Will Boomer and Gen X Women be Able to Afford Retirement at Age 65?

344 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
344
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Will Boomer and Gen X Women be Able to Afford Retirement at Age 65?

  1. 1. Will Boomer and Gen X Women be Able to Afford Retirement at Age 65?Evidence from the 2012 EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model® Jack VanDerhei Research Director Employee Benefit Research Institute February 7, 2012 vanderhei@ebri.org 1 © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  2. 2. Key points from today’s presentation• “At-risk” ratings have improved since 2003 • Average of 4 percentage points for both single male and single female • However, single females have an at-risk rating approximately 80 percent higher than single males • 26 percentage points• Eligibility in qualified retirement plans matters a great deal • For single female Gen Xers, at risk rating drops from 74 percent to only 25 percent depending on just future years of eligibility in a 401(k) plan • Impact still very significant after controlling for “income” quartile• How much would it take for a single female to reduce retirement deficits to zero • Average of $104,000 to 133,000 (2010 dollars)• Importance of nursing home costs• Some retirees will run “short” of funds within a relatively short period of time if they retire at age 65 • 41 percent of the lowest income quartile for ALL early boomers will run short within ten years 2 © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  3. 3. Modeling Innovations in the EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model®• Pension plan parameters coded from a time series of several hundred plans.• 401(k) asset allocation and contribution behavior based on individual administrative records o Annual linked records dating back to 1996 o 2010: More than 24 million employees in 60,000 plans.• Stochastic modeling of nursing facility care and home based health care. 3 © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  4. 4. Retirement Income• Limited to income produced by • Public and private retirement plans (including IRAs) • Social Security • Housing equity • Assumes used as LSD when the retiree runs “short” of money• Baseline scenario assumes retirement income commences at age 65 • See appendix for results of deferring retirement age 4 © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  5. 5. Retirement Expense Assumptions• Decomposed total expenditures for retirees into: o Those that are deterministic:  Food, apparel and services, transportation, entertainment, reading and education, housing, and basic health expenditures. o Those that are stochastic:  Home health care and nursing home care. 5 © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  6. 6. Figure 1: Improvement Employees Currently Ages 25–29: of at-risk* ratings from Median 401(k) Accumulation Multiples for 401(k) "Accumulations" as a 2003-2012 by age cohort Function of Salary Quartile by Type of and gender Plan (Assumes 31-40 Years of 70% Eligibility) 9.00 60% 8.00 50% 7.00 40% 6.00 Post-2009 401(k) 30% "Accumulations" 5.00 as a Multiple of Final Earnings 4.00 20% 3.00 10% 2.00 0% single single single single single single 1.00 femal femal femal male male male e e e early - late boomers gen xers Lowest 2.00 3.00 Highest boomers Voluntary enrollment 1.17 2.37 3.71 6.042003 lsd 39% 65% 35% 62% 38% 64% Automatic enrollment 7.68 8.01 8.34 8.532012 lsd 36% 62% 32% 60% 32% 57% *Definition of terms are provided on the last page of the slide set. Sources: EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model,® Version 120201 and Jack VanDerhei, (April 2010). “The Impact of Automatic 6 Enrollment in 401(k) Plans on Future Retirement Accumulations: A Simulation Study Based on Plan Design Modifications of Large Plan Sponsors”. EBRI Issue Brief. © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  7. 7. Figure 2: Impact of future years of 401(k) eligibility on 2012 at- 80% risk* ratings for Gen Xers by gender 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 1-9 10-19 20 or more 3single male 47% 32% 22% 13%single female 74% 54% 40% 25% *Definition of terms are provided on the last page of the slide set. Source: EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model,® Version 120201. For additional detail see: Jack VanDerhei and Craig Copeland 7 (July 2010). The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating:™ Retirement Income Preparation and Future Prospects. EBRI Issue Brief. © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  8. 8. Figure 3: Impact of future years of 401(k) eligibility and 100% "income" quartile on at-risk* ratings for Gen Xers by gender 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 20 or 20 or 20 or 20 or 0 1-9 10-19 0 1-9 10-19 0 1-9 10-19 0 1-9 10-19 more more more more lowest "income" quartile 2 3 highest "income" quartilesingle male 69% 54% 50% 52% 48% 41% 30% 24% 35% 30% 15% 9% 22% 18% 7% 3%single female 88% 79% 75% 66% 63% 58% 43% 33% 46% 42% 24% 16% 35% 29% 16% 9% *Definition of terms are provided on the last page of the slide set. Source: EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model,® Version 120201. For additional detail see: Jack VanDerhei and Craig Copeland 8 (July 2010). The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating:™ Retirement Income Preparation and Future Prospects. EBRI Issue Brief. © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  9. 