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.
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.”
| 고령자가 더 오래 일해야하는 이유들 (0) | 2019.09.08 |
|---|---|
| 연금보험 선택이 줄고 인출프로그램 증가 (0) | 2019.08.13 |
| 은퇴위기는 과장되었다 (0) | 2019.07.22 |
| 퇴직연금 DB자산의 외부이전 확대 (0) | 2019.07.08 |
| 위험자산 비중을 늘렸던 연기금의 현실 (0) | 2019.05.10 |
사람을 태우고 태양 주위를 돌고 있는 우주선이 지구와 다른 궤도를 돌고 있다면,
지구의 나이로 우주선에 있는 사람의 나이를 세도 되는걸까?
이미 우리는 수명이 늘어난 장수사회라는 우주선에서 살고 있는데, 과거 지구인들이 지구의 궤도에 따라 만들어 놓은 기준으로 나이를 세고, 은퇴하고 사회보장제도를 운영해간다. 이제는 우리 우주선에 사는 사람들의 생체연령(Biological age)에 맞게 제도를 만들어야 할 때다.
캐나다 York 대학교 Moshe Milevsky교수가 팟캐스트에서 이를 자세히 설명하고 있다.
Mar. 28, 2019 9:28 AM ET
by: SA For FAs
Senior Editor, FA Content
(4,786 followers)
Summary
York University Professor Moshe Milevsky, today’s foremost authority on retirement finance, discusses his new book, “Longevity Insurance for a Biological Age”.
The book asks: “What if the number of years planet earth has circled the sun with you as a passenger is the wrong metric?”.
Milevsky thinks chronological age is indeed a poor metric, which distorts one’s work strategy, asset allocation and everything else that in actuality keys off one’s biological age.
He says a shift to biological thinking will help make longevity risk as salient as mortality risk, which will one day make annuities as “legitimate” as life insurance now is.
He recounts his rationale for purchasing a deferred income annuity, the strong negative reaction it induced, and explains the difference between investment and insurance, and why both are needed.
York University Professor Moshe Milevsky, today's foremost authority on retirement finance, discusses his new book, "Longevity Insurance for a Biological Age," which provocatively asks: "What if the number of years planet earth has circled the sun with you as a passenger is the wrong metric?"
In this fascinating podcast interview (20:50), Milevsky argues that someone who is chronologically 50 years old may actually be biologically 38, with the implication being that we need to align the longevity of our portfolios with our own longevity. Or as he puts it: "Buy some insurance today because tomorrow you might find out you're younger."
Listen on the go! Subscribe to the SA for FAs podcast on iTunes, Stitcher and SoundCloud (click the highlighted links).
| 퇴직연금 일시금으로 받을까, 나눠서 받을까 (0) | 2019.04.06 |
|---|---|
| 은퇴후 자산관리 할 줄 모르는 근로자 (0) | 2019.04.06 |
| 일자리를 원하는 70대 고령자 (0) | 2019.03.24 |
| 줄어가는 인간의 수명 (0) | 2019.03.13 |
| 나이 먹을 수록 더 오래 살 것이라고 생각한다 (0) | 2019.03.05 |
인간의 수명이 계속 늘어나기만 할 것 같았는데 그렇지만은 않네요.
영국에서 2018년 3월이후 기대여명이 5개월씩 줄어서 남자 65세는 19.8년, 여자 65세는 22.4년이 되었습니다. 다시말하자면, 지금 65세인 분들이 평균적으로 남자는 84.8세 여자는 87.4세까지 생존한다는 겁니다.
부과방식의 공적연금은 그간 기대여명이 계속 늘어나는 통에 꾸준히 연금 수령 나이를 늦춰왔고, 그래서 재정부담이 커져갔는데, 이렇게 장수리스크가 줄어들게 되니 2.5% 정도 부채를 줄일 수 있을 것이라는 분석되고 있다고 합니다.
출처 : http://www.theactuary.com/news/2019/03/falling-life-expectancy-to-slash-pension-scheme-liabilities/
The institute’s Continuous Mortality Investigation (CMI) said life expectancy for men and women aged 65 has fallen by around five months to 19.8 and 22.4 years respectively since March 2018.
Moreover, its findings suggest that mortality improvements peaked in 2004 for males, and 2006 for females, with the decline in longevity thought to be a trend rather than a blip.
CMI mortality projections committee chair, Tim Gordon, said improvements were typically over 2% per year between 2000 and 2011, but have since fallen to around 0.5%.
