Subcommittee Passes Option Expensing Limitation
Bill
May 14, 2004 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A congressional
bill placing severe limits on the extent of mandatory stock
option expensing has passed it first legislative
hurdle.
On May 12, the U.S. House of RepresentativesSubcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and
Government-Sponsored Enterprises, part of the Financial
Services
Committee, passed HR 3574 –
the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act
– by a voice vote.
The bill is sponsored by committee chair Richard Baker (R –
Louisiana).
As the language of the bill originally read, only
stock options granted to a company’s top five executives
would be required to be counted as an expense on
corporate financial statements. This would be in
contradiction to the Exposure Draft – Share-Based
Payment, an Amendment of FASB Statements No. 123 and 95 –
issued by the nation’s accounting rulemakers, the
Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), in March
requiring stock options to be counted as an expense on
the grant date for all employees (See
FASB Hands Down Option Expensing
Proposal
).
>Additionally, the legislation contains provisions
exempting small businesses from mandatory option expensing
and requiring an economic impact study of any accounting
principle in regards to option expensing passed by the FASB
before the regulation can be generally accepted.
Speaking about the potential impact of mandatory expensing
on small businesses George Batavick, chairman of FASB’s
Small Business Advisory Committee, said the effect might be
minimal. Testifying before the sub-committee prior
the mark-up, he said approximately 95% of small businesses
do not grant employee stock options. Further, small
businesses tend to be privately held enterprises, which are
not required to follow FASB standards, Batavick added.
Mark-Up Session
For the most part, the bill remained intact following
the May 12markup session.
The subcommittee only added to minor amendments to
the measure.
“Today’s strong bipartisan vote is a clear first
victory for finding an approach to this issue that doesn’t
throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Baker said.
“The real lesson of Enron, WorldCom, and Freddie Mac
was not solely an accounting issue and the manipulation of
numbers, but also a corporate governance issue and the
executive compensation incentives behind the manipulations.
Momentum is now building for common sense insistence
on sound corporate management, coupled with protecting
millions of rank-and-file American workers.”
As Baker said, support for the measure has been
broad and bipartisan, with 107 cosponsors, including
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-California)
(See
Pelosi Backs Executive Option Expensing
Bill
). Further, similar legislation has been proposed
by Senator Michael Enzi (R-
Wyo
ming), which has garnered support from 16
co-sponsors.
Critics of FASB’s proposal, which are heavily
concentrated among the high-tech and venture capital firms,
argue mandatory stock option expensing would devastate
their current compensation practices.
However, supporters of mandatory stock option
expensing
blame stock options for inflating
corporate earnings by tempting executives to pump up stock
prices. In fact, FASB has considered requiring their
expensing before, but backed away from the idea in 1994
under pressure from the Senate.
Legislative Road
Next up for the proposed legislation: the full
Financial Services Committee, chaired by Michael Oxley
(R-Ohio).
Baker expects markup for the bill to happen sometime
in June in the Finance Committee, even though he has not
yet spoken to Oxley about a schedule for such action.
Should the bill gain approval of the whole committee, it
would then go before the House floor, which Baker hopes to
have a vote on before the August recess.
The Senate though does not look
likely to apply pressure to FASB this time around as any
bill seeking to impose limits on FASB’s power has apassage that is fraught with danger through the
Senate.
Senator Peter Fitzgerald (R – Illinois) said he
“will do everything possible to block the bill in the
Senate and to protect FASB’s
independence.”
In a news release, Fitzgerald called the House bill
misguided, saying that stock option compensation is an
expense that should be recorded on a company’s income
statement and that companies not expensing stock option
compensation are misleading investors.
“Stock option compensation is a real expense with a
real cost.
That cost should and must be reflected in corporate
earnings reports,” Fitzgerald said.
“My
friends on the House subcommittee are misguided in
seeking to overturn this important accounting
reform.
Should their bill clear the full House, I will do
everything I can to block it in the Senate.”
Fitzgerald is not alone in his sentiments.
Try
ing to prevent encroachments from
U.S. lawmakers on the accounting rulemaking policyRichard Shelby (R-Alabama) and Paul Sarbanes
(D-Maryland), have urged Congress to drop legislative
attempts at rerouting the option expensing proposals.
This group maintains FASB should remain an independent
rulemaking body free from Congressional
influence.
