Rising interest rates can have an effect on bond values. After all, if you’re holding a bond paying 2% and interest rates for comparable bonds rise to 3%, you’ll have trouble finding a buyer unless you’re willing to reduce the price of the bond to make up the difference.
In addition, a bond paying 2% for the next thirty years will be harder to sell than one that has only one year left. This means that, generally speaking, the longer the maturity the more the price will be affected by rising rates. Continue reading →
If your retirement is still ten years or more in the future, NOW is the time to get your ducks lined-up. Don’t wait until you’re at the doorstep – and, here’s why:
You may think you’ll spend less in retirement – that’s what all the experts say – but, if you’ve been a disciplined saver and investor with a nice nest-egg, you’ll probably want to enjoy life! You may travel! But, even if you don’t, here’s what you need to know:
You’ll probably lose some deductions.
Four deductions typically lost are:
Retirement Plan Contributions
For most retirees, that leaves them with the standard deduction and personal exemptions. Currently, for a married couple filing jointly, the standard deduction is $12,600. Personal exemptions for each are $4,000; so, that gives a couple a total of $20,600 in deductions they can take when they’re no longer itemizing. Historically, these have been adjusted for inflation, so you can do the same as you estimate what they’ll be in retirement.
So, any income below that number won’t be taxed. But, what if income is higher? – and it probably will be.
The IRS looks at Provisional Income. And, here’s what’s counted:
1/2 of Social Security income
Distributions from tax-deferred accounts (your retirement accounts)
1099 interest from taxable accounts
Interest from municipal bonds
Did you notice? Municipal bond interest, which is normally tax-free, is counted!
What’s the significance of provisional income? The total determines how much of your Social Security benefit gets taxed! Here are the brackets:
% of Social Security Subject to Income Taxation
$32 – $44K
Here’s the kicker: These brackets were created by President Reagan and House Speaker “Tip” O’Neil back in the early 1980s in an effort to save Social Security. But, just a swith the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), they made no provisions for inflation adjustment.
That means inflation alone may force many into the higher brackets by the time they retire… a land-mine you need to be aware of.
What does all this mean for your advance planning? It means you need to understand two things:
Asset allocation decisions – the arrangement of assets – shouldn’t be limited to simply choosing a risk-adjusted allocation of asset classes and picking investments. Before that stage, you must arrange assets – well in advance of retirement – into the right tax buckets.
You (your advisor) will need to do some “reverse engineering” to guard against your provisional income in retirement exceeding your standard deduction and personal exemptions. Example: if you plan to retire ten years from now, those deductions should total about $27,700, using a 3% inflation factor. So, for planning purposes, we’ll want to arrange assets into the right tax buckets well in advance to keep provisional income below that number.
How you should approach this strategy depends on too many variables to go into here – but, it should be a component of an overall financial plan for your life.
If you’d like help, feel free to contact me – there’s information below.
Wouldn’t it be comforting to know you’re retirement is assured? An income you can’t outlive does have appeal. People who retire from the government have a steady income stream. They don’t have to manage portfolio withdrawals with actuarial precision in a world where change is a constant.
It’s no wonder that a Towers Watson survey found that retirees relying on pension or rental income are less anxious than those living off investments. Of course, those living off rental income aren’t really retired – they’re in the real estate rental business; but, that’s another story.
People can pay cash for a retirement income, however. According to a story in the current issue of Money[i], a 65-year old man can buy a $500 monthly income for life with $100,000. It’s called an immediate fixed annuity. Heck, that’s $6,000 a year! It is taxable, but it’s also likely more than your investments pay on an after-tax basis, even if you were to take it all in capital gains.
If you have some expenses that are guaranteed to be there forever, add them up and see how much they come to each year. Subtract the amount you receive from Social Security, and the remaining gap is the amount of guaranteed income you may want to consider purchasing.
Of course, you don’t have to buy all of it. You may want to buy a portion of it, to start out, if getting comfortable with the idea is a challenge. You can also purchase immediate annuities from more than one insurance company.
While immediate fixed annuities can provide a guaranteed income for life, the income is taxable; but, that’s what happens if you wait until retirement to buy one.
If you begin planning early – in your 40s and 50s, even up to age 60 – you might be able to arrange for an income tax-free retirement income and never have to worry about what the politicians will do to your taxes again. According to David McKnight’s book, The Power of Zero, endorsed by CPA Ed Slott, it’s a strategy being used by 85% of Fortune 500 CEOs and many members of Congress.