“It’s now widely accepted that mortality improvements in the general population since 2011 have been much lower than in the earlier part of this century,” he continued.
“The causes of the slowdown, and whether these current low improvements will persist, remain a subject of considerable debate.”
The projections are based on the latest CMI_2018 model, which uses data for 1978-2018, and has been adjusted to place more weight on recent lower mortality improvements.
Gordon added: “The model reflects increasing evidence that the lower level of improvements may be due to medium or long-term influences, rather than just short-term volatility.”
It is thought that the latest longevity decline could put pressure on the government to reverse planned increases to the state pension age.
Meanwhile, professional services firm Aon has calculated that the latest fall in life expectancy could slash average pension scheme liabilities by approximately 2.5%
However, the exact impact is expected to depend on the age profile of an individual scheme’s members and the valuation assumptions used.
“Insurers and reinsurers have continued to evolve their pricing models in light of emerging data,” Aon senior partner, Martin Bird, said.
“We expect these updates to the model to be routinely adopted, reflecting strong evidence that underlying longevity improvements are materially lower than seen in the first decade of this century.”
| 생체연령에 맞는 장수리스크 관리 (0) | 2019.04.06 |
|---|---|
| 일자리를 원하는 70대 고령자 (0) | 2019.03.24 |
| 나이 먹을 수록 더 오래 살 것이라고 생각한다 (0) | 2019.03.05 |
| 2백년간 인간의 수명은 두배로 늘었다 (0) | 2019.03.02 |
| 고령자가 학교에 갑니다 (0) | 2019.02.24 |
다양한 연령대의 사람들이 자신의 여명이 얼마일지에 대하여 오판하고 있다. 평균적으로 50대와 60대의 경우 자신이 75세까지 살 확률이 약 20%이고 85세까지 살 확률이 5%에서 10%라고 과소평가하고 있다. 분석에 따르면, 65세 때 인터뷰 한 1940년대에 태어난 남성의 경우 75세까지 생존할 확률을 65%라고 봤는데, 이는 공식적인 확률인 83% 보다 훨씬 낮았다. 여성도 마찬가지로, 객관적 수치인 89% 보다 낮은 65%를 예상했다.
이 연구는 IFS(Institute for Fiscal Studies)의 연구자들은 개인들이 예상하는 기대여명을 Office for National Statistics의 공식 생존율과 비교한 결과이다.
이 분석이 중요한 이유는 더 많은 사람들이 살아있는 동안 자신의 은퇴 생활에 필요한 소득을 만들어야 하기 때문이다. “50대, 60대 및 70대에 여명을 너무 짧게 예상하면 실제 생존기간 동안 쓸 돈을 빨리 쓸 수 있다.”라고 IFS의 경제학자이자 보고서 작성자인 David Sturrock는 말한다. 반면에 최고령대임에도 여명을 과대 평가하는 사람들은 여생이 얼마남지 않았음에도 남은 재산을 소비하는 것을 지나치게 꺼리는 경향이 있다. 여명을 잘못 판단하면 은퇴생활의 수준이 낮아질 위험이 있다.
60세의 미망인과 홀아비를 포함하는 일부 그룹은 여명에 대해 다른 사람들보다 더 짧게 예상했다. 80세까지 생존할 수 있는 객관적인 확률은 각각 77%와 67%였지만, 이 그룹의 응답은 49%와 39%로 상당한 차이를 보였다. 이는 미망인과 홀아비들은 은퇴 소득을 조기에 소진하기 쉽다는 것을 뜻한다. 반대로, 70대와 80대 노령자들은 평균적으로 90세 이상으로 살 가능성에 대해 지나치게 낙관적인 것으로 나타났다. 따라서 이들은 훨씬 더 오래 살 것을 예상해서 너무 적게 소비하게 된다.
최근의 정책 변화로 인해 퇴직후 소득을 제공하는 종신연금상품의 판매가 침체되었다. 대신, 55세 이상의 대부분 사람들은 퇴직소득을 현금 저축계좌 또는 주식시장 기반의 인출 프로그램(drawdown plan)에 넣어서 퇴직후 생애소득을 조달하고자 한다. 연금사업자 AJ Bell의 선임 분석가인 Tom Somby는 다음과 같이 말한다.
"기대여명을 과소 평가하면 일찍 은퇴자산을 소비할 위험이 있다. 연금강제 전환 폐지(pension freedom)로 사람들이 퇴직자산을 낭비했다는 명백한 증거는 없지만, 몇몇 사람들은 비용을 차감한 실질수익률이 5%로 예상됨에도 매년 10% 이상을 인출하고 있다. 기대여명에 대한 과소 평가, 은퇴자산의 투자수익에 대한 과대 평가와 과잉 지출은 은퇴자들의 미래에 대재앙이 될 것이다."