9. Figure 4: 2012 unconditional Retirement Savings Shortfall* numbers by age cohort and gender $80,000 $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $- early boomers late boomers gen xerssingle male $33,704 $33,420 $41,529single female $64,749 $67,057 $75,827 *Definition of terms are provided on the last page of the slide set. 9 Source: EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model® versions 100920f1 and 100922f1. For additional detail, see: Jack VanDerhei, Retirement Savings Shortfalls for Today’s Workers, October 2010, Vol. 31, No. 10, EBRI Notes © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  10. 10. Figure 5: 2012 conditional Retirement Savings Shortfall* $160,000 numbers by age cohort and gender $140,000 $120,000 $100,000 $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 early boomers late boomers gen xerssingle male $94,509 $103,918 $129,398single female $104,799 $112,120 $133,349 *Definition of terms are provided on the last page of the slide set. 10 Source: EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model® versions 100920f1 and 100922f1. For additional detail, see: Jack VanDerhei, Retirement Savings Shortfalls for Today’s Workers, October 2010, Vol. 31, No. 10, EBRI Notes © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  11. 11. Figure 6: Average 2010 Retirement Savings Shortfalls,* by Gender, Marital Status and Age Cohort: With and Without Stochastic $80,000 Health $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Early Boomers Late Boomers Gen Xers Early Boomers Late Boomers Gen Xers Single Female Single Malewithout stochastic health $24,110 $19,254 $19,796 $9,890 $5,374 $2,876with stochastic health $63,438 $63,510 $75,488 $36,254 $35,896 $43,290 *Definition of terms are provided on the last page of the slide set. 11 Source: EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model® versions 100920f1 and 100922f1. For additional detail, see: Jack VanDerhei, Retirement Savings Shortfalls for Today’s Workers, October 2010, Vol. 31, No. 10, EBRI Notes © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  12. 12. Figure 7: 2010 RSPM Estimate of Years in Retirement Before Early Boomers Run Out of Money,* by Preretirement Income Quartile 70% Income Quartile Lowest 60% 2 3Cumulative Probability Highest 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 . Years in Retirement (Assuming retirement at age 65) *Definition of terms are provided on the last page of the slide set. Source: Jack VanDerhei and Craig Copeland (July 2010). The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating:™ Retirement Income Preparation and 12 Future Prospects. EBRI Issue Brief. © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  13. 13. Definition of termsFigures 1- 3 : An individual is considered to be at‐risk in this version of the model if their aggregate resources in retirement are not sufficient to meet aggregate minimum retirement expenditures defined as a combination of deterministic expenses from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (as a function of income) and some health insurance and out‐of‐pocket health‐related expenses, plus stochastic expenses from nursing home and home health care expenses (at least until the point they are picked up by Medicaid). The resources in retirement will consist of Social Security (either status quo or one of the specified reform alternatives), account balances from defined contribution plans, IRAs and/or cash balance plans, annuities from defined benefit plans (unless the lump‐sum distribution scenario is chosen), and net housing equity ( in the form of a lump‐sum distribution). This version of the model is constructed to simulate "basic" retirement income adequacy; however, alternative versions of the model allow similar analysis for replacement rates, standard‐of‐living and other thresholds.Figures 4-6: The Retirement Savings Shortfalls (RSS) are determined as a present value of retirement deficits at age 65.Figures 7- 11: An individual is considered to be at‐risk in this version of the model if their aggregate resources in retirement are not sufficient to meet aggregate minimum retirement expenditures defined as a combination of deterministic expenses from the Consumer Expenditure Survey (as a function of income) and some health insurance and out‐of‐pocket health‐related expenses, plus stochastic expenses from nursing home and home health care expenses (at least until the point they are picked up by Medicaid). The resources in retirement will consist of Social Security (either status quo or one of the specified reform alternatives), account balances from defined contribution plans, IRAs and/or cash balance plans, annuities from defined benefit plans (unless the lump‐sum distribution scenario is chosen). Net housing equity is not considered in this run. This version of the model is constructed to simulate "basic" retirement income adequacy; however, alternative versions of the model allow similar analysis for replacement rates, standard‐of‐living and other thresholds. 