장수리스크는 우리가 측정할 수 없을 정도의 속도로 가속화되고 있다. 몇몇 인구학자들의 말에 따르면 지금 태어나는 사람은 200세까지 생존한다고 한다.
2008년 금융위기때 깨진 자금이 회복되지 못한 상태에서 나날이 증가하는 생활비를 감당할 만큼 충분한 은퇴자금을 모으지 못했고, 회사가 내주는 건강보험료 등의 혜택을 유지하고 싶어하기에 많은 사람들이 55세 이후에도 은퇴를 늦추며 계속 일하려고한다.

이런 상태임에도 미국의 35세 이하의 젊은 세대들은 리스크 회피적이어서 주식투자 등에 소극적이다.

와튼스쿨 연금연구소(Wharton School Pension Research Council) 사람들의 이야기입니다.

출처: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/preparing-for-retirement/?fbclid=IwAR0Q3ebwkZT8WuvVQROW24PNHab72i3I78aatBc6A6wijXsRJ3gvQL0uPhs

Living Longer, Saving Less: What it Will Mean for Retirement

Jul 22, 2019

To ponder preparing for retirement in the U.S. these days depends very much upon who is doing the pondering. On the one hand, there is great freedom over the when and how of it. Some retire and find a second career, or shift into a public-service phase of life. Others are choosing to never retire at all.

On the other hand, many never get the luxury of choice. Age discrimination makes finding or keeping a job after 55 harder than ever, and a surprisingly large slice of the population hasn’t set aside an adequate nest egg.

Many might be ready for retirement, but it’s not at all clear that retirement is ready for them.

“Longevity is increasing around the world faster than many of us can fathom. In fact, demographers say the baby who will live to be 200 has already been born. This perspective can make insurance and health care providers blanch, as most are not yet thinking about how to manage truly consequential longevity risk,” says Olivia S. Mitchell, Wharton professor of business economics and public policy, and executive director of the school’s Pension Research Council.

Moreover, the mechanisms intended to gird Americans retiring now are already under considerable strain: Social Security is inadequately funded; defined benefit pension plans have all but disappeared; and the government’s insurance program meant to take over for failed defined benefit pension plans is itself under-capitalized.

“I do think there is a lot more uncertainty,” says Dara Smith, a litigation attorney for AARP. “Many workers are waiting longer to retire,” she says, either because they haven’t saved enough, are facing cost of living increases, haven’t yet recouped 2008 losses in their retirement funds, or need to hang onto their employer medical insurance.

“But people also want to work longer,” she says. “They just want to be productive and be employed longer.”

Adding to the uncertainty about what modern retirement looks like is the danger that a good swath of the population has come to believe that the current bull market is the new normal, says Christopher Geczy, Wharton adjunct finance professor and academic director of Wharton’s Jacobs Levy Equity Management Center for Quantitative Financial Research and of the Wharton Wealth Management Initiative.

“All these challenges are resonating against the background of a U.S. equity market that has reached new heights and in fact has extended the highest run for equities in history,” he says. “In addition, if you look at the pattern of attitudes toward risk, it’s been quite time-varying, and we know it’s time-varying especially for those in the youngest cohort, 35 and under. In fact, what we’ve seen in the data and received wisdom suggests, it looks like today young people have a higher risk aversion than people of the same age did in the late 1990s.”

So the question for many regarding preparing for retirement, he says, remains: “How are we going to get there?”

The Enduring Age of Age Discrimination

Just work longer. That’s the answer for a lot of workers who can’t afford to retire. Many, though, don’t have that option. Between 1992 to 2016, 56% of older workers reported being either laid off or pushed out of a job at least once, according to a study by ProPublica and the Urban Institute that analyzed data from the Health and Retirement Study. Only one in 10 workers reported earning as much in their new jobs as their old ones.

Even in a tight labor market, many employers want to get rid of older workers and are hesitant to hire older ones, says Peter Cappelli, management professor and director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources.

What would it take for age discrimination to become a thing of the past?

“All these challenges are resonating against the background of a U.S. equity market that has reached new heights and in fact has extended the highest run for equities in history.”–Christopher Geczy

“It takes a belief among the leaders that this is a priority,” says Cappelli. “The odd thing is that executives who are themselves older may feel pressure to show that they do not fit the negative stereotypes of aging by being disproportionately negative about older candidates.”

