미국에서 예전에는 40년 근무해서 저축한 연금자산으로 여생을 넉넉히 보낼수 있었습니다. 소위 "9 to 5"(9시 출근 5시 퇴근)라는 정규직에서 은퇴해서 10~15년 정도의 황금시기(golden years)를 충분히 즐기면서 여생을 마감하는 거죠.
...
하지만, 이제는 은퇴후 적어도 30년은 더 살아야하는데 과거와 같은 넉넉한 삶은 기대하기 어려울 것 같다고 합니다.
미국 사회보장국(The Social Security Administration)에 따르면 현재 65세의 경우 25%가량이 90세까지, 10%는 95세 이상까지 생존할 것이라고 합니다.
2030년이 되면 무상 의료보장(Medicare)이 시작되는 연령이 73세로 연기되고 그나마도 보장해주는 약값도 치료영역도 줄어들 것이라는 소설 속의 이야기(Twenty Thiirty:The Real Story of What happens to America. by Albert Brooks)가 현실로 변하고 있다고 합니다.
아무튼 지금까지의 연금플랜들은 이런 장수리스크를 충분히 고려하고 않고 세워지고 있었던 거죠.
어제 워싱턴포스트 기사인데, 건강한 고령자가 참여할 수 있는 유연한 일자리 환경, 은퇴자를 위한 교육기회 확대, 의료정책 등에 관한 심각한 정책변화가 예상됩니다.
A key part of retirement planning is estimating your life expectancy.
It’s a tough thing to think about. On the one hand, you hope to live a long and healthy life. But what if you live too long? Will you have enough money saved to take care of yourself until the end of your life?
“When you live longer, your money needs to last longer,” writes Mark Fried for the New York Daily News. “But a big problem is many people still hold fast to a retirement model based on a much shorter life span. They don’t consider that their retirement could last three decades or more, and so they don’t plan how to pay for that.”
“About one out of every four 65-year-olds today will live past age 90, and one out of 10 will live past age 95,” according to the Social Security Administration.
Use the agency’s life expectancy calculator to get a rough estimate of how long you (or your spouse) may live.
In a blog post on longevity and retirement, Fidelity Investments makes this point: “Fifty years ago, most Americans shared a common view of retirement. You left the 9-to-5 job and transitioned into your ‘golden years,’ a period of roughly 10 to 15 years, give or take, to live off your pension plan and enjoy life. Now it’s hard to say what retirement is. For many it can stretch 30 years or more.”
In an interview with Fidelity Viewpoints, Laura Carstensen, founding director of the Stanford Center on Longevity, says with longer lives we have to reshape our visions of retirement.
“Most people can’t save enough in 40 years of working to support themselves for 30 or more years of not working,” Carstensen said. “Nor can society provide enough in terms of pensions to support nonworking people that long. I’d like to see us move in a different direction: toward a longer, much more flexible working life, with more part-time work, in which people could come in and out of the workforce and have greater opportunities for education throughout their lives.”
If you like a scary story, read actor Albert Brooks’s first novel, “Twenty Thirty: The Real Story of What Happens to America.’’
In this fictional 2030, full retirement age has been pushed to 73. Premiums on Medicare have been raised even though coverage has been cut. There are drugs that cure Alzheimer’s. But there are consequences to having a healthier aging population.
Brooks imagines an America in which the younger generation is taxed heavily to fund social programs for seniors who, because of medical breakthroughs, are living well past 90. As a result, the young adults resent “the olds,” as they are called. They become the first generation financially worse off than their parents.
Wait. We don’t have to imagine. This is a case of fiction imitating real life.
“While healthy retirees have much lower monthly medical expenses than those with serious conditions such as diabetes or cancer, their longer life expectancies mean that they actually need to save much more to pay health care costs in retirement,” writes Eleanor Laise, senior editor for Kiplinger’s Retirement Report.
Your thoughts Are you afraid of outliving your retirement savings? Send your comments to colorofmoney@washpost.com.
Retirement rants and raves I’m interested in your experiences or concerns about retirement or aging. What do you like about retirement? What came as a surprise?
