Benefits July 30, 2014

Survey Finds Retirees and Pre-Retirees Faring Well

July 30, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Many recent retirees with 401(k) accounts or rollover IRAs are doing well financially and emotionally, according to a survey about retirement spending.
Reported by

The results of “First Look: Assessing the New Retiree Experience,” by investment management provider T. Rowe Price, reveal employees in their 50s who are participating in an employer-sponsored 401(k) have accumulated significant assets, but feel more anxious about retirement than those who have already retired.

How Retirees Are Doing

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

Many retirees have considerable savings, according the survey. Recent retirees report median household assets (i.e., investable assets plus home equity minus debt) of $473,000, with 48% having $500,000 or more in household assets.

Of their investable assets, 38% was in stocks and stock mutual funds, 13% was in asset allocation mutual funds, and 31% was held in cash. More than eight in 10 (82%) of the retirees surveyed own real estate with a median of $191,000 in home equity.

“For workers approaching retirement, we know there is anxiety and uncertainty as they look ahead and think they can’t possibly be prepared for retirement. But this survey demonstrates that you can do it,” says Aimee DeCamillo, head of T. Rowe Price Retirement Plan Services, based in Baltimore. “Many people are successfully saving in the private retirement system, and they report that post transition [into retirement], they are fine.”

Social Security accounts for the largest portion of respondents’ income. Specifically, the survey finds that 43% of their income came from Social Security. The second largest source came from traditional defined benefit plans (19%), followed by amounts withdrawn from personal savings and investment accounts including individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and defined contribution plans (18%).

“Plan sponsors need to emphasize the important role Social Security plays as the foundation of retirement income for most American households and the strategic advantages of delaying Social Security benefits,” says DeCamillo.

Among retired respondents, the survey also finds:

  • Work is part of the picture. Retirees are working either part-time (16%) or full-time (4%). Another 14% are retired but looking for work.
  • Those with a withdrawal plan are withdrawing close to 4% of their assets annually. Nearly half (48%) of retirees have a withdrawal plan, and the median retirement withdrawal among them was 4% of their investable assets within the past 12 months. Outside of this average, nearly one-quarter of retirees withdrew 8% or more, and more than one-quarter withdrew only 1%.
  • Living on less. Nearly three years into retirement, retirees report living on 66% of their pre-retirement income on average.
  • Living on less doesn’t mean dissatisfaction with their lifestyle. More than half (57%) of retirees surveyed live as well, or better than, when they were working. And 85% agree that they do not need to spend as much as they did before they retired to be satisfied, with 37% saying this describes them a great deal. Most respondents (65%) like not spending as much and see it as a new found freedom from “keeping up with the Joneses,” with 25% saying this describes them a great deal.
  • They feel satisfied. The majority of respondents (89%) are somewhat or very satisfied with retirement so far. Additionally, 74% say they are somewhat or much better off financially compared with how their parents lived at the same age.
  • Most are flexible. Sixty percent of retirees would rather adjust their spending up and down depending on the market to maintain the value of their portfolio rather than maintain the same level of spending year after year, at the expense of potentially diminishing their portfolio.

The survey does find that there are exceptions and that not everyone is well off. For example, households of retirees who are not married or living with a partner are not doing as well as their married counterparts, both financially and emotionally. And women represent a greater proportion of single households than men, with 48% of women residing in single households compared with 26% of men.

Single households have only a median of $248,000 in investable assets plus home equity minus debt combined (compared with $731,000 for married households). They are more likely to be looking for work (19% vs. 11%), a higher proportion are finding it difficult to live without their pre-retirement paycheck (36% vs. 27%), more believe that they will run out of money (19% vs. 11%), and fewer are “very satisfied” with their retirement experience (37% vs. 48%).

Employees Age 50 and Older

Employees age 50 and older who are still working are more anxious about retirement than their retired counterparts. The survey finds a greater percentage of employees believe they will have to reduce their standard of living compared with the retirees (49% vs. 35%). They also believe they will run out of money (22% vs. 14%) and will be less likely to have enough money to pay for health care (49% vs. 70%).

Despite this mindset, the survey finds most employees age 50 and older have considerable savings, having median household assets (i.e., investable assets plus home equity minus debt) of $465,000. They are invested less conservatively than their retired counterparts, with 47% of their investable assets in stocks or stock mutual funds, 13% in asset allocation funds, and 23% in cash. A large number of them (81%) own real estate, with a median of $171,000 in home equity.

For this age group, the survey also finds:

  • They do not plan to use home equity to generate retirement income. Sixty percent do not plan to tap their home equity at all for retirement income, and only 11% plan to use more than half of their home equity.
  • High savings rates. The median personal deferral rate into their retirement plans is 10%, not counting any match that they may receive from their employer.
  • Confidence that they will save enough. The median minimum they would like to save is $693,000 before they retire, and 61% are confident they will hit that number.
  • They expect to work longer and have considered delaying retirement. On average, they expect to retire at age 68. Additionally, 43% have considered delaying retirement in the last 12 months.
  • Social Security can be delayed. Eighty percent intend to wait until at least their full retirement age (age 66) to begin collecting Social Security benefits, with 34% willing to take the maximum benefit at age 70. Only 20% indicated their intent to collect Social Security benefits as soon as they become eligible (age 62).

Job security is a concern. Twenty-nine percent of employees age 50 and older are somewhat or very concerned they may lose their jobs in the next 12 months, according to the survey.

The survey was conducted during February and March. It is based on a national sample of 1,507 retirees who have been in retirement for one to five years and have a rollover IRA or an account balance in their 401(k) plan. It also includes a second sample of 1,030 workers, age 50 and older, who are currently contributing to a 401(k) plan or are eligible to contribute and have a balance of at least $1,000.

