퇴직연금의 목표연계투자

연금시장 2018. 7. 6. 22:00

프랑스, 미국 뿐만아니라 전세계적으로 DB제도와 부과방식의 공적연금이 축소되고 DC가 대세가 되고 있습니다.

따라서 연금제도는 흔히 말하는 1층 부과방식 공적연금, 2층 회사가 마련해주는 퇴직연금, 3층 개인이 스스로 마련하는 개인연금의 체계가 시들어버리고... 내가 얼마를 노후대비를 위해 투입할까와 그 투입한 자금을 어떻게 투자할 것인가라는 근본적인 질문을 개인들이 답해야하는 시대로 급변하고 있습니다.

...

지금 시장에서 TDF라고 불리는 생애주기 펀드가 그 대안일까요?

이 기고문의 집필자 Vincent Mihau는 현재 이 TDF는 유연하지도 안전하지도 않다고 단언하네요.
비록 주식과 채권의 비중을 원칙에 따라 자동적으로 배분하는 것이기에 그간의 투자자들으 편향들을 극복하는 장점은 있지만, 이 펀드는 은퇴자산을 안전하게 끌고가는 것에는 전혀 신경쓰지 않는다(nor explicitly intend to secure)는 거죠. 단순히 투자성향, 연령 따위에만 의존하면서 시장의 변화는 완전히 무시한다는 것입니다.
흔히 안전자산이라고 하는 채권과 MMF도 이자율이 변하기에 당연히 가격이 변하는 것이기에 투자자의 각기 다른 퇴직시점과 그 은퇴기간 동안에 약속한 안정적 소득흐름을 만들어주지는 못합니다.

그렇다면 종신연금이 대안일까요? 물론 종신연금은 은퇴기간 동안 고정된 수입을 주겠지만, 잘 아시다시피 수수료도 적지않고 일단 구입하면 해약불가능하기에 유연성이 낮고 그래서 수요가 높지 않습니다. 즉 종신연금은 TDF나 채권투자의 단점인 안전성을 극복할 수 있지만, 유연성은 해결이되지 않습니다.

결국 안전성과 유연성을 해결해 주는 대안은 목표연계투자(Goal-Based Investing)입니다.

뜨는 해입니다.

 

출처 : https://risk.edhec.edu/editorial-individuals-need-flexicurity-retirement-solutions

 

Individuals need flexicurity in retirement solutions

Vincent Milhau

Uncertain perspectives for the first two pillars of pension systems

It is now commonly acknowledged that financing retirement is a concern for many individuals, as evidenced by numerous press articles describing the economic difficulties faced by pension systems, as well as calls from political decision-makers to undertake necessary but painful reforms to keep them sustainable. Those who have tried to estimate their replacement income – the income that they will receive from all sources after they retire – may have realised how difficult it is to get a precise number, given the uncertainty over the future rules governing public and private pension arrangements as well as the benefits that these plans will deliver. Uncertainty is magnified for young individuals, who have longer horizons. Older individuals in the transition from work life to retirement may come up with a more accurate forecast, but this exercise more often than not reveals that they will not be able to maintain their lifestyle after retirement, with retirement income levels typically much lower than their pre-retirement wage levels.

Unfunded pay-as-you-go systems, such as Social Security systems in the United States and France, are under strong pressure because of demographic imbalances and the roll-over of persistent public deficits. Public and private occupational pension plans can be relied upon as additional sources of replacement income in retirement, but they increasingly tend to be defined-contribution, as opposed to defined-benefit, arrangements. As a result, participants are left with little certainty about their future benefits. Overall, and in view of increasing longevity and the current underfunded status of many pension plans, the most likely scenario is a decrease in the benefits provided by the first and second pillars of the retirement system. In this context, it becomes critically important for individuals to call on the third pillar, and to make voluntary savings to supplement their public and occupational retirement income.

A household finance problem with unsatisfactory solutions

This situation raises two fundamental questions: how much should one save for retirement, and how should one invest such savings? These are by no means easy questions, particularly for individuals who are not familiar with basic investment concepts. To bypass the difficult question of how to invest, it is tempting to rely on pre-packaged investment products promoted by professional asset managers. Popular retirement products include simple balanced funds, which maintain a constant mix between asset classes, and also target date funds, which gradually shift from equities towards bonds and cash. Providing individuals with a one-stop access to diversified funds applying systematic rule-based allocation strategies is certainly better than leaving them follow their sentiment or market trends, and surrender to their behavioural biases. These products, however, suffer from a number of severe limitations. In particular, they neither secure, nor explicitly intend to secure, any minimum level of replacement income, and their investment strategy, which is based solely on an investor’s risk aversion and/or age, completely ignores changes in market conditions.

An extreme approach to the investment decision problem is to rule out any risk taking and to go for safe assets only. That said, while conventional wisdom holds that cash and sovereign bonds are the perfect examples of safe assets, it turns out that they are not safe in the retirement context. Indeed, a random portfolio of fixed-income or money market instruments will not deliver a stable stream of income starting at an individual’s retirement age and for his/her lifetime. Basic asset pricing theory allows us to calculate the price to pay in exchange for one dollar of replacement income every year for a set period of time (say 20 years) in retirement. This is calculated as a function of the investor’s retirement date and the current level of interest rates. Like a regular bond price, this price moves on a day-to-day basis due to the passage of time (as retirement date approaches) and because interest rates fluctuate. Neither cash nor a standard bond index tracks this price accurately, so an investor who chooses these vehicles would have no guarantee of having stable income in retirement and could experience a loss in the purchasing power of his/her savings in terms of replacement income.