출처 : https://www.ft.com/content/0c48590c-4170-11e8-803a-295c97e6fd0b
Older Britons pay the price for underestimating lifespans
Josephine Cumbo
April 17, 2018
What does the chart show?
It shows the extent to which people in various age groups are misjudging how long they are likely to live.On average, those aged in their 50s and 60s underestimated their chances of survival to age 75 by about 20 percentage points and to 85 by around 5 to 10 percentage points.According to the analysis, men born in the 1940s who were interviewed at age 65 reported a 65 per cent chance of making it to age 75, far lower than the official estimate of 83 per cent. For women, the equivalent figures were 65 per cent and 89 per cent.
How was the work carried out?
Researchers from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a think-tank, compared individuals’ reported expectations of survival with official survival rates from the Office for National Statistics.
Why is this analysis important?
It matters chiefly because many more people are shouldering responsibility for making their retirement income last as long as they live. “When people underestimate their chances of surviving through their fifties, sixties and seventies they may save less during their working life, and spend more in the earlier years of retirement than is appropriate given their actual survival chances,” says David Sturrock, an IFS research economist and author of the report.“In contrast, people who overestimate their survival chances at the oldest ages may show an undue reluctance to spend their remaining wealth near the end of life. By misjudging their longevity, individuals risk having a lower standard of living in retirement than would otherwise be possible.”
What else did the analysis find?
Some groups were gloomier than others about their survival chances, including widows and widowers at age 60. While their official chances of surviving to age 80 were 77 per cent and 67 per cent respectively, responses from these groups found they thought they had a 49 per cent and 39 per cent chance of reaching 80 — a huge gulf in both cases.This implies that widows and widowers could be more prone to prematurely exhausting their retirement income.Conversely, the analysis found older people in their 70s and 80s were, on average, overly optimistic about the likelihood of living to age 90 and beyond. This could mean they spend too little of their income in the belief it will have to stretch out much longer.
Should policymakers take notice of these findings?
Recent policy changes have led to a slump in sales of annuities — products which provide a secure retirement income for life. Instead, most over-55s choose to put their pension cash into cash savings accounts, or stock market-based “drawdown” plans, where they have to make decisions about how to make their money last.Tom Selby, a senior analyst with AJ Bell, a pension provider, says if large numbers of people significantly underestimate their life expectancy they risk running out of money early.There was no clear evidence that savers were squandering their pension pots in the wake of the pension freedoms, he said. “However, our own research shows a significant minority are making annual withdrawals of 10 per cent or more, with the average person expecting post-charges investment returns of 5 per cent.
“The combination of underestimating life expectancy, overestimating investment returns and overspending could create a perfect storm for future retirees,” added Mr Selby.
| 일자리를 원하는 70대 고령자 (0) | 2019.03.24 |
|---|---|
| 줄어가는 인간의 수명 (0) | 2019.03.13 |
| 2백년간 인간의 수명은 두배로 늘었다 (0) | 2019.03.02 |
| 고령자가 학교에 갑니다 (0) | 2019.02.24 |
| 연기금 인출의 4% 법칙 (0) | 2019.02.21 |
인구통계학적 연구에 따르면 19세기 초 세계에서 40년 이상의 기대수명을 가진 나라는 없었다.
세계의 거의 모든 사람들이 극심한 빈곤 속에 살았고, 우리는 의학지식이나 질병에 대한 이해가 거의 없었기에 모든 국가의 선조들은 조기 사망을 준비해야했다.
이후 150년 동안 세계의 일부 지역에서는 괄목할만한 건강 증진이 달성되었다. 국가간 차이가 발생하였다. 1950년에는 유럽, 북미, 호주, 일본 및 일부 남미 지역에서 신생아의 기대수명은 60세를 넘었다. 그러나 그 이외의 지역에서는 신생아는 약 30세 정도 밖에 살 수 없을 것으로 예상되었다. 건강에 있어서 국가간 불평등은 1950년에 가장 극심했다. 노르웨이 사람의 기대수명은 72세였지만 말리는 26세였다. 아프리카 전체의 기대수명은 겨우 36세였기에 다른 지역의 사람들은 이들보다 2배 이상 오래 살 것으로 예상되었다.
