“Last” Chances

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

While many Americans seem to lack a definitive sense of what living in retirement will be like, how long it will last, or how much it will cost, their sense of when it will begin has been trending older.  The 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS) noted that, whereas in 1991, just 11 percent of workers expected to retire after age 65, in 2012, more than three times as many (37 percent) report they expect to wait until after age 65 to retire—and most of those indicated an expected retirement age of 70 or older.¹

Those expecting to delay retirement perhaps found solace in a recent report by the Center for Retirement Research (CRR) at Boston College which concluded that by postponing retirement until age 70, the vast majority of households (86 percent) were “…projected to be prepared for retirement.”

That sounds good – but what about the assumptions underlying that conclusion?

In 2003, the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) constructed the EBRI-ERF Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM)—the first nationally representative, micro-simulation model based on actual 401(k) participant behavior and a stochastic decumulation model.  And though we have explicitly recognized that many individuals were retiring at earlier ages, a retirement age of 65 was chosen for baseline results, based upon the assumption that most workers would have the flexibility to work until that age, if they so chose.

Last year we modified the RSPM to determine whether just “working a few more years after age 65” would indeed be a feasible financial solution for those determined to be “at risk.”  Unfortunately, for those counting on that as a retirement savings “solution”, the answer is not always “yes.”

Indeed, results from the EBRI modeling indicated that the lowest pre-retirement income quartile would need to defer retirement to age 84 before 90 percent of the households would have even a break-even (50‒50) chance of success.

Working longer does help, of course.  A recent EBRI Notes article titled “Is Working to Age 70 Really the Answer for Retirement Income Adequacy?²” finds that 23 percent of those who would have been at risk of running out money in retirement if they retired at age 65 would be “ready to retire” if they kept working to 70.  Better still, if those individuals are assumed not only to delay retirement, but also to keep participating in a defined contribution plan, a full third of those who would have been at risk of running short of money if they retired at age 65 would be “ready” to retire at age 70.³

What accounts for the difference in the projections?  For a household to be classified as “ready for retirement” under the CRR method, a projected replacement rate is simply compared with a benchmark rate, while the RSPM uses a fully developed stochastic decumulation process to determine whether a family will run short of money in retirement (and, if so, at what age) under each of a thousand alternative, simulated retirement paths.  Unlike the CRR model, EBRI’s RSPM model simultaneously considers the impact of longevity risk, investment risk, and the risk of potentially catastrophic health care costs (such as prolonged stays in a nursing home).⁵

Which, as it so happens, are the same things that those trying to make sure they have enough money to last through retirement—and those trying to help them do so—need to consider.

Notes

¹ see “Is Working to Age 70 Really the Answer for Retirement Income Adequacy?”

² Also from the above article, “It’s worth nothing that a significant portion of the improvement in readiness takes place in the first four years after age 65, but that tends to level off in the early 70s before picking up in the late 70s and early 80s.  Higher-income households would be in a much better situation: 90 percent of the highest-income quartile would already have a 50 percent probability of success by age 65, while those in the next-highest income quartile would need to wait until age 72 for 90 percent of their group to have a 50 percent probability. Those in the second-lowest income quartile would need to wait until age 81 before 90 percent of their group had a 50 percent probability of success. 

³ At the same time, the percentage of workers expecting to retire before age 65 has decreased from 50 percent in 1991 to 24 percent (see this EBRI analysis, online here).  A sizable proportion of retirees report each year that they retired sooner than they had planned (50 percent in 2012). Those who retire early often do so for negative reasons, such as a health problem or disability (51 percent) or company downsizing or closure (21 percent).  The 2011 RCS found that the poor economy (36 percent), lack of faith in Social Security or the government (16 percent) and a change in employment situation (15 percent) were the most frequently cited reasons for postponing retirement.

⁴. For more on how this modeling works, see “Single Best Answer.”

⁵ For an explanation of four things that are sometimes overlooked by retirement-needs projection models, see “Generation ‘Gaps,’” online here.

Reality “Checks”

By Nevin Adams, EBRI

A recent opinion piece by Teresa Ghilarducci in the New York Times took on what she termed a “ridiculous approach to retirement,” drawn from what appears to be a series of “ad hoc” dinner conversations with friends about their “retirement plans and prospects.”