Products that deliver a fixed level of replacement income do exist, namely in the form of annuities. However, such products are in low demand because of their lack of transparency and flexibility. For instance, an annuity purchase is usually irreversible, meaning that the annuitant cannot recover the annuitised capital if he/she must go through an event that generates large expenses (e.g. a serious health problem) or simply if he/she wants to take advantage of other investment opportunities during the accumulation phase. Security is also a double-edged sword. The level of income is fixed at the purchase date, so it cannot decrease, but nor will it increase, even if financial markets perform well or if the price of one dollar of replacement income decreases. In short, annuities offer the security that target date funds and fixed-income instruments lack, but they lack flexibility and have no upside potential.

The EDHEC-Princeton Goal-Based Investing Index Series

At EDHEC-Risk Institute, we believe that individuals should not have to choose between security and flexibility. Improved forms of target date funds, which rely on goal-based investment principles applied to the retirement problem, can be promoted by the asset management industry to help individuals and households secure minimum levels of replacement income while generating upside exposure in the context of liquid and reversible investment products. It is also our conviction that several recent and ongoing innovations make it possible to apply goal-based investing principles to a much broader population of investors than the few traditional clients who can afford customised mandates or private banking services. These innovations are the mass production of cost-efficient indices, the mass customisation of strategies and the mass distribution of investment advice and vehicles through digital tools like robo-advisors. Progress in financial engineering and digital technologies should be combined with a sound investment philosophy committed to the achievement of client goals. In a nutshell, this context creates an opportunity to provide genuine investment solutions, as opposed to off-the-shelf products, to individuals preparing for retirement.

As part of its focus on welfare-improving forms of investment solutions, EDHEC-Risk Institute conducted rigorous research on the foundations and the implementation of goal-based investing strategies in a research chair sponsored by Merrill Lynch over the course of 2014-15. Mass customisation issues were also studied in a 2017 piece of research focused on the retirement investment problem. A whole new step towards facilitating the implementation of these concepts was recently taken with the launch of the EDHEC-Princeton Goal-Based Investing Index Series in May 2018, in partnership with the ORFE Department of Princeton University. These indices provide a living illustration of the concepts introduced in previous articles and publications, and they have a dedicated page on EDHEC-Risk Institute new website, where their performance and composition are published.[1]

There are in fact two families of EDHEC-Princeton Goal-Based Investing Indices. The Goal Price Index series represents the price of one dollar of replacement income for various retirement dates. As some investors may be interested in withdrawing their capital at retirement, as opposed to receiving a stream of income, a specific version of the Goal Price Indices represents the price of one dollar of capital at retirement. These indices help investors answer the question: what is the purchasing power of my savings in terms of retirement income or wealth? This is a good first step towards establishing whether or not they are on track to achieve their objectives. The second family consists of the actual Goal-Based Investing Index series, which represents the performance of goal-based investing strategies designed to increase the purchasing power of invested contributions while securing a minimum level of retirement income or wealth. To achieve their dual objective, these strategies make use of a mixture of a performance-seeking portfolio and a retirement goal-hedging portfolio, which is a replicating portfolio for what has been labelled a “retirement bond”, which delivers a fixed level of income or wealth. Retirement bonds could be issued by sovereign states as an additional instrument to finance their deficit, as explained in a press article published in the French daily paper Le Monde. The investment policy is based on transparent rules, and combines features of the proven technique of dynamic portfolio insurance and of the popular target date funds, so that these strategies can be regarded as “risk-controlled target date funds”. The foundation paper of the indices describes the strategies and their building blocks in detail and shows how effectively this revisited form of target date funds achieves its goals compared to traditional target date funds.

The launch of the EDHEC-Princeton Goal-Based Investing Index series is a joint initiative between a research centre internationally recognised for the quality and the relevance of its work on risk and asset management and one of the most respected academic institutions in the world. Through their combined expertise, the partners hope that they can foster interest in the investment industry for the launch of new forms of retirement investment solutions, which will eventually contribute to making finance useful again for all, and particularly for individual investors.

 

설정

트랙백

댓글

퇴직연금 중도인출로 인한 노후자금 부족

연금시장 2018. 6. 26. 21:56

지금 베이비부머 세대가 역사상 가장 노후가 취약한 세대라고합니다.

1950년대 이후 사회보장제도와 퇴직연금은 꾸준히 성장했지만 최근에는 그렇지 못했습니다. 대신 자녀 교육비와 부모 부양비로 인해서 빚은 늘어났죠.

참, 미국이야기입니다!

예전 퇴직연금과 달리 401k는 중도인출이 너무 쉬운게 함정인 듯 싶습니다.기사에 나오는 많은 사람들이 이혼하거나, 실직하거나 하면 쉽게 이거 깨서 생활비로 써버려서 결국 노후자금은 얼마 되지않게되는거죠.

 

A Generation of Americans Is Entering Old Age the Least Prepared in Decades

Low incomes, paltry savings, high debt burdens, failed insurance—the U.S. is upending decades of progress in securing life’s final chapter

 

Americans are reaching retirement age in worse financial shape than the prior generation, for the first time since Harry Truman was president.

