http://online.wsj.com
Retirement plans are doing a better job of providing a secure retirement for workers than a decade ago, according to a study to be released Tuesday by a nonpartisan research group. Many workers, however, may still come up short.
That news of improved security may seem counterintuitive—or just plain wrong—to workers who saw their retirement accounts shrink during the recent market downturn.
The improvement is thanks largely to a recent increase in automatic employee enrollment in 401(k) retirement plans, says Jack VanDerhei, lead researcher on the report.
"Things are getting better" since the EBRI's first study about retirement risk, published in 2003, Mr. VanDerhei said. "But there is still a very large percentage of households and workers who are likely to be at risk for retirement income" insecurity.
Nearly half—47.2%—of households whose oldest members are age 56 to 62 are at risk of not having enough retirement income to pay for basic expenditures and uninsured health-care costs in retirement, according to the study. That is better than the 59.2% of households who were projected to run short on retirement income in EBRI's 2003 study.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Chicago Trib: Nearly half of those nearing retirement lack adequate savings
http://www.chicagotribune.com
The people in the best shape with savings tend to have 401(k) plans, said VanDerhei. With such plans, people save regularly, while people who must go on their own to a broker or mutual fund company to start an IRA tend to procrastinate.
Changes in government regulations during the last few years have been encouraging employers to enroll employees in 401(k) plans automatically without asking for permission, and that has prepared people better for their future, said VanDerhei.
CS Monitor: Report sounds alarm bell over Americans' retirement plan
http://www.csmonitor.com
The study was conducted by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) in Washington. Although the detailed study suggests a significant financial challenge lies ahead, the findings are not entirely grim.
Many workers still have time to bolster their financial position. The study estimates that for a middle-income Gen Xer, saving about 5 percent more of income could make the difference between falling short and being secure in retirement
The study was conducted by the nonpartisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) in Washington. Although the detailed study suggests a significant financial challenge lies ahead, the findings are not entirely grim.
Many workers still have time to bolster their financial position. The study estimates that for a middle-income Gen Xer, saving about 5 percent more of income could make the difference between falling short and being secure in retirement
The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating:™ Retirement Income Preparation and Future Prospects
Download pdf
Executive Summary
MODELING RETIREMENT INCOME ADEQUACY: The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating™ was developed in 2003 to provide assessment of national retirement income prospects. The 2010 update uses the most recent data and considers retirement plan changes (e.g., automatic enrollment, auto escalation of contributions, and diversified default investments resulting from the Pension Protection Act of 2006) as well as updates for financial market performance and employee behavior (based on a database of 24 million 401(k) participants).
“AT RISK” LEVELS, BY AGE AND INCOME: The baseline 2010 Retirement Readiness Rating™ finds that nearly one-half (47.2 percent) of the oldest cohort (Early Baby Boomers) are simulated to be “at risk” of not having sufficient retirement resources to pay for “basic” retirement expenditures and uninsured health care costs. The percentage “at risk” drops for the Late Boomers (to 43.7 percent) but then increases slightly for Generation Xers to 44.5 percent. Households in the lowest one-third when ranked by preretirement income are simulated to be “at risk” 70.3 percent of the time, while the middle-income group has an “at-risk” level of 41.6 percent. This figure drops to 23.3 percent for the highest-income group. These numbers are generally much more optimistic than those simulated for the same groups seven years earlier. In 2003, 59.2 percent of the Early Boomers were simulated to be “at risk,” as well as 54.7 percent of the Late Boomers and 57.4 percent of the Generation Xers. When analyzed by preretirement income in 2003, households were simulated to be “at risk” 79.5 percent of the time for the lowest one-third, 57.3 percent for the middle-income group, and 39.6 percent for the highest-income group.
FUTURE ELIGIBILITY IN A DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN: When the simulation results are classified by future eligibility in a defined contribution plan, the differences in the “at-risk” percentages are quite large. For example, Gen Xers with no future years of eligibility have an “at-risk” level of 60 percent, compared with only 20 percent for those with 20 or more years of future eligibility.
RUNNING SHORT OF MONEY: The model simulates a distribution of how long retirement money will cover the expenses for Early Boomers (assuming retirement at age 65). A household is considered to “run short of money” if their resources in retirement are not sufficient to meet minimum retirement expenditures plus uncovered expenses from nursing home and home health care expenses. After 10 years of retirement, 41 percent of those in the lowest (preretirement) income quartile are assumed to have run short of money, but only 23 percent of the next-lowest quartile, 13 percent of the third quartile, and less than 5 percent of the highest-income quartile.