Most of the op-ed focused on the perceived shortfalls of the voluntary retirement savings system: People don’t have enough savings, don’t know how much “enough” is, make inaccurate assumptions about the length of their lives and their ability to extend their working careers, and aren’t able to find qualified help to help them make more appropriate savings decisions.   In place of the current system, which Ghilarducci maintains “will always fall short,” she proposes “a way out” via mandatory savings in addition to the current Social Security withholding.  Consider that, just three sentences into the op-ed, she posits the jaw-dropping statistic that 75 percent of Americans nearing retirement age in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts.

“You don’t like mandates?  Get real,” she declares.

When we looked across the EBRI database of some 2.3 million active¹ 401(k) participants at the end of 2010 who were between the ages of 56 and 65, inclusive – people who have chosen to supplement Social Security through voluntary savings – we found only about half that number (37 percent) with less than $30,000 in those accounts.  Moreover, when looking at those in that group who have more than 30 years of tenure, fewer than 13% are in that circumstance – and neither set of numbers includes retirement assets that those individuals may have accumulated in the plans of their previous employers, or that they may have rolled into Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), as well as pensions or other savings (see Average IRA Balances a Third Higher When Multiple Accounts are Considered).

That’s not to say that the financial challenges outlined in the op-ed won’t be a reality for some. In fact, EBRI’s Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM) developed in 2003, updated in 2010², finds that for Early Baby Boomers (individuals born between 1948 and 1954), Late Baby Boomers (born between 1955 and 1964) and Generation Xers (born between 1965 and 1974), roughly 44 percent of the simulated lifepaths were projected to lack adequate retirement income for basic retirement expenses plus uninsured health care costs (see “Retirement Income Adequacy for Boomers and Gen Xers: Evidence from the 2012 EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model”) .

The op-ed declares that a voluntary Social Security system “would have been a disaster.”  Indeed, an objective observer might conclude that that is why Congress originally established Social Security as a mandatory system, to provide a base of income for retirees as it still does today.   With the underpinnings of that mandatory foundation of Social Security, the current voluntary system was established to allow employers and individuals to supplement that base.  In recent decades Social Security’s benefits have been “reduced” by increases in the definition of normal retirement age, and a partial taxation of benefits, despite increases in the mandatory withholding rates, in order to adjust to the realities of rising costs from changing demographics.  Even before the recent two-year partial withholding “holiday,” Congress was, and is still today, discussing additional adjustments to that mandatory system.

The voluntary system should be judged as just that, a voluntary system.  As noted above, the data makes it clear that voluntary employer-based plans are, in fact, leading to a great deal of real savings accumulated to supplement Social Security.  Many in the nation work every day to encourage those savings to be increased (see www.choosetosave.org ).

The “real” questions, certainly as one reflects on the debate over the Affordable Care Act mandate, amidst today’s political and economic turmoil, are whether the Congress and the nation will be willing – and able – to pay the price of an expanded or new retirement savings mandate, and, regardless of that outcome, how can a voluntary system be moved to higher levels of success?

Notes

¹ Active in this case is defined as anyone in the database with a positive account balance and a positive total contribution (employee plus employer) for 2010.

² The RSPM was updated for a variety of significant changes, including the impacts of defined benefit plan freezes, automatic enrollment provisions for 401(k) plans, and the recent crises in the financial and housing markets. EBRI has recently updated RSPM to account for changes in financial and real estate market conditions as well as underlying demographic changes and changes in 401(k) participant behavior since January 1, 2010.  For more information on the RSPM, check out the May 2012 EBRI Notes, “Retirement Income Adequacy for Boomers and Gen Xers: Evidence from the 2012 EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model.”

Last June EBRI CEO Dallas Salisbury participated in an “Ideas in Action with Jim Glassman” program discussion with Ghilarducci and Alex Brill from the American Enterprise Institute titled “America’s Retirement Challenge: Should We Ditch 401(k) Plans?”  You can view it online here.

“Counter” Intuitive?