I’ve written a report about it that’s free for those who would like to receive our ezine, IFG Insights. You can get the report here.
[i] “Don’t Shortchange Your Retirement” by Donna Rosato, Money.com, August 2015.
Life insurance illustrations have had, for more years than I can count, a well-deserved reputation for less than transparent and amazingly inaccurate projections of what the policyholder could expect in future years. Typical whole life policies had a lot going on “under the hood” and virtually invisible to the buyer.
One major problem for the typical insurance consumer is the inability to tell one company from another. While many truly professional and credentialed independent agents do make an effort to represent only “investment-grade” companies, there are far too many others who will represent the highest commission, which can often lead to selling substandard products for companies that appear to be substantial. An agent who is also an investment advisor can be a benefit for the buyer.
Here’s an example: Before Executive Life of New York went under, they had over 50% of their portfolio invested in less than investment grade ‘junk’ bonds, despite the fact that in June 1987, the New York legislature had mandated that insurance companies licensed to business in that state were to limit their general portfolios to no more than a 20% allocation to such bonds.
Remember, there are no guarantees; there are only guarantors. [Source: The New Insurance Investment Advisor, Ben G. Baldwin, McGraw-Hill 2002, p. 37.]. A good advisor would look at that allocation and realize it was one he would never recommend for a client; so, why would anyone use it to back their legacy planning?
Here’s what most people don’t know: Most of the well-known rating agencies we’re familiar with are actually paid by the insurance companies they rate! Little wonder many insurance companies that failed actually had good ratings when they went under.
Have you noticed that virtually all insurance companies tout ratings from the same rating agencies in their promotional materials? Few, if any, however, tout their rating from Weiss, maybe because Weiss doesn’t get paid by the companies they rate – their revenues come solely from subscriber revenue (kind of like Consumer Reports).
For example, according to the September 2002 Insurance Forum, of 1221 life and health companies rated by Weiss, only 3.9% of companies made it into the ‘A’ category. Compare that with the 54.9% rated ‘A’ by Standard and Poor’s. At Moody’s, 90% of their list made it to ‘A’ that year. A.M. Best gave ‘A’ to 56.3% of the companies they rated.
By the way, Companies with ratings in the A or B brackets from Weiss are considered secure, while some of the other rating agencies will give B and even A bracket ratings to companies considered vulnerable.
Recently, indexed universal life (IUL) policies have become quite popular – both among agents and their clients. The reasons are many, but two big attractions are (1) transparency – virtually no hidden moving parts. These products are easy to understand; and (2) low cost – insurance costs are basically like term policies. Admin costs are also low and, as noted, everything, including costs, is transparent, including performance going forward.
Does that mean the illustrations can be believed? No, but for different reasons. To understand the reasons why illustrations can be misleading and how to know you’re comparing apples with apples, it’s important to know how these policies work.
First a caveat: This is not an exhaustive text on IUL products and there’s a lot more to know than is being discussed here. This is simply a quick overview highlighting the stand-out characteristics. Quick IUL Overview
IULs are often, but not always, designed as financial tools for maximum cash accumulation in a tax-advantaged vehicle. In these cases, the death benefit is often a secondary consideration; however, it’s the life insurance that buys the tax benefits – and, for many, these benefits far outweigh the cost of insurance, which is typically priced like term insurance.
These buyers want to buy the minimum amount of insurance for the maximum amount of premium they can put in (there’s a limit). This is because after the minimum insurance is purchased and expenses are covered, the rest goes into a cash accumulation account.
The cash accumulation account accumulates tax-deferred, but can be accessed as tax-free loans. How fast does the cash accumulate? Interest is credited to the account based on the performance of an outside index. While there are often many choices, most people tend to choose the S&P 500 index.
To keep this simple, I’ll just quickly cover the simplest approach: Let’s suppose our policyholder purchased an IUL policy using the S&P 500 index as the crediting option. The policy might offer 100% participation in the index’s upside moves up to a ‘cap’ during a crediting period, typically one year.
For example, if the index rises 8% by the policy’s 1-year anniversary date, the policyholder participates 100% in that move and receives the full 8%. If the index rose by 25%, the policyholder would receive whatever the ‘cap’ is.
So, on a 1-year, 100% participation with a 12% cap, a 25% rise in the index means the policyholder would receive 12%, i.e., 100% of the increase up to the cap. That amount would be credited on the policy’s anniversary date.
