 London Quantum 기금으로 옮길 때 연금사기에 대하여 제대로 주의경고하지 않았고 연금 옴부즈만에 의해 그 대가를 크게 치루고 있다.
경고 팜플랫 전달과 IFA(independent financial adviser)를 믿고 행동한 것 등에 관련하여 옴부즈만의 결정에 대해 불편해하는 여론도 있다.
(9위) DB 근본문제의 해결기회를 놓침 (2018.3.26.)
DB제도 운영시 드러나지 않는 비용 등이 있고 이는 근로자의 연금액을 낮추고 연기금의 적자를 유발하기도 한다. 백서(white paper)에서 이런 문제점 등을 드러내지 못하였고, 그 결과 정부는 DB 근본문제의 해결기회를 놓쳤다.
(10위) GMP판결 관련 (2018.10.30.)
영국 고등법원의 최소연금액 보증(guaranteed minimum pension)에 대한 판결로 인해 Lloyds는 100만파운드의 연금채무가 증가하게 되었다. 한편 이 판결이후에도 과거의 과소 납부금 등의 처리문제가 여전히 해결됮 않고 남아있다.
(11위) 공무원연금에서 여성의 수급권 (2018.11.27.)
Women's State Pension Inequality(WASPI)에 반대하는 여성단체는 1995년 영국 연금법 개정으로 여성의 연금수령 시기를 60에서 남성과 동일한 65세까지 올리는 계획을 포함시켰을 때 그 변경이 불공정하다고 주장했었다. 1950년대 출생한 여성의 3분의 1은 이제 연금수급 연령에 도달하여 연금을 청구하게 되었고 연금수급연령이 증가한 것의 영향을 받게되었다.
(12위) 연기금 가치평가시 ROA 적용 (2018.6.5.)
연기금 가치평가에 사용되는 방법들이 잘못되었다는 주장이 있고, 자산에 대한 기대수익률(ROA)을 사용하는 것이 가장 실용적이라고 주장되고 있다.
(13위) CDC와 DC (2018.2.20.)
지난 10년동안 DB제도가 급속하게 DC로 전환되고 있지만, DC는 단지 은퇴시점까지의 저축에 불과한 것이고, CDC가 비로서 은퇴이후 효율적으로 소득을 제공해 줄 수 있다. 왜냐면 공동운용으로 수수료를 낮출 수 있고, 장기투자가 가능하며 가입자들이 장수리스크를 공유할 수 있기 때문이다.
(14위) 영국항공사의 연기금 소송관련 (2018.7.9.)
British Airway의 연기금 수탁자들이 재량적으로 연금액을 인상시킨 것은 항공사에게 상당한 혜택을 준 것일 수도 있으나, 수탁인의 권한에 대한 불확실성을 확대시켰고 상당한 논란을 야기한다.
(15위) 대형회사 파산과 연기금 적립비율 규제 (2018.1.16.)
국내 최대 정부 계약업체 중 하나인 Carillion의 파산은 4만3천명 이상의 근로자와 수십개의 하청업체들에 타격을 줄 뿐만아니라 연기금에도 심각한 영향을 준다.
이 회사의 연기금 적자는 587백만 파운드에 달했는데, 그 중 일부는 현재 연금보호기금(PPF)에서 처리될 것으로 보인다.
파산조짐이 보이는 기업의 연기금 훼손으로부터 근로자를 보호하기 위하여 감독원(TPR)이 파산하는 기업의 영업활동에 대해 제재권한을 가져야 한다는 의견도 거론된다.
또한 연금수급자와 PPF를 보호하기 위해 최소적립요구가 필요하다고 주장되고 있다.
(16위) 법원판결이 지방정부 연기금(LGPS)에 끼친 피해 (2018.6.18.)
법원의 불합리한 판결이 지방정부 연기금(LGPS)에 큰 재정적 피해를 끼칠 수 있다는 주장이 있다.
2007년 이후 EU의 퇴직연금 기준(EU Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision)을 LGPS에 적용해달라는 요청을 정부가 수용하지 않은 바가 있다.
(17위) DB제도를 안전하게 이전하는 법(2018.8.6.)
영국 영업행위감독원(FCA)의 표본조사에 의하면 DB제도를 이전한 가입자의 53%가 신뢰하지 못할 자문을 받고 이전했다는 사실이 드러났다. 연금강제전환제도의 폐지로 인해 더 많은 사람들이 퇴직이전에 좋은 자문가르 찾는 상황이 되었다. 그러나 그 자문비용이 비싸고 연금사기가 빈번하여 주의를 요구하는 상황이다.
(18위) CDC 우수사례 (2018.2.26.)
Royal Mail의 노사가 CDC에 합의하자 주가가 상승하였다. 따라서 상당수의 대형 DC제도를 도입하고 있는 기업들이 CDC로 전환을 고려하고 있다. 그러나 이 혁신적인 CDC의 도입과정은 다양한 시뮬레이션과 분석을 병행하므로 상당히 느리게 전개될 것으로 판단된다.
(19위) DB제도의 세제감면 (2018.3.7.)
거론되고 일률적 세율(flat rate) 등에 따른 세금감면 조치가 기업의 부담금납입등에 어떻게 영향을 미쳐서 DB제도에서 어떻게 적용될지는 아직 불명확하다. 그러나 세제혜택관련 제도변경은 DB제도의 비용과 복잡성 등에 영향을 미칠 것이다.
(20위) 지방정부 연기금(LGPS)의 연합화 (2018.2.18.)
2017년 현대 총자산이 250억 파운드 이상인 80개 이상의 지방정부 연기금이 3년 이내에 성공적으로 연합하였다. 향후 상당한 비용절감과 우수한 투자수익으로 개별 연기금 보다 지속 가능한 장기수익을 얻을 수 있을 것이다.
What were the most read opinion pieces on Professional Pensions over the last 12 months? We look at some of the top pieces from our commentators during the year.
Controversy over the discount rate used to value defined benefit pension liabilities is nothing new but, as Tim Wilkinson and Frank Curtiss explain, the flaws may be more serious than many realise.
Ros Altmann calls for urgent action on 'net-pay' schemes, warning the impact on low earners will significantly worsen with contribution rates set to rise to 5%.
Jonathan Stapleton says government must take action to help lift the DB burden facing many UK businesses, rather than simply just blaming 'greedy' bosses and shareholders for pensions loss.
Edward Brown says The Pensions Ombudsman's maladministration ruling against the Northumbria Police Authority for its handling of a transfer out of the Police Pension Scheme is an 'uncomfortable' decision.
Iain Clacher and Con Keating say there is much confusion over pension valuations and argue all the methods currently used are wrong. They say a pragmatic resolution could be to use the expected return on assets.
Con Keating says the Royal Mail pension story is a rare piece of pension good news. And there are a number of major listed firms watching developments in CDC closely.
Warner Bros/Courtesy Everett Collection 