Some of the interest in getting rid of older employees is because it saves more money, he says, “and some of it is because people who have been stuck in positions for a long time are bored and disengaged — those are also older. In hiring, though, none of that is an explanation.”

The bad news about age discrimination comes by way of recent court decisions that inexplicably conclude that protections against it do not apply to job seekers, only to current employees, Cappelli notes.

Protections for older workers were put into place long ago. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 prohibits age discrimination against workers 40 and older, but a 2009 Supreme Court decision weakened that act, putting a higher level of burden on older workers to prove discrimination than on those claiming discrimination because of race, religion or gender.

Knowledge@Wharton High School

In situations where workers are being laid off to cut costs among the ranks of the higher paid, just because those workers happen to be older does not prove age discrimination, the Supreme Court has found.

“Culturally, we just don’t take age discrimination as seriously as other civil rights. People see it as an economic issue, not a civil rights issue,” says the AARP’s Smith. Stereotypes persist that older worker are checked out, slowing down or resistant to learning new skills. “Those assumptions are so baked in, and we see in this country the idea that younger workers should have their turn now.”

For older workers who may have been pushed out, it’s “very easy to blame yourself, to lose confidence,” says Stew Friedman, director of the Wharton Work/Life Integration Project and author of Total Leadership. But when considering a second act, it’s important to do an inventory of “what you know, what you’re good at, what you’ve accumulated in terms of the value you have,” he says. “One good way to do that is to talk to people who know you about what they see as your strengths. That can be really helpful and affirming. We know from research on social capital and leadership that the more you can reveal about who you are and the help you need, as well as what you can contribute, the easier it is for other people to be helpful to you. It starts with knowing what you need and being willing to ask for help. Nobody is going to hand it to you. At 55, you know that.”

Shaky Pillars of Retirement

If the timing and concepts around preparing for retirement are shifting, so are the financial tools for getting there. Workers in the U.S. saw the rise of various retirement innovations in the 20th century — Social Security, defined benefit plans, the now-ubiquitous 401(k) — and each has proven to have its vulnerabilities. One in three Americans has less than $5,000 in retirement savings, with one in five reporting no retirement savings at all, according to a 2018 Northwestern Mutual survey of more than 2,000 adults.

There is Social Security, but the system is threatened by a shortfall that currently exceeds $14 trillion in the next 75 years, and $43 trillion over the long haul, says Mitchell. Moreover, the Trust Fund will run dry in just 15 years, by 2034.

In her view, what’s needed to fix Social Security is a set of solutions sharing the burden across generations — reducing benefits, raising retirement ages and increasing taxes to pay for longer lives. “In fact, it’s actually more straightforward to restore Social Security to solvency than to fix Medicare, which is also running short of money,” says Mitchell. “Nevertheless, we still have to persuade the requisite number of politicians to go along with a reform package.”

This can be done, Mitchell argues, as it was done before. In 1983, she points out, “the system was three months from running out of cash to pay benefits, so it may take a cash crunch like that again, unfortunately.”

“Executives who are themselves older may feel pressure to show that they do not fit the negative stereotypes of aging by being disproportionately negative about older candidates.”–Peter Cappelli

At the same time, it’s no secret that defined benefit plans have dwindled. These pension plans in the U.S. peaked at more than 112,000 in 1985, declining to 47,000 in 1996 and to 25,607 by 2011, according to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Many of the remaining plans have obligations that far outstrip assets, and when they cease to be solvent their obligations may be taken over by the PBGC. The agency paid $5.8 billion to more than 861,000 retirees from 4,919 failed single-employer plans, and paid $153 million in financial assistance to 81 insolvent multi-employer plans, according to its 2018 annual report.

It claims responsibility for insuring the pensions of nearly 37 million people, whose benefits are valued at $3 trillion. But the PBGC’s own finances are underwater. The agency’s risk of insolvency is rising rapidly and is likely to occur by the end of FY 2025, according to the 2018 report.

