많이 받는 연금전략

연금시장 2018. 7. 3. 22:12

고령에도 일할수 있게 은퇴를 늦추고
국민연금 수령액을 많이 받도록 수령시기도 늦추고
은퇴자금은 자신의 기대여명을 고려해서 계획적으로 인출해서 써라...

미국 보험계리사회가 말하는 연금전략입니다.

미국의 경우 1998년에는 Fortune지 선정 500개 기업 중 59%가 DB형제도를 도입했는데 2017년에 16%로 급감했다고 합니다.

결국 근로자는 은퇴 후에 전통형 DB형 제도를 통해 연금을 받지 못함에 따라 근로자 스스로 401k같은 개인퇴직계좌를 통해서 스스로 노후자금을 설계해야하는 상황이 불가피하게 된거죠

노령연금(Social securities)의 경우 늦춰서 70세에 받는다면 62세 때보다 8% 더 많이 받는다고 하네요.

그리고 MRD( required minimum distribution)를 이용하면 자신의 기대여명을 감안해서 은퇴자산에서 얼마를 꺼내써야할지 알 수 있다고 합니다.

 

 

출처 : https://www.seattletimes.com/explore/careers/no-pension-you-can-pensionize-your-savings/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=article_title_1.1&_native

 

No pension? You can ‘pensionize’ your savings

The strategy helps older workers mimic a steady pension with their own retirement savings with three steps: Work longer; delay taking Social Security to maximize payments; and set a basic budget using an amount that you are required to withdraw from your retirement accounts anyway.

Share story

After years of working, many people face the challenge of converting their savings into a sustainable flow of income in retirement. Some researchers think they have a practical solution: Workers should take steps to “pensionize” their nest eggs.

The transition from saving to spending was once relatively simple, at least for retirees with traditional pensions offering predictable payments. But such plans are dwindling — in 2017, only 16 percent of Fortune 500 companies offered a defined benefit plan (traditional or hybrid) to new hires, down from 59 percent among the same employers in 1998, according to Willis Towers Watson — as employers have shifted to investment-based retirement accounts funded largely with worker savings.

While employers have taken steps to automate employee contributions to workplace plans, retirement experts say, few offer options for automatic payment plans in retirement. That means many retirees face a jigsaw puzzle of payments, requiring them to piece together an income from their workplace retirement stashes and individual retirement accounts to supplement Social Security.

One option is to use some of their savings to buy an annuity — an insurance contract that pays out income over time. But many of them are complex and larded with fees.

The complexity often pushes people to “wing it,” said Steve Vernon, a research scholar in the financial security division at Stanford University’s Center on Longevity. Retirees may then spend too much, jeopardizing their long-term financial security.

Vernon and two colleagues think they have a workable solution, developed in collaboration with the Society of Actuaries and outlined in a report in November: The “spend safely in retirement” strategy.

It focuses mainly on middle-income people — those who have saved perhaps $100,000 to as much as $1 million as they approach retirement — who generally lack traditional pensions, but have workplace 401(k)-type investment plans or IRAs. Wealthier people with professional planners, however, can also use it.

The strategy helps older workers mimic a steady pension with their own retirement savings with three steps: Work longer; delay taking Social Security to maximize payments, and set a basic budget using an amount that you are required to withdraw from your retirement accounts anyway, effectively “pensionizing” your savings.

Working longer — at least part time — can help cover basic living expenses and preserve savings. That in turn helps enable the second step, the postponement of Social Security benefits, ideally until age 70, to maximize those payments. For each year past your “normal” retirement age that you delay claiming Social Security benefits, your payments increase by 8 percent, until age 70 (the automatic increases stop at that point, although adjustments for inflation continue).

Taking benefits sooner, in contrast — say, at 62, the earliest age for taking benefits — significantly reduces your check.

Robert Siwa, 74, of Findlay, Ohio, said he filed for Social Security benefits at age 62, then worked off and on for a few years before fully retiring. He didn’t have a pension, but he had received a payout earlier from a company profit-sharing plan, which he invested in an IRA.

Then, in 2011, the annual premium on a life insurance policy he held skyrocketed at renewal, because of a health problem. He felt it was important to keep the policy, so he returned to work part time to pay for it. He works on call, driving cars between auto dealerships. “I really didn’t want to take it out of retirement savings,” he said. “It’s a balancing act.”

Cindy Hounsell, president of the nonprofit Women’s Institute for a Secure Retirement, said she often is asked what women should do if they lack retirement savings. “Keep working!” she said. “That’s your answer. Where else are you getting 8 percent?”