If you haven’t retired, what concerns you financially? You can rant or rave. This space is yours. It’s a chance for you to express what’s on your mind. Send your comments to colorofmoney@washpost.com. Please include your name, city and state. In the subject line put “Retirement Rants and Raves.”
In last week’s retirement newsletter, I wrote about the increase in grandparents co-signing for student loans. I asked for your thoughts on the issue.
Julie of Austin wrote, “Grands will do ANYTHING for their beloved grandchildren, they make even the wisest of us lose all reasoning. I will print out this article and FRAME IT as a reminder for the time in the near future when this request comes from one or more of my seven granddarlings. Repairing our retirement savings after a layoff during the recession (& the recession itself) has been impossible enough, more financial hardship we do not need! Love does NOT equal money!”
Denise Keenan wrote, “My husband and I are now retired, and our two boys have fortunately been able to make their payments on their student loans. However, we co-signed on their loans many years ago. I remember the bank/banks threatening higher interest rates for the loans if the parent did not co-sign.”
She wanted to know if they can be removed as co-signers.
“I’m 71 and have a huge student loan due to high interest rates that they capitalize. If I can’t pay it off, will the loan die when I die? Or, will my family still be responsible for it? No husband or children but have a niece and sister.”
Your estate may be responsible for paying off your student loan (assuming there are enough assets left). But if you did not have a co-signer, family members would not be personally responsible for paying off the loan.
Many of you wrote to talk about your fears of rising health-care costs in retirement.
“I worry about the cost of health insurance and health care,” one reader wrote. “I am paying $1,000 a month for health insurance now with a $5,500 deductible. I am barely able to make these payments, but I have a depressed immune system and cannot move to another company. Why doesn’t the federal government allow insurance companies to sell across state lines? This would might give me and others like me a choice.”
“I retired last summer at age 60 and am in the midst of waiting for the outcome of my disability claim (for a spinal disorder),” another reader wrote. “I have a state employee pension and a Social Security widow’s pension, so basically I am quite comfortable. I have a nice apartment and can pay all my bills. The downside is that I am paying $400 a month for health insurance and have a $4,000 deductible. I also pay for prescription drugs for high blood pressure. I can afford the generics, for now. But costs are rising. My question is, how can Americans find this even remotely acceptable? I lived in a city outside the U.S. where I could walk into a clinic and get seen for about $10. I wanted a retirement as peaceful as it could get. I worked all my life to be able to sit and read, take vacations, buy gifts for my family, sleep late and consume the occasional shrimp cocktail. I am worried now about my ability to take care of my health.”
I’d like to end on some observations about retirement from Jim Gallagher of Bemidji, Minn.:
“I guess I don’t have any crazed rants or raves about retiring,” Gallagher wrote. “But since you asked, I’ll offer a few insights since pulling the pin in 2011. I was a federal civil service employee and retired at the ripe age of 55. I had met my age and service requirements to collect my pension. I had no good reason to keep working. A federal government office is a community unto itself in rural areas. I rarely socialized outside a group of work associates while working. Since retiring, I have been surprised at how little I see agency employees around town much less at any social event. I just don’t seek out the people I used to work with. This has challenged me to find other friends or social outlets. It really is an ongoing challenge to stay socialized. I live on a lake, but rarely go fishing. I don’t need another thing to do alone. I look for activities where I can be involved with other people.”
On money he wrote: “I have been surprised at how far my retirement income goes month to month. I had mapped it out well, but I am still surprised when I have money left over at the end of the month. This has changed my mind-set about spending. I look at my savings and the monthly pension check and look out ahead at how many more years I have on this earth. I feel like I need to have a spending plan now versus the savings plan I stuck to for 30 plus years. This stability is great, but I need to couple this with greater elements of happiness and socialization as I age.”
Newsletter comments policy Please note it is my personal policy to identify readers who respond to questions I ask in my newsletters. I find it encourages thoughtful and civil conversation. I want my newsletters to be a safe place to express your opinion. On sensitive matters or upon request, I’m happy to include just your first name and/or last initial. But I prefer not to post anonymous comments (I do make exceptions when I’m asking questions that might reveal sensitive information or cause conflict).