아동 사망률의 감소뿐만 아니라 모든 연령대에서 기대여명이 증가함에 따라 기대수명은 연장되었다. 특정 국가에만 국한되어 있을지 몰라도, 이러한 기대수명의 연장은 인류 역사상 최초로 전 인류의 건강 상태를 개선시킨 획기적인 발전이었다. 수천년간 지속되었던 끔찍한 건강 상태가 마침내 종지부를 찍은 것이다.
한편, 1950년 이후에도 세계는 여전히 국가별로 차이가 나는 것처럼 보이지만, 건강 및 다른 많은 측면에서 세계는 급속히 진보했다. 오늘날 세계 대다수 국가의 사람들은 1950년의 가장 부유한 국가의 사람들만큼 오래 살 것으로 예상할 수 있다. 오늘날의 세계의 평균 기대수명은 북유럽을 제외하고는 1950년 어느 나라보다 높습니다.
이 그림은 지난 2세기 동안의 기대수명의 세계사를 요약한다. 1800년경에 신생아는 태어난 곳이 어디이든 기대수명이 짧았다. 1950년 신생아는 운이 좋아 좋은 나라에서 태어났다면 더 오래 살 수 있는 기회가 있었다. 최근 수십 년 동안 세계의 모든 지역이 상당히 진전되었으며, 1950년 최악의 지역이었던 곳이 가장 큰 진전을 이루었다. 1950년의 국가간 차이는 상당히 좁아졌다.
전 세계적으로 기대수명은 30세 미만에서 70세 이상으로 증가했다. 2 세기 동안의 진보 이후 우리는 조상보다 2배 이상 오래 살 것으로 예상 할 수 있다. 그리고 이 진전은 일부 지역이 아니라 전세계 모든 국가에서 우리는 이제 2배 이상 오래 살 것으로 예상할 수 있다.
지난 2세기 동안 건강 측면에서의 국가간 불평등은 놀랄만하게 해소되었다.
출처: https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy-globally
This blog post draws on data and research discussed in our entry on Life Expectancy.
How life expectancy is defined was explained by Esteban in his post "Life Expectancy" – What does this actually mean?
The three maps below show the global history of life expectancy over the last two centuries.1
Demographic research suggests that at the beginning of the 19th century no country in the world had a life expectancy over 40 years.2 Every country is shown in red. Almost everyone in the world lived in extreme poverty, we had very little medical knowledge or understanding of disease burden, and in all countries our ancestors had to prepare for an early death.
Over the next 150 years some parts of the world achieved substantial health improvements. A global divide opened. In 1950 the life expectancy for newborns was already over 60 years in Europe, North America, Oceania, Japan and parts of South America. But elsewhere a newborn could only expect to live around 30 years. The global inequality in health was enormous in 1950: People in Norway had a life expectancy of 72 years, whilst in Mali this was 26 years. Africa as a whole had a life expectancy of only 36 years. People in other world regions could expect to live more than twice as long.
The decline of child mortality was important for the increase of life expectancy, but as we explain in our entry on life expectancy increasing life expectancy was certainly not only about falling child mortality – life expectancy increased at all ages.
Such improvements in life expectancy — despite being exclusive to particular countries — was a landmark sign of progress. It was the first time in human history that we achieved improvements in health for entire populations.3 After millennia of stagnation in terrible health conditions the seal was finally broken.
Now, let’s look at the change since 1950. Many of us have not updated our world view. We still tend to think of the world as divided as it was in 1950. But in health — and many other aspects — the world has made rapid progress. Today most people in the world can expect to live as long as those in the very richest countries in 1950. Today’s global average life expectancy of 71 years is higher than that of any country in 1950 with the exception of a handful in Northern Europe.
The visualization summarizes the global history of life expectancy over the last two centuries: Back in 1800 a newborn baby could only expect a short life, no matter where in the world it was born. In 1950 newborns had the chance of a longer life if they were lucky enough to be born in the right place. In recent decades all regions of the world made very substantial progress, and it were those regions that were worst-off in 1950 that achieved the biggest progress since then. The divided world of 1950 has been narrowing.
Globally the life expectancy increased from less than 30 years to over 70 years; after two centuries of progress we can expect to live more than twice as long as our ancestors. And this progress was not achieved in a few places. In every world region we can now expect to live more than twice as long.
