Retirement Planning: Making Realistic Assumptions about Retirement

The act of assuming is much like the act of predicting. It is subject to unknowns and is based on what we know happened, with a healthy dose of optimism thrown in for good measure. In retirement planning, the assumption of what you will need to live long enough to outlast your money can be a recipe for disaster that will not materialize until you are no longer able to do anything about it. In other words, you will be too old to fix the problem of not having enough money.

It is a common practice among advisers to suggest the following: You will have $20,000 in Social Security benefits annually; you will withdraw 4% of your retirement income per year; your retirement account will grow by 8% during the years you contribute and continue that pace after you stop working; the inflation will remain relatively stable at around 3.5%; and you will have no other source of income available such as a pension.

Each of these assumption may be wrong and this rate of incorrectness can lead to problems early into your retirement but late enough in it to do anything about it.

Let's begin with Social Security. The assumption that it will somehow go away is just not accurate. It will be there. But the earlier you tap into those funds, say at sixty-two instead of your mandated full retirement age, a target that is guaranteed to move further away as time passes, the smaller amount of those estimated funds can be assumed. So assume the worst and that you will not be able to tap that social program until you are well beyond 65. And if you do, it might be less than you had previously assumed, even if you will not outlive the benefit.

Now for the withdrawal rate. This is key to the long-term health of your retirement plan. I, along with numerous other people in this field have suggested that 4% is the rate you should chose when attempting to outlive your retirement savings. This however is based on a fully funded retirement plan that has you entering into retirement debt free.

The problem with debt is not what you owe on a loan(s) - although it is definitely troublesome to any income calculation whether you are working or not - it is what you will need to finance the rest of your days. Taxes will not go away. Both personal and property taxes will continue to act as a debt on your income and will rise in the future. Insurance will also create a debt-like obligation, not only for health but for property coverage for your home, your car, and any other property you might have. Upkeep on those properties will also increase over time acting as another strain on your income.

The growth number we often assume, the 8% return we are expecting on our investments may be too high. As we all know now, if you were to retire now or worse, be drawing on retirement investments, you are withdrawing money at a faster rate than the money can recover. Based on the last decade of returns, the number may be closer to 4%.

Inflation is another major concern. It is not going away and is even expected to climb in the years to come. While 3.5% may be an workable average and a fair assumption, it is not worthy of a worse-case scenario projection. The fact that your money will be worth less in the future should be calculated closer to 5%. This allows for some reverse growth and allows you to plan much better with fewer surprises later in life.

While the pension assumption - the fact that so few of us have one and even if we do, a plan that is not currently in trouble - is safe guess to make. Less than 25% of the working population has one. If you do, assume that it will pay 25% less or more, if you are beyond the cut-off point that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation or PBGC insures. Pension plans pay the PBGC to insure these plans and they will only guarantee a certain amount. If you have a pension, calculate the worse-case scenario here as well. The 2009 PBGC guarantees can be found here.

The next post here will discuss the hard numbers.

Retirement Planning and the PBGC

As we approach the new year, we will no doubt hear the verse “auld lang syne”. The reference to the phrase, thought to have first been coined by Robert Burns (1759-1796), actually translates into “once upon a time”. When we begin the discussion on pensions in the book, we look thoughtfully back to an era when the obligation to employee was more than simply wage-based, it was a lifelong agreement with the firm.


Guy Lombardo played this song on a 1929 radio broadcast forever associating it with the passing of the New Year.




David McCarthy, author of numerous papers and as the book notes, a lecturer at the Oxford Institute of Ageing, at Oxford University (what the book doesn’t say is that he has since changed that position and is now a lecturer in the Finance group at the Tanaka Business School) studies the role of pensions in business.

His belief that pensions have an important life cycle is the cornerstone for much of his work. When the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 altered the way companies treated pensions – which are not an obligation under the law, the interaction, not to mention the relationship the employee may have had with the employer, changed forever as well.



The life cycle Dr McCarthy wrote of saw workers entering into an agreement with their employer when they were the most vulnerable cash-wise but had the most to offer from a human capital point of view. Pensions, through their conservative nature offered these employees a beginning at a future they might have ignored otherwise. When the human capital was at its lowest point, the pension was there to help.

Pensions unfortunately do not come with property rights. If a company is sold, dissolved through bankruptcy, or simply goes out of business, the employee can run the risk of losing most of their pension. This was the argument made for the 401(k) plan and was used by President Bush as the basis for his privatization of Social Security.



There are some safe guards in place. The PBGC, or Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation insures against total loss but has not only a limited reach (companies need to participate in the program by paying premiums for the insurance guarantees.)

Here’s a recent example of how the PBGC works with smaller, lesser know companies.

”Tom's Foods filed for Chapter 11 protection in April 2005. In October 2005, it was purchased by Charlotte-based Lance Inc. for $40.2 million plus the assumption of some company liabilities. The transaction did not include the pension plan.”

Also noted in the article by Steven Taub for CFO.com was this comment about the transactions: “because Tom's Foods missed nearly $4.5 million in required pension contributions and the pension plan will be abandoned as a result of the sale of substantially all of the company's assets.” PBGC has guaranteed no interruption in pension payouts for current retirees and guarantees the pension for those that have vested.

How much pension you receive should your former employer face such events depends on when you retire. Recently, the PBGC, which was created by ERISA, raised its maximum pension payout for those retiring at 65 years old in 2008 to $51,750 (that is a 4% increase over the previous limit of $49,500 for plans ending in 2007.)

The maximum amount of payout for an individual who retires at 75 is $157,320 with a guaranteed benefit of $12,938 for those who retire at 45.

There are ways to check to see if your pension is at risk of being under funded. One is to ask for a health record of your plan. Troubled plans usually rely on optimistic projections of the underlying investments or worse and secondly, because of poor performance of the company leaving the plan with no funding to meet its obligations. Those obligations by the way are a result of actuarial tables used to determine the life span of the workers. If you sense your company is in trouble, plan for the worst – even if your pension payout is guaranteed.