13 © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  14. 14. Appendices• Brief chronology of RSPM• Impact of reducing Social Security benefits by 24 percent starting in 2037• Impact of deferring retirement age past 65• Impact of lowering the stochastic rate of return assumptions• Impact of the crisis in the financial and real estate markets in 2008/9 14 © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  15. 15. Appendix: Brief Chronology of the EBRI/ERFRetirement Security Projection Model®• 2001, Oregon • 2009, Pension Research Council o Simulated retirement wealth vs. ad hoc thresholds for retirement expenses o Winners/losers analysis of defined benefit freezes and enhanced defined contribution• 2002, Kansas and Massachusetts employer contributions provided as a quid o Full stochastic retiree model: Investment and pro quo Longevity risk, Nursing home and home health care • 2010, EBRI Issue Brief (April) costs o Impact of modification of employer o Net housing equity contributions when they convert to automatic• 2003, National model enrollment for 401(k) plans o Expanded to full national sample o 2010, EBRI Issue Brief (July)• 2004, Senate Aging testimony o Updated model to 2010, included automatic o Impact of everyone saving another 5 percent of enrollment for 401(k) plans compensation o 2010, EBRI Notes (Sept and Oct)• 2004, EBRI Policy forum o Analyzes how eligibility for participation in a o Impact of annuitizing defined contribution/IRA DC plan impacts retirement income balances adequacy• 2006, EBRI Issue Brief o Computes Retirement Savings Shortfalls for Boomers and Gen Xers o Evaluation of defined benefit freezes on participants• 2006, EBRI Issue Brief o 2010, Senate HELP testimony o Analyzes the relative importance of o Converted into a streamlined individual version for employer-provided retirement benefits and the ballpark estimate Monte Carlo Social Security• 2008, EBRI policy forum o Impact of converting 401(k) plans to automatic enrollment © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  16. 16. Appendix (continued)o 2011, EBRI Issue Brief (February) o Analyzes the impact of the 2008/9 crisis in the financial and real estate markets on retirement income adequacyo 2011, EBRI policy forum o Analyzes impact of deferring retirement ageo 2011, July Notes article o Analyzes the impact of the 20/20 limit recommended by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reformo 2011, August Notes article o Analyzes value of defined benefit planso 2011, Senate Finance Hearing o Analyzes the impact of modifying tax incentives for defined contribution plans 16 © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  17. 17. Figure 8: Percentage of Baby boom and Gen X Households Simulated to Have Adequate* Retirement Income for at Least 50 Percent of Simulated Life Paths After Retirement Age by Pre-Retirement Income Quartiles 100% 90% 80% 70%Percentage of Households 60% lowest 50% 2 40% 3 highest 30% . 20% 10% 0% 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 Retirement Age *Definition of terms are provided on the last page of the slide set. 17 Source: EBRI Retirement Security Projection Model® versions110410i. For more detail see: Jack VanDerhei and Craig Copeland, (June 2011). The Impact of Deferring Retirement Age on Retirement Income Adequacy. EBRI Issue Brief. © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  18. 18. Figure 9: 2010 RSPM: Impact of reducing Social Securitybenefits by 24 percent starting in 2037 Percentage of population “at risk” for inadequate retirement income, by age cohort60%50%40% Baseline30% Reduced Social20% Security benefits10% 0% early boomers late boomers gen xers *Definition of terms are provided on the last page of the slide set. Source: Jack VanDerhei and Craig Copeland (July 2010). The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating:™ Retirement Income Preparation and Future Prospects. EBRI Issue Brief. © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  19. 19. Figure 10: 2010 RSPM: Impact of lowering the stochastic rateof return assumptions from a mean of 8.9% equity and 6.3%fixed income, to 4.45% equity and 3.8% fixed income Percentage of population “at risk” for inadequate retirement income, by age cohort60%50%40%30% Baseline lower ror20%10% 0% early boomers late boomers gen xers *Definition of terms are provided on the last page of the slide set. Source: Jack VanDerhei and Craig Copeland (July 2010). The EBRI Retirement Readiness Rating:™ Retirement Income Preparation and Future Prospects. EBRI Issue Brief. © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012
  20. 20. Figure 11: Baseline 2010 EBRI Retirement Readiness RatingTM (RRR) vs. Baseline With 1/1/08 Market Values and Home Equity [This analysis is limited to households that had positive values for all of the following on 1/1/08: Defined contribution plan balance, IRA balance and housing equity] Percentage of population “at risk” for inadequate retirement income, by age cohort.25%20%15%10%5%0% Early Boomers Late Boomers Gen Xers EBRI RRR Baseline 2010 EBRI RRR With 2008 Values Source: VanDerhei, Jack, A Post-Crisis Assessment of Retirement Income Adequacy for Baby Boomers and Gen Xers, 20 February 2011, EBRI Issue Brief #354 © Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012

×