The crisis is getting attention. Pension consultant David Blitzstein has written that the only hope would be a recapitalization of the PBGC with a minimum of $50 billion that would allow troubled plans to partition and spin off their “orphan” liabilities — the accrued liabilities of employers no longer contributing to the plans. Surviving plans might consider mergers, he wrote in a Wharton Pension Research Council post on Forbes.com.

One proposed piece of legislation, the Butch Lewis Act, recommends shoring up underfunded multiemployer pensions by lending them money at a low interest rate. Mitchell, though, calls this rescue plan “fatally flawed.” The act calls for the money to be repaid in 30 years with interest, but Mitchell says if the pension plan cannot do so, the bill permits loan forgiveness or refinancing of some as-yet-unforeseen obligation, leaving taxpayers on the hook. “A better solution would be to shut down this system now and deal with it today, while stopping the plans from underfunding further,” she says.

Another is the first substantial piece of retirement legislation in more than a decade. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019, or SECURE Act, was passed by the House and appears poised to clear the Senate at some point.

It would provide for tweaks in retirement law, but also some real changes. Among them: delaying the required minimum distribution to age 72 from the current 70½; making it easier for small employers to set up and offer 401(k) plans and allowing the creation of “open” Multiple Employer Plans; removing age limitations on IRA contributions; eliminating the 10% penalty tax to pay for a qualified birth or adoption; and opening up more options for annuities within retirement plans.

Annuities: Complex and Critical

This last change is being seen by many as the addition of an important tool in the transition to retirement, but not all annuities are created equal.

“It starts with knowing what you need and being willing to ask for help. Nobody is going to hand it to you. At 55, you know that.”–Stewart Friedman

“It makes sense as long as it’s optimal,” says Geczy about annuities, “but there is a lot of controversy about where and how and why, and that is because the annuities space is complex more generally and in some cases potentially more costly, although that definitely varies across products and features. But think about what you are asking for — for someone to give you in advance in essence a long-dated put contract or a hedge, and that can be a useful, if costly, proposition. The thing is, there is at some point annuitization, but most academics will tell you that at some point and in some form, it’s the optimal strategy for many or most investors.”

The vast majority of the act is positive, says David F. Babbel, Wharton professor emeritus, whose teaching and research at Wharton was split between the finance and insurance departments. The new rules regarding annuities are generally a good thing, he said, as annuities are the only financial products designed to provide income throughout one’s remaining lifetime. But the problem with annuities, he says, “is that they are long-term products that gradually erode in value if inflation picks up again. Even if the annuities include an escalation feature, these are usually pre-fixed and may not track the cost of living closely and, more importantly, an individual’s own cost of living,” he notes.

The erosion can be considerable. Babbel points out that if you look at every 20-year period since 1971, the dollar lost between 36% and 70% of its purchasing power by the end of the 20 years, depending on the period. This means that $10,000 per month at the outset of retirement would, 20 years later, have the purchasing power of only $3,000 to $6,400, depending on when you happened to retire.

“Looking to the future, the value erosion might be much less, but may even fall beyond these bounds,” he says.

Babbel advocates an innovative strategy to hedge against the rising cost of living needs by using what he calls a “staggered annuitization” (rather than the commonly understood concept of “laddered annuitization”) approach. He recommends putting a significant portion of one’s savings as one approaches retirement into a variety of deferred fixed annuities. At retirement, some are “activated” or annuitized to provide monthly income, while the others remain gaining value and are annuitized, as needed, depending on the rise in one’s own cost of living. While the deferred annuities are held in abeyance, they not only grow in tax-deferred value but each year as you age their payout rates per dollar of deferred value rise substantially. His personal approach is easy to implement, he says, and structured to guard against insolvency risk.

Of course, preparing for retirement also requires a certain amount of financial literacy, not to mention an awareness that the only constant is change — in legislation, retirement products, inflation rates, performance of the markets, and the economy.

“It’s actually more straightforward to restore Social Security to solvency than to fix Medicare, which is also running short of money.”–Olivia S. Mitchell

Many Americans may understand the general concept of shifting the balance of retirement assets as retirement draws near, but they have put much of their faith in target date funds that start out in a risk and growth mode at the beginning of a career and gradually shift to less risk approaching the draw-down phase. In 2018, assets of this kind in mutual funds and collective investment trusts had grown to more than $1.7 trillion, according to Morningstar.