The global inequalities in health that we see today also show that we can do much better. The almost unbelievable progress the entire world has achieved over the last two centuries should be encouragement enough for us to realize what is possible.
| 줄어가는 인간의 수명 (0) | 2019.03.13 |
|---|---|
| 나이 먹을 수록 더 오래 살 것이라고 생각한다 (0) | 2019.03.05 |
| 고령자가 학교에 갑니다 (0) | 2019.02.24 |
| 연기금 인출의 4% 법칙 (0) | 2019.02.21 |
| 아슬아슬한 DB의 재정상태 (0) | 2019.02.14 |
4% 법칙은 1994년 MIT의 William Bengen이 Journal of Financial Planning에 투고한 것이다.
누구나 매년 은퇴자산 포트폴리오에서 4% 이내로 인출해서 쓴다면, 적립해 놓은 은퇴자산의 원금을 너무 일찍 써버리는 곤궁한 상황을 피할 수 있다는 것인데, 이 만병통치약 같은(ubiquitous) 이야기의 전제는 해당 포트폴리오의 40% 정도를 주식형 자산에 배분하여 운용하는 것이다.
물론 최근의 저금리로 인해 반신반의하는 의견들이 분분하지만, 다시금 4% 법칙에 힘을 얻는 연구결과가 나왔다.
Atlanta's Capital Investment Advisors의 대표인 Wes Moss는 주식의 수익률을 5%, 채권은 2% 그리고 인플레이션을 3%로 가정하고 1929년부터 2009년까지 82개의 퇴직시점에서 시나리오를 토대로 4% 법칙이 여전히 유효하다는 주장을 하고 있다.
Those of us who have been in the financial advisory business for years can sometimes take established rules of thumb for granted – so much so that the nuances of such guidelines may get lost.
Although it sounds as though it should be simple, in practice there are complexities of the 4% rule that can lead to confusion over time. Still, it is a rule that I believe all financial advisers should fully understand.
The 4% rule was originally developed by William Bengen, a financial planner from MIT. Mr. Bengen published his study in 1994 based on data through 1992 in the Journal of Financial Planning.
Of course, there is debate over whether the 4% rule remains a useful and pragmatic tool. Last year, The Wall Street Journal published an article entitled "Forget the 4% Rule: Rethinking Common Retirement Beliefs." The piece touted the opinion of Wade Pfau, a professor at the American College of Financial Services, who believes, based on his research, that the 4% rule is obsolete and should be replaced with a more conservative 3% rule.
The article prompted me to research the state of the 4% rule. As a financial professional, I wanted to arrive at my own conclusion about the continued viability of this landmark rule.
I couldn't find research that extended beyond Mr. Bengen's groundbreaking study's original dates. So I took it upon myself to update the study's figures with an additional 25 years of data to bring it into the present day.
My team's work recreated the study with retirement withdrawals beginning every year from 1929 to 2009 — 82 separate retirement starting points. We used actual market data until 2017 and ran multiple simulations with historically conservative average return estimates thereafter: 5% for stocks, 2% for bonds and 3% for inflation.
What I found was that 70% of the time (58 of the 82 scenarios), retirement funds lasted 50 years or more. The remaining 30% of the time, the money "ran out," with the worst-case scenario in our study being 29 years.
So, my answer is yes, the 4% rule can still work.
We all know that hard-line rules and scolding don't work in the real world. I developed some guidelines around the rule to offer buffers, or safety zones, that give high-end (the danger zone at 6%) and low-end (the "Buffett" zone at 2%) parameters for ongoing conversations with clients.
The primary goal of this research and the accompanying safety zones is to help financial advisers understand the nuances of the 4% rule and be able to explain these intricacies to their clients cogently and pragmatically.
If, for instance, you sit down with a couple who are spending "too much," perhaps now you can simply remind them that the spending level isn't sustainable, and that they need to move into a middle- or low-safety zone of withdrawals soon.
Our bottom line is to ensure that our clients are in a safety zone within the 4% rule. Understanding the rule, its implications and the buffers I have identified are a great way to have that conversation.
(More: Drawing down assets from a portfolio need not be tough)
Wes Moss is chief investment strategist for Atlanta's Capital Investment Advisors and the author of "You Can Retire Sooner Than You Think."
| 2백년간 인간의 수명은 두배로 늘었다 (0) | 2019.03.02 |
|---|---|
| 고령자가 학교에 갑니다 (0) | 2019.02.24 |
| 아슬아슬한 DB의 재정상태 (0) | 2019.02.14 |
| 고령자의 병원 밖 임종 (0) | 2019.01.28 |
| 계속 일하고 싶어하는 베이비붐 세대 (0) | 2019.01.24 |
확정기여(DC)형의 근로자가 퇴직했을때 더 두둑하게 연금을 챙겨갈 방안은 무엇일까요?
