July 12, 2016
What’s New in Public Pension Funding
A small group of researchers at the Center for Retirement Research, which sponsors this blog, produces a large volume of analysis of the nation’s state and local government pension funds.
Their work isn’t typical of the personal finance information that appears in this blog. But it turns a bright light on the financial condition of the pension funds that millions of state and local government workers and retirees rely on. The bottom line, according to these studies, is that while some funds are in poor condition, many more are managing.
The following are short descriptions of the Center’s recent reports, with links to the full reports:
- The big picture is updated in the new brief, “The Funding of State and Local Pensions: 2015-2020.” Eight years after the financial crisis, new data have confirmed that pension plan funding stabilized in 2015. And despite poor stock market performance last year, plan funding improved slightly in 2015 under traditional accounting methods. On the other hand, funding is slightly lower under new accounting rules that require the plans’ financial statements to value their investment portfolios at market values.
The appendix in this brief provides funded levels for 160 individual plans in the Center’s public pension database.
- “Are Counties Major Players in Public Pension Plans?” The answer in this report is no, with the exceptions of California, Maryland and Virginia, where counties account for about 15 percent of pension assets.
- While retiree health plans are quickly disappearing at private employers, they remain prevalent in the public sector. These plans are not fully funded, and their unfunded liabilities are relatively large – equivalent to 28 percent of all liabilities for unfunded public pension plans – according to a March report, “How Big a Burden Are State and Local OPEB Benefits?”
- New accounting rules, known as GASB 68, require city pension funds that are joint participants in plans administered by their state, to transfer their net unfunded liabilities from the state’s to the local government’s books. …
June 30, 2016
401(k) Investment Options: Less is More
There’s plenty of evidence of the unfortunate consequences for employees overwhelmed by too many investment options in their 401(k) plans. Studies find that confused employees might not join the plan at all, select investment funds that are not well diversified, or throw up their hands and put an equal amount in each fund offered by their employer. And as employers add more options, the new funds often carry higher fees and produce lower returns.
A new study took the opposite tack, examining how employees reacted when one large U.S. employer reduced the number of investment options. The results were lower fees and less turnover, saving employees an average of $9,400 over a 20-year period. Further, their new portfolios were less risky.
The employer, a non-profit organization, cut the number of investment options roughly in half, from the 90 different funds initially in the plan. The employer also simplified the plan by sorting employees’ choices into four groups:
- 13 Target Date Funds (TDFs) with low fees and investments determined by an employee’s age;
- 4 index funds invested in a money market, diversified U.S. stocks, diversified U.S. bonds, and diversified international stocks;
- 32 mutual funds organized by risk level, from small-cap growth funds and REITs to balanced funds and Treasury bond funds;
- A brokerage account with wide latitude to invest.
The researchers – Donald Keim and Olivia Mitchell at The Wharton School – analyzed the responses among those affected by the change, which was anyone who held at least one mutual fund eliminated during the plan streamlining. Those affected who did not choose replacement funds were defaulted into a TDF appropriate for their age. …Learn More
June 28, 2016
Not All Baby Boomers Can Work to 70
There’s one problem with expecting all baby boomers to delay retirement beyond their 60s: it might not be fair.
That’s because people with lower incomes and less education die younger than the well-to-do with more education. Think about what would happen if everyone retired at, say, 70. Those with less education and a lower socioeconomic status (SES) would enjoy fewer years in retirement than people with higher SES.
This gap in retirement duration has also widened in recent decades. That’s because the lowest SES group has seen much smaller improvements in their life expectancy, according to economists at the Center for Retirement Research, which supports this blog.
Their study tracked adults surveyed by the U.S. Census Bureau over time and assigned each one to an SES group by sorting them into four education quartiles. Education levels correlate with income and are widely used to measure SES.
The researchers, by using separate data that match the adults to their death certificates, found that while mortality improved for all SES groups, the gap between the top and bottom SES has increased over the past three decades.
Converting mortality data into average life expectancies, they found that 65-year-old men in the highest SES back in 1979 lived nearly to age 79 – 1½ years longer than men in the lowest SES. But today, older men in the top SES are living to 85 – about 3½ years longer than the lowest SES group.
Given these uneven longevity gains, the researchers asked this question: how much longer could men work today if the goal were to maintain the same retirement-to-work ratios they enjoyed in the late 1970s? …Learn More
June 23, 2016
Our Readers’ Favorite Blogs
It’s the time of year when we highlight blogs that attracted the most page views over the previous six months, according to Google analytics.
Today, we’re listing a “baker’s dozen” – 13 blogs – popular with our readers, instead of the usual top 10. This allows us to highlight some interesting themes that were apparently on readers’ minds:
Many retirees weighed in with their comments on two blogs about how and why they’re taxed:
- How Federal Taxation Drops for Retirees
- Why Most Elderly Pay No Federal Tax
A new feature called “Boomers: Rewriting Retirement” that profiles people who are either approaching retirement or recently retired made the list:
- A Familiar Dilemma: to Work or Retire
Squared Away tried something else new – two quizzes on financial topics – and many readers took them: …Learn More
June 16, 2016
Retirement Researchers Meet in August
Reverse mortgages, health insurance, marital histories, social networks, and even student debt – any or all of these can play a role in the financial security and well-being of America’s retirees.
These are among the topics that will be explored during the 18th annual meeting of the Retirement Research Consortium, which features researchers from top universities around the country whose work is supported by the U.S. Social Security Administration.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, Aug. 4, and Friday, Aug. 5 in Washington, DC.
To learn more about the research papers being presented, click here to read the agenda.Learn More
June 14, 2016
More Retirees Get Less Satisfaction
In the late 1990s, six out of ten retirees found retirement “very satisfying.” Today, not even half do, according to a recent analysis of a long-term survey of older Americans.
The news isn’t all bad, since the “moderately satisfied” share rose – and moderately satisfied is probably a more realistic goal for most people anyway.
But the question of why so few people are very satisfied with their retirement state of mind is difficult to pin down. The survey analysis by the Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and past academic research provide some clues.
Health. It’s well-established that health and satisfaction are inextricably linked: healthier retirees are happier retirees, according to a 2005 study by the Center for Retirement Research, which supports this blog. One reason health is important is that retirees who are healthy can remain active – bridge, golf, travel, volunteering, whatever – which brings satisfaction. …Learn More
May 17, 2016
The Secret to Longer Life: Keep Working
If having an adequate income in retirement won’t persuade you to delay that retirement date by a year or two, try this argument: you’ll live longer.
A new study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health found strong evidence that older workers who retire even one year later have lower mortality rates. This held true for both healthy and unhealthy people.
The researchers at Oregon State and Colorado State used a survey of older workers to follow some 3,000 people who were employed in 1992 but had retired by 2010. Since health drives mortality and is a factor in deciding when to retire, they separated their research subjects into two groups – healthy and unhealthy – to see if they had different results.
The healthy people were more likely to be physically active, non-smokers with a lower body mass index and fewer chronic medical conditions. Other research has shown that having meaningful work can also contribute to health at older ages.
Over the period of the study, one in four unhealthy retirees died, compared with just about one in 10 healthy people. But the survival odds improved for people in both groups who retired after age 65, reducing the risk of healthy people dying by 11 percent and unhealthy people by 9 percent for each year of delay.
These general results aren’t necessarily true of every individual worker: some people are in such stressful or physically demanding jobs that retirement might be good for their health. Further, the reasons behind the health benefits of a longer working life are not fully understood. …Learn More