But the “glidepath” approach only makes sense within a few years of retirement, say the authors of a March working paper for the Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis at the Australian National University. Switching between assets and cash in a more frequent, systematic way may produce better results, according to “Absolute Momentum, Sustainable Withdrawal Rates and Glidepath Investing in U.S. Retirement Portfolios from 1925.”

Among the findings: “Smoothing the returns on individual assets by simple absolute momentum or trend following techniques is a potent tool to enhance withdrawal rates, often by as much as 50% per annum,” the paper states.

Can the average worker really be expected to approach preparing for retirement with such attention to detail?

“In the last two decades, the financial system has become disintermediated,” says Mitchell. “By that I mean that people must increasingly manage their own finances, instead of their employers handling their needs via health insurance and defined benefit pensions, or the government taking care of them. At the same time there has been substantial deregulation of financial products, and more complex financial products have come to market.”

As a result, plotting out one’s own retirement, she says, is getting tougher.

“People must increasingly manage their own finances, instead of their employers handling their needs via health insurance and defined benefit pensions, or the government taking care of them.”–Olivia S. Mitchell

And don’t expect robo-advisors to come to the rescue — at least, not anytime soon. Mitchell and Julie Agnew have a forthcoming volume on computerized financial advice models entitled The Disruptive Impact of FinTech on Retirement Systems. The book shows that services that use computer algorithms to provide financial advice and manage customers’ investment portfolios aren’t quite ready for retirement prime time yet.

“While many of these services try to help consumers save more or manage their budgets, they tend to ignore the fact that people have complex financial lives,” says Mitchell. “Does your partner have savings or a business? Do you need to put aside money for a disabled child? Additionally, few online financial algorithms help people spend down their money in retirement, or how to buy an annuity so as not to run out of money in old age. Fewer still tell you whether you should buy long-term care insurance, or whether to move to or out of a state that taxes your pension.”

Retirement, in the end, is as individualized as people. The answer? Says Mitchell: “Since retirement planning is so nuanced and complicated, it would behoove many to work longer, save more, and expect less.”

영국계리사회(IFoA)의 보험통계 연구센터 (ARC)는 2019년 6월 24일 '경제적 사고와 계리 실무(Economic Thought and Actuarial Practice)'에 관한 보고서 초안을 발표했다.

이 보고서는 보험계리사와 경제 전문가의 경제적 사고에 관한 광범위한 토론을 배경으로 다양한 최근 견해를 제시하고 있는데, 경제적 사고의 전통적 개념이 어떻게 변화하고 있는지, 그리고 이러한 변화가 장기투자 및 리스크에 대한 접근법에 미칠 수있는 영향에 대해 이야기하고 있다.

Leeds University Business School의 Iain Clacher 박사는 경제적 사고가 대다수 계리사의 업무에 매우 중요한 역할을 한다는 것을 전제하고, 계리사가 경제적 사고를 계리 실무에 어떻게 적용하고, 그들의 조언이 어떻게 영향을 미칠 수 있는지 조사했다.

한편, 향후 이 초안을 바탕으로 더 광범위한 전문가와 협력하여 더 많은 조사를 할 계획이라고 한다.

영국의 100대 기업중 절반 이상이 10년 안에 기업의 DB자산에서 퇴직자에게 지급하던 연금을 외부로 이전(Pension Buy-out)할 것으로 예상된다.

우리나라를 제외한 대다수 국가에서 DB제도는 근로자가 퇴직시에도 국민연금처럼 기업이 종신연금을 퇴직자에게 주는 제도이다.
그러나 영국의 경우 2009년부터 2018년 까지 기간동안 세전이익이 57조파운드에서 134조파운드로 두배 넘게 늘어났지만 DB에 투입하는 보충부담금은 감소한 것으로 나타났다.

기업이 발생한 이익을 어떻게 배분하느냐에 따라 주주배당과 연기금 보충부담금이 결정되는데, 이러한 추세는 당분간 계속될 것으로 보인다.
기업이 장수리스크를 헷지 등을 위해 이런 의사결정을 하고 있는 것으로 보이는데, 영국의 감독원(TPR)은 이러한 추세를 예의주시하고 있다.