If 70 isn’t possible, working even an extra year or two can help.

The third step of the strategy (warning: retirement jargon ahead!) is to draw down a percentage of your retirement accounts each year as income, using the Internal Revenue Service’s “required minimum distribution” amount as a guideline. That’s the money retirees typically must withdraw from most types of retirement accounts each year, after age 70 1/2.

Called an “RMD,” the amount is calculated each year as a percentage of your retirement savings, based on an IRS formula that factors in your life expectancy. So if you have $400,000 in a retirement account at age 70, you must withdraw about $14,600, according to the IRS work sheet. That translates to about $1,217 a month.

The RMD wasn’t designed as a budgeting tool; rather it was created to make sure Uncle Sam collected taxes, after letting retirement savings grow tax deferred for years. But it can work as an income plan too, Vernon said.

The withdrawal rate progresses from about 3.65 percent to 4.2 percent of assets for people in their early 70s, according to the IRS chart, and continues to rise gradually over time. Although you don’t have to take a distribution before age 70 1/2, the approach can be used to calculate a safe withdrawal rate at younger ages — Vernon suggests 3.5 percent, to keep things simple.

If someone can’t work until age 70, Vernon says, it’s preferable to cut back on spending and dip into savings to meet basic needs for food, clothing and housing for a few years, in order to delay taking Social Security. That may mean less savings overall, but the trade off is higher “guaranteed” Social Security income.

Vernon and his co-authors, Wade Pfau and Joseph Tomlinson, analyzed about 300 variations of retirement income strategies, and found that the “safe spending” approach generally wrings the most out of available benefits for middle-income retirees, while avoiding excess complexity.

Vernon urges potential retirees to think of Social Security payments as their steady “paycheck,” to cover the basics, while the money from annual RMDs, which may fluctuate based on investment returns, represents a “bonus.”

The approach isn’t perfect. For one, it assumes that Social Security will continue as it exists today, although the program is subject to political risk as the population ages. (Vernon also cautions that it’s important for married couples to plan carefully when claiming Social Security, so the surviving spouse gets the highest amount possible should one of them die.)

Some retirees are not even aware of RMD rules, said David C. John, a senior strategic policy adviser at the AARP Public Policy Institute, despite hefty penalties for failing to take them (50 percent of the money not withdrawn), and may be uncomfortable calculating them.

John said he recently conducted a retirement seminar and some older people were in tears because they only learned they had missed a withdrawal when they received a tax bill reflecting the penalty.

In theory, he said, retirement plan sponsors alert account holders about required withdrawals, but it may not always happen.

Some financial planners say they doubt that basing a budget on Social Security plus an RMD will support the lifestyle many people hope for in retirement, unless they have saved larger amounts of cash. “If the RMD isn’t enough, you still have to cut expenses,” said Jennipher Lommen, a financial planner in Santa Cruz, California.

Retirees are dubious. “It wouldn’t be enough,” said Nancy Hall, 71, of Princeton, New Jersey, who retired as a researcher with the New Jersey State Health Department 15 years ago. (Her husband is also retired.)

Hall said she was fortunate to have a government pension, but worried that it won’t stretch as far as planned because the state had eliminated cost of living increases.

“We thought we were on easy street,” she said with a laugh. She claimed Social Security at 64, but wonders if she should have waited.

Vernon said retirees should consider the “spending safely” proposal a baseline, and modify it to fit their circumstances. Meanwhile, he is acting on his own proposal. Retired for a decade from his full-time career as a consulting actuary, he’s now 64 and “working just enough” in his encore career as a researcher, he said, to delay his Social Security benefits — hopefully until age 70.

“Age 70,” Vernon said, “is the new 65.”

설정

트랙백

댓글

연금 세제혜택에 대한 전면적인 점검 실시

연금시장 2018. 6. 28. 19:01

영국정부가 연금 세제혜택에 대하여 전면적인 점검을 하겠다고 한다.

노동연금부(DWP) 정무차관인 Barones Buscombe는 2018년6월25일 상원에서 연금지급형태 마다 상이한 세제혜택을 면밀히 들여다 보겠다고 말했다.

현재 세제에서 연금수령자가 어떤 형태로 연금을 수령하느냐에 따라 고소득자이든 저소득자이든 장단점이 있게 된다.

사용자가 지급하는 급여에 좌지우지되는 현재 순액기준 연금체계(net payment system)에서는 일반적으로 소득이 11,850파운드(약 1750만원)보다 적을 경우 세제혜택을 받지 못한다.

