Advice
How To Take Into Account Life Expectancy In Retirement Plans
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 21:36

Tags: monte carlo | pensions | retirement planning | social security | volatility

One of the biggest variables that confront advisors and their clients when planning retirement is the clients’ life expectancy. Some clients like to use the life expectancy of their age group or the life expectancy numbers that exist for a person born today. But this can be very misleading and can result in clients running out of money in retirement.

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only


 

One problem with using life expectancy numbers is the fact that these numbers take into account all people, young and old. So today the typical person has a life expectancy at birth of 78 years. But this is a very misleading number. The average baby boomer actually can expect to live to age 83. Why the difference? Because the average baby boomer has survived over 60 years already! In statistics we call this survivorship bias, and it’s a very important bias indeed. To further show this bias, a person who survives to age 75 today sees his or her life expectancy rise to age 87.

 

There is also the issue of the probability of surviving to a ripe old age. Today a 65 year old man has a one in four chance of living to age 92. Married couples that are 65 have a one in four chance of at least one spouse surviving to age 97.  A 25% chance is way too large to ignore.

 

So what can advisors do to incorporate survivorship bias and show clients what might happen if they live way longer than they expect?

I believe it is vitally important to show clients multiple outcomes for their plan if they live to various ages. We can show them the probability that they never run out of money in retirement at various ending ages (when they pass away).

 

I ran an analysis in the WealthTrace Retirement Planner  to see what kind of impact changes in the clients’ ending ages might have. I used a plan for a couple that is 60 years old and plans on retiring at age 65. Here were my starting assumptions:

 

Inflation (CPI)

3.00%

Current Age of Both People

60

Age Of Retirement

65

Age When Both People Have Passed Away

Various- 80, 83, 86, 89, 92, 95, 98

Social Security at age 67 (combined)

$40,000 per year

Average Savings Rate

6% on Income of $100,000

Total Investment Balance Today (all in IRAs)

$900,000

Recurring Annual Expenses in Retirement

$65,000

Investment Mix

50% U.S. Value Stocks, 15% Emerging 
Market Stocks, 35% Treasuries

Investment Location

50% in taxable accounts, 50% in IRAs

Average Return Assumption Value Stocks

6% per year

Standard Deviation Value Stocks

16.20%

Average Return Assumption Emerging Mkt Stocks

9% per year

Standard Deviation Emerging Mkt Stocks

25.80%

Average Return Assumption Treasuries

1.5% per year

Standard Deviation Treasuries

7.20%

 

After generating their plan using the various ending ages I found the following results using Monte Carlo analysis:

 

Ending Age

 

Probability Of Meeting All Retirement Goals

80

100%

83

100%

86

98%

89

91%

92

81%

95

70%

98

61%

 

It becomes obvious pretty quickly that the life expectancy of this couple has a huge impact on what they can expect in retirement. By adjusting how long they live from age 89 to 98 they see a significant drop-off of 30 percentage points in the probability of funding all of their goals in retirement.

 

It is an enormous service to clients to tell it to them straight. By only using one life expectancy number many people might be led to believe that they will never run out of money. This could help them feel comfortable with spending a lot more money in retirement than they should be spending. A grid of life expectancy vs. the probability of funding all of their retirement goals is one way to give clients all of the information they need to make sound decisions.

Read more...
Gen X And Gen Y Start On Retirement Saving A Decade Earlier Than Baby Boomers; Like Those Who Came Of Age In The Depression Era, Younger Generations Have Come To Grips With Tougher Times
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 16:58

Tags: client acquisition | financial planning | investing | new investors | retirement planning

Nearly 60% of Americans born between 1965 and 1989 are making automatic contributions toward their retirement savings,compared to 46% of non-retired Baby Boomers born between 1946 and 1964. In addition, the younger generations that followed Boomers start saving for retirement, on average, in their mid- to late-twenties, nearly a decade earlier than Boomers, according to a survey released by TD Ameritrade.

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only


 
Generation X, defined by the study’s authors as those born between 1965 and 1976 and Generation Y, defined as those born from 1977 to 1989, according to TD Ameritrade, “have learned from the mistakes of their elders.”
 