The next crediting would take place on the policyholder’s second anniversary.
Note: It doesn’t matter what happens between anniversaries – only the value ON the anniversary date counts, nothing else.
The good news is that if the stock market index has a drop, the policy loses nothing. The amount credited is 0. No gain, but no loss, either. Another nice thing is that, in our example above, after the 12% gain is achieved, it’s locked-in. That’s the new floor and that money can’t be lost.
How can the insurance company, investing in a conservative bond portfolio do this? It’s simple. Again, I’ll oversimplify with rounded numbers just to make the concept easier. Premium money received might be invested 95% in bonds, and 5% in stock options. If the market goes down, the options expire; if the market goes up, they execute the options and, of course, the cap on the policy limits their exposure.
Important: The policyholder is not invested in the market or the options. The index is only a ‘ruler’ to measure how much the insurance company will credit. It’s the insurance company’s investment account that is doing the investing, not the policyholder. Returns and Illustrations
Can the policyholder receive stock market-like returns? Not likely. The caps limit the upside, and while there is no downside, down years representing no gain will sometimes occur. So, positioning IULs as a stock substitute is probably not the best strategy. I would look for returns that are more bond-line, maybe a little better, which means, it’s the bond portion of your portfolio that you’re really dealing with.
And, here’s where illustrations can be a bit misleading.
If one company is offering a 12% cap and another company is offering an 11% cap, but both are showing you an illustration using a 7% crediting rate, saying that the S&P average over all their back-tested periods indicates that 7% is conservative, are you really seeing an apples-to-apples comparison?
Maybe. Maybe not. It depends.
First, the company: How have they treated policyholders in the past when they’ve reduced or increased their caps? Did existing policyholders receive the same treatment as new policyholders?
Secondly, a decrease in a cap rate isn’t all bad. Responsible insurers are custodians for client assets and need to act responsibly, rather than chase risky investments to meet caps they can’t pay. However, a decrease in the cap also can affect your outcome.
As you can see from this chart below – I apologize if it’s a bit difficult to read – a 7% illustration for a 12% cap IUL has a 79.5% chance of meeting its projections, based on a 20-year historical probability study of the S&P 500 at various cap and crediting rates. If the cap is 11%, the probability is reduced to 60.7%.
This has less to do with the insurance company than it does with expectations. It’s important to know, when you’re buying, what you can reasonably expect; and, often, it may not be what you’ve been promised with a rosy illustration. High quality companies providing investment-grade products will tend to be conservative in their projections – and a good advisor will educate clients on realistic outcomes.
Note: An illustration for a policy with an 11% cap but using only a 6% crediting rate may not look as rosy as the 7% illustration, but the odds of the company delivering on its promise rises to 95%. This means, it’s virtually certain your policy will perform this well or better. The 7% illustration will look so much better at the point of sale, but it also has almost a 40% probability of doing worse than promised. The Real Benefits
If someone begins utilizing these benefits early, say in their 40s or 50s, the benefits can be substantial. As a matter of fact, it’s a strategy being used by 85% of Fortune 500 CEOs and many members of Congress in order to create a tax-free retirement. Other proponents of this strategy include retirement and IRA expert Ed Slott, who is also a CPA, and David M. Walker, former US Comptroller General [Source: The Power of Zero, David McKnight].
I’ve created a report on this concept. You might find it interesting. You’ll receive it free by going here. If you’d rather take the time (about an hour) and view the webinar with all the slides, you can do that here.
Good question, ya’ think? Maybe we should begin with what a fixed annuity is; then move to an indexed annuity.
Fixed Annuity (FA
When you loan your money to a bank, they give you a CD that pays a fixed rate until the CD matures and then return your money, paying off the loan.
When you loan your money to a government or corporate entity, they give you a bond that pays a fixed rate until maturity and then they return your money, paying off the loan.
Both of the above scenarios are basically bond scenarios: A bank bond, a government bond, a corporate bond. All three are I.O.U.s.
When you loan your money to an insurance company, you get an I.O.U. from them, too. They pay a fixed rate – sometimes even a bonus on top the first year – with one extra benefit: As long as the interest accumulates inside the annuity, it’s tax-deferred. The benefit of tax-deferral, of course, comes with a price: You might have tax issues if you ‘cash-in’ before age 59-1/2. That’s an I.R.S. requirement, not the insurance company’s – but, I digress. At its core, a fixed annuity is essentially a loan to an insurance company in exchange for a tax-deferred fixed rate of interest, paid by the company – it’s an insurance company I.O.U. Annuitizing, a separate discussion, is an option, not generally required.