반면 이 기준을 넘는 높은 세율의 납세자는 자동적으로 부담금에 대해 20%의 추가적인 세제혜택을 받게된다.

또한 개인연금이나 셀프투자상품(self-invested personal pension)을 통해 인출하는 경우에는 이 기준점에 미달해도 20%의 세제감면 혜택을 받을 수 있다.

하지만 고세율 납세자의 경우 이런 세제혜택을 몰라서 세금반환 양식에 있는 체크박스에 표시하지 않는다면 돌려받지 못한다.

25일 저녁 상원에서의 논쟁을 토대로 볼때 일단 현행 연금 세제혜택이 폭로된 이상 영국정부는 무언가를 해야만 한다는 심한 압박을 받고 있고 이번 점검 후에 저소득자에게도 혜택이 있는 일률과세(flat-rate system)로 전환하는 등의 결론이 나올 것으로 생각된다.

(참고로 영국의 경우 만75세가 되면 무조건 보험회사의 종신연금상품을 통해 퇴직연금자산을 인출하는 강제제도가 있었는데, 2014년4월 이 제도를 폐지하여 종신연금 이외의 다양한 형태로 축적된 연금자산을 인출하고 있다)

 

출처 : https://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/3034819/government-set-to-examine-pensions-tax-relief-system

 

Government set to 'examine' pensions tax relief system

"Once they take the lid off pension tax relief, who knows what conclusions they will come to?" - NOW: Pensions Adrian Boulding

The government is set to take a close look at the current pension tax relief system, Baroness Buscombe revealed in a speech to the House of Lords last night.

The parliamentary under-secretary of state for the Department for Work and Pensions said the government could overhaul the system it if felt it was beneficial to do so.

"Alongside further work on the automatic-enrolment changes outlined in the review, the government will examine the processes for payment of pensions tax relief for individuals to explore the current difference in treatment to ensure we can make the most of any new opportunities that emerge, balancing simplicity, fairness and practicality while engaging with stakeholders to seek their views," she said.

설정

트랙백

댓글

Milevsky가 Yarri를 만났을 때

연금시장 2018. 6. 28. 18:55

Milevsky가 대학자 Yarri와 예루살렘에서 점심식사를 하면서 왜 사람들이 연금을 구입하지 않느냐(즉, Annuity Puzzle) 등등에 대해서 나눈 이야기인데, 이분들의 내공을 옅볼수 있네요?


우선 야리가 프랑코 모딜리아니의 전통적인 생애주기이론에 인간수명의 불확실성(장수리스크)을 들이대던 시절이 1960년대였는데, 그 당시 마코비치도 샤프도 여기에 관심갖지 않았다네요. 아무튼 생애주기이론에 의하면 은퇴하고 나서 노후소득이 줄어들게 뻔 하니 젋었을때 연금을 구매하거나, 은퇴하자 마자 생기는 퇴직금을 일시금으로 쓰지 말고 연금으로 타야하는 거잖아요. 그런데 우리나라 뿐만아니라 미국도 연금으로 수령하는 거 잘 선택하지 않잖아요. 강제적 연금구매인 나라들이라면 모를까, 대부분의 자발적 연금구매인 나라들은 다 비슷한 것같아요.

소비자들의 연금 회피, 비합리적 편향 이런 것의 원인 무엇이냐고 밀레프스키가 물으니깐 대 고참 야리가 이렇게 답을 하네요 ㅎㅎ

은퇴자들은 나이가 들어가면서 유산으로 남길 재산을 줄일 수도 있고 늘릴 수도 있고, 더 나이가 들기 전에 더 소비할 수도 있는 데 현재의 연금상품은 소비자의 이러한 성향(선호) 변화를 받아들이지 못하고 있어요!

출처 : https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2011/10/26/my-lunch-with-professor-menahem-yaari/?slreturn=20180528054833#.WQdJaHPuKFA.facebook

 

My Lunch with Professor Menahem Yaari

 

Menahem Yaari is an emeritus professor of economics at Hebrew University of Jerusalem and past president of the Israeli Academy of Sciences. He retired from active teaching over a decade ago, but continues to lecture widely and address scholarly conferences around the world. Amongst his many accomplishments and honors, he is a recipient of the Israel Prize in Economics (1987) and the Rothschild Prize in the Social Sciences (1994). Professor Yaari was educated at Stanford University, started his teaching career at Yale University, but eventually moved back to Israel to help jump-start the economics profession at Hebrew University in the early 1970s, where he was chairman and taught for over 30 years.

