Leverage and Retirement

Over the years I have written about the topic of retirement planning, I have witnessed some incredibly crazy thinking. Many of those thoughts have come home to roost often too late for the investor to do anything to fix the situation. We plan, we tell ourselves, to retire at a certain age with a certain amount of money based on a certain withdrawal rate.  But those plans are often dashed by unforeseen events that, in hindsight we should have anticipated.

Recent reports have pointed towards an increase in employee contributions to their 401(k) plans. These upticks, however slight lead many to conclude that we are starting to get the message. But which message are we holding on to? Is it the need to simply save more because we know the chances are we will need more or is it the result of some other encouraging news? I'm inclined to go with the second choice.

Retirement planning is a whole package endeavor. In other words, simply putting money away for retirement is not enough. Numerous other pieces of the puzzle come into play and this is what is often ignored. The effort is noteworthy only if you have developed a budget that is actually less generous, forcing you to face the reality of an income in retirement that is not the same as the one the you had while working.

This income reduced budgeting is practiced by too few close-to-retirement planners. At no time in the history of retirement planning - and I'm going way back to the generous days of the defined benefit plan or pension - was the payout at retirement designed to replace 100% of what you live on now. The number was actually closer to 70% replacement and that was only if you had worked within the confines of that pension for thirty years or more (and it was not impacted by changes from the company). The remainder was to be supplemented by Social Security.

But with advent of the defined contribution plan (401(k), 403(b)), with the responsibility for funding your retirement placed squarely on your shoulders, we were forced to face the possibility that 70% of our current income would not be replaced. In order to get those kinds of post-work rewards, we would have had to invest 12-15% of our pre-tax income, every year without fail, in good markets and bad. For too many people with this plan, that sort of budget-busting restriction was simply too much to embrace.

We are to be forgiven for our human-ness however. We make mistakes and follow the herd - when they sell, we sell and when they pile in, we follow. In both instances we turn our backs on the whole concept of retirement planning: steady and ever-increasing contributions without consideration for what the overall market is doing.

Our employers didn't help much either. They gave us matching contributions, took them away or reduced them, and when they re-introduced them, they were far smaller. And we misinterpreted this as a sign that they knew something we didn't and mimicked their actions: we reduced our contributions when the matches were lowered and increased them when they were raised. As I said, we can be forgiven this tendency but we won't be absolved of this sin of remission when we begin thinking about retirement.

One of the other keys to the seemingly good news about an increase in contributions in 2011 is backlit with some additional news. Auto-enrollment helped to raise the account balances of the overall plan (and as employment improves, so will the news that we are using the plans in a more robust way). But those auto-enrolled new hires were placed squarely in the plan's target date fund of choice.

Long-time readers know about my reservations with these funds. New readers should note: target date funds are often less transparent than stand-alone funds, the underlying portfolio can be suspect, the target date may not be far enough in the future to be realistic and to date, the rebalancing implied in the fund is not determined by any specific guidelines. In other words, those who are put in a target date fund via auto-enrollment would be wise to get into an index fund (or four raging across a variety of markets) as soon as possible.

Those folks, the youngest among us who are the most likely candidates for these auto-enrollment options can make changes that will get them much closer to the goal. Older workers, however don't. And they know it. But they have some advantages, at least in their mind that the younger worker doesn't: equity.

And that equity in their homes, combined with the historically low interest rate environment has given many Baby Boomers a second option: to borrow against their homes and take the refinanced money and put into their retirement accounts. Is it a good idea or one that is bound to backfire?

Three things make it risky. One the equity in your home may not recover. Older homeowners who tap their home's equity are doing so at the risk of increasing their mortgages at a time when additional debt, no matter how inexpensive is not prudent. Two: They are eliminating a safety valve that could be used if retirement got too rough: the reverse mortgage. And third, if they are forced to or simply want to sell, the equity in their property is not there to give them a downpayment for new housing.

Leveraging your home to finance your retirement account does come with some tax advantages though. Just because one account increases as one is leveraged doesn't necessarily give you a balanced approach. In other words, there are "veiled risks".

You will still need to allocate your portfolio to perform better than the cost of the new loan and the interest rate you pay. This means that year-over-year, you will need to do much better than you may have calculated. A four percent mortgage added into the cost of the refinance (another one percent) added to the rate of inflation (another three percent if it holds steady) means your portfolio will need to return north of eight percent year over year - without fail.

The only way to give your retirement income any sort of sure footing is to increase your contributions by a much wider margin than what has become known as the average - 8% - and pay down your mortgage.

Fifteen percent is still the optimum contribution rate and even that number will give you only 75% of your current income in retirement - provided you saved for twenty years or more. Paying down the mortgage reduces your overall cost of debt service while increasing your equity.

Retirement Planning Resolutions that should be kept

Even as the news told us with the turn of the calendar that the first Baby Boomer was eligible to retire, all of us wondered if they did. Were their retirement accounts so much better than ours? Did they make promises that they kept? Were they able to dance between the raindrops rather than simply weather the storm? We may never know more than we know about ourselves. But what do we know about ourselves and our retirement plans? Does the answer lie in how we approach our New Years resolutions?