Shelby in particular wields a significant amount of
influence in the matter.
Enzi’s version of the bill must begin its journey in
the Senate Banking Committee, chaired by Shelby.
May 13, 2004 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Time and again one
reads surveys that indicate that participants believe that
saving for retirement is important, and that they are
confident that they will be in good shape financially - right
alongside evidence that, to me anyway, regularly suggests
that their confidence is misplaced.
It’s a complicated issue (or perhaps not) – this week we
asked readers why participants seem so confident.
There are a host of possible explanations, so not
surprisingly, the most common response was more than one
reason, cited by nearly a third of this week’s respondents
(more on that in a minute).
However, the most common single reason offered was a
misunderstanding about what it would take to be comfortable
in retirement, cited by 28%.
Nearly 13% apparently found my list of 9 choices
insufficient – opting instead for “other,” which was
usually a substitute for “ignorance,” that they had never
made an attempt to determine their retirement needs in the
first place, or a “failure to face reality.”
Roughly 10% said participants were suffering from a
misunderstanding of how much they should be saving, while
7% thought the confidence was a function of wishful
thinking, roughly 6% saw it as a function of good
intentions, and about 5% thought participants were counting
on other sources of retirement income.
One reader noted,
“If it’s not c and d, it’s got to be gross stupidity
that seems to be as bad as the gross obesity we keep
hearing about.
Oh wel,l I hear dog & cat food are offering more
flavors.”
Looking behind the responses of those who cited multiple
causes, the most common (25%) said that included a
misunderstanding of what it would take to live in
retirement, while one-in-five said participants didn’t know
how much to save.
About 16% of the multiple choice group said wishful
thinking was one of the reasons, while 14% opted for
participants counting on other income sources, and nearly
12% included good intentions in their multiple cause list,
while 9% said “other.”
One reason I didn’t list came up repeatedly in this
week’s responses:
“I think some have a false sense of security as they see
parents and grandparents getting by ‘all right,’
said one reader.
However, they went on to caution,
“What they fail to understand or even consider, is that
many of current retirees have income from db PENSION plans,
and that many of the current workers are not so lucky.
In addition, many of the current retirees are covered by
company retiree medical plans, but the majority of
today’s workers won’t have any company-provided
retiree medical coverage, so their retirement savings need
to account for that additional cost as well.”
Respondents were as “guilty” as any one in terms of not
having focused on the specific needs of retirement saving.
As one said,
“Most never really do a calculation in the first place
(that’s why they are misplaced) and (c) do not
understand how much they will need.
I count myself in there sometimes, unfortunately, because I
simply do not put the time in to find a reliable calculator
and do the calculation – when I know I should.”
Or, as another noted,
“When asked, they look around and think, ‘I don’t
see retirees today on the street, or in shelters, or in
welfare lines…so where is the problem?’
In fact, one reader said,
“On the bright side, I can’t believe that previous
generations were any better.
Somehow, people get by.”
One noted,
“Financially confident?
Ha!
A, C, D, E, F, G, and I for Ignorant.”
Several noted the tendencies to put the issue off, or
defer it for more pressing concerns.
“I believe the real issue is closer to – failure to
actually evaluate the situation at all.
You can’t force someone to take difficult actions on
something they don’t even want to think about,”
said one reader.
Another opined,
“Participants are dealing with ‘here and now issues’
like health care, college expenses, elderly parents, etc.
They believe they’ll deal with retirement when they get
to it.
That may be naïve, but it is also reality.”
But this week’s
Editor’s Choice
artfully combined our choices to craft what may be the
ultimate explanation of the phenomena:
“Wishfully thinking of counting on other sources of
retirement income with good intentions but misunderstanding
what it will take to be comfortable in retirement and how
much they should be saving, because of the overly
optimistic retirement calculators combined with failing to
look at their retirement savings statements.”
Thanks to everyone who participated in our
survey!
Mostly, employees are counting on income from other
sources (including their homes, former employment DB/DC
plans).
Secondarily, they plan on working beyond retirement in some
capacity.
Third, they underestimate how much they will need in
retirement.
Fourth, they underestimate how much they have to be saving
now to make that happen.
I think it's a) wishful thinking.
Nobody wants to think that they'll be competing for the
Wal-Mart greeter job one day.
I think there's still some Social Security denial out
there - lots of boomers think they'll retire on the
backs of Gen Xers like me.