I recently had the opportunity, and great pleasure to have lunch with Professor Yaari and his lovely wife Nurit, on a picturesque Friday afternoon at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Although the conversation started with pleasantries, politics, wine and the wonderful view, it eventually turned towards retirement economics. We discussed his varied career, illustrious students and current research interests. Why this great scholar should be the topic of this month’s Annuity Analytics, will soon become very clear.

 

 Professor Yaari has collaborated with and supervised many well known Nobel Prize winning economists during the last 45 years of his career. He has written thought-provoking, fundamental research papers in the field of microeconomics and decision-making under uncertainty.

One of the hallmarks of his philosophy – which became evident from his very careful and deliberate replies to my questions – is that the economics profession should not rush to abandon the rationality of humans. According to him, many occurrences that might seem at odds with rational decision-making can be properly explained within a classical perspective. His spirited defense of the rational ‘economic man’ was quite refreshing, given the now daily bombardments of evidence professing to show how silly we all apparently behave with our money.

 

Needless to say, his writing has had a profound influence on my own thinking about economics, and more specifically about retirement income planning. Indeed, most practicing financial advisors and planners in North America might not have heard of Professor Yaari’s work, <but they should>.

Here is why.

More than 45 years ago, while still a doctoral candidate at Stanford University, he was the first economist to introduce annuities into the canonical life-cycle model. For those who want to look it up, his most famous research work was published under the title: “Uncertain Lifetime, Life Insurance and the Theory of the Consumer” and appeared in the <Review of Economic Studies>, in 1965. Fast-forward 45 years, and today every graduate student in economics and insurance is forced to read this paper, for very good reason. To put it simply, he introduced and then legitimized life annuities to all economists. He placed them in your portfolio.

 

You see, back in the 1960s academic economists hadn’t really given any thought to how lifetime uncertainty – the randomness of the length of retirement – affects financial planning, savings and investment behavior. I guess you can say that economists didn’t like to think about death, or its impact on economic activity. Sure, they had some vague notions that old age might make people cranky and impatient, but nothing concrete or formal.

Around the same time, modern portfolio theory – introduced by Professor Harry Markowitz – was just starting to catch on with academics (it would be decades before this reached Wall Street.) Yet, even Professor Markowitz and his noted contemporary Professor William Sharpe never addressed how the randomness of life might impact economic behavior and portfolio construction. The other giant names at the time, such as Milton Freidman, or Franco Modigliani – who first theorized that consumers like to smooth their standard of living over time, considering their lifetime resources when they do this – hadn’t said anything about mortality and longevity. In most of their models and papers, people died at a fixed and known time, denoted by the capital letter T. Now how unrealistic is that?

Enter a young Menahem Yaari writing his Ph.D. at Stanford University in the early 1960s. He started his famous paper with the following words:

<“…One need hardly be reminded that a consumer who makes plans for the future must, in one way or another, take account of the fact that he does not know how long he will live. Yet, few discussions of consumer allocation over time give this problem due consideration. Alfred Marshall and Irving Fisher were both aware of the uncertainty of survival, but for one reason or another they did not expound on how a consumer might be expected to react to this uncertainty if he is to behave rationally…”> (pg. 137)

Then, in a mathematical <tour de force>, he went on to describe how consumers would slowly spend down their wealth, in proportion to their survival probabilities and attitude to longevity risk, and gradually reduce their standard of living – rationally. But then, and here is where the light bulb went on, if you gave this same consumer the ability to purchase any type of annuities, they would not have to reduce their standard of living with age! They would, in fact, be able to hedge or insure against their longevity risk.

His 1965 paper then went one step further and derived the optimal “portfolio mix” between regular market-based instruments (e.g., mutual funds or ETFs) and their actuarial counterparts (life annuities), as a function of one’s preference for legacy vs. personal consumption. In modern terms, he introduced what I like to call “product allocation” just a few years after Professor Harry Markowitz introduced “asset allocation.”

As you can imagine, this paper has been cited thousands of times by economic scholars, in the 45 years since it was published. This, by the way, is the ultimate compliment in any scholarly field. Quite justifiably, some people refer to him as “the Markowitz” of the annuity world.

One of the most-quoted results attributed to him is that not only are life annuities an important component of a consumer’s portfolio, they should actually form the entirety of the portfolio in the absence of a bequest or legacy motive. He pointed out that the mortality credits are simply too valuable to ignore. And yet, as most readers of this column probably know already, very few people actively choose to annuitize any portion of their “nest egg.” I asked Professor Yaari why he thought this was the case, and I’ll get to his reply in a minute.