잘 적립하는것 이외에 적립해 놓은 것을 잘 빼서 쓰는겁니다. 너무 많이 빨리 꺼내써서 곳간이 비었는데도 살아있다면 그냥 빈곤한 노인이 되는 겁니다. 반면에 조금씩 빼서 아껴서 썼는데 단명하면?
상속인들은 행복할 겁니다. 이걸 소위 퇴직자의 장수리스크입니다.
DB는 없고 DC만 있는 호주에서 장수리스크를 최소화하기 위한 상품 다양화가 시도되고 있습니다.
The key element of a CIPR is to manage longevity risk. This can’t be done if the only option is an account-based pension (ABP), which the majority of superannuation pensions are currently based on. While a partial investment in an annuity can provide the longevity risk management, there are other options for funds to use a collective income stream alongside the ABP.
In short, a collective income scheme is one in which:
These schemes are sometimes called ‘group self-annuitisation schemes’ (or GSAs) but the definitions have blurred since GSAs were first described by some Australian academics. There are key differences between the various collective schemes in their degree of flexibility and the approach to managing retiree risks. These factors include:
| Flexibility | Risk Management |
| – Entry point (pre/post retirement) – Choice and ability to change – Access to capital – Payment of residual capital (estate) – Timing of contributions – Timing of payments |
– Mortality pooling – Market risk protections – Diversification (asset allocation) – Guarantees and capital protection – Inflation protection |
There are three key benefits from using a GSA (or other collective income schemes):
There are two forms of longevity risk. One risk is related to how long everyone will live, and will change with medical improvements and lifestyle changes etc. (systematic longevity risk). The other risk is that some people will live considerably longer than the average (idiosyncratic longevity risk).
GSAs pool idiosyncratic longevity risk. Pools of retirees (in the same age cohort) tend to have a more reliable distribution of ages at death, particularly as the pool becomes larger. When planning for 10,000 retirees, the law of large numbers will start to see quite a predictable distribution of lifespans around the mean and hence the risk is effectively diversified away.
Because it has no resources beyond what is in the pool, a GSA arrangement is still exposed to systematic longevity risk. This form of risk, if it unfolds, will be borne directly by the GSA-funded retiree in the form of a reduced income.
A mortality credit is the higher payment that is available to someone who contributes their capital to a longevity pool, where participants are only entitled to payments while they are alive. Those who live beyond the actuarial life expectancy of the pool benefit from the contributions of those who die earlier.
Leading annuity expert, Moshe A. Milevsky (2006), describes it as a process where the capital and interest of the deceased member is ‘lost’ to that person and their beneficiaries. It is then ‘gained’ by the surviving members of the pool. The remaining value of the notional capital of the deceased is spread across all members to help support their lifetime income payments.
As the life expectancy is an average, approximately half of the members of the pool will die before reaching the expected average and will not benefit further. The remaining value of their notional capital is then available to support the remaining liabilities in the pool. These mortality credits are distributed ex-ante by the scheme in setting its targeted payment rates. In other words, mortality credits enable the income paid to the member to be higher than the combined total of the partial return of capital and projected asset returns of the scheme comprised in each payment.
Mortality credits provide a form of return not directly linked to the capital markets.
Pooling of longevity risk (both idiosyncratic and systematic) is available through a lifetime annuity offered by a life insurance company. These products also remove the market risks from the retiree and pay a guaranteed income. In order to secure these payments, the shareholders of the life insurance company provide capital as a buffer to protect the retiree. This capital is at risk to the shareholders and needs a sufficient return. The guaranteed payments to the annuitant are set so that what remains from the returns on the total asset pool provides the expected return to shareholders. If these expectations turn out to be wrong, the losses are borne by the shareholders, who, in the worst case, would be called on to provide even more capital under powers given to APRA in 2012.
The logic for GSAs is that by not using capital buffers or guarantees, they will be able to avoid the cost of the capital or the insurance afforded by the guarantee and thereby increase the retirement income able to be distributed to members. The flip side of this argument is that a guarantee has a value in the defensive or ‘safety-first’ part of the portfolio and not having a guarantee is a weakness, rather than a strength.
The development of better retirement outcomes for Australians is likely to see growing use of GSAs and other collective income streams. This will require solutions to some of the more technical aspects, such as operating a GSA over risky assets with a need for surplus/deficit management or highly volatile income streams.
There is also a regulatory concern over the disclosure of the GSA target. Without a guarantee, there can be no real promise of income in retirement. How will retirees be able to distinguish between alternative structures that might target different incomes from the same asset mix? At least with a guaranteed product, the income can be relied on. The additional capital backing the promise provides this security for the retiree.