출처 : https://www.theactuary.com/news/2019/06/half-of-ftse-100-db-pension-schemes-could-buyout-by-2028/?fbclid=IwAR13194peih6yysXoRvbrFZWmMxuZb_OQoLMi-7rJnnrXICv76MLHZhnsXo

Half of FTSE 100 DB pension schemes could buyout by 2028

More than half of the UK’s 100 largest listed companies will be able to buyout their defined benefit (DB) pension scheme within 10 years, research by Barnett Waddingham has found.

01 JULY 2019 | CHRIS SEEKINGS

DB deficit contributions fall as profits rise ©Shutterstock

The consultancy firm estimates that 20% of FTSE 100 companies will be in a position to buyout their DB scheme within five years, and that 55% will be by 2028.

This comes after post-tax profits for these firms more than doubled from £57bn to £134bn between 2009 and 2018. However, DB deficit contributions fell during that time.

Barnett Waddingham said that diverting an extra 6% of profits into companies’ pensions would allow 70% of FTSE 100 DB schemes to buyout within the next 10 years.

“The DB endgame is increasingly a realistic short-term focus for many companies, and the dividend versus deficit contribution balance is a key lever,” partner, Nick Griggs, said.

The findings show that payments to shareholders increased by 171% to £120bn between 2009 and 2018, while contributions to DB schemes fell 10% to £8.3bn per year.

However, the researchers estimated that doubling annual pension contributions to £16.6bn would allow 30% of FTSE 100 firms to buyout their DB liabilities within five years.

And if current deficit contributions increased by five times, then 60% of FTSE 100 schemes would be in a position to buyout in the next five years.

Barnett Waddingham said that companies would still pay out three times as much to shareholders as they do to pension schemes by taking this more radical approach.

But it warned that political instability and economic uncertainty could disrupt pension deficits, and that The Pensions Regulator (TPR) is likely to be increasingly interventionist.

“Having a robust, coherent plan in place for the DB endgame journey will be the best defence against any intervention from TPR as it will take comfort from the framework that has been put in place,” Griggs added.

긱경제(gig economy)는 기업이 임시로 사람을 구해서 일을 맡기는 경제방식으로 노동자로서는 어디엔가 고용되어 있다기 보다는 수요가 있을 때마다 일시적으로 일하는 형태이다. 미국의 Lfty나 Uber 등 차량공유서비스를 제공하는 기업들이 대표적인 긱경제 기업들이다. 그런데, 최저임금이나 건강보험 및 퇴직연금 등은 모두 정규직 노동자들을 위한 제도이므로 긱경제의 기간제 노동자들은 소외되어 있는 상태이다.

한편, 2017년 기준 미국의 전체 근로자 중 1/3 이상인 5천7백만명이 이 긱경제에 종사하고 있고, 향후 10년간 이 비중은 50%까지 증가할 것으로 예상된다. 따라서, 이러한 급격한 고용환경 변화로 인하여 미국은 기간제 근로자의 고용 불평등 해소를 위해 포괄적인 보장을 의무화하는 법안들을 검토하고 있고 보험회사들도 핀테크기술 등을 통해 이에 적극 호응하고있다. 2008년 프리랜서 권리단체인 Freelancer union은 조합은 Freelancers Insurance Company라는 보험회사를 설립하여 건강보험, 퇴직보험, 상해보험 등을 제공하고 있으며, Trupo는 아메리카재보험그룹과 업무제휴하였다. 이들 보험회사는 긱경제 근로자가 여러 산업과 여러 기업들을 옮겨다니면서 받은 급여정보를 API(Application Programming Interface)로 통합관리하여 소득보상보험(workers’ compensation insurance) 및 재해보장보험 등의 요율을 계산하고 있다.

출처: https://www.propertycasualty360.com/2019/04/15/how-insurance-technology-supports-gig-economy-workers/?slreturn=20190424180500

How insurance technology supports gig economy workers

Insurers now stay on the cutting edge by leveraging data analytics and reporting technology to deploy new products for the gig economy.