By the time you read this, your New Year's resolutions may already be broken. If not, in the next couple of days they will be seriously tested. This doesn't make you a bad person - in part because you have broken them so often in the past. But there is a pattern in your lapses and if you promised yourself to build a better financial plan, focus more of your income on your retirement accounts, and/or simply spend less, breaking those commitments can have longer range effects that simply gaining a few pounds.

Why do we break the resolutions in the first place? In large part, our resolutions are well intended. But they tend to be an all-or nothing type of promise to not do better so much as to change course. This might relatively easy to do if you are 20 years old. But the older you get, the longer it will take for that ship you call life to readjust its headings.

Which brings us to the second reason we fail to follow through: lack of patience. As much as I hate to bring up the dieting analogy, it does apply to the way you treat your finances. Nothing is instant. You can't will away years of bad habits and as soon as one of those bad habits creeps into your diet, its over. In the world of finance, it might be a purchase done outside of your budget that has the ripple effect of bringing the resolution down.

Statistics have shown that resolutions morph from something that is a need-to-keep promise to one's self to a nice-to-keep promise. This is another reason why, by the end of the first week in January, you have back-burnered the promise to increase your 401(k) contribution, put your credit cards away, talk to your children about money, talk to your husband about the course of your retirement plan. Even if the idea was to build a plan, something anything more than what you have haphazardly pieced together, you have already lost some of the goals you set forth.

Men have no problem breaking resolutions if they make them at all. Women often see it breaking a resolution as a sign of some weakness. Both are wrong. Here are five easy steps to make your financial promises stick in the new year - and if you haven't made any, this will help you make some commitment without the pressure of a change in the calendar.

1. Be patient. No retirement plan was hatched in a day or a week or a year. Most 401(k) plans have internet access available to their plan participants. Log on and find out where you are in terms of contribution. If it is less than 5%, change it to 5%. This is usually the threshold where your pre-tax contribution has no effect on your take-home pay.

2. If you are a couple, do this together. One resolution to keep is that retirement plans are best used if they are combined. Not physically, but on a decision level. One plan might be better, the other might be more generous in the match. One of you might earn more where a 5% contribution is actually a larger dollar amount. One plan might have better investment opportunities. If don't approach this together, you will not get the benefit of two plans as one.

3. Add 1% a month every month thereafter until you reach the 12% mark. This will be not-as-painful but will require you readjust your spending habits.

4. Educate yourself about risk and how much you can embrace. Women have been studied and most of those surveys have drawn similar conclusions: women are more pragmatic when it comes to investments. If men and women looked at what they want and how their plan could help to achieve it, they might find themselves much better situated 15 years down the road than if they chased the next-hot investment cycle.

5. Take a look at your beneficiaries. Your investments and insurances need to be specific. Your will needs to be clear. And if you do this, you will find that this forces you to look deep into the future at a time when one of you - most likely, the woman, will still be around.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of BlueCollarDollar.com and Target2025.com

Your Retirement: It is Still up to You

The stock markets seem to be poised for what has been termed often as the "Santa Claus rally". Consumers, at least according to business surveys, are beginning to spend. And this is all occurring, while in the shadows, the economy or its numbers remain little changed. That and most of us are still suffering from investment paralysis. 

Here we are, years after the fall of 2008, and the average middle class worker still has an account balance that is far from where it should be - if they plan on retiring. When most of us think is retirement age, we think in terms of what has been the generally accepted retirement age. This unfortunately is a failure on two fronts: yours and the plan sponsor.

Your responsibility is in the contribution.According to a Wells Fargo survey (pdf) conducted among 357 plans, middle class is defined as: "those aged 30 to 69 with $40,000 to $100,000 in household income or $25,000 to $100,000 in investable assets and those aged 25 to 29 with income or investable assets of $25,000 to $100,000." This group knows that they will need more than $300,000 to fund a basic retirement yet, on average those balances fall far short of that goal with $20,000. Is it any wonder that this group is increasingly buying into the notion that working longer is a fact of life in the post-downturn world?

Most of the middle class group contributes only about 7% of their pre-tax income to these plans. And if the survey is any indication, much of the fault lies in the employer's approach to these plans. The study suggests that employers are concerned about their legal liabilities in helping their employees even as they acknowledge the shared role in helping those workers.

These fiduciary concerns are widespread among plan sponsors who worry that should they provide advice, and that advice doesn't meet employee expectations, they will see the plan sued. 

This has led these employers to look for plans that offer third party advice, shifting the liability to another player. What they fail to embrace is that using a TPA (third party administrator) doesn't lessen the liability. While 89% of the plan sponsors understand that there is a need for retirement help, only 71% (as of 2009) think that they should help those employees understand what the plan can do for them.

In order of importance, and in reality, employers do something else entirely and your defined contribution plan's ability to get you there is reflective of this lackluster effort. Only 35% of the DC sponsors surveyed think that education is important, 22% encourage greater participation and increased contributions, 9% think investment diversification is important while only 2% facilitate the planning process by pointing out what is need in retirement and helping their employees use the plan to achieve this.