If you’re viewing this post online, sign up to receive Michelle Singletary’s newsletters right into your email box: “Your Retirement” on Mondays and “Personal Finance” on Thursdays.
Read and share Michelle Singletary’s Color of Money Column on Wednesdays and Sundays in The Washington Post. You may also see the column in your local newspaper.
U.S. corporate pension funding ratios dipped slightly to about 86% in March, according to reports from Mercer, Wilshire Consulting, Conning, and Aon Hewitt.
According to Mercer, the estimated aggregate funding ratio of defined benefit plans sponsored by S&P 1500 companies was 87% as of March 31, down 1 percentage point from February on the back of negative equity market returns.
Discount rates decreased by 5 basis points in March to 3.92%. The S&P 500 and MSCI EAFE indexes decreased 2.7% and 2.2%, respectively.
The estimated aggregate deficit of pension fund assets of S&P 1500 companies totaled $286 billion as of March 31, up $24 billion from the $262 billion measured at the end of February.
"March snapped a streak of funded status gains dating back to August 2017, as it fell back slightly," said Matt McDaniel, a partner in Mercer's wealth business, in a news release on the results. "During this period, interest rates and equity valuations have both risen markedly. Plan sponsors should look to see if their pension policies are aligned for current market conditions. While the drop in funded status for March was small, history has shown us it is a question of 'when' — not 'if' — funded status volatility will return."
According to Wilshire, the aggregate estimated funding ratio for U.S. corporate pension plans sponsored by S&P 500 companies decreased by 1.6 percentage points to end March at 86.8%, yet remains up 3.6 percentage points over the trailing 12 months.
The monthly change in funding resulted from the combination of a 1.1% increase in liability values and a 0.8% decrease in asset values. Despite March's decline, the aggregate funded ratio is up 2.2 and 3.6 percentage points, respectively, year-to-date and over the trailing 12 months.
"March was the second consecutive month that saw funded ratios driven lower by negative total asset returns," said Ned McGuire, managing director and a member of the pension risk solutions group at Wilshire Consulting, in a news release on the results. "March's 1.6-percentage-point decrease in funding was the largest drop in 21 months. The retracement in funding was led by a decline in global equities and a rise in liability values that resulted from a nearly 10-basis-points decrease in the bond yields used to value pension liabilities."
Meanwhile, Conning's pension funded status tracker model that follows the funding of the average corporate pension plan in the Russell 3000 universe found the funding ratio of the average Russell 3000 pension plan fell by 1 percentage point to 85% in March from 86% in February. This was mainly driven by a fall in global equity markets by around 2% due to global trade war concerns.
The average plan's liability also increased marginally as the effective discount rate fell by 10 basis points to 3.8% over March.
Year-to-date, the funded status is still up by 2 percentage points.
According to the Aon Pension Risk Tracker, the aggregate funding ratio for U.S. pension plans in the S&P 500 decreased to 86.5% in March from 87.7% at the end of February. Pension fund assets saw a -0.4% average return in March, according to Aon Hewitt.
Year-to-date through March 31, the funded status improved to 86.5% from 85.6% at the end of 2017. The funding deficit decreased by $31 billion this year, which was driven by a decrease in liabilities of $79 billion, offset by an asset decrease of $48 billion year-to-date.
21살부터 32살까지 청년들을 소위 밀레니엄세대라고 일컫는데요, 이 친구들의 노후 준비는 엉망이라고 합니다. 그도 그럴것이 쥐꼬리만한 월급에서 공과금내고 집세 내고 학자금 대출 갚고나면 남는게 없는 거죠. 게다가 실업률도 높잖아요. 그래서 이 친구들 중 66%가 은퇴후를 위한 준비를 전혀 안했다고 하네요.
그나마 노후준비를 하고있다는 33%가 저축하고있는 금액의 평균은 6만8천달러 (약 7천만원)이지만 대부분은 2천만원에 불과합니다. 취업이 불완전해서 퇴직연금제도에도 가입되어 있지 않은 경우도 많고 당장에 써야할 돈들이 많으니 미래를 위한 연금은 요원해지는 모양입니다.