There is no magic pudding in retirement. A GSA scheme can share investment risk between one member or generation of retirees and another, but it can’t reduce it overall. If one GSA member takes less investment risk, another member is taking more. Pooling does reduce the idiosyncratic mortality risk, but as with idiosyncratic market risk under the capital asset pricing model, this is an unrewarded risk. Removing it alone does not increase total returns to the pool.
| DB가 사라져도 연금계리는 남는다 (0) | 2018.12.01 |
|---|---|
| 불황이 지속되면서 연금 수령액을 낮추는 방안이 등장 (0) | 2018.11.28 |
| 감독원, DB도입 기업에게 주주배당보다 퇴직연금 적립에 주력하라고 경고 (0) | 2018.11.12 |
| 퇴직연금 가입자교육의 중요성 (0) | 2018.11.03 |
| 생애주기이론의 기원과 현황 (0) | 2018.10.20 |
22년후에 가장 장수하는 나라는 일본이 아니라 스페인이 될거랍니다. 2040년의 평균 기대수명(life expectancy)를 추정했더니 일본은 85.7세인데 스페인이 이 보다 높은 85.8세를 기록했네요.
미국 워싱턴대학교의 국제건강연구소(IHME: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation)가 발표한 자료인데, 기대수명은 0세가 평균적으로 몇살까지 사느냐를 말하는 것인데 보험계리학(Actuarial Science) 교과서의 한 챕터를 구성하는 재미있는 추정 기법입니다.
New health forecasting study: In ‘worse' scenario, half of all nations could face lower life expectancies
‘Better scenario’ finds nearly 50 nations gaining 10 years or more in lifespans
Large shift expected in premature death from communicable to non-communicable diseases and injuries
Huge potential to influence health through tackling high blood pressure, obesity, tobacco, alcohol, and air pollution
SEATTLE – How healthy will we be in 2040?
A new scientific study of forecasts and alternative scenarios for life expectancy and major causes of death in 2040 shows all countries are likely to experience at least a slight increase in lifespans. In contrast, one scenario finds nearly half of all nations could face lower life expectancies.
The rankings of nations’ life expectancies offer new insights into their health status.
For example, China, with an average life expectancy of 76.3 years in 2016, ranked 68th among 195 nations. However, if recent health trends continue it could rise to a rank of 39th in 2040 with an average life expectancy of 81.9 years, an increase of 5.6 years.
In contrast, the United States in 2016 ranked 43rd with an average lifespan of 78.7 years. In 2040, life expectancy is forecast to increase only 1.1 years to 79.8, but dropping in rank to 64th. By comparison, the United Kingdom had a lifespan of 80.8 years in 2016 and is expected to increase to 83.3, raising its rank from 26th to 23rd in 2040.
In addition, the study, published today in the international medical journal The Lancet, projects a significant increase in deaths from non-communicable diseases (NCDs), including diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), chronic kidney disease, and lung cancer, as well as worsening health outcomes linked to obesity.
However, there is “great potential to alter the downward trajectory of health” by addressing key risk factors, levels of education, and per capita income, authors say.
“The future of the world’s health is not pre-ordained, and there is a wide range of plausible trajectories,” said Dr. Kyle Foreman, Director of Data Science at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, and lead author on the study. “But whether we see significant progress or stagnation depends on how well or poorly health systems address key health drivers.”
The top five health drivers that explain most of the future trajectory for premature mortality are high blood pressure, high body mass index, high blood sugar, tobacco use, and alcohol use, Foreman said. Air pollution ranked sixth.
The study is available at www.healthdata.org.
Accompanying collateral materials, including comprehensive listings and supporting data of all nations’ rankings, are available at https://cloud.ihme.washington.edu/index.php/s/AkAfRKXFaKwLpFr
In addition to China, several other nations are expected in 2040 to increase substantially in their rankings in terms of life expectancy, including:
likely, according to the authors, due to a conservative model for conflict;
In contrast, Palestine is expected to drop the most in its life expectancy ranking – from 114th in 2016 to 152nd in 2040. Moreover, several high-income nations are forecast to drop substantially in their rankings, including:
The rankings also find that Spain is expected to place first in the world in 2040 (average lifespan of 85.8 years), a rise from fourth in 2016 (average lifespan of 82.9 years). Japan, ranked first in 2016 (average lifespan 83.7 years), will drop to second place in 2040 (average lifespan 85.7 years).