By Nicole Mongillo | 20190415  at 05:30

State and city governments may soon make it mandatory for companies to offer more comprehensive insurance to nontraditional employees. (Photo: Shutterstock)

More than one-third of U.S. workers — roughly 57 million — participate in the gig economy, and that number expected to grow to 50% by 2027 as job markets continue to shift to ad hoc contracts from full-time employees. Internet marketplaces and digital businesses such as Uber, Lyft, Freelancer.com and TaskRabbit thrive on this model and even more traditional employers are increasing their use of independent contractors.

The ‘new normal’

The rapidly developing “new normal” for both employees and employers hinges on finding a happy medium. Independent workers desire some of the traditional security of fulltime-equivalent status, while assuming some of their own risk in exchange for flexibility in schedule and work location. Simultaneously, employers enjoy more HR and payroll bandwidth while ensuring that their workforce is protected by workers’ compensation coverage, for instance.

While that all sounds like (and is) a win-win, it is proving difficult — especially for insurers — to develop a new classification for contract employees that provides more traditional benefits and protection such as workers’ compensation, as current policy structures typically rely on fixed information around employee numbers and locations. For example, while some employers like SurveyMonkey provide full benefits to certain contract workers, independent workers are not covered by workplace, minimum wage or safety protections and rarely receive health care, sick days or retirement contributions.

Enter technology, where advances are increasingly seen as the catalyst that will allow employers and insurers to innovate with new products for workers’ compensation and other workforce coverage needs. A few emerging InsurTech startups are already on the case, and others may be driven to bring more offerings to market by emerging catalysts. For example, state and city governments may soon make it mandatory for companies to offer more comprehensive insurance to nontraditional employees.

Proactive legislation

A growing number of states, including Washington and New York, and major cities such as Seattle, have adopted or are considering employment laws to address perceived inequities against independent employees (Seattle’s law is on hold pending a court outcome). Legislation is also being considered to allow portable benefits to follow contract employees wherever they are engaged.

Additionally, the Freelancers Union, which represents 50 million U.S. freelance workers, has been pooling the benefit needs of these workers and negotiating with providers to create better conditions for buying health, dental and disability insurance. The union seeks to uncouple benefits such as unemployment compensation and health insurance from permanent, full-time employment relationships.

Digitization solutions

Technology breakthroughs are also helping contract workers gain advances on the benefits front, especially for managing benefits and compensation.

• Payment processors such as Stripe now offer instant pay to solve a common complaint among freelancers around slow compensation.
• Trupo, which offers short-term disability insurance, partnered with Reinsurance Group of America in August to introduce a new policy in Georgia. Contract employees pay $20-50 per month to receive up to 50% of their monthly income for 12 weeks if they submit proof from a medical professional that they are too ill to work.

Given the future of work and the growth in the use of independent workers, workplace experts increasingly favor employers enacting innovative and pro-worker benefit policies, including workers’ compensation coverage. They wonder, for instance, if insurers should consider usage-based workers’ compensation to address the needs of a changing workforce and identify which digital systems might help insurers evolve the workplace.

Heavy regulations have complicated the issue of providing workers’ compensation insurance in nontraditional employment relationships, but that’s not stopping the industry from moving forward. CoverWallet, for example, has introduced an application programming interface (API) for commercial lines insurance that offers workers’ compensation insurance among its products. Industries that use these products include many that hire contract workers, including construction, healthcare, agriculture and manufacturing.

Still, a large number of insurers (including those offering workers’ compensation insurance) are still working to create ideal insurance products for their customers who employ contract employees. Often, insurers do not feel particular urgency to undertake major changes to the workers’ compensation system because employers are already able to classify contract workers as employees and purchase a workers’ compensation policy. However, larger gig economy employers such as Lyft and Uber need a more comprehensive solution, and are beginning to develop their own insurance solutions.

The insurance industry has a critical role to play in the exploding on-demand employment culture, and there is a lot to think about regarding the best ways to insure the gig economy. This is one area where technology and digital innovation are needed, possibly in ways we haven’t even imagined yet. What we do know is that understanding the insured audience is critical to designing effective insurance products, and getting those products to market quickly is critical to success.

Insurers looking to stay on the cutting edge can leverage data analytics and reporting technology, as well as core policy systems, to design and quickly employ new products to support emerging needs, like those of the gig economy. As we often see in this era of digital transformation in insurance, the results of these early efforts will inform the best practices and proven processes of the future.