Meanwhile, Gen Z, those born from 1990 to 1999, according to the survey, “show some signs of nest egg naivety. “Gen X and Y have accepted the reality of the past few years, and rather than being discouraged, they are using what they've witnessed to their advantage by saving earlier and regularly,” says TD Ameritrade. “The hope is that tomorrow's investors, Gen Z, follow suit as they near retirement."
 
Read more...
Educating Yourself About The Full Scope Of Social Security Benefits Will Help You Give Better Advice To Your Clients As They Decide When To Claim Benefits
Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:49

Tags: Advisor businesses | client education | retirement planning

As the Boomer population ages, questions about how to best utilize Social Security benefits become part of their investment strategy. To adequately advise them, it’s imperative to fully understand how Social Security benefits work.

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only


 
The Pension Research Council recently published a study that reveals mistakes that were made in devising investment strategies that also consider Social Security benefits, particularly where widows are concerned.
 
The Council is a retirement research center affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. The study covered both wirehouse and independent advisors as well as others.
 
It revealed that most advisors overly depend on break-even analysis in designing investment strategies for those clients who are eligible for Social Security benefits.
 
Break-even analysis shows how long it would take for higher benefits payments resulting from delayed claims to equal the amount received by claiming benefits at an earlier time.
 
This type of analysis completely ignores the ability of one spouse to receive benefits based on another spouse’s eligibility, especially in the case of delaying benefit claims.
 
The tendency is for those who are eligible to take the benefits as soon as they can—at age 62. But it could be a greater advantage to delay receipt of Social Security benefits until years later.
 
It’s difficult to calculate the best benefit claim scenario, particularly when spousal benefits and delay of claims are considered. There is software you can use that considers all the complexities that arise when you consider the age of beneficiaries, incomes, and longevity expectations.
 
You can find out more about the software here. Instead of simply factoring in when Social Security benefits are received, you can do your clients a great service by helping them frame that decision within the scope of these other factors.

Read more...
How Are Whole Life Dividends Determined?
Monday, August 27, 2012 02:28

Suppose you receive a $1,000 dividend on your whole life policy. How was that determined? Why wasn’t it $1,100 or $900? How can you be sure that $1,000 is what you should be receiving?

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only


 

I recently reviewed whole life illustrations from two companies for two clients. My clients wanted to stop paying premiums after 10 years, so I requested pairs of illustrations for premium-offset versus reduced paid-up scenarios to test a conjecture. With premium offset, you use dividends and accumulated paid-up additions to pay premiums. If you elect the reduced paid-up option, premiums cease under the terms of the contract. Premiums include loading for commissions and state premium tax, so it seems reasonable to expect that the reduced paid-up option should be more efficient than premium offset.

 

For one company, that was indeed true; if you wanted to stop making out-of-pocket payments after 10 years, you would have higher death benefits and cash values if you elected the reduced paid-up option. For the other company, however, you were worse off with the reduced paid-up option; the illustrations showed that dividends were lower if you elected that option.

 

I asked an actuary at the second company for an explanation, and I received this reply:

 

“All non-guaranteed values are a function of current illustrated dividend scale interest rate. While the values are higher for the premium-offset in this example, the results will vary from case to case. Keep in mind that, as part of the normal annual dividend scale cycle, we reserve the right to change any component of the dividend scale which could lead to varying results for this comparison.

 

There generally is an advantage in paid-up versus premium-offset, but that is not the case across the board. The dividend scale components are proprietary, but I can tell you that there are different factors used on paid-up versus premium-offset.”

 

Joseph M. Belth, a distinguished insurance professor, publishes The Insurance Forum. From the first issue in January 1974 (“Pity the Old Policyholders”), he has been raising questions about dividend calculations and advocating more disclosure. In the March 2008 issue, he reported on his investigation of the dividend calculation for his own whole life policy. His conclusion:

 

“Banks disclose savings account interest calculations, and life insurance companies should disclose dividend calculations. However, companies are reluctant to reveal the information voluntarily because they fear doing so would place them at a disadvantage if their competitors do not take a similar action.

 

State insurance regulators are responsible for the confidentiality that surrounds the determination of life insurance dividends. I believe that the regulators should require companies to make their dividend methodologies available to the public.”

 

While you wait for insurance regulators to act, you can get more information about dividends from these sources:

 

- “Policyholder Dividends and Nonguaranteed Elements in the U.S. and Canada,” Professional Actuarial Specialty Guide, Society of Actuaries, 3/1/1997. This contains an overview and an annotated bibliography.