This cohort should be on the cusp of their golden years. Instead, their median incomes including Social Security and retirement-fund receipts haven’t risen in years, after having increased steadily from the 1950s.

They have high average debt, are often paying off children’s educations and are dipping into savings to care for aging parents. Their paltry 401(k) retirement funds will bring in a median income of under $8,000 a year for a household of two.

Change of Plans

The decline of pensions and increase in 401(k) and similar plans is one reason many seniors aren’t as ready for retirement as the previous generation.

Workplace retirement-plan participation for workers aged 50-59

%

100

None

46%

75

Pension

9%

50

Both

7%

25

401(k)*

38%

0

2001

’98

’13

’10

’07

1989

’16

’92

’95

’04

*Both public- and private-sector workers Note: Data may not add to 100% due to rounding.

Source: Center for Retirement Research at Boston College

In total, more than 40% of households headed by people aged 55 through 70 lack sufficient resources to maintain their living standard in retirement, a Wall Street Journal analysis concluded. That is around 15 million American households.

Things are likely to get worse for a broader swath of America. New census data released this week shows the surge of aging boomers is leaving the country with fewer young workers to support the elderly.

Individuals will find themselves staying on the job past 70 or taking menial jobs as senior citizens. They’ll have to rely more on children for funding, pressuring younger generations, too.

Companies, while benefiting from older workers’ experience, also have to grapple with employees who delay retirement, which means they’ll be footing the costs of a less healthy workforce and retraining older workers.

And for the nation, the retirement shortfall portends a drain on public resources, especially if seniors reduce taxable spending and officials decide to cover additional public-assistance costs for older Americans who can’t make ends meet.

Future Imperfect

…more have debt…

Older Americans are facing a tougher retirement outlook than the generation before them. Their income has stagnated…

Percentage of families with heads age 55 or older with debt

Median personal income, age 55-69*

$35,000

80

%

30,000

70

25,000

20,000

60

15,000

10,000

50

5,000

0

40

2000

’90

’16

1950

’60

’10

’70

’80

1992

’95

’98

2001

’04

’07

’10

’13

’16

…at higher levels than those before them…

…leaving more people ‘at risk’ on the verge of retirement.

Percentage of households age 50-59 estimated to have less retirement savings than they need to maintain their current lifestyle

Debt per capita for people age 60–69, adjusted for inflation

%

50

$5,000

Auto

4,000

45

3,000

40

2,000

Student loan†

35

1,000

30

0

’13

’10

2004

’16

’07

2005

’15

’10

Older Americans are facing a tougher retirement outlook than the generation before them. Their income has stagnated…

…more have debt…

Percentage of families with heads age 55 or older with debt

Median personal income, age 55-69*

$35,000

80

%

30,000

70

25,000

20,000

60

15,000

10,000

50

5,000

0

40

’80

’16

’70

’90

’60

1950

’10

2000

’13

’10

’07

’98

’04

’95

1992

2001

’16

…at higher levels than those before them…

…leaving more people ‘at risk’ on the verge of retirement.

Pct. of households age 50-59 estimated to have less retirement savings than they need to maintain their current lifestyle

Debt per capita for people age 60–69, adjusted for inflation

50

%

$5,000

Auto

4,000

45

3,000

40

2,000

Student loan†

35

1,000

30

0

’10

’07

2004

’16

’13

2005

’15

’10

…more have debt…

Older Americans are facing a tougher retirement outlook than the generation before them. Their income has stagnated…

Percentage of families with heads age 55 or older with debt

Median personal income, age 55-69*

$35,000

80

%

30,000

70

25,000

20,000

60

15,000

10,000

50

5,000

0

40

’60

’70

’90

’10

’80

1950

’16

2000

’13

’10

’07

’04

2001

’98

’95

’16

1992

…at higher levels than those before them…

…leaving more people ‘at risk’ on the verge of retirement.

Pct. of households age 50-59 estimated to have less retirement savings than they need to maintain their current lifestyle

Debt per capita for people age 60–69, adjusted for inflation

50

%

$5,000

Auto

4,000

45

3,000

40

2,000

Student loan†

35

1,000

30

0

2004

’07

’13

’10

’16

’10

2005

’15

Older Americans are facing a tougher retirement outlook than the generation before them. Their income has stagnated…

Median personal income, age 55-69*

$35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0

’70

’80

’90

2000

’10

’16

’60

1950

…more have debt…

Percentage of families with heads age 55 or older with debt

%

80

70

60

50

40

’07

’98

’10

’95

1992

’16

2001

’04

’13

…at higher levels than those before them…

Debt per capita for people age 60–69, adjusted for inflation

$5,000

Auto

4,000

3,000

2,000

Student loan†

1,000

0

’10

’15

2005

…leaving more people ‘at risk’ on the verge of retirement.

Pct. of households age 50-59 estimated to have less retirement savings than they need to maintain their current lifestyle

50

%

45

40

35

30

’16

2004

’07

’10

’13

*Adjusted for inflation   †for self or children

Sources: Urban Institute analysis of Census Bureau data (income); Employee Benefit Research Institute (pct. with debt); NY Fed Consumer Credit Panel / Equifax (loans); Center for Retirement Research (at risk)

“This generation was left on their own,” said Alicia Munnell, director of the Boston College Center for Retirement Research. The Journal’s conclusion about living standards in retirement was based on estimates provided by Ms. Munnell’s center and data from the U.S. Census.