An Indexed Annuity (IA)
This is a fixed annuity, too. It pays a fixed rate of interest for a term chosen by the annuity holder.
What’s the fixed rate? It depends on what it’s “pegged” to. Most people seem to like the S&P 500 Index. They don’t’ own the index – which is impossible, anyway – they simply receive a rate of interest determined by the performance of the index.
What is the term? It depends on the crediting option chosen. Annual point-to-point (comparing only two index values – beginning date and anniversary date – has a one year term. Others could be monthly, etc. Companies are also beginning to use a volatility control index, as well.
The point: It’s still a fixed annuity with the insurance company resetting the interest rate according to the performance of an outside index.
What do you own?
Is this a stock? No. There’s no equity ownership in any company, either directly or indirectly.
Is this a bond? Well, yes BUT. It is a bond in the sense it’s an insurance company I.O.U. The fact that the interest rate will move up or down based on the performance of some outside index is immaterial.
The BUT is this – and it’s a good one: These can be used to supplement the bond portion of a portfolio but will often outperform bonds. The reason is simple: The rate credited, tied to an outside index, can rise with that index (often up to a ‘cap’). When they do, those gains are ‘locked-in’ on the anniversary date. They never go back down! You never lose money. Those gains are also tax-deferred, which is better than paying taxes on CD money you’re not touching or bond interest you’re not using.
Are FIAs right for everyone?
No. Nothing is. They certainly shouldn’t be purchased al-a-carte; they’re complex products and should be installed into a portfolio as part of an integrated financial plan. While FIAs carry no annual fees, unless you attach riders, they do carry surrender charges if funds are accessed in greater amounts than the contract provides. Even though many contracts allow 10% free liquidity provisions, it’s still worth noting. This may not be an issue for those who do not need to touch the money; but, it’s another reason they should be part of an integrated financial plan that has planned for liquidity contingencies.
Someone who’s looking for guaranteed income as the main focus – not focused on liquidity or needing to walk away with a giant lump-sum at a future date – FIAs can be an excellent portfolio supplement. The combination of (1) no downside risk, (2) tax-deferral, and (3) returns that will probably outpace bonds (due to equity upside participation with no downside risk), make FIAs pretty attractive. For those under age 55, there are other insured options that might be considered before settling on an FIA. Many experts believe that taxes will rise and it might make more sense to reposition assets early to arrange a tax-free retirement. IRA guru Ed Slott, a CPA, and David M. Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General, are big proponents of this. If you’d like a free report on this, you can get it here.
Why the surrender charge and how does the insurance company make equity-related payouts?
These two issues are related.
Insurance companies may be the best risk managers on the planet, which may explain why so many of them went through the Great Depression never missing a claim payment while Wall Street was watching people jump out of windows.
Their process for meeting index-related obligations is pretty simple, really (though not simplistic). The vast majority of premiums are generally invested in long-term bonds.
But, with rates so low, how do they earn enough money to make higher payouts when an index goes up? Just for the sake of illustration, I’ll use simple numbers. An insurance company might invest, for example, 95% of its FIA premiums in long-term bonds, in order to get a decent bond market return. The other 5% would go to buy call options on the index – a ‘call’ is the right to purchase at a specified price if the market rises. If the index goes up the company executes the option to purchase. If not, the company lets the option expire. Naturally, some options are paid-for and never executed.
As for the surrender charges, there’s not only the cost of unexecuted options – a relatively small piece of the puzzle – but, there’s also the long-term bonds that must be sold in order to meet a redemption request. The company not only may face a loss on those bonds – maybe not, it depends on interest rates and price movements – but must also forgo the interest they would have received on those bonds as part of their total portfolio in order to meet all outstanding obligations to policyholders. The surrender charges also serve to help reimburse the company for the marketing costs they had originally paid out of their general account.
Potential problems in sales situations
Because FIAs can be sold by insurance agents who have no securities license – it’s not a securities sale – they can easily be either misrepresented or, more often, even misunderstood by the agent making the sale. One area has to do with a working knowledge of the underlying indices from which a client must select. The biggest issue, however, may be the solvency of the issuer. As I said, FIAs are really insurance company I.O.U.s. The risk of performance may be on the insurance company, but the risk of an insolvent carrier may be another issue. It’s worth noting that most of the ratings from agencies cited in their ads are actually paid for by the carriers being rated. Ideally, the person recommending the annuity issuer would be someone who can get “under the hood” of the insurance company financials and not rely on paid-for company ratings. This would call for, at a minimum, someone who’s securities licensed or preferably a Registered Investment Advisor with additional recognized credentials.
There was a time when companies in America provided pensions to their retired workers. These defined-benefit plans have all but disappeared, which is why income-replacement has become a huge issue as boomers face retirement.
Some are even wondering if it’s time to dump the 401(k) altogether. Take a look at this:
The argument in favor of income replacement tools is simple: You insure your house, your car, your health, and some even their dental visits; why wouldn’t you insure your future income. Many people who pride themselves in paying cash for everything else still find it difficult to pay cash for an income they can’t outlive; but, as I said earlier, it must be done carefully and as part of an overall plan because income isn’t the only factor in everyone’s lives.
 This excellent question was posed by Ben Mattlin in the June issue of Financial Advisor Magazine.
Do you know what your biggest retirement risks are?
Many might think, after watching all the coverage about Greece, computer glitches on Wall Street, and stories about hackers, that it might be the financial markets; but, the fact is there have been all kinds of melt-downs over the years and some people’s plans were unaffected!
Those people, of course, tended to be the ones that had plans that anticipated the 5 Biggest Risks!
Steven Elwell, a CFP® practitioner in Amherst, NY recently wrote a nice piece for NerdWallet on this subject.
In his piece, he mentions five situations that might suggest a conversion would be a good move:
You are in a low tax bracket
You don’t need the money and plan to leave it to your kids
When your investments are down (did you do it in 2008?)
When you believe tax rates will go up
You want to reduce the value of your estate for income tax purposes.
If you’d like to read Steve’s article, you can access it here.
The points worth noting in particular – my own opinion – are #1 and #4.
Tax brackets are historically low. There was once a time when the highest marginal bracket was 90% before the early 60’s, when President Kennedy began to initiate cuts. As you can see from the chart below, the general trend has been down for some time, although it’s also worth noting a lot of deductions have disappeared along the way.
While top marginal tax rates have declined, it’s also true that the Government is still spending your money – usually favoring whatever groups will help them get re-elected – I know, I’m a cynic. Nevertheless, as I take great pains to avoid any mention of Greece, the government keeps spending. While those in office take pains to point out the annual deficits have been in decline, the fact is those deficits still add to the existing debt.
There is a difference between the reported national debt and the REAL debt. The reported national debt is now over $18 trillion; but the real debt is very different.
The government engages in different accounting than the rest of us. If you purchase a car with nothing down, for example, you would have to list the entire outstanding balance as debt on your balance sheet. Not so with the government; only the current year’s payments are counted as debt. Result: While the government reports $18 trillion, Townhall.com estimated the debt at $87 trillion – and that was in 2012!
Not long ago I did a webinar entitled How To Plan for an Income Tax-Free Retirement. A number of those who attended, and a few who couldn’t make it, have asked me if I had a written report they could download. I’ve created an updated version outliining this strategy, which is really most worthwhile for those who are successful and most likely between ages 35-55. Those between 55 and 60 may still benefit. You can learn more here.
One of my hobbies, if you can call it that, is American history – particularly the period between 1765 and 1800.
It was during that 35-year period that the colonies declared their independence, and began a rebellion that morphed into a full-fledged revolution (which had NO chance of success) that defeated the largest and best-equipped fighting force on earth.
During the summer of 1787, the best minds the colonies could produce met in Philadelphia to hammer-out a framework of government. While Adams and Madison had performed extensive research on the history of republics, they had to make adjustments because few lasted very long and all had failed.
The resulting constitution provided the framework of government that became a reality in 1789 when George Washington took office as the first President of the United States. The new government was funded by a financial genius Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton. The funding came from a bank he founded: The Bank of New York (now BNY Mellon, which owns Pershing).
The Constitution they created that summer, that we still have today, is – are you ready? – the oldest functioning constitution in the world today. No country anywhere on our planet is operating under a constitution older than ours…. Not Greece, not France, not Italy, no one.
It says something about the minds that met in Philadelphia that summer. Each of them brought something unique and brilliant to the table. Few people realize that the banking system, credit and stock markets, our system of trade, including the customs service, were all designed by Alexander Hamilton. He’s one founding father that could walk into our financial system today and recognize all of it, maybe except the machines, because he created it all.