ADDITIONAL SAVINGS NEEDED: While knowing the percentage of households that are “at risk” is obviously valuable, it does nothing to inform one of how much additional savings is required to achieve the desired probability of success. Therefore, this analysis also models how much additional savings would need to be contributed from 2010 until age 65 to achieve adequate retirement income 50, 70, and 90 percent of the time for each household. While this concept may be difficult to comprehend at first, it is important to understand that a retirement target based on averages (such as average life expectancy, average investment experience, and average health care expenditures in retirement) provides, in essence, a retirement planning target that has approximately a 50 percent “failure” rate. Adding the 70 and 90 percent probabilities allows more realistic modeling of a worker’s risk aversion.
Executive Summary
MODELING RETIREMENT INCOME ADEQUACY: The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating™ was developed in 2003 to provide assessment of national retirement income prospects. The 2010 update uses the most recent data and considers retirement plan changes (e.g., automatic enrollment, auto escalation of contributions, and diversified default investments resulting from the Pension Protection Act of 2006) as well as updates for financial market performance and employee behavior (based on a database of 24 million 401(k) participants).
“AT RISK” LEVELS, BY AGE AND INCOME: The baseline 2010 Retirement Readiness Rating™ finds that nearly one-half (47.2 percent) of the oldest cohort (Early Baby Boomers) are simulated to be “at risk” of not having sufficient retirement resources to pay for “basic” retirement expenditures and uninsured health care costs. The percentage “at risk” drops for the Late Boomers (to 43.7 percent) but then increases slightly for Generation Xers to 44.5 percent. Households in the lowest one-third when ranked by preretirement income are simulated to be “at risk” 70.3 percent of the time, while the middle-income group has an “at-risk” level of 41.6 percent. This figure drops to 23.3 percent for the highest-income group. These numbers are generally much more optimistic than those simulated for the same groups seven years earlier. In 2003, 59.2 percent of the Early Boomers were simulated to be “at risk,” as well as 54.7 percent of the Late Boomers and 57.4 percent of the Generation Xers. When analyzed by preretirement income in 2003, households were simulated to be “at risk” 79.5 percent of the time for the lowest one-third, 57.3 percent for the middle-income group, and 39.6 percent for the highest-income group.
FUTURE ELIGIBILITY IN A DEFINED CONTRIBUTION PLAN: When the simulation results are classified by future eligibility in a defined contribution plan, the differences in the “at-risk” percentages are quite large. For example, Gen Xers with no future years of eligibility have an “at-risk” level of 60 percent, compared with only 20 percent for those with 20 or more years of future eligibility.
RUNNING SHORT OF MONEY: The model simulates a distribution of how long retirement money will cover the expenses for Early Boomers (assuming retirement at age 65). A household is considered to “run short of money” if their resources in retirement are not sufficient to meet minimum retirement expenditures plus uncovered expenses from nursing home and home health care expenses. After 10 years of retirement, 41 percent of those in the lowest (preretirement) income quartile are assumed to have run short of money, but only 23 percent of the next-lowest quartile, 13 percent of the third quartile, and less than 5 percent of the highest-income quartile.
ADDITIONAL SAVINGS NEEDED: While knowing the percentage of households that are “at risk” is obviously valuable, it does nothing to inform one of how much additional savings is required to achieve the desired probability of success. Therefore, this analysis also models how much additional savings would need to be contributed from 2010 until age 65 to achieve adequate retirement income 50, 70, and 90 percent of the time for each household. While this concept may be difficult to comprehend at first, it is important to understand that a retirement target based on averages (such as average life expectancy, average investment experience, and average health care expenditures in retirement) provides, in essence, a retirement planning target that has approximately a 50 percent “failure” rate. Adding the 70 and 90 percent probabilities allows more realistic modeling of a worker’s risk aversion.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
An Evaluation of the Adequacy and Structure of Current U.S. Voluntary Retirement Plans, with Special Emphasis on 401(K) Plans
This paper reviews the results of many empirical and simulation studies EBRI has undertaken to determine whether future cohorts of retirees in the US are likely to have retirement income adequacy and the extent to which the voluntary retirement system is contributing to this objective in its current form as well as possible modifications that may increase its efficiency.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
The Declining Role of Private Defined Benefit Pension Plans: Who is Affected, and How
This chapter analyzes the impact of future freezes among corporate defined benefit (DB) pension plans. We simulate the impact on expected future pension wealth by assuming all existing private DB plans immediately freeze accruals for new employees. While this indicates the potential reduction in retirement wealth attributable to such plans, it does not recognize that sponsors freezing accruals may increase employer contributions to existing defined contribution (DC) plans or establish new DC plans. Using an empirical distribution of enhanced contributions to DC plans from sponsors freezing their DB plans, we simulate the nominal annuity that could be purchased at retirement age from these enhanced contributions. We then back out the net pension loss experienced by employees in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)