...
2018년 3월에 the National Institute on Retirement Security가 2014년 패널자료를 토대로 발표했습니다.
Most Millennials are not on track when it comes to saving for retirement.
That's no surprise. After paying bills, rent and making student loan payments, there's often not much leftover each month for young people, many of whom entered the workforce at a time of stagnant wages and high unemployment.
But a new report shows just how far off track they might be. About 66% of people between the ages of 21 and 32 have absolutely nothing saved for retirement, according to the National Institute on Retirement Security. The report is based on Census data collected in 2014.
"I see in practice that a lot of us are putting retirement down the goal priority list, in favor of paying off student debt or buying homes," said Douglas Boneparth, a certified financial planner and author of The Millennial Money Fix.
Waiting to save could significantly delay retirement. You'll be missing out on valuable years of compounding returns.
Many people aren't overspending or living a frivolous lifestyle, yet still can't afford to put money toward all their competing priorities.
For those people, Boneparth finds "nothing wrong" with not saving for retirement as long as they're honest with themselves about what their financial goals are.
"I know it will delay your ability to achieve financial independence," he said. "But how are you going to tell someone who has a child that saving in a 401(k) is more important than their immediate needs?"
About one-third are saving for retirement. Most have less than $20,000 but some have much more. The average account balance is $67,891, according to the report.
If they are saving, it's likely their employer offers a retirement plan, like a 401(k). More than 94% of Millennials who are eligible for a workplace retirement plan are saving. That's about the same participation rate as older generations.
But Millennial workers in particular often find they don't meet the eligibility requirements for a 401(k) even if their employer offers one. Sometimes they don't work enough hours, or employers require them to work for a certain amount of time before they qualify.
About 25% of Millennials said they were not eligible to participate in an employer-sponsored retirement plan because of their part-time status.
Loosening these eligibility qualifications would increase the number of Millennials saving for retirement, the report said.
Of course, people can save for retirement without an employer sponsored plan. Most people are eligible for Traditional or Roth IRAs, which also offer tax benefits for retirement savings.
미국 펜실베니아는 윌리암 펜(Penn)의 숲(sylvania)이라는 뜻이랍니다. 오늘이 이 땅의 337번째 생일입니다.
보통 유럽사람이 건너와서 아메리칸 인디언을 내쫒고 땅을 빼앗는 것이 일반적인데, 펜 아저씨는 그러지 않았다고 하네요. 워낙 우애있게 공존하는 것을 좋아해서 자기가 처음 정착한 부둣가 마을 이름도 "우애의 세계"로 불렀답니다. 이 도시가 미국이 대영제국주의와의 독립전쟁을 촉발시킨 독립선언문을 낭독한 장소이고 최초의 수도가 된 필라델피아이죠 ㅎㅎ
The Isle of Man Financial Services Authority today announced a change to the implementation date for the updated capital and solvency framework for non-life insurance business.
The development is published in the FSA’s Roadmap for updating the Isle of Man’s regulatory framework for the insurance industry.
The Roadmap currently states that an updated risk based capital and solvency framework for non-life insurance business will be introduced on 30 June 2019. These proposals represent a very significant change in approach to solvency requirements for non-life insurers and the FSA recognises that further engagement is needed to determine the final approach in some areas of the proposed updated capital and solvency framework. The FSA also recognises that industry will need appropriate time to prepare for the implementation of the new framework.
The FSA’s proposed implementation date for the updated capital and solvency framework for non-life insurance business will be deferred by 12 months from 30 June 2019 to 30 June 2020.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Christopher Copper-Ind
christopher.copper-ind@odmpublishing.com
Christopher Copper-Ind is Editor of International Investment. He has extensive experience of the publishing industry having worked across the Middle East and Europe. He oversees the content across all its formats together with the business development for International Investment.
1967년 미국의 생명보험 보유계약은 2천7백만 건이었는데, 2016년에도 여전히 2천7백만건입니다. 인구는 50%나 증가했는데, 왜 이럴까요?
기대여명이 증가함에 따라 정기보험에 대한 인기가 시든 것도 원인이 될수도 있지만, 이것만으로 해석이 되지는 않고, 1992년부터 2010년 기간의 환경을 볼때 세제나 인구구조로 설명안된다고 합니다.
그런데, 재미있는 데이터가 있습니다.
1989년에 고졸 출신들은 76% 생명보험계약에 가입했는데 2013년에는 55%로 준 반면에, 대졸 출신은 88%에서 73%로 줄어서 감소폭이 적었습니다. 그리고 하위 20% 소득자는 44%에서 27%로 급락한 반면 상위 20% 소득자의 경우 94%에서 85%로 감소폭이 적습니다.
Life insurance is losing its appeal in the U.S. In 1965, Americans purchased 27 million policies, individually or through employers. In 2016, a population that was more than 50 percent larger still bought only 27 million policies. The share of Americans with life insurance has fallen to less than 60 percent, from 77 percent in 1989. Why this is happening remains a puzzle.
People buy life insurance for various reasons: to pass wealth along to future generations, to provide liquidity for mortgage payments, or to cover funeral expenses, to name a few. These motivations may become more or less important as the population shifts demographically.
Yet socioeconomic and demographic trends can’t explain the decline in life insurance, a recent analysis from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago has found: If various population groups had acted the same way in 2013 as they did in 1989, 78 percent of U.S. households would have had life insurance, not 60 percent.
Other evidence points in the same direction. The observed declines have been steeper for cash value life insurance, which includes a saving component, than they have been for term life, which does not. Another study looking specifically at cash value ownership found that neither changes in demographics nor in the tax law (which can affect the incentives to hold cash value policies) can explain the declines from 1992 to 2010.
The puzzle deepens when one examines life expectancy, which clearly should influence decisions about life insurance. Theoretically, the lower a person’s chance of dying over a given period, the less should be his or her desire for life insurance during that time. And over the past few decades, overall life expectancy has risen.
But this otherwise plausible explanation doesn’t work when you take a closer look and see that life expectancy has been rising rapidly only among higher earners. For lower earners, it has been stagnating or even declining. The top 40 percent of male earners who reached age 50 in 2010 could expect to live seven to eight years longer than those who reached that age in 1980. But there was little to no increase for the bottom 40 percent of male earners across those generations, a National Academies of Sciences panel that I co-chaired found.
If life insurance changes were being driven by life expectancy, we would expect ownership to fall less (or perhaps even rise) among lower earners and to fall more among higher earners. Instead, the opposite has happened.
In 1989, 76 percent of Americans with a high school diploma owned any kind of life insurance. By 2013, that share had declined to 55 percent. For those with a college degree, ownership fell only to 73 percent, from 88 percent. Similarly, among people in the top 20 percent of the income distribution, life insurance ownership fell to 85 percent from 94 percent, while it dropped to 27 percent, from 44 percent, among those in the bottom 20 percent of income.
Perhaps people in low-income households can no longer afford policies, or they don’t consider it as necessary as they once did to protect against financial risk to their families. Another possibility, though, is that policy pricing is having an effect.
Most individual life insurance policies require a medical exam. If the health of lower earners is deteriorating relative to that of higher earners, the price of life insurance for them will rise disproportionately. And if life insurance companies put more weight on the risks to life than the individuals do, they’ll end up with policy pricing that’s unattractive to lower earners.
It is also possible that industry changes have affected life insurance purchases. Over the past two decades, many insurance companies “demutualized” by shifting from being owned by policyholders to being owned by shareholders. Mutual insurance companies appear more inclined to sell life insurance, and so this broader industry trend may be affecting how policies are advertised and sold. Evidence suggests that term life policies became cheaper as they became more widely available on the internet, which may be why term policies have declined less dramatically than cash value policies have.
Finally, although fewer people are buying life insurance, those who do are buying more valuable policies. Apparently, while some families are deciding insurance isn't worth buying, others consider it such a good idea, they're buying more. That only makes the puzzle harder to solve.
This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
To contact the author of this story: Peter R. Orszag at porszag5@bloomberg.net