 By Nevin Adams, EBRI

Adams

When one considers the impact of changes in tax policy on retirement plan savings, it is perhaps natural to assume that those who pay more taxes would respond to changes in the taxation of their contributions and/or savings. However, what’s probably not as obvious to many is that lower-income workers could also be significantly impacted. Indeed, as noted in the March 2011 EBRI Notes, “…behavioral economics has shown that the reaction of employees in situations similar to this are often at odds with what would have been predicted by an objective concerned simply with optimizing a financial strategy.”(1)

As part of the 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey, workers were asked about the importance of tax deferrals in encouraging them to save for retirement. Quoting from the November 2011 EBRI Issue Brief, “If one were to look at this from a strictly financial perspective, one would assume that the lower-income individuals (those most likely to pay no or low marginal tax rates and therefore have a smaller financial incentive to deduct retirement savings contributions from taxable income) would be least likely to rate this as ‘very important.’ However, those in the lowest household income category ($15,000 to less than $25,000) actually have the largest percentage of respondents classifying the tax deductibility of contributions as very important (76.2 percent).”

Additionally, asked how they would likely respond if their ability to defer those taxes was eliminated, it was the lowest-income category ($15,000 to less than $25,000) that reacted most negatively—with 56.7 percent indicating they would reduce the amount they would save in these plans (see more, online here).

As part of the 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey,(2) participants were asked about their likely response to a different set of federal tax modifications included in a specific proposal. (3) Those participant responses were subsequently integrated with those of plan sponsor respondents to a 2011 AllianceBernstein survey(4) to the changes contemplated under that same proposal. The proposal author’s analysis had largely assumed status quo in terms of plan design changes (by plan sponsors) and contribution flows (by both individual participants and employers) in response to those changes.

In fact, the average percentage reduction for 401(k) participants in the two smallest plan size categories (less than $1 million and $1–$10 million in assets) were more than 1.5 times the value of the average percentage reduction for participants in any of the larger plan-size categories (regardless of the income level of the 401(k) participants). Striking as those results are, there is a ripple effect on participant savings to be considered as well.

A new EBRI study uses the EBRI-ERF Retirement Security Projection Model® (RSPM), and with a database of tens of thousands of 401(k) plans and millions of participant accounts, to provide baseline analysis. That analysis indicates that the cumulative impact of reported plan sponsor modifications and individual participant reactions would result in an average percentage reduction in 401(k) balances of between 6–22 percent at Social Security normal retirement age for workers currently ages 26–35. That analysis also indicates that an even larger average percentage accumulation reduction would result for participants in small plans.(5)

Those participant and plan sponsor responses may be counter-intuitive to some—but it’s the type of response, and impact, that shouldn’t be overlooked.

Endnotes

(1) See “The Impact of Modifying the Exclusion of Employee Contributions for Retirement Savings Plans From Taxable Income: Results from the 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey,” online here.

(2) See “The 2012 Retirement Confidence Survey: Job Insecurity, Debt Weigh on Retirement Confidence, Savings,” online here.

(3) It’s not the first time EBRI has undertaken such an analysis, of course. EBRI has looked at preliminary evidence of the impact of these “20/20 caps” on projected retirement accumulations under a set of assumptions—see “Capping Tax-Preferred Retirement Contributions: Preliminary Evidence of the Impact of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform Recommendations,” online here, and “Tax Reform Options: Promoting Retirement Security,” EBRI Issue Brief, No. 364, November 2011, online here. EBRI also provided testimony before the Senate Finance Committee on the issue, online here.

Research Director Jack VanDerhei also submitted testimony to the Senate Finance Committee on “The Impact of Modifying the Exclusion of Employee Contributions for Retirement Savings Plans From Taxable Income: Results From the 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey,” online here.

(4) AllianceBernstein, 2011, “Inside the Minds of Plan Sponsors” Research.

(5) That integration of sentiment with EBRI’s extensive 401(k) database and modeling capabilities provided a unique perspective on the full potential impact of these changes on cumulative savings amounts, which was outlined in our recent March 2012 EBRI Notes article, “Modifying the Federal Tax Treatment of 401(k) Plan Contributions: Projected Impact on Participant Account Balances,” online here.