 

- Company handouts. Some companies provide a brief explanation of how dividends are determined, including examples showing the interest, mortality and expense components. Agents may receive a more detailed explanation prepared by the chief actuary.

 

- Company responses to the Exhibit 5 interrogatories of the statutory annual statement. The questions address the dividend determination process, experience factors, the impact of policy loans on dividends, and the sustainability of the current dividend scale. The quality of company responses varies from perfunctory to informative.

 

- Nadine Gatzert, Ines Holzmüller and Hato Schmeiser, “Creating Customer Value in Participating Life Insurance,” Journal of Risk and Insurance, September 2012. This will introduce you to the economic literature on participating policies, although most of this research relates to European policy designs.

 

Stepping back, why should you even consider putting money into life insurance policies that suffer from such a lack of transparency?

 

Whole life insurance has several things going for it:

 

- Many whole life insurance policies have term and paid-up additions riders that let you use blended designs to reduce the agent’s commission and improve the policyholder’s values. You can sometimes do this with universal life policies, but it is not as common.

 

- The option to use dividends to buy paid-up additions provides an easy way to create an increasing death benefit, which can reduce the risk that the life insurance policy will provide less money for heirs than investing the premiums elsewhere. Universal life also provides an increasing death benefit option, but the growth rate is generally slower and it is more likely to fail at later ages.

 

- Whole life insurers provide investment services that are underappreciated. Insurance company general accounts contain some investments, such as commercial mortgage loans and private placement bonds, that are generally not available to retail investors, and investment expenses are typically less than 0.25%. The inevitable volatility of investment returns is smoothed by the dividend determination process; gains and losses may be amortized over five years or more. These investment services may be similar for traditional universal life (although the beneficial effect may be smaller), but not for indexed or variable universal life.

 

- Lack of transparency makes whole life easier for insurers to price and manage, especially in a low interest rate environment. Whole life policies have hidden front-end and ongoing charges that create a more efficient match between expenses and charges; if these charges were disclosed, they might be rejected by consumers who do not understand their rationale.

 

The opacity of dividend formulas allows insurers to offset negative interest components (which can occur when the insurer is earning less than the guaranteed interest rate) against positive mortality components, whereas the unbundled design of universal life forces insurers to raise cost-of-insurance rates or accept a loss.

 

- Whole life has less premium flexibility. I’m usually inclined to say that more flexibility is better than less, but flexibility has costs as well as benefits. It is easier for people to get into trouble with universal life because there are no immediate negative consequences for not paying a premium; in most cases, the policy will stay in force as long as there is enough money in it to cover the monthly charges. In contrast, not paying a whole life premium leads to lapse or a policy loan.

 

Premium flexibility also increases the insurer’s uncertainty about its cash flows, and it can lead to adverse selection with regard to investment returns (policyholders can time their premiums to take advantage of above-market returns) and mortality (policyholders can time their premiums to take advantage of new information about health).

 

On the other hand, the lack of premium flexibility makes it harder to sell whole life policies in the secondary market for an attractive price.

 

- Judging from the policies that my fee-only colleagues and I see, whole life has performed better over time than universal life. Perhaps this reflects inherent pricing advantages in the whole life design or the fact that whole life policies are mostly issued by mutual companies. If I had to place a bet on long-term performance, measured in some reasonable way, I would bet on whole life.

Read more...
Answers To Questions From Advisors About Using Mind Maps In Practice Management And Client Interaction
Wednesday, August 22, 2012 17:53
At a recent webinar on A4A, I spoke about how I’ve been using mind maps to successfully launch my RIA, grow AUM, and benefit from stronger relationships with clients based on transparency.

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only


 
Here are answers to some of the questions posed by advisors at the session:
 
Q: This is clearly a marketing gimmick. Does it really work in managing relationships?
With all due respect, I would contend that mind mapping is not a “gimmick.”  By definition a gimmick is defined as: a unique or quirky special feature that makes something "stand out" from its contemporaries. However, the special feature is typically thought to be of little relevance or use.  If this were a gimmick, the wealth advisors who started integrating mind mapping in their practice long before me would have gone on to some other type of tactic to attract clients.  Just the opposite is happening here:  once advisors embrace the mind mapping software for both back stage and front stage activities, the map becomes a part of their firm’s DNA.
 