In a seminar that he gave at the IFID Centre at the Fields Institute to commemorate his work in the area, he mentioned that his 1965 work was originally intended to help resolve inconsistencies within neoclassical economics and the apparent low spend-down rate of assets around retirement. In that sense his paper was intended as “positive” (to explain observed behavior) as opposed to “normative” (to provide financial advice).

In other words, he never intended to write a manifesto on how people should behave in the face of lifetime uncertainty: namely, that they should hedge longevity risk by purchasing annuities. At the same time, he did acknowledge that this model can easily be inverted and used to offer guidance on how people should allocate their assets around retirement.

As with many great scholars, Professor Yaari laid his golden egg which established the value of annuitization for one’s nest egg, but never went back to elaborate or follow-up during the last 45 years of his career. Basically he introduced annuities to economists, and then moved on to other pursuits and problems. He endowed the field with what is now called “The Annuity Puzzle.” That is, why aren’t they valued and used more by consumers?

Professor Yaari stated to me that perhaps one of the reasons why many people don’t appreciate the value of life annuities is that personal tastes and preferences can change over time; and they know it. The current design of annuities might not allow retirees to adapt to changes in their own tastes. These changes might be in legacy preferences, or even for spending more now, versus later. There it was again, the defense of rationality. People know what they are doing. No need to nudge, or even shove them.

In contrast to Professor Yaari’s rationality school, the view offered by a growing number of economists in the behavioral school is quite different. Although both sides appreciate the value of annuities, the behaviorists argue that consumers’ aversion to annuities is an irrational bias that is due to psychological quirks outside the realm of classical models. In fact, many in this camp point to low voluntary annuitization as a failure of the rational model. This is precisely why some policymakers in the U.S. – citing the Yaari mantra – have gone so far as to suggest that people should be mandated or defaulted into annuitizing a portion of their wealth at retirement. In other words, paternalism defended by rational economic models.

The debate rages on. Are annuities shunned for good reason, or not? What can be done to make them more appealing? How do we reconcile evidence with Professor Yaari’s 1965 result?

Alas, for someone at the intellectual core of retirement planning, Professor Yaari is visibly humble and quite modest about the impact of his work on the field. In fact, when I mentioned to him that I had just returned from a research conference in which almost half the papers presented by graduate students were a derivative of his original annuity work, he was rather surprised and mildly amused. This was definitely one author who was not regularly checking the ranking of his book on Amazon.

As we finished desert, overlooking a magnificent Jerusalem city view that has waited centuries for peace, I asked him if he – after nearly 45 years — had any plans at all to revisit the topic and write another likely best-selling tome on annuities. “Might we ever see a sequel, after all these years”, I asked him. And, with a twinkle in his eyes, his reply was: “I have to think about it a little bit more…”

Moshe A. Milevsky, Ph.D. is an educator, author, consultant and entrepreneur based in Toronto, Canada.

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

퇴직연금가입자 교육의 획기적 변화 예상

연금시장 2018. 6. 23. 08:45

퇴직연금 가입자교육이 획기적으로 개선될 것같습니다.

2018년 6월21일 미국 백악관이 연방 교육부와 노동부를 합병하는 정부조직개편안을 상정했다고 합니다.

퇴직연금에 있어서 가입자교육이 끊임없이 중요하다고 강조해왔지만 행정부처가 나뉘어져 삐걱대고 있으면 가시적인 대책이 나오지 못했던 한계가 있었는데, 이 법안이 통과되면 근로자에 대한 인권 뿐만 아니라 연금제도 교육, 자산운용 안내 등 퇴직연금 가입자교육이 체계적으로 강화될 것으로 예상됩니다.

물론 11월 중간선거 전에 연방의회를 통과되기는 어렵겠지만 교육부는 공무원수가 3,900명 밖에 안되는 연방정부기관 중에서 가장 작은 행정기관이기에 상대적으로 수월한 것 같습니다.

 

출처 : https://www.wsj.com/articles/white-house-to-propose-merging-education-labor-departments-1529533148

 

White House to Propose Merging Education, Labor Departments

Plan seen as part of a broader government reorganization effort.

 
Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, center, and Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta, right, arrive for a teacher appreciation reception at the White House last month. The Education Department is one of the smallest federal government agencies

 

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, center, and Secretary of Labor Alexander Acosta, right, arrive for a teacher appreciation reception at the White House last month. The Education Department is one of the smallest federal government agencies Photo: saul loeb/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

 

By Michelle Hackman

 

The White House is set to propose merging the Labor and Education departments as part of a broader reorganization of the federal government, said a person with knowledge of the changes.

 

An announcement is planned for Thursday morning, after a monthslong review of cabinet agencies with an eye toward shrinking the federal government.

 

The changes would require approval from Congress, but it isn’t clear that lawmakers have the appetite to undertake a far-reaching reorganization, especially at this point in the political calendar.

 

Lawmakers have shown reluctance to embrace such plans in the past, and Congress has limited time for major legislation before the November midterm elections. Previous proposals to eliminate agencies, including the departments of education and energy, have made little headway.

 

Streamlining the executive branch has been a longtime conservative goal. The new plan also meshes with the administration’s priority of retooling higher-education programs to train students more directly to join the workforce.

 

The White House has championed plans to expand access to apprenticeships, for example, and the Education Department has moved to deregulate the controversial for-profit college industry, which often focuses on school-to-workforce training programs, but has been plagued by scandals.

 

Spokespeople for the White House and Labor Department declined to comment. Representatives at the Education Department couldn't immediately be reached for comment.

 

The administration has also been weighing changes at the Department of Health and Human Services, such as consolidating safety-net programs under HHS. That could accompany a renaming of the department to something similar to its name in the 1970s, when it was called the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

 

HHS oversees Medicaid and other social assistance programs, while school meals and the food stamp program, formally called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, are run by the Department of Agriculture. The Treasury and Department of Housing and Urban Development oversee still other programs.

 

The Education Department is one of the smallest federal government agencies, with about 3,900 employees. Its workforce has shrunk by more than 10% since President Donald Trump took office, with Education Secretary Betsy DeVos enforcing a departmentwide hiring freeze.

 

The department’s largest division oversees $1.4 trillion in federal student loans, and the department is also responsible for distributing K-12 education dollars and enforcing civil rights laws at public schools and higher education institutions.

 

The Labor Department, for its part, has about 15,000 employees whose responsibilities range from enforcing federal minimum wage laws to overseeing worker training programs. Its biggest division is the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which produces the monthly jobs report and other economic data.

 

About half of Labor Department employees work in various enforcement divisions, overseeing worker and mine safety and wage and hour rules.

 

Republican lawmakers during the Clinton administration proposed merging the departments of Education and Labor, along with the equal employment opportunities commission, naming it the Department of Education and Employment. At the time, the Government Accountability Office predicted an agency would have a budget of $71 billion and employ 25,000 people.

 

Seth Harris, deputy labor secretary during President Barack Obama’s administration, called the proposal to merge the agencies a “solution in search of a problem.” Beyond eliminating one cabinet secretary’s salary, he said there’s little cost savings to be found because only one Labor division, Employment and Training, works closely with Education.

 

“There won’t be savings if the new department has the same mandates and programs the two need to carry out,” Mr. Harris said.

 

The Education and Labor departments have worked more closely together since the 2014 passage of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which called for coordination on on training. For example, Labor programs providing training to dislocated workers are intended to be done in conjunction with Education programs focused on adult education and vocational rehabilitation.

 

“Since the passage of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, the department is working closer than ever with the Department of Education to align workforce education programs, plans, and performance requirements,” Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta told lawmakers last year.

 

—Stephanie Armour
contributed to this article

설정

트랙백

댓글

은퇴후 연금을 선택하지 않는다면 어떤 리스크가 있는가

연금시장 2018. 6. 22. 00:15

대다수 퇴직연금 가입자들은 은퇴후 자기 연금자산을 어떻게 운용해야할 지에 대해 잘 모른다.

영국의 경우 저금리가 장기화하자 최근에 일정 연령대 이상의 경우 무조건 보험회사를 통해 연금수령해야만 했던 강제 조항을 없앴다. 대신에 가입자 스스로 은퇴후 자산을 운용할 수 있게 제도의 유연성을 강화했다.

그러나 이 개혁은 대다수 사람들이 완전히 인지하지 못했던 리스크를 야기했다.

첫번째 리스크는 장수리스크!
확정급여형제도에서 가입자가 연금을 구입했다면 보험회사가 짊어지고 가야할 리스크였다.

그러나 가입자들이 자신의 은퇴자산이라는 항아리에서 현금을 꺼내 쓰면서 이를 효과적으로 투자하지 않는다면 장수리스크는 개인에게 닥치게 된다. 65세 이전에 사망할 확률은 1%보다도 작지만 당신이 예상했던 것 보다도 더 오래살 확률은 50%가 넘는다. 그러나 사람들은 이 리스크를 잘 모르고 있다.

사람들은 그 항아리에서 즉시 현금을 꺼내 쓰면서 느끼는 순간적 만족과, 한참 후에 연금형태로 인출함으로 얻는 이연된 만족 사이에서 의사 결정해야한다.

이 순간적 만족이라는 것은 우리들 뼈속깊이 각인되어 있어 따로 습득할 필요가 없는 반면, 어린시절부터 저축하는 습관을 가지고 있지 않은 사람에게 은퇴생활을 준비하도록 저축개념을 도입하는 것은 사실상 불가능하다.

대충 장독대에 놓아 둔 항아리는 쉽게 금이 가고 꽉차있던 간장은 순식간에 새어나간다.
더구나 개인이 은퇴하고 나서 이 항아리 안에 은퇴재산을 더 채워넣는 것은 거의 불가능하다. 사람들은 늙어가면서 지적능력도 약화되므로 재무적 판단도 어려워지기 때문이다.

이렇기에 연금산업은 안전 은퇴 프로그램(a default retiremet solution)이 필요하다.

자동등록 프로그램하에서 사람들에게 2~3%의 부담금을 강제 납입하게 할때 발생하는 번잡함은 퇴직과 연관된 선택의 문제에 있어서는 사소한 것일 뿐이다.

장수리스크뿐만 아니라 다른 리스크도 고려해야 한다.

최근에 인플레이션은 낮은 수준이었지만 내일 얼마나 급증할 지는 아무도 모른다.

투자리스크 또한 개인의 스스로 포트폴리오를 관리하는 경우라면 고려해야 한다.

연금관련 사기도 만연해 있다. 개인이 어떻게 연금자산을 사용할지 결정할 때 적절한 조언을 받지도 않고 받을 수도 없다는 리스크도 있다.

그러나, 안전 은퇴 전략(default retirement strategy)는 이러한 리스크들을 모두 다룰수 있다.2016년 3월에 발간된 "The Independent Review of Retirement Income"은 3만~100만파운드 사이의 연금자산을 가지고 있는 사람들을 대상으로 연금상품, 인출상품, 종신연금을 포함한 몇개 인출프로그램으로 제한한 단순한 의사결정구조(decision tree)를 추천하고 있다.

가입자는 가이드라인과 조언을 통해 퇴직연금 가입절차를 시작해야 한다.
감독당국이 승인한 '안전한 항구(safe harbour)' 상품들을 가입자가 선택할 수 있어야 한다. 개인은 종신연금이 시작되기 전까지 항아리에서 유연하게 인출할 수 있어야 한다.

개인이 필요로 하게 될 은퇴소득은 지속적이고 확정적이지 않다. 실제로 완전히 안전한 연인출비율을 존재하지 않는다.

대다수 확정기여형 가입자가 갖게 될 제한적인 재무적 이해와 함께 이러한 불확실성들이 뜻하는 것은 무엇일까?
은퇴자산 관리를 위한 안전한 해법이 지금 당장 최우선의 문제가 되어야 한다다는 것이다.

(영국 Blake교수님의 최근 기고문입니다.
생각할게 많고 우리나라에게도 시사점이 많은 명문이어서 미흡하지만 따끈따끈 할 때 걍 통번역해봤습니다.)

 

출처 : http://www.pensions-insight.co.uk/home/savers-need-schemes-to-make-investment-decisions-for-them/14747465.article#.WyfGDPMQ1TY.facebook

 

Savers need schemes to make investment decisions for them

Most members don’t have the necessary specialist knowledge to make the best decisions about their savings, argues Dr David Blake, professor of pension economics at Cass Business School

The pensions freedom and choice reforms now enable individuals to give up a guaranteed income for life in favour of more flexibility. But in doing so, the reforms have introduced associated risks that which many people don’t fully appreciate.

 

Innovation

 

One of the most obvious is longevity risk. In a defined benefit (DB) scheme, that risk is borne by the scheme – and if you buy an annuity, it is managed by the insurer.

However, if someone withdraws their pot as cash or doesn’t invest it effectively, that risk is passed onto the individual. The chances of dying before you are 65 are less than 1% - but the probability of living longer than you expect is over 50%. That is not sufficiently appreciated at present.

The probability of living longer than you expect is over 50%”

We must also take the behavioural issue of immediate gratification (i.e. the ability to access money immediately) versus deferred gratification (i.e. a pension in the future). Immediate gratification is hard-coded into our DNA, whereas the patience required for retirement planning must be acquired.

If you don’t have a savings habit from early life, it is hard to introduce at a later stage.

Pots can deplete with terrifying rapidity if the funds in them are not appropriately managed, and there is generally no way for individuals to increase their wealth once they have left the workforce. As people get older, their mental capacity may also be reduced, making financial decision-making harder.