Rounding out the top 10 for 2040 are:
(3) Singapore (average lifespan 85.4 years) ranked third, as compared to 83.3 years in 2016 and ranking also of third
(4) Switzerland (average lifespan 85.2 years), as compared to 83.3 years in 2016 and ranking of second
(5) Portugal (average lifespan 84.5 years), as compared to 81.0 years in 2016 and ranking of 23rd
(6) Italy (average lifespan 84.5 years), as compared to 82.3 years in 2016 and ranking of seventh
(7) Israel (average lifespan 84.4 years), as compared to 82.1 years in 2016 and ranking of 13th
(8) France (average lifespan 84.3 years), as compared to 82.3 years in 2016 and ranking also of eighth
(9) Luxembourg (average lifespan 84.1 years) as compared to 82.2 years in 2016 and ranking of 10th
(10) Australia (average lifespan 84.1 years), as compared to 82.5 years in 2016 and ranking of fifth.
Among those top 10 nations, even their ‘worse’ scenarios in 2040 remain above 80 years. In stark contrast, the bottom-ranked nations, which include Lesotho, Swaziland, Central African Republic, and South Africa, the “better” and “worse scenarios” in 2040 range from a high of 75.3 years in South Africa (“better” scenario) to a low of 45.3 years in Lesotho (“worse scenario”), a 30-year difference.
“Inequalities will continue to be large,” said IHME Director Dr. Christopher Murray. “The gap between the ‘better’ and ‘worse’ scenarios will narrow but will still be significant. In a substantial number of countries, too many people will continue earning relatively low incomes, remain poorly educated, and die prematurely. But nations could make faster progress by helping people tackle the major risks, especially smoking and poor diet.”
In a “worse” scenario, life expectancy decreases in nearly half of all countries over the next generation. Specifically, 87 countries will experience a decline, and 57 will see an increase of one year or more. In contrast, in the “better” scenario, 158 countries will see life expectancy gains of at least five years, while 46 nations may see gains of 10 years or more.
The future shift toward increased premature mortality from NCDs and injuries and away from communicable diseases is apparent by the changing proportions of the top 10 causes of premature death.
In 2016, four of the top 10 causes of premature mortality were NCDs or injuries; in contrast, in 2040, that number increases to eight. The eight NCD or injury causes in the top ten in 2040 are expected to be ischemic heart disease, stroke, COPD, chronic kidney disease, Alzheimer’s disease, diabetes, road injuries, and lung cancer.
The study is unprecedented in scope, Foreman said, and provides more robust statistical modeling and more comprehensive and detailed estimates of risk factors and diseases than previous forecasts from the United Nations and other population studies institutes.
IHME researchers leveraged data from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study to produce forecasts and alternative “better” and “worse” scenarios for life expectancy and mortality due to 250 causes of death for 195 countries and territories.
Researchers produced forecasts of independent drivers of health, including sociodemographic measurements of fertility, per capita income, and years of education, along with 79 independent drivers of health such as smoking, high body mass index, and lack of clean water and sanitation. They then used information on how each of these independent drivers affects specific causes of death to develop forecasts of mortality.
“The range of ‘better’ and ‘worse’ scenarios enables stakeholders to examine potential changes to improve health systems – locally, nationally, and globally,” Murray said. “These scenarios offer new insights and help to frame health planning, especially regarding long lag periods between initial investments and their impacts, such as in the research and development of drugs.”
In addition to calling attention to the growing importance of non-communicable diseases, the analysis exposes a substantial risk of HIV/AIDS mortality rebounding, which could undo recent life expectancy gains in several nations in sub-Saharan Africa.
Furthermore, while NCDs are projected to rise in many low-income countries, communicable, maternal, neonatal, and nutritional diseases are likely to remain among the leading causes of early death, thereby creating a “double burden” of disease.
The study is entitled “Forecasting life expectancy, years of life lost, and all-cause and cause-specific mortality for 250 causes of death: reference and alternative scenarios for 2016–40 for 195 countries and territories using data from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.”
| 구글과 아마존, 소프트뱅크의 보험영업 (0) | 2019.01.03 |
|---|---|
| 첨단과학기술과 보험영업 (0) | 2018.12.23 |
| 감독원, 변액연금 상품안내장 간소화 허가 (0) | 2018.11.06 |
| 부모 사망후 상속세를 8년후에 계산해도 되는 곳에서 벌어지는 일은? (0) | 2018.08.25 |
| 수명증가 추세가 처음으로 둔화되었습니다 (0) | 2018.08.13 |