NOT!
Survey Response:
"H" and "J":
"H" - A combination of a, c and f
"J" - I think some have a false sense of
security as they see parent and grandparents getting by
"all right".
What they fail to understand or even consider, is that many
of current retirees have income from db PENSION plans, and
that many of the current workers are not so lucky.
In addition, many of the current retirees are covered by
Company Retiree Medical Plans, but the majority of
today's workers won't have any Company-provided
retiree medical coverage, so their retirement savings need
to account for that additional cost as well.
My vote is "c".
A lot of people do not know how to save for their next
purchase (vacation, car, washing machine, etc.) much less
for something that may be 20, 30 or more years away.
Most people have the mentality that if you want to buy
something, just put it on a credit card or get a loan. You
can't do that with retirement!
I'll vote for h), a combination of factors.
Whenever the Baby Boomers have been faced with a choice
between saving and immediate gratification, they have
chosen the latter. Why should saving for retirement be
different? Given the choice between a vacation, a new SUV,
remodeling their house, updated wardrobe, you name it, and
saving for retirement, Boomers will not choose a
significant change in their lifestyle.
A related concern is Boomers who choose early retirement
at an early age, without a good understanding of inflation
and increasing medical costs. What happens when this group
hits 70 and is out of cash?
I think mis-placed confidence (j) without a doubt - to
me the reason is two-fold: (i - Other) most never really do
a calculation in the first place (that's why they are
misplaced) and (c) do not understand how much they will
need.
I count myself in there sometimes unfortunately because I
simply do not put the time in to find a reliable calculator
and do the calculation - when I know I should.
I think it's a combination of c and d: wishful
thinking and misunderstanding how much they should be
saving. Among those who think seriously about it at all,
they probably figure that since there aren't many
retirees out there living in cardboard boxes and eating cat
food, somehow they'll probably be ok, too. Makes me
think of the story of the man who jumped off the who is
heard to say as he passed each floor, "So far, so
good."
c) misunderstanding what it will take to be comfortable
in retirement and (d) misunderstanding how much they should
be saving,
I think the majority of people out there just don't
understand what they will need in retirement there are
other life pressures ahead of that. Plus those 15 years out
or so, see retirement through the prism of their parents:
The nice DB benefit, social security, health care to agree.
On the other hand the GenX's see retirement as not
realistic they probably (many of them) witnessed their
parent(s) at one time or another being laid off in the
80's early 90's.
Yet the Irrational exuberance brought another type of
person who believes he/she will take care of himself and
retirement is not in the equation.
It is the first group that is really delusional to a degree
about retirement
and also has a shallow understanding of finances.
Just my ramble.
No scientific basis.,
but an issue I deeply care for.
My answer would be (h).
Probably all of the reasons (a) through (g) play a part.
It would be interesting to have a crystal ball to look
about 30 years into the future.
If we had that, I bet more people would get on the saving
bandwagon.
Having worked with people in a number of work situations
for the last 30 years, in my opinion people are
"confident" they will be OK in retirement
because:
1. People do not want to face reality.
I worked with a couple in their early 40's.
He was self-employed & had not retirement savngs; she
had just be laid off and had about $28,000 in a company
retirement plan.
They said they could not afford to save any more for
retirement, yet they thought
they would be able to retire at age 55!
No inheritance was coming them and his business would not
sell for much.
2.
People have not realistically looked at how much it will
take for them to live in retirement and how long they may
live.
3.
No one wants to give up anything now to prepare for the
future.
The "have it now and worry about the future
later" mindset is alive and flourishing.
(i) To me it's obvious, we in the business are so
close to the issue and focused on the future that we have
blinders on.
The majority of participants, not all, but a majority, do
not focus on retirement or the future.
When asked, they look around and think " I don't
see retirees today on the street, or in shelters, or in
welfare lines...so where is the problem?"
They believe they will be able to subsist just like the
participants of the past who are now retirees and own their
homes, or make their apartment rental payments, clip
coupons, do without luxuries, work part-time jobs, or do
whatever it takes at that time to make ends meet. Until
then, they have more immediate problems, such as making
current house or rental payments, putting food on the
table, getting and keeping a job, putting their kids
through school, keeping their cars running, etc. etc. etc.
Retirement is too far off to be concerned, but they have
lived these problems in the past and thus, have confidence
they will be able to deal with them in the future.