As with many baby boomers, 56-year-old Kreg Wittmayer once thought he was doing things right for a solid retirement. In his 20s, he began saving in his 401(k). He cashed it out after a divorce at age 34. He built up the fund again, then cashed out five years later after losing his job, he says. “It was just too easy to get at.”

Mr. Wittmayer, of Des Moines, Iowa, says he now has a little over $100,000 saved for retirement. He owes $92,000 in parent loans for his daughters’ college costs, he says. He doesn’t know when, or whether, he will be able to retire, in direct contrast to his parents, a former firefighter and a former teacher who collect guaranteed pensions. “They never had to worry about saving for their retirement.”

This prospect is upending decades of progress in financial security among the aging. In the postwar era, for a while, fixed government and company pensions gave millions a guaranteed income on top of Social Security. An improving economy led to increased wages. Many Americans retired in better shape than their parents.

No more. Baby boomers were the first generation of Americans who were encouraged to manage their own retirement savings with 401(k)s and similar vehicles. Many made investing mistakes, didn’t sock enough away or waited too long to start.

Consider:

•Median personal income of Americans 55 through 69 leveled off after 2000—for the first time since data became available in 1950—according to an analysis of census data done for the Journal by the Urban Institute, a nonprofit research organization that has published research advocating for more government funding for long-term care. Median income for people 25 through 54 is below its 2000 peak, but has edged up in recent years, and younger workers have more time to adjust retirement-savings strategies.

•Households with 401(k) investments and at least one worker aged 55 through 64 had a median $135,000 in tax-advantaged retirement accounts as of 2016, according to the latest calculations from Boston College’s center. For a couple aged 62 and 65 who retire today, that would produce about $600 a month in annuity income for life, the center says.

•The percentage of families with any debt headed by people 55 or older has risen steadily for more than two decades, to 68% in 2016 from 54% in 1992, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan public-policy research nonprofit.

•Americans aged 60 through 69 had about $2 trillion in debt in 2017, an 11% increase per capita from 2004, according to New York Federal Reserve data adjusted for inflation. They had $168 billion in outstanding car loans in 2017, 25% more per capita than in 2004. They had more than six times as much student-loan debt in 2017 than they did in 2004, Fed data show.

Shortfall generation

A combination of economic and demographic forces have left older Americans with bigger bills and less money to pay them.

Tempted by a prolonged era of low interest rates, boomers piled on debt to cope with rising home, health-care and college costs. Interest-rate declines hurt their security blankets. Lower earnings on bonds prompted many insurance firms to increase premiums for the universal-life and long-term-care insurance many Americans bought to help pay expenses. Some public-sector workers are living with uncertainty as cash-strapped governments consider pension cuts.

Gains in life expectancy, combined with the soaring price of education, have left people in their 50s and 60s supporting adult children and older relatives. Some are likely to have to rely on professional caregivers, who are in short supply and are more expensive than informal arrangements of the past.

Then there are health-care costs. Since 1999, average worker contributions toward individual health-insurance premiums have risen 281%, to $1,213, during a period of 47% inflation, according to the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. Nearly half of 1,518 workers surveyed last June by the Employee Benefit Research Institute said their health-care costs increased over the prior year, causing more than a quarter to cut back on retirement savings, and nearly half to reduce other savings.

Only a quarter of large firms offer retiree medical insurance, which typically covers retirees before they become eligible for Medicare, down from 40% in 1999, according to Kaiser. More money is coming out of people’s Social Security checks to pay for Medicare premiums and costs that the federal program doesn’t cover, Kaiser says. Medical spending accounted for 41% of the average $1,115 monthly Social Security benefit in 2013, and the percentage has likely risen since, it says.

Unexpected health costs have taken a toll on Sharon Kabel, 66, of East Aurora, N.Y. She already had trouble making ends meet after a yarn shop she owned for about 15 years failed in 2017. Then she suffered a heart attack this year.

Sharon Kabel at home in East Aurora, N.Y. She stores remnants of her knitting shop at her house, from which she continues to sell yarn to make extra money. Photos: Mike Bradley for The Wall Street Journal

In the store’s heyday, she employed three part-time workers. On Friday evenings, customers gathered to knit over cookies and wine. “I was like a bartender. People would come in and tell me about their children and their problems,” she says. Many customers eventually defected to the internet.

Her Social Security check is barely enough to cover the $800 monthly mortgage on the house she bought after a divorce settlement 11 years ago. She brings in another $800 a month cleaning houses, baby-sitting, walking dogs and selling yarn stored in her basement, she says. She grows vegetables and cans them for the winter.

She just started working three days a week at a garden center, a job she says will last until winter. “I live frugally. I don’t get my hair cut or go on vacations, and I drive a 12-year-old car.”

After a hospitalization, Ms. Kabel relied on friends and relatives for help. Some brought food and gift cards. Because Ms. Kabel skipped a Part D drug plan when she signed up for Medicare last year, one of her five children paid the $173 monthly cost of one prescription, she says. Another paid a $350 heating bill.

She has since secured drug coverage but owes $10,000 in credit-card debt. As a shop owner, she never earned enough to set up a tax-advantaged retirement plan.

Pension retreat

For many Americans facing a less secure retirement than their parents, the biggest reason is the shift from pensions to 401(k)-type plans.

 

Note: If you have a traditional pension as opposed to 401(k) or similar accounts, this value will underestimate your actual retirement assets.

Methodology: The choice of four retirement ages coincides with important Social Security milestones. The earliest age at which it is possible to claim Social Security is 62. For most people, a full Social Security benefit is available between ages 65 and 67. (To find the full retirement age that applies to you, look up your birth year and 'Social Security full retirement age'). A maximum Social Security benefit is available to people who delay claiming until age 70. We assume wage growth of 1.2% a year until age 50. Calculations are in real rather than nominal terms, which means we assume you will receive annual raises that exceed inflation by 1.2% of income per year until age 50. After age 50, we assume your salary remains steady, meaning that your purchasing power keeps pace with inflation. To determine whether you are on track for retirement, we calculate your career average earnings and compare that to your projected assets at retirement age. We assume your current net assets—your assets minus debt—earn a real rate of return of 3.58% until your retirement age. The Journal used ratios of income to net assets provided by the Boston College Center for Retirement Research to estimate whether a person's savings, in combination with Social Security, would be sufficient.

A piano and organ maker in the 1880s launched one of the first employer-sponsored pension plans, and railroads, state and local governments, and others followed, according to the Social Security Administration. By the 1930s, about 15% of the labor force had employer pensions.

In 1935, federal officials created Social Security to offer a basic income. Pensions gained steam after World War II, and by the 1980s, 46% of private-sector workers were in a pension plan, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

A seemingly small congressional action in 1978 set the stage for a pension retreat. Some companies had sought tax-deferred treatment of executives’ bonuses and stock options to supplement their pension payouts, and Congress authorized the move. The tax-law change ushered in the 401(k), allowing employees to reduce their taxable income by placing pretax dollars in an account.

In the 1980s, union strength was ebbing and a recession pressured employers to reduce pension funding, says Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at the New School. Many employers deployed the 401(k) to displace pensions.

Market declines in 2000 and 2008 revealed the perils of do-it-yourself retirements, as many 401(k) participants cut back on contributions, shifted funds out of stocks and never put them back in, or withdrew money to pay bills.

Arthur Smith Jr. , 61, is still feeling the impact. He consistently saved in 401(k)-type plans with various employers over the past 35 years, he says. His 401(k) got hit hard in the market crashes, he says, in large part because he invested in individual tech stocks.

“We were allowed to pick our own stocks and I jumped on some high-risk ones,” he says. His 401(k) lost about half its value early in the 2000s and lost about half again in 2008, he says. “We didn’t plan it right and lost a few times.”

He and his wife, Connie, 56, withdrew about $25,000 from the account to buy a house last year when he was transferred to Houston from New York. The account is down to about $20,000, they say, and they haven’t been able to sell their New York home, so they have two mortgages.

He has a pension from a decade working at a large corporation that he expects will generate about $500 a month. Combined with Social Security, he could earn about $3,000 a month in retirement income at age 66, which he says isn’t enough. “My ideas of retiring are gone.”

Others have been diligent savers but lacked knowledge to manage their money. “You don’t have a lot of people to coach you how to invest,” says Parline Boswell, 63, of New York City. She saved $5,000 during several years as a housekeeper in the 1990s while raising three children.

'I’m still working and trying to catch up,' says Parline Boswell, 63, here at home after her night shift and heading to the bank to wire money to her mother. Photos: Kevin Hagen for The Wall Street Journal

In 1998, she went to a bank for investing advice and ended up with a money-market account, which earned minimal income until 2007. She had become a hospital phlebotomist and in a conversation with colleagues learned about tax-advantaged investing.

She says she now has about $30,000 in a 403(b), a cousin to the 401(k). “That’s not enough,” she says. “I’m still working and trying to catch up.” She also helps with expenses for her mother, aged near 100, and anticipates working until 70.

Recognizing the 401(k)’s shortcomings, Congress in 2006 enacted legislation making it easier for employers to enroll employees automatically and put them into funds that shift focus from stocks to bonds as they age. Almost a dozen states have authorized state-run retirement-savings programs to cover some of the estimated 55 million private-sector workers without workplace plans, according to AARP, the advocacy group for older Americans.

Those safeguards generally came too late for Americans now in their 60s, including Linda McCord, 69, of Denison, Texas. After 15 years as a manager at a consumer-lending firm, she took a lump-sum pension payment in the late 1980s following the sale of the business, she says. None of the finance or banking jobs she held after that offered a pension.

She wasn’t concerned about her retirement because her husband had hundreds of thousands of dollars in a profit-sharing plan. She did have a 401(k) at a mortgage-origination firm in the early 2000s, but its balance was small when she left the workforce in 2003 due to health problems.

Her husband, Rusty, 63, followed in 2011 after a factory closing. They lived off her Social Security Disability Income for a couple of years and spent much of the money in his profit-sharing plan. They now live on her Social Security and his disability payments.

Rusty and Linda McCord going through unpaid bills and on their front porch. Ms. McCord's medications. Photos: Cooper Neill for The Wall Street Journal

Money tight, Ms. McCord says she is selling parts of a collection of Star Trek action figures, dolls, yo-yos, lunchboxes and a book autographed by actor Leonard Nimoy.

She also struggles with another higher cost for her age group: life-insurance premiums. The annual premium on a policy she has owned since 1994 more than tripled over the past two years, she says, to about $2,000 this year. “I just want to scream bloody murder,” she says. “It is hurting so bad.”

She wants the $100,000 policy to pay for her funeral, to extinguish debts and to “hopefully have a little for our grandkids” left over.

Write to Heather Gillers at heather.gillers@wsj.com, Anne Tergesen at anne.tergesen@wsj.com and Leslie Scism at leslie.scism@wsj.com

설정

트랙백

댓글

퇴직연금 부담금 미납을 통지하지 않은 사업자에게 벌금 부과

연금시장 2018. 6. 24. 13:03

2018년 6월22일 영국 감독원은 사용자의 부담금 미납 사실을 가입자에게 통지하지 않은 사업자에게 1만5천파운드(약 2천2백만원)의 벌금을 부과하기로 했다고 공시했다. (참고로 부과가능한 최대 벌금액은 2만5천파운드이다)

감독원은 검사를 통해 2015년8월부터 2017년5월까지 498개 기업이 약 2,115명의 가입자의 약90만 파운드의 부담금을 제때 납부하지 않았고, 이 사실을 자동등록제(Auto Enrolment) 사업자인 Smart Pension Limited가 통지하지 않은 것을 적발하였다.

감독원 수석 검사국장 Nicola Parish는

'사용자가 근로자의 퇴직급여를 제때 납입하고 잘 투자되어 자신의 노후자금이 쑥쑥 커진다'는 것을 근로자가 신뢰할 수 있어야 하고, 그렇기에 근로자는 자신 몫의 부담금이 미납되었다는 사실을 알 권리가 있다고 말했다.

 

출처 : https://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/3034662/smart-pension-trustees-fined-for-failing-to-report-unpaid-contributions-following-tpr-probe

 

Smart Pension trustees fined for failing to report unpaid contributions following TPR probe

Parish: “It is vital that workers can be confident that their contributions are being collected and invested properly so that their savings can grow"

Smart Pension failed to report the fact it had not collected or invested nearly £900,000 of pension contributions on behalf of its members, an investigation by The Pensions Regulator (TPR) has found.

The regulator's investigation found Smart Pension - which runs the Autoenrolment.co.uk master trust - failed to report that 498 employers had failed to pay contributions that were due. Smart Pension also didn't inform the pension scheme members of the issue.

Its findings are reported in a determination notice, published today.

The watchdog found that the scheme trustee - EC2 Master Limited - did not ensure the scheme had a proper reporting system in place to comply with statutory requirements.

TPR fined the scheme trustee £15,000 for failure to report to members some late payments as required by section 49(9) and section 88(1) of the Pensions Act 1995. The maximum fine in the band range that the panel considered appropriate in this case was £25,000.

TPR executive director of frontline regulation Nicola Parish, said: "It is vital that workers can be confident that their contributions are being collected and invested properly so that their savings can grow.

"They have a right to know if payments are not being made and we need to know so that we can investigate why it is happening."

She continued: "Smart Pension's systems and processes were ineffective and the trustee's failure to act on its responsibilities was unacceptable, but we are encouraged by the commitment of both to improving the way they work. We are clear that schemes must have efficient and robust processes in place to protect members' funds. We will take action where this is not the case."

Between January 2015, when the scheme was launched, and 31 October 2017, Smart Pension alerted the regulator to 32 reports of late payments.

On 31 October 2017, it made 498 reports of material payment failures to TPR - all of which should have been reported earlier. The total value of outstanding contributions in this report was £888,651.94.

In total, around 2,115 members were affected by the failures between August 2015 and May 2017 and were only informed that their contributions had not been collected and invested after TPR informed Smart Pension it was their duty to contact them.

Following the investigation, Smart Pension's independent chair of trustees Andy Cheseldine said: "We now have a system in place which includes an automated ‘health check', an algorithm which runs checks every day on every single employer to make sure they are keeping up with their payments.

"We are very grateful to TPR for its acknowledgment of the improvements we have made and our commitment to keep working closely with them. We take our duties very seriously and what happened was not acceptable. However, we are confident that with this new system in place, this will not happen again.

"It is important to remember that nearly all the employers we reported have now paid their lapsed contributions, and that this finding was for a failure to report payments that had been stopped by employers."

설정

트랙백

댓글

연금가입시 본인의 투자성향을 먼저 고려하세요

연금시장 2018. 6. 3. 13:40

안정적인 노후소득 보장을 위해서 모두가 반드시 연금을 들어야 할까요?

정답은 '사람마다 다르다'입니다....
투자성향이 높고 안정적 현금흐름에 만족하지 않는 분들에게 연금은 부적합하죠.

반면 cd금리 수준으로 인플레이션 리스크를 헷지하는 것에 만족하고 급격한 시장변화에도 안정성을 추구하시는 분에게는 연금이 괜찮은 대안입니다.

물론 연금가입시 각종 옵션과 특약을 얹게된다면 추가비용내거나 수령하는 연금액이 줄어든다는 것을 잊지마시구요.

 

출처 : https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T003-C032-S014-are-annuities-a-baby-boomer-retirement-solution.html

 

 

Are Annuities a Solution for Baby Boomers in Retirement?

The basics of how annuities work, how they can provide a lifetime stream of retirement income, their pros and their cons.