We believe mind mapping software is innovative when applied to the wealth advisory profession.  For something to be “innovative” versus just another good idea, it must, according to Saul Kaplan of the Business Innovation Factory, provide new, more efficient way in doing an activity, and create substantive value to the user. In our experience, mind mapping software accomplishes both. 
 
Q: Are you willing to share your "template" (branches, etc.)?
We are working with Andy Gluck and his team to distribute the templates. We want to make this available to advisors so they can have not only get the templates but also training, Web access, and integration with current technology. We also want to create a means in which clients access their mind maps through their advisor’s web portal. We hear this request frequently from our clients.
 
Q:  What does it really take to implement mind mapping in my practice?
Obviously, you need to purchase a mind mapping software and learn how to use it in a practical application.  In addition, working on a big-screen monitor in front of the client is powerful. You also need a way to link documents to the map.  For us, being 100% paperless made the transition to implementing the mind map much smoother.
 
Q:  Where are the mind maps stored?

We store 100% of our mind maps in the cloud.  We use Rackspace as our cloud solution.

 

Q: Are your mind maps tied in to your CRM? Shouldn’t they be?

Currently, our mind maps are not tied into our CRM. This is one of the limitations of the current state of mind mapping.  When I do a client meeting, I save all data on the client’s map and immediate dictate notes of the meeting.  The notes from the meeting are saved in our CRM.  In addition, activity assignments (the to-dos) are entered and tracked in the CRM.
 
Q: What do you use for a Risk Tolerance Survey?
We use FinaMetrica (www.riskprofiling.com).  They are a leader in offering a low-cost, user-friendly way to gain more understanding of your client’s financial risk tolerance.
 
Q:  Would you please repeat the name of the person who presented demographics on the boomers and Gen X'ers?
Cam Marston of Generational Insights.  Cam presented at a conference before me (which stunk because he was fantastic and I had to follow him!).  It was the best presentation I have ever heard on breaking down the four generations and how best to interact with each generation.  Here’s a brief summary:
  • Pre-boomer (born before 1945): This group is also known as the “traditional” or “silent” generation.  They tend to be attracted to name brand recognition, credentials, past performance and like to interact with their advisors on a social basis (i.e. golf, dinner and gentlemen’s clubs).  They like to communicate by phone and in person meetings.  By and large the husband (if a married couple) is the one who most often comes to meetings and makes the decisions.
     
  • Boomers (born 1946-1965):  This is the first “we to me” generation.  They tend to be optimistic if not idealistic, forever young, over achievers and engaged in life.  Watch the financial commercials on TV.  This is a fun generation to serve!  Most meetings, its husbands and wives equally engaged in the planning process and the mind map resonates with them well.  They want custom creative solutions uniquely tailored to their personal objectives.  One of their most precious commodities is their time.  They are less likely to want to be wined and dined by their advisors.  Most interactions are done in person or phone.  However, we have several boomer clients who are very comfortable in doing video meetings.
     
  • Generation X (born 1966-1979):  This is my generation!  We love to stalk goods and services online for hours then swoop in to make our purchase or hire an advisor.  We also tend to be more pessimistic than the Boomers.  We know things do not go according to plan.  For example, one of my earliest memories was watching Richard Nixon resign.  We also take and give referrals to our peers since they also are online predatory stalkers.  We demand total transparency, do not want to be sold, and crave lots of information before making a decision.  We like to communicate primary via email and tend to be very comfortable with web meetings; in fact, it’s almost preferred.
     
  • Generation Y (born 1980-1999): This is also known as the “special generation.”  They are the offspring of the Boomers.  They are called special because they have been told for their entire life that they are special by their parents.  They are friends with mom and dad.  They receive 9th place trophies.  This special group of people is pack creatures; they go to prom in groups.  They like to by the same products and services as their friends but with a unique twist.  The primary method of communication is texting.  Their view of work is far different than their parents.  A good way to meet an affluent Boomer is by serving their children.
I look forward to being a part of the Advisors4Advisors community.  I will address more questions from the many I received regarding soon. 
 
In the meantime, please feel free to respond with your comments and/or questions.

 

 

Read more...
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 8 of 48

Login

Banner
Banner
Banner

Comments

Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner