Data and Research February 21, 2017

Retiree Spending Depends on Location

However, nationally, average spending for households with people between the ages of 65 and 74 declines with age.
Reported by

Households with people between the ages of 65 and 74 spend very different amounts, depending on where they live, according to new research by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI).

Northeastern older households spend the most ($41,860), and when this is limited to just New England, it spikes to $46,019. On the other hand, those living in the West South Central region of Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona and Louisiana spend the least ($28,540).

For those between the ages of 50 and 64 living in New England, they spend nearly 2.5 times the amount on housing ($30,240) than those in the West South Central region ($11,948).

When it comes to health care spending for those 85 and older, Midwesterners spend an average of $3,480 a year—41.5% more than those in the next-highest spending region of the West ($2,460).

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Nationally, average household spending declines with age. In 2015, the average total annual spending for households between the ages of 50 and 64 was $53,087. For those 85 and older, it is $34,982. Housing is the largest spending category for all age groups above 50—ranging from 44% to 48% of total household spending.

“National benchmarks are important and helpful, particularly in shaping national policies,” says Sudipto Banerjee, research associate at EBRI and author of the report. “But individual retirees might find regional or local benchmarks that more closely reflect their personal situation to be more helpful.”

EBRI’s report about regional household spending can be downloaded here.

Compliance February 21, 2017

Court Victories Add to Confusion Over Fate of Fiduciary Rule

Though courts are supporting the DOL, actions from the Trump administration may mean those victories do not matter.

Reported by

Much remains uncertain about the future of the Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary rule—crafted and adopted by former President Barack Obama’s administration but left to current POTUS Donald Trump to implement.

Will the new president, who is an outspoken critic of government regulation of financial markets, make it a priority to halt the rulemaking before the first deadlines in early April, now just weeks away? What would the impact on client relationships be if the new administration only successfully halts the rulemaking later in 2017, or if it takes them until 2018 to do it? Is it possible the rulemaking will stand even after a review by the new DOL leadership? Even experienced attorneys and industry executives admit they are perplexed as to just what could happen next.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

One fact that is increasingly clear, however, is that federal district courts across the U.S. are ready to give broad authority to the DOL in enforcing its agenda, demonstrated by simple fact that the courts have so far been wholly unwilling to pull the teeth out of the aggressive DOL rulemaking that would turn pretty much anyone giving advice to retirement savers for compensation into a full-fledged fiduciary. Obama administration officials are no doubt feeling vindicated by the court victories, which confirm at least preliminarily that the DOL has sufficient regulatory authority to go after conflicts of interest in the defined contribution (DC) advisory marketplace.

It may not mean much in the end that the DOL has now posted a fourth district court victory related to the fiduciary rule, this one coming in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in a case filed by annuity firm Market Synergy Group. In this particular case, plaintiffs argued unsuccessfully that they would never be able to make the Best Interest Contract Exemption (a key mechanism underlying the new fiduciary rule) workable given the commission-heavy distribution arrangements traditionally used for fixed-index annuities. They wanted the DOL to be forced by the court to allow annuity providers to work under the 84-24 exemption. Their claims were stated under the Administrative Procedure Act and Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Plaintiffs’ arguments failed outright, with the judge essentially just rehashing the same conclusions reached in a previous denial of a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Market Synergy. That initial decision led many to predict (successfully) the lawsuit would ultimately fail.

When all this is added to the news emerging last week that the Trump White House had submitted an order for the DOL to review the fiduciary rule, and to the fact that the DOL has actually now started asking for stays in fiduciary-focused litigation still outstanding in other district courts, it all makes for quite a confusing picture. As several Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) attorneys have suggested, at this point only time will tell what’s in store for advisers’ fiduciary future.

The full text of the most recent Kansas court decision is here. 

«