James Madison, the father of the Constitution, would probably be amazed to see that the constitution still lives, albeit with expected amendments since that process was provided for in the original document. All other constitutions in existence around the world at that time are no longer around.
Enjoy the holiday! This one is one of the great birthdays we celebrate.
More and more boomers are beginning to approach retirement.
No news there; but something’s been happening – and continues to happen – that can negatively impact people who waited hoping to get a better deal regarding their retirement income. It’s little wonder that so many retirement plans are in jeopardy.
You see, immediate income annuity sales totaled $9.7 billion last year – a 17% spike. My guess is, as the boomer retirement bubble really begins to hit, that number will be much higher.
It’s Economics 101: Supply and Demand. As more and more boomers purchase annuities to cover their basic expenses in retirement, this demand coupled with increasing life expectancies, will likely have a dramatic effect on payout rates for future purchasers.
According to an excellent article by Tom Henga, writing in the June issue of RetirementAdvisor, a Society of Actuaries (SOA) committee released the final report of RP-2014 mortality tables in October and those tables reveal a consistent trend, which if it continues for the next 14 years, means in 2028 life expectancy might rise to 88.6 years for males aged 65, and 91.2 years for females the same age.
According to Mr. Henga, these updated mortality tables will require insurance companies to lower their payout rates in order to properly reflect longer life spans. His logic is easy to understand and the math isn’t hard to do.
The trend increasing life expectancies – along with the consumer demand for guaranteed income solutions – could very well result in annuity payout rates going from 14 percent to 10 percent, from 9 percent to 7 percent, and from 7 percent to 5 percent. It’s about longevity credits. As demand increases, something has to give.
People who’ve been avoiding annuities now because of today’s low interest rates may find themselves wishing later that they had understood the situation. As Mr. Henga points out, income annuities are not an interest-rate play; they’re a longevity credit play.
Most people have no idea how annuities work or why the insurance companies can provide such high cash flows in a low interest rate environment. The key is longevity credits, i.e., mortality credits. It’s what separates annuities from investments.
When new mortality tables reflect increased aging, chances are better than good that insurance company payout rates will be reduced because of the adjustment in mortality credits. And, chances are, due to the factors cited above, we may be seeing the highest longevity credits we may ever see the rest of our lives…. And many of these adjustments may very well occur in the next 12 months!
Longevity credits aren’t unlimited. It’s the life insurance on the books that provides the built-in hedge to lifetime annuity sales. As people live longer and the demand for credits increases, the pool of available credits decreases. Econ. 101: This will affect pricing of annuity products in the future.
Boomers, of course, are becoming more preoccupied with covering 100% of their non-discretionary, basic retirement needs, and using other investments to address inflation and discretionary spending. Those who secure their annuities earlier in their planning can lock-in these longevity credits early.
Tom Henga likens it to fishing in a fully-stocked pond, as opposed to a pond with a limited supply of fish.
Income annuities come in all shapes and sizes, of course, and the long list of insurance carriers selling them each offer a variety of designs, each with their own bells and whistles. They can be complex products; but, they can also have simple, easy to understand designs. It’s important, however, to avoid the tendency of grabbing the best-looking shiny thing that may have other problems embedded.
Annuities, as mentioned earlier, are gaining in importance however; and they may be worth a look now, more than ever, because of the Econ. 101 issues cited above.
Retirement planning can be a little tricky. In fact, I believe – and many experts agree with me – that most retirement plans will probably fail. I’ve even created a special report that explains why. I think you may find it interesting. You can access it here.
When I first entered the advisory business in the early 1990s, financial entertainment television was a new phenomenon. All the tv gurus were being interviewed regularly and talking heads discussed which funds were likely to do best in the coming months.
The ‘baby-boomers’ were in the accumulation mode and the mantra was “buy term and invest the difference”. Few did it, though. They acquired their insurance through work and they invested as long as the market when up. When the inevitable market pull-backs occurred, they often got out and sat on the sidelines as professionals went in to grab the bargains.
The boomers are older now. Accumulation is no longer the priority; now, it’s safety – and many are avoiding the market altogether. Understandable, but problematic, when you consider that the stock market is THE all-time heavyweight champion of inflation hedges.
Inflation, of course, measures what things cost; and the market is comprised of all those companies that sell all those things to us. Those dots are easy to connect, even for me.