After all, the previous generations generally have been
able to...so it can't be that hard, right?
(i) other - failure to face reality.
(i) other? Denial -
Just like you don't want to plan on dying, I think
that a lot of people (including me and I'm 50)
can't envision
themselves getting old.
My true cynical answer:
"Yes."
Even as I stumble forward for myself, from a theoretical
position of strength, ie knowledge...
In the confines of the provided answer, "h"
with basically all factors involved:, (a) wishful thinking,
(b) good intentions, (c) misunderstanding what it will take
to be comfortable in retirement, (d) misunderstanding how
much they should be saving, (e) overly optimistic
retirement calculators, (f) counting on other sources of
retirement income (a la an inheritance, working post
retirement, etc.), (g) failing to look at their retirement
savings statement,
RE: Financially Confident?
Ha!
A, C, D, E, F, G, and I for Ignorant
If its not c and d, it's got to be gross stupidity
that seems to be as bad as the gross obesity we keep
hearing about.
Oh well I hear dog & cat food are offering more
flavors
Retirement preparedness surveys always remind me of two
old jokes: (1)'What's worse, ignorance or
apathy?' 'I don't know, and I don't
care.' (2)A CPA responds to an angry client standing in
front of her with a shoe box full of haphazard receipts and
papers, "You don't know where you've been,
where you are, or where you're going, but because I
can't do it for you, it's somehow my
fault."
Retirement plan participants too often choose apathy and
ignorance, then seek to blame someone other than themselves
when they finally realize that they are the sole source of
their future income.
Building a nest egg is like starting your own business:
it always takes much longer and much more money than
you'd ever expect, and in the end, the only person that
you can truly count on is yourself.
My experience has been that the lack of savings
situation is due to (h) a combination of a-wishful
thinking, b-good intentions, and c-misunderstanding what it
takes to be comfortable in retirement.
Other recent surveys support this.
Calculators and internet advice can be provided until we
are blue in the face, yet participants don't use them.
I have been preaching "Plan for the Future" in a
big way at enrollment meetings because I believe that most
participants have never even looked at what they will need
at retirement and what it will take starting today to get
there.
Without doing that step, they can very easily think that
they have plenty of time to start putting money away and
intend to do so just as soon as they get caught up on their
finances.
Only it doesn't work that way, does it?
After many years of doing enrollment meetings, I can say
that the question I have heard most is "What should I
do?"
I've begun to think that some of the automatic
enrollment/increase plans are a good idea with a default
stock/bond fund allocation and have even pulled out my plan
documents to see how we might start implementing it.
In response to you survey question: why you think
participants ARE so confident.
My short answer is (c)misunderstanding what it will take
to be comfortable in retirement,
My longer answer is that people just don't take the
time and effort to do serious retirement planning.
I am amazed at how the baby boomers have become such an
entitlement generation.
To them, retirement is something that you "get"
to do when you turn sixty.
They seem to have forgotten the important other half of the
equation, doing their part to fund a longer, more
expensive(health care!) life past sixty.
Early in their careers, the retirement game shifted
responsibility to the individual and only a small
percentage (those working for large companies) had the
right vehicles in place to save.
Many boomers will soon find the retirement myth
shattered when they can't afford health care, and must
continue to work to make ends meet.
A,C, or D and None of the Above.
I believe the real issue is closer to - failure to actually
evaluate the situation at all.
You can't force someone to take difficult actions on
something they don't even want to think about.
On the bright side, I can't believe that previous
generations were any better.
Somehow, people get by.
(i) Other. Most of us are lying when we say that we have
to plan for retirement and death.
Until faced with overwhelming proof to the contrary, few of
us believe that we will actually get old and die. How many
of the people who are not concerned about funding
retirement have written their wills?
I think it is all of the above!
I would say (i) other, because quite simply and
unfortunately, they have no clue what lies ahead.
In response to your survey on saving for retirement and
having handled more than 1000 corporate retirement
enrollment meetings over my 15 or so years in the
retirement consulting business (and being a CFPâ„¢), I find
that there are multiple reasons with the majority of
people: (c) misunderstanding what it will take to be
comfortable in retirement, and (d) misunderstanding how
much they should be saving.
Even when an employer provides matching contributions,
many people don't take advantage of "free" money and are
simply uneducated or possibly not motivated and living for
"today".