To respond to these concerns, the pensions industry needs a default retirement solution. The complexities involved in getting people to pay in 2% or 3% under auto-enrolment are trivial in comparison to the choices involved at retirement.

Not only do these require an appreciation of longevity risk, they need to take several other risks into account.

Pots can deplete with terrifying rapidity if funds are not appropriately managed”

Inflation has been low for a long time, for example, but we can’t rule out a spike in the future. Investment risk is another concern for those who manage their own portfolio.

Pension scams are rife, and there is also the additional risk that individuals don’t or can’t take appropriate advice when deciding how to use their savings.

However, a default retirement strategy could address these risks. The Independent Review of Retirement Income, released in March 2016, recommended a retirement income plan, using a simple decision tree with limited options for members including annuities, drawdown and longevity insurance, aimed at pension savers with between £30,000 and £100,000 in assets.

The retirement plan process would start with a guidance or advice surgery. From there a member could choose from a set of ‘safe harbour’ products approved by a regulator that demonstrate they provide value for money. An individual with a plan would be able to have flexible access to their pot until the point at which the longevity insurance starts.

The income that an individual will need in retirement is neither consistent, nor is it certain. And, in practice, there is no totally safe annual withdrawal rate.

Those uncertainties, coupled with the limited financial understanding that many defined contribution (DC) savers will have, mean that a ‘default’ solution for retirement savings should now be a matter of priority. 

설정

트랙백

댓글

최근 생존율을 반영하니 연금재정이 더 위태

연금시장 2018. 6. 16. 12:30

사람의 장수하면 할수록 은퇴 후 삶이 길어지고 그 길어진 삶만큼이나 공적연금에서 지출되는 노후연금도 늘어납니다.

그런데 미국 대다수 주정부의 공적연금은 여전히 2014년에 계리사회(SOA)가 만든 생존율(RP-2014 tables)을 사용하고 있어서 적립부족 리스크(Shortfall Risk)에 취약합니다.

Vermont주가 생존율을 2017년 것으로 갱신했더니 공적연금의 적립부족액(unfunded liabilities)가 천만달러(약 110억원)가 확 늘어나 버렸다고 합니다.

 

출처 : https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherburnham/2018/06/14/public-pensions-need-to-consider-that-beneficiaries-are-living-longer/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

Public Pensions Need To Consider That Beneficiaries Are Living Longer

Christopher Burnham, Contributor
350

Shutterstock

Americans are living longer, and that may not be good news for those states facing large unfunded pension liabilities. Adding years to the average life span can have a significant impact on a pension plan’s funding ratio. For the first time since 2008, this past December the IRS released new actuarial tables accompanied by additional requirements for private pension managers. These new tables require corporate pension plans to adopt new, more accurate and realistic, mortality assumptions. Unfortunately, these regulations do not apply to state and local public pensions. As such, public pension plans continue to bury their heads in the sand living in a time warp of decades-old actuarial assumptions.

 

The mortality tables recently released by the IRS, the RP-2014 tables, were developed in 2014 by the Society of Actuaries (SOA). The good news is that the updated tables report lower mortality rates, meaning that retirees are expected to live longer than ever before. However, they also pose new challenges to pension fund managers. Longer lives means longer retirements and longer retirements mean more pension payments, which will require plans to retain higher levels of funding. It has been estimated that the funding targets for pension plans could increase by up to 5% with the new (2014) assumptions.

Many states still use earlier versions that underestimate longevity, and thus give a false estimate of unfunded liabilities. An exception is Vermont. They recently updated their mortality assumptions for a 2017 re-valuation. After doing so, Vermont saw its unfunded liabilities rise by almost $10 million.  Similarly, when the California Legislators’ Retirement System updated their mortality assumptions, its unfunded liabilities rose by over $7.5 billion. Finally, when the state of New York updated its mortality assumptions in 2015 to match the SOA’s MP-2014 scale, the switch forced New York to increase its annual contribution rates for two pension funds by about 4%.

 

Public pension fund managers, trustees, and state legislatures, should embrace these tables and use them as a wakeup call to take more seriously their fiduciary responsibility, and better manage the systems with which they are entrusted. Fiduciary responsibility requires the “highest standard of care.”  Being an elected or appointed official requires prudent management of taxpayer dollars and those of the men and women who labor to protect us and serve our states and communities. Calculating unfunded liabilities based on accurate-market driven assumptions, rather than old ones that hide from the public the true liabilities, is essential to public pension fund integrity.

설정

트랙백

댓글