Highlights of the survey results can be found here.

Administration July 30, 2014

Buy-Ins a Logical Step in Pension Risk Transfer

July 30, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Plan sponsors have a whole spectrum of options for offloading pension risk, says Wayne Daniel, head of U.S. Pensions at MetLIfe, including the strategy of a pension “buy-in.”
Reported by

While buy-ins are a relatively new pension risk transfer strategy in the U.S.—with the first significant buy-in deal coming in mid-2011—most plan sponsors have heard of so-called pension “buyouts.” As Daniel explains, buyouts involve a plan sponsor transferring all or part of the pension plan’s benefit liability directly onto an insurer’s balance sheet. The insurer accepts all or part of the pension plan’s assets as a premium payment for taking on the longevity, inflation and investment risk associated with operating the pension plan.

Insurers can make a profit in the operation because they can function more efficiently than many employer-sponsored pension funds, and they are also not generally required to pay things like Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums or other expenses. The benefit for plan sponsors and the sponsoring company is the relinquishing of longevity and investment risk, as well as the partial or complete elimination of administration costs associated with the pension plan.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

Despite the naming convention, buy-in risk transfers are actually similar to buyouts in many respects, Daniel says. “Exactly as for a buyout, the pension plan makes a single premium payment to the insurer to enact the buy-in, and the payment can either be 100% lump sum cash or it can be assets in kind,” he explains. “And the single premium payment covers the future benefit payments for either a selected group or all of the plan participants. In turn, the insurer issues a group annuity contract to the plan. So far the process is exactly the same as for a buy-in or a buyout.”

Where the buy-in differs is that, rather than taking over the benefits payment schedule of the employer, the insurance company instead makes a monthly bulk payment back to the pension plan to cover either current or future cash flow needs, Daniel says. Cash payments to the employer represent the monthly benefit amount covered under the buy-in contract.

“So one of the big differences, then, there is no direct relationship between MetLife and the plan participant under the buy-in arrangement,” he says. “The pension plan continues to make the pension payments, and then the insurer makes payments to the pension plan to ensure the necessary cash will be there to pay benefits that are claimed.”

Daniel says another and perhaps more informative name for “buy-ins,” under which MetLife originally marketed this type of service, is “pension cash-flow guaranty.” As this name implies, the benefit for plan sponsors is ensuring the plan will have enough cash on hand at a given point to meet projected benefits obligations.

“So you see a pension buy-in is really part of the risk transfer spectrum,” Daniel adds. “You can actually think of the full buyout—when all of the liabilities and all of the assets are transferred to the insurer—as being on one end of the spectrum, and then aggressive LDI is on the other end. Under this analogy the buy-in concept would fit somewhere right in the middle.” LDI, or liability-driven investing, is an asset allocation strategy that tries to match plan assets with liabilities.

Daniel says MetLife has been a leader in bringing this type of service to U.S. pension plan sponsors—adding that the firm secured what he believes was the largest buy-in contract to-date in the U.S. earlier this year, valued at $92 million. He says the firm is currently working to increase acceptance of buy-in strategies among U.S. plan sponsors, and to give current and potential clients a better sense of how buy-in strategies work.

One of the chief objectives, he says, is to help plan sponsors realize that different pension risk transfer options can work together over time to smoothly de-risk a pension plan.

“When the plan sponsor is beginning to think about a risk transfer, this is generally coming only after the sponsor first reviewed the liabilities within the plan and accurately projected the benefits schedules. Perhaps they have already implemented an LDI portfolio,” Daniel explains. “Once the assets are appropriately aligned, we start to see a reduction in the volatility of the plan’s funded status. It then becomes easier for the plan to start targeting for either a buy-in or a buy-out, whether for the whole plan or for a section of the participants.”

He points to the UK market to demonstrate the idea. “In the UK employers moved to mark-to-market accounting faster and further than the U.S. for the most part,” he explains. “And so, plans in the UK and their corporate sponsors actually have for a while been forced to recognize the true economic cost of holding the defined benefit promises that they’ve made. And also in the UK, we saw a significant increase in the regulatory cost of operating a defined benefit plan, such as increases in the pension protection fund levies, and the regulator mandates fairly aggressive rates of improvement in future longevity tables.”

All of this has more quickly added to the cost and pressure for UK pension plans, he explains, which is why in the UK, plan sponsors saw a need to de-risk earlier and there was recognition that for many plans de-risking was going to have to happen in several stages.

“For those that were not fully funded or ready to move to full buyout, a buy-in was a very appropriate solution,” he explains. “So buy-ins became a fairly typical route from LDI to the full offloading of pension liabilities. In fact, we’ve seen in some previous years that, in terms of the total number and value of transactions in the UK de-risking market, buy-ins have exceeded buyouts in recent years. It’s a major feature of that market.”

Daniel says similar pressures are emerging in the U.S. as significant increases in PBGC premiums take effect (see “PBGC Premium Hikes Shake Up Buyout Landscape”). He says the pending adoption of new Society of Actuaries mortality tables accounting for improved longevity among U.S. retirees could cause projected liabilities to jump as much as 8% for the typical pension plan immediately upon implementation.

“It’s clear the costs associated with managing the risks within pension plans are going up, year in and year out, and plan sponsors are seeing that,” Daniel continues. “Their advisers are pointing it out, and while we do expect to see more buy-ins in the future in the U.S., I think that a lot of plan sponsors will still go straight to buy-outs, more so than in the UK. We’re hoping to change that.”

«

USAProducts

Close