A suggestion is more preparation/education at the high
school level (or before) on basic investing concepts,
compounding and the time value of money as well as
providing insight to a person's life in retirement.
Once we address these issues and a plan participant
understands better the risks of not saving, participation
levels increase significantly.
As is typical of Americans in general, people are
looking for simple "sound byte" solutions to
complex issues.
I believe that the issue has several parts:
(a) Most of the data deals with too broad an age group.
Most surveys cover people 21-65 or so and the data is,
therefore, very muddy.
You need surveys which are carefully segmented by age to
get meaningful data.
Younger participants are not "confident", they
are just "oblivious" - retirement is something
they will worry about later, much later.
(b)
Many older participants are looking to multiple sources of
retirement income, not just their IRA or 401 k.
They look to a combination of Social Security, some DB
income, the equity in their house and their DC plan as a
whole.
In that vein, a relatively small DC balance may not be that
threatening.
(c) Finally, as evidenced by Maslow, participants have a
hierarchy of values.
Retirement is only one among many financial priorities,
several of which have a greater urgency.
Participants are dealing with "here and now
issues" like health care, college expenses, elderly
parents, etc.
They believe they'll deal with retirement when they get
to it.
That may be naive but it is also reality.
With too much month left at the end of the money, they
can't worry about too much life left at the end of the
money. (NOTE:
Bureau of Labor Statistics on Household Expenditures for
2002 show all income categories below $40,000, spend more
than their total income every year.)
(h) more than one of the foregoing (which ones?)
(c) misunderstanding what it will take to be comfortable
in retirement,
(d) misunderstanding how much they should be saving,
(f) counting on other sources of retirement income (a la
an inheritance, working post retirement, etc.),
I think it's a mixed bag of wishful thinking, no
clue how much is actually needed, and a good dose of
'head in the sand' mentality. I have a defined
benefit plan, defined contribution plan and a personal IRA
and I STILL don't think it's enough! Maybe I'm
the deluded one, but I really don't want to be working
full time at 80 years old!
When I read those Merrill Lynch survey results, I was
flabbergasted.
I wondered what the results would be if they surveyed those
of us in the retirement industry.
I think the confidence is a combination of (c)
misunderstanding what it will take to be comfortable in
retirement, and (e) overly optimistic retirement
calculators.
Say you think you'll need $60,000/yr for retirement.
But what if retirement is 25 years from now? How much would
you have to have then to equal $60,000 in today's
economy? Many retirement calculators don't take
inflation into consideration, or do so only marginally.
Also, with medical advances, people might be easily living
to 100 by then.
Of course, you have to PAY for that
medicine/treatment/whatever, during your retirement of 35
years!
I am 38 years old, have saved about $75,000, save another
$16,000 (between my own deferrals and my employer's
contributions) each year, and I imagine myself working
forever and/or ending up destitute.
Perhaps *I* am overly pessimistic, but I still can't
fathom why people are so confident.
I believe participants understand in general what it
takes to provide for retirement.
Heaven knows they have plenty of opportunities to learn.
I believe they just procrastinate and "put it off".
People in our society live for today and have very short
range outlooks on most things.
Just look at the stock market and investors concern for
short term results versus long term value.
They don't have time or take to the time to plan long
range.
I think that employees are overly optimistic about their
retirement savings because of both (a) wishful thinking and
(b) good intentions.
We have a fairly large and representative group of
employees (300 blue collar and 400 white/pink collar), and
most of them (20 somethings aside) understand what it will
take for them to live comfortably and know how much they
should be saving for retirement.
Although many are on the right track, a sizable number just
never seem to get around to doing the right thing.
They intend to get in the plan or increase their
contribution rate, but always seem to have something (new
car, boat, kitchen, TV, credit card bill, etc. etc.) that
gets in the way.
They are always just a year away from putting more into
their retirement.
The years slip past, and before they know it, they are
retirement age.
They then have to postpone their retirement, or supplement
it by taking a part-time job - not because they had planned
to - but because they have to.
And those 20 somethings?
They are just too young and have too many other financial
needs/desires to seriously consider starting to save for
retirement, which is oh so far away.
I didn't get it then, today's generation
doesn't get it, and I'll bet that no matter what
kind of education programs are put into place,
tomorrow's 20 somethings won't get it either.
Survey question - Combination of a, b,c,d,f and ignoring
the possibility that any of us could experience poor
health, need nursing or assisted living in our later years.
We all assume that we will be healthy and able to work,
plus able to obtain jobs, if we choose to work the rest of
our lives.
(c) misunderstanding what it will take to be comfortable
in retirement.
I think that people will continue along the way they are
currently funding their retirement plans living for the
moment.
As employees approach retirement, some will continue to
work and others, as one retiree recently informed me,
"I'll just drop my health insurance and let the
government pay for it."
Another tax for the people who either did save or who
continue to work.
K all of the above.
I'll go with C, D and I.
I firmly believe that most people simply do not think to
compound the monthly amount they will need post retirement
by their life expectancy. Therefore $100,000.00 or
$150,000.00 will seem like a lot of money, especially for
someone that may only make $30,000.00 or $35,000.00.
Few people use the calculators available to them on the
various web sites. I have helped folks go through the
exercise and I will tell you, the amount needed was usually
so out of proportion to their (k) balance and so seemingly
unattainable based on their salary that they just go into
shock.
I'll usually get this "I'll never get there, so the
formulas are wrong and I'll not worry about it" comment.
You know the ostrich syndrome.
I think the majority of people out there just don't
understand what they will need in retirement there are
other life pressures ahead of that. Plus those 15 years out
or so, see retirement through the prism of their parents:
The nice DB benefit, social security, health care to agree.
On the other hand the GenX's see retirement as not
realistic they probably (many of them) witnessed their
parent(s) at one time or another being laid off in the
80's early 90's.
Yet the Irrational exuberance brought another type of
person who believes he/she will take care of himself and
retirement is not in the equation.
It is the first group that is really delusional to a degree
about retirement
and also has a shallow understanding of finances.
Just my ramble.
No scientific basis.,
but an issue I deeply care for.
I think that people are both lacking an understanding of
how they will need in retirement, and they are counting on
other sources of income that may not be guaranteed.
I have been puzzled by this issue for years particularly
as I have read the EBRI studies, and here is my conclusion.
Our parents didn't fuss and worry about saving for
retirement, and seems like they did OK, so its probably
going to be alright for me as well.
I also think it is something like flossing our teeth --
every time we go to the dentist, we hear that we should do
it more, we dutifully nod our heads, and plan to do it but
... and since my teeth haven't fallen out yet, it
probably will be alright in the long run.
I have to borrow the acronym IMHO since I've never
asked my participants why they don't understand what
they're doing.
I will say of my group I have 10 to 15 percent who do
maximize by saving the most they can.
We only have a hand full of the non highly compensated who
raised their deferral percentage to max out at this years
$13,000.
Once we allowed deferral over our old limit of 15% we did
get a good group who went over the old level.
Several of those and a few who are over 10% also do other
investing/saving.
I think they get it.
I have to go with the (c), (d) combination.
Most people I deal with just have a complete
misunderstanding of exactly what money is, how it works,
today's average longevity, how critical the time factor
is for most of us, and just not understanding that we more
than any generation since WWII are largely on our own.
Our government has done us a great service by increasing
limits on 401(k)'s, IRA's and Roth IRA's.
If they continue this trend by adding even better savings
tools and they take hold then maybe Congress will seriously
look at the very real and needed repairs that must happen
with Social Security and Medicare.
The social programs need to revert to being a very basic
safety net and not the main plan.
It's a warm and fuzzy thinking someone else is out
there to take care of us should we need it but the basic
principle of getting government out of our way and allowing
us to thrive unencumbered is what makes us American.
I certainly agree that their confidence is misplaced.
I believe the target amount needed in retirement is
illusive to most people, which makes me think (c)
misunderstanding what it will take to be comfortable in
retirement is one of the primary reasons for their
misplaced confidence. I think perhaps they believe their
expenses will be much less in retirement than they really
will be, or either they choose to ignore the potential
risks that aging and declining health will have on their
wallets.
Another possibility is that they may believe that, by the
time they retire, the government will have social plans in
place that will pay for those big ticket items like nursing
homes, prescription drugs, in-home nursing care, etc.
(B).
And the fact that people think there will always be time to
"catch up" later.
I couldn't help but feel you've been reading my
mind.
As a member of the group getting closer to retirement and a
professional in this area, the topic hits close to home.
I think the answer is a combination of misunderstandings;
misunderstanding how much will be needed, how much has to
be saved, how long the nest egg will last, how to use the
savings calculators we spray all over, etc.
Top that off with the propensity of the population to spend
and live for today and we have a looming social crisis that
will cause excessive heartburn in the Government and with
the following generations.
Ours is generally an optimistic country but that optimism
could be leading to an uncertain retirement.
Guess I need to practice "Would you like fries with
that?"
I think that it's all of the above, with the
possible exception of overly optimistic calculators.
As the manager of a customer service unit for a large
(38,000 participants) defined contribution retirement plan,
we talk to participants all day.
Predominantly, they want their money out of the plan to
spend it on current needs.
Admittedly, our universe is predominantly younger,
lower-paid blue-collar workers, and we do have a good share
of serious savers, but I find that an "I'll do
that later" attitude predominates.
That eliminates all serious considerations of how much
they'll ultimately need or how they're going to get
it.
I'll have to go with (a) wishful thinking.
A few months back I posted an article on a bulletin
board about retirement calculators that scared the heck out
of a few employees who are close to age 50.
They have begun researching and attending seminars on
retirement planning.
They have been very vocal to anyone who will listen about
how wrong they were to think things would just work out
without any active planning.
I am very happy to see that this has caused a lot of others
to really start looking at what their future holds - or
doesn't hold.
I think this is great, as you know most employees feel
everything an HR or benefits person gives you doesn't
deserve a second look . . . but have one of those educated
employees spread the word - and it suddenly makes
sense!
Based solely on plan participants I've met with
(majority blue collar, factory, undereducated) (c) would be
the most accurate answer.
Secondly, (f) as many are depending on the retirement
benefits of spouses and winning the Lottery.
Finally, many people are planning on working right through
the "golden years."
Thanks!
I think it is mostly a combination of i- other (avoiding
thinking about it entirely and by avoiding, assuming the
best), a- wishful thinking (when it is considered, hoping
for the best) and b- good intentions (sort of like New
Year's resolutions, when the problem is finally
recognized, you "resolve" to fix it but really
don't follow through). Sad, huh?
My answer to your survey is: H---more than one of the
above.
They are: a,b,c,d & e!!
People who think they are saving enough are not.
People are either scratching and clawing from paycheck to
paycheck or, if they don't have to do that, they are
living WAY BEYOND their means.
As a result, very few of us are putting away enough
money for a comfortable retirement.
Additionally, there are not enough well designed, fairly
priced Long Term Care policies out there.
Everyone from the age of 30+ should be looking into LTC for
themselves and their parents!!!
Regrettably, it seems that since we are all living
longer (not always better), the costs of taking care of
ourselves and our parents will strip away most of the
savings we have.
It's a bitter, bitter pill....but we ALL have to
start SAVING MORE and SPENDING LESS!!!
The old story about the Ant and Grasshopper still holds
true!
Using myself as an example, I haven't saved enough
for retirement and I will be 45 this summer.
We have already gone through all the inheritance money we
will ever see, so I can't rely on that. So I have to
say (i) other.
I really think that middle income (two spouses earning less
than $100,00 per year) are all struggling to live today,
mortgages, children, college tuition, food and now gas.
They don't have the extra each month to put away for
retirement.
It's one of those things "I'll worry about
when my kids are grown".
Or, the spouse isn't working due to layoffs, job
eliminations and only one income is coming into the house
so there is no need to worry about retirement, paying the
bills is more important.
That's probably the reason so many don't have
enough in their plans Those that are saying that they are
confident they will have enough for retirement are probably
(a)
wishful thinking.
Employees today saw their parents making it on SS so maybe
they think they will be able to too.
I also don't think we as plan administrators do enough
to educate ees on the needs for retirement.
So I guess the problem will be that there won't be
enough Walmart greeter positions for all of us who
haven't saved enough for retirement.
Then what will we do!?!
ignorance
H - A, B, F and I
For those who are actually saving and participating in
their retirement plans wishful thinking and good intentions
are all we have to go on and this confidence is
well-placed. There are no guarantees but doing something is
better then nothing. For those who believe in counting on
other sources of income are missing out on the big picture
and gambling with their future. This confidence is
miss-placed. Life is like a game of chess. You need to be
thinking ahead with every move.
Definitely (i) other, one word sums it up-ECONOMY.
With the cost of everything increasing, the only avenue my
employees feel they have is to decrease their deferral
percentage and take loans on their existing accounts.
We have taken several educational steps and even hired an
outside consultant to help them understand their personal
needs in the future.
They know and want to set aside more money for their
retirement but they cannot afford it.
Bread is $1.50, milk is $3.00 a gallon and gas is $1.85 a
gallon for regular, the daily living expenses are taking
more and more of their paychecks.
We are in the South (where it is suppose to have a lower
cost of
living) so I can only imagine what the expenses are in
the North.
We as a Company cannot afford to give raises to offset the
increases our people feel.
I think the people in the survey are completely out to
lunch.
There's no way they're going to have a nice
retirement package if all they've got is $51,000
now.
They must be:
Wishfully thinking of counting on other sources of
retirement income with good intentions but misunderstanding
what it will take to be comfortable in retirement and how
much they should be saving, because of the overly
optimistic retirement calculators combined with failing to
look at their retirement savings statements.
The option wasn't listed, but how about "All of
the Above".
I think it's (k) a combination of several things.
I recently went to a "developing wealth" seminar
that suggested we save between 10-15%, but not less than
10%; our average 401k contribution rate is right around 5%
so 1) I don't think people have a CLUE as to how much
it takes now to pay for later.
Then, the government's "cradle-to-grave" social
mentality (ss, medicaid, Rx, etc.) breeds complacency that
has 2) contaminated the individual's spirit/ambition to
be self-reliant.
Another problem I see directly, all too often, is that 3)
people raid their accounts for silly loans or worse,
hardship w/d's, in some cases on a revolving basis;
WHAT are they thinking?
And lastly, people are so casual and informal about serious
matters these days that 4) they give a half-a**ed effort to
all the things you listed as possible answers---it's
apathy man, apathy.
Somebody needs to stick a fork in us and get our attention.
But..ahh, who cares...
Exactly.
Plain ignorance.
They believe what people tell them (these are the same
people who are probably voting for John Kerry).
Survey (H) --- C.d.E,G
Regarding the overconfidence of those surveyed, I think
individuals:
1. do not realize the size of the nest egg they will
need
2. believe (based on Wall Street's strong message of
the value of equity investing) that they can catch up later
because you can do so well in the stock market. Financial
Services firms and magazines (such as Money) have touted
the message that everyone can make a lot of money. 3 do not
realize how long they will need money in retirement
Regarding the survey, I think it's (h): a combination of
(c), (d), and (f).
I choose answer "h"
-combination between (a) wishful thinking (d)
misunderstanding what it will take.
I believe many people live in a financial facade.
They equate large homes and expensive cars and clothing to
wealth -without consideration for the ever ticking
time-bomb called interest.
It isn't too difficult for lower-wage earners to
"acquire riches" and play along in the masked
charade of status quo.
Purchasing power is confused with income as well as
consumption with acquisition.
I think the confidence is not well placed.
Else where in today's digest you say that participants
have
an average age of 46 and an income of $55,000, respondents
have only accumulated average savings of $51,000.
Well with just $55,000, it's not going to be pretty.
Our company is young so people generally leave
and DON'T retire.
We don't offer installment payouts so we don't have
to deal with the few retirees we actually have.
If people are facing financial problems in retirement, we
don't hear about them. People need to save more, a lot
more! Our plan
now allows
deferrals up to 75% of
earnings subj. to
the IRS max, plus we allow catch-up. This means some one
over 50 could save $16k this year plus get another $5k or
so in match and profit sharing.
Sadly those that need to save the most can probably least
afford to do so.
I've NEVER contributed anything less than the max to
any plan in which I participated and now have the
retirement savings (>$700k)
to prove it.
I always believed in pay yourself first.
I would say (h).. it comes from almost all of the
previous reasons.. but most of those reasons, I believe
derive from (c). I don't think it's from reason (e)
because even overly optimistic assumptions, unless
they're grossly overoptimistic, would show how poorly
situated most people are.
Combination of (a), (b), and (i)--I think that there is
a strong element of participants intending to save, but
when more immediate financial considerations come into play
(esp. paying bills that are due), saving for retirement
gets put on the back burner. Individuals know that they
should save for retirement, but like many other things, it
is sometimes easier said than done.