 

 

Retirement is posing a lot of challenges for Baby Boomers as many feel their money won’t last over 30 years. Lower interest rates and market fluctuations are making them pursue other options that will provide a safety net for the remainder of their lives.

SEE ALSO: Annuities: The 'Bad,' the 'Good' and the 'Misunderstood'

One potential solution for Baby Boomers is to purchase an annuity offering guaranteed income. With this, you can receive payments immediately or defer them, allowing the earnings to accrue tax-deferred with future payments taxed as ordinary income. There is no limitation on how much you can contribute to an annuity.

How do annuities work?

Annuities are contractual guarantees between you and an insurance company, either as a single deposit or multiple payments. In exchange, the insurance company follows through on the terms of the contract. Annuities grow tax-deferred until the interest is withdrawn, and payments can be taken as a lump-sum (which, although I’ve seen it, is not what I’d recommend) or through periodic distributions.

There are four basic types of annuities:

  • Immediate annuities offer a guaranteed fixed payment and are typically used to fund pension plans (e.g., for the rest of your life or, depending on your annuity terms, the rest of your spouse’s life).
  • Fixed annuities are similar to CDs, which promise a fixed interest rate over a set period of time through an insurance company instead of a bank. Rates for fixed annuities are typically higher than those offered by CDs.
  • Variable annuities allow you to directly invest in the stock market, usually through mutual funds although with less risk because your principal is guaranteed — but you’d have to pass away in order for your heirs to receive it. Payments will be based on the performance of your investments. The account usually carries some sort of guaranteed interest rate (although you would have to start receiving the payments in order to get the guarantee). On a side note, I’m not a fan of variable annuities. Most of the retirees I’ve met who had variable annuities with high fees had to surrender and receive less then what they put in to get out of them.
  • Fixed indexed annuities tie the interest rate they pay to an index, such as the S&P 500. The minimum a fixed indexed annuity will pay typically is 0% (meaning it is guaranteed not to lose money when the market falls), but it can significantly increase in comparison to a fixed annuity (although the top range is typically capped depending on the insurance company you purchase from, so it is imperative to find which ones have higher participation rates in the index chosen). You can also structure payments like immediate annuities.

Beyond the basic promise of receiving payments from the insurer, you can customize your contract to leave money to your spouse or your estate, and can work in guarantees that you’ll at least be able to get your initial deposit back should the performance be less than satisfactory. Be wary, however, that guarantees and other riders in your contract may come with added fees and costs. It’s important to be as informed as possible before making a decision.

See Also: The Myth of the Magic Retirement Number

Advantages Annuities Offer

1. Lifetime Income With Less Risk

The timing of withdrawals from a stock-based investment portfolio in retirement is always crucial and can be subject to “sequence of returns risk.” That means that if the market falls substantially when you are retiring or newly retired — just as you start taking withdrawals from your portfolio — your retirement savings could take a hit from which you can’t recover.

Understanding, and planning for, this risk will be the difference between running out of your retirement savings and never having to worry about retirement ever again. Market conditions can sway based on random occurrences, so timing can be extremely unfortunate. A portfolio can yield big returns for 20 years and then in one year set back all prior gains.

You can minimize this risk either by withdrawing a constant, non-inflation-adjusted, amount every year, or you could take an approach that incorporates guarantees with annuities.

2. Alternatives to Bonds

Bond interest rates move inversely with their prices, meaning that today’s bond holdings will drop in value in the future because interest rates have been predicted to rise in the coming years. Many retirees and investors have tried to combat this with dividend stock investments, but these can be volatile and risky, sometimes offering more problems than bonds.

One strategy that has worked to assist retirees from bond and stock market conditions while allowing them to retain income like a bond investment has been annuities. Besides this, other advantages include removal of bond default risk, and simplification of your investment management, which includes not having to pay management fees.

3. Principal Protection

Finally, annuities can be wonderful tools because of the principal protection they offer. Some annuities come with a guarantee that you will get all your initial deposit back from the insurance company at some point in time, generally to help make up for losses you may experience (in the case of variable annuities). The cost for this service is the only downfall to consider, usually in the form of an extra expense.

Downsides of Annuities

While annuities do offer a lot of positives, there are, of course, some negatives to consider. Variable annuities can come with a bevy of fees (such as a mortality and expense fee, administrative fees and the costs for riders), and they can be complicated and confusing to buy. In addition, they are guaranteed by the company that issues them, so it pays to check the company’s rating with a credit-rating firm such as Moody’s.

Another potential downfall is the amount of time you need to wait to have access the principal and interest, which is called the surrender period. Most companies make investors wait five to 10 years. So, you’d better be confident that you won’t have to withdraw your entire balance before that period is up, otherwise you’ll be looking at paying a surrender charge.

Also, if you take payments while you’re under age 59½, you may be faced with an additional 10% penalty from the IRS.

Who Should (and Shouldn’t) Consider Annuities

For investors who don’t need to secure a guaranteed stream of income for the rest of their lives or who aren’t worried about potential stock market fluctuations, annuities are most likely not the right fit.

However, for investors who would like higher interest rates than a CD, want to create a “personal pension” to last them through the rest of their lives or who want out of the stock market altogether, an annuity can be a considerable alternative.

In conclusion, annuities are not for everyone, but they can be a viable solution to Baby Boomers approaching retirement.