Storm Clouds are Gathering
Many people may be blindsided, according to retirement expert Ed Slott, who also happens to be a CPA, and David M. Walker, former U.S. Comptroller General. As they point out along with author David McKnight in “The Power of Zero”, the bottom line is this: The Government is in debt and needs money. Most Americans will once again be caught on the wrong end when the dog wags his tail.\
Demographics and realities tell the story:
The boomers were accumulating and Uncle Sam convinced them to put money into their 401(k)s, IRAs, and other tax-deferred accounts. They avoided taxes on the ‘seed’ so Uncle Sam could reap the harvest. If tax rates never change, no problem; but, with a license to spend, higher taxes seem bound to follow.
The Government has been running up debt. Just 7 years ago, the 219-years of accumulated national debt totalled $9 trillion. Now, it’s over $18 trillion – doubling in 7 years – and there’s more: The government counts only the current year’s outlay as debt, not the total outstanding obligations. Don’t you wish you could do that?
The boomers will begin drawing on their now-taxable retirement accounts just when Uncle Sam will need more revenue to fund federal obligations. It has to come from somewhere. Successful people are the ones in the cross-hairs.
Uncle Sam is a partner in every boomer’s retirement plan – a partner with the SOLE vote on how much of the plan he gets to take to fund his promises. The boomer-partner has no vote. A boomer with a $500,000 IRA might have $125,000 in embedded taxes today and could have $250,000 or more in embedded taxes tomorrow – no one knows, but Uncle Sam has the only vote.
So, for many boomers, the issue of longevity risk is very real; and particularly so for their spouses as boomers wrestle with making sure they’re provided for if something should happen to them.
It’s something I’ve witnessed in my own family. My dad died at 94, but my mom lived to age 99… a full eight years after my dad passed away… and she needed full-time care the entire time he was no longer around.
Picture from my first industry conference.
When I attended industry conferences in the early days, all the sessions seemed to be about “adding alpha” (manager value-added) and the efficient frontier (risk mitigation).
Today, increasingly, conferences, webinars, and trade publications are addressing the issue of longevity risk and sustainable withdrawal rates. The academics are running models with back-testing to aid planners and others who serve clients facing these real-world issues.
Traditionally, most advisors counseled clients to use the 4% rule: Maintain an optimized portfolio mix and withdraw 4% of your initial balance annually, taking cost of living increases each year the market experiences a gain.
The April 2015 issue of the Journal of Financial Planning featured an in-depth study by Wade Pfau, Ph.D, CFA, addressing this issue testing three different strategies:
The SPIA strategy: Buy a joint/100% survivor’s life-only single premium immediate annuity.
Buy a ladder of bonds maturing over the next 30 years.
Buy a ladder of bonds maturing over the next 20 years and purchase a deferred income annuity (DIA) that will continue the same income level and trend in years 21 and beyond.
Dr. Pfau detailed how each strategy had its own advantages and disadvantages, as one would expect since we’ve never seen anything that’s perfect. For example,
#1 sacrifices some liquidity but also eliminates both market and longevity risk.
#2 can provide inflation protection by laddering TIPS (Treasury inflation-protected securities), however there is no longevity risk protection beyond 30 years.
#3 is actually fairly attractive and seems to provide the highest sustainable withdrawal rate, despite giving up liquidity on about 25% of assets; but, the trade-off is still inflation risk since no company currently offers a DIA that provides inflation protection for the initial payout made in the future. The planner would have to do some ‘reverse engineering’ to come up with an estimate of what funding would be required to provide an inflation-adjusted initial payment. The downside is that it might require funding at a level requiring less liquidity than desired or an inaccurate result.
The models I’ve seen in this and other studies would suggest that sustainable withdrawal rates must inherently be conservative to allow for the spending rate to work. While the three strategies above may support spending rates between 3.65-4.03% in the back-tested models cited, sustainable spending rates for those not willing to give up liquidity, i.e., in traditional investment portfolio, are more likely to be in the 2.35%-3.51% range, the latter being considered aggressive.
While there are a number of sophisticated strategies available to individual investors, they often require abandoning long-held, well-ingrained beliefs in order to achieve the long-term goals that matter.
If you’d like to view my 30-minute webinar, Why Most Retirement Planning Will Probably Fail, you can do so here; our you can go here for more information.
The Costs of Retirement with Different Income Tools, Wade Pfau, Ph.D., CFA, professor of retirement income at The American College. Published by the Financial Planning Association.