See Also: 4 Questions to Ask Before Adding an Annuity to Your Retirement Plan

Carlos Dias Jr. is a wealth manager and founder of Excel Tax & Wealth Group, an advisory firm offering strategic financial planning services to high-net-worth individuals, business owners, executives and retirees. He maintains a highly personal approach by accounting for the distinct needs that his clients have at different points in their financial lives. Dias is a contributor for Forbes, the Huffington Post, Kiplinger and MarketWatch.

Comments are suppressed in compliance with industry guidelines. Click here to learn more and read more articles from the author.

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

설정

트랙백

댓글

국채를 활용한 연금

연금시장 2018. 5. 29. 23:17

현재 종신연금은 은퇴후 한주만 지나서 사망해도 남는 자산은 없습니다.
다른 저축상품들은 인플레이션에 취약하고 게다가 수수료부담이 만만치 않습니다....

그런데 노벨경제학상을 수상해서 우리에게 친숙한 Robert Merton 교수(MIT)가 세계 최고 연기금 상아탑인 프랑스 EDHEC 대학원과 공동으로 그 대안을 연구하셨다고 지난주에 발표했네요.

노동자가 근로기간중에 국채를 매입하는데 퇴직할때까지 지급되는 이자는 없다가 은퇴후에야 그 이자와 함께 관련 수익들이 함께 지급됩니다.

 

출처 : https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2018/05/19/pension-bonds-are-an-ingenious-idea-for-providing-retirement-income

 

Will Selfies stick?Pension bonds are an ingenious idea for providing retirement income

But everyone still needs to save more

WHEN people stop working, they need a retirement income. Some are lucky enough to have an employer-provided pension linked to their salary. Everyone else faces a difficult choice.

Some keep their pension pot in cash and watch as it is eroded by inflation. Others use savings products with high fees and risk being hurt by a stockmarket downturn. A third option is an annuity, which guarantees a lifelong income but vanishes at death, even if that is a week after retirement.

Lionel Martellini of EDHEC, a French business school, and Robert Merton of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (a Nobel laureate in economics) have come up with an alternative. Workers would buy government-issued bonds while in employment; these would pay no interest until retirement. Over the next 20 years (the typical life expectancy on retirement) bondholders would receive payments comprising interest plus the return of the capital. These would be linked to inflation, or another measure such as average consumption. So a worker born in 1970, say, would buy a bond that made payments from 2035 until 2055. Every financial innovation needs an acronym, and these are called SeLFIES (Standard of Living Indexed, Forward-starting Income-only Securities).

They would act somewhat like annuities, though without protecting against the risk of living much longer than expected. One big advantage is that if holders die before the maturity date, the capital would be passed to their heirs. They could also be attractive to corporate pension funds and institutions such as sovereign-wealth funds. But if bond yields stay as low as they are now, workers will still need a big pension pot to be able to retire comfortably. The median pension pot of an American aged 40-55 is $14,500. That will not generate much income, whatever security it buys.

설정

트랙백

댓글

퇴직연금 가입자교육

연금시장 2018. 5. 7. 09:49

4월부터 미국 퇴직연금 가입자교육 행사기간( National Financial Literacy Month)이 시작되었나봅니다.
미국 근로자의 46프로가 일주일에 3시간 이상을 연금운용같은 금융이슈에 할당한다고 설문조사에 답했습니다....

근로자들이 연금운용관련 스트레스가 큰것만큼이나 사용자의 부담도 크겠죠.
사용자가 근로자의 퇴직연금 건강보험 은퇴후 삶을 교육해야하는데 혼자하기 어려우니 도움을 받아야죠
그 기간이 시작된것 같습니다.

 

출처 : http://tucson.com/business/retirement-planning-employers-can-help-when-it-comes-to-financial/article_ef8d9cb2-f3a7-5e1e-92a8-de8e3814bc5b.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share

 

Retirement planning

Retirement planning: Employers can help when it comes to financial literacy

Since April is National Financial Literacy Month, what better time than now to think about financial literacy not only at home, but also at work.

Whether you are a senior corporate officer of a major corporation with tens of thousands of employees or the employer of just a few, employers and employees alike can benefit from financial literacy education.

This proposition has been put to the test time and again.

It is clear that there are more employees who are “stressed” about their finances than not, according to “Financial stress and the bottom line: Why employee financial wellness matters to your organization,” a special report commissioned by PricewaterhouseCoopers. A link to the study can be found at pwc.to/2vPjMHT.

Productivity of stressed employees is impacted. Thirty percent of employees were “distracted by their finances at work,” and one out of two of those employees (46 percent) said they spent three hours or more a week dealing with issues related to their personal finances. In addition, 12 percent of employees missed work occasionally “due to financial worries.”

When asked “what are your biggest concerns about retirement,” 42 percent said “running out of money,” followed by “health issues” (33 percent).

What are employers doing about this state of affairs?

Many see personal financial challenges of workers as areas that employers can positively impact. According to a Society for Human Resource Management study, 83 percent of HR professionals reported that personal financial challenges had a large impact or some impact on overall employee performance. SHRM is a human resources professional society. To see the full survey findings, go to https://bit.ly/2Hu85HJ.

Mary Mohney, a certified public accountant and SHRM’s chief financial officer, made this point:

설정

트랙백

댓글