Are more funds in the plan the answer? Some DC sponsors believe they are and are looking to increase their offerings. But often, plans with more than fifteen funds aren't necessarily giving the employee more choices that suit their needs. The new choices are often in the form of target date funds and other more conservative investment offerings. This is often done at the exclusion of more suitable offerings (such as aggressive mutual funds for younger workers). Once again, they fear retribution for suggesting anything akin to risk.

DC sponsors are worried about what the industry calls investment paralysis. Too many funds, studies have suggested, often have lower overall participation rates that those with 15 fund or fewer in their plans. Because there is a growing movement to offer auto-enrollment, choosing a fund for that new employee often requires the plan to carry a wide variety of target date funds to pinpoint a "potential" retirement year.

But understanding the need and acting on it, from both a participants point-of-view and that of the DC sponsor are often far from what they are actually doing. Plan sponsors need to understand more than just the investment array, plan design, distribution options, education and communication, and fees charged by the plan. It is their fiduciary responsibility, one that carries legal risks if mishandled, to measure their plan's impact. Only 15%, according to the survey do so.

The employer still offers matching contributions in many defined contribution plans. But how and what are a matter of debate. Many still offer matches that are tied to company stock, put restrictions on access to those matching funds, and use the auto-increase contribution system as a way to offset raises. Often, maintaining the 401(k) plans they might have, as many of the companies surveyed suggested, is done for the sole purpose of getting and retaining new employees. This, in light of less-than-robust private hiring, might come at a reduction of other benefit programs.

If you are still in a DC plan and your employer's match is not as adequate as it should be, this doesn't let you off the hook. You still need to save more, much more than you are presently doing. While it is true that 5% is the cut-off point where pre-tax contribution investments don't impact take-home pay, some sacrifice on the employee's end is needed. And this should be done,match or no match.

If your employer's 401(k) plan is not as robust as it should be or doesn't fit your age needs, open an IRA or Roth IRA on your own. Contributing to both plans (10% to your 401(k) and the maximum allowed to an IRA or Roth IRA) is your responsibility. While we still look to the company we work for for guidance, and even to the point where we believe they care about us and our retirement future, the facts are not bearing this fuzzy feeling out in the surveys I have read.

As Laurie Nordquist, director of Wells Fargo Institutional Retirement Trust said: "If people aren't willing to pay for advice they are going to get a more vanilla approach to planning," adding, "But a simple plan is better than no plan."

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com

How Much Control over Your Retirement Plan Do You Have?

Today we are going to tackle the self-directed IRA. We all know what an Individual Retirement Account or IRA is. Briefly, it is the retirement tool for those of us who may not have access to a 401(k) that defers taxes for retirement. The deferring part is not really as complicated as it seems. In a 401(k), you have your contribution taken out before you pay taxes; in an IRA, you pay with after-tax money and then take the deduction when you file, basically subtracting the taxes from your contribution to be paid later.

How is a regular IRA different than a self-directed IRA?
The differences are not as obvious as the title of these products sounds. An IRA is an investment chosen by you and you direct the funds to it for your retirement. It seems like this should be called self-directed but in reality, it is very different from what the IRS views as a self-directed IRA.

In a self-directed IRA, you become the manager of the whole process. Rather than simply sending money to a mutual, fund company, the most common sponsors of IRAs, you direct the underlying investments. In the previous example, the institution is the middleman. In a self-directed IRA, the institution, whomever or whatever one you chose, does what you tell them to do.

Learn more about self-directed IRAs.

Catch our daily column: Repercussions, a Retirement Review

The Hidden Reality in the Company Match

You were among the fortunate ones.  You kept your job.  You were also among the unfortunate ones.  You lost money in your retirement just at the time when your company was trying to stop bleeding cash.  They stopped matching your contribution and you, wondering if they knew something you didn't, stopped investing exactly at the time when you should have actually upped your exposure to a nosediving stock market.  No one ever got rich investing at the top.

But you were scared.  You saw your 401(k) balance nosedive and your future evaporate (or at least it seemed it was) right before your very eyes.  Hindsight tells you that you shouldn't have done a thing; simply waited.

And now, the stock market is moving in the right direction - albeit sproradically and in fits and jerks.  And behold, companies are talking about bring back the matching contribution.

When the 401(k) match returns, and it will, you might find it to be a different beast than the one that was canceled in the previous years. The 401(k) match, a perk or incentive to get you to invest in your retirement in the absence of a pension, disappeared as companies cut back on hiring, increased layoffs and looked for numerous ways to cut costs.

They knew -and in many cases still do – that those that have a job were likely to stay put. Even without the incentive that the matching contribution was, jobs weren’t readily available. In other words, folks stayed put because they had to, not because company B down the road was offering better benefits than company A.

Are we being too optimistic about the 401(k) match?

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of Target2025.com

Matchless Strategies

For many us, the employer match to our 401(k) plans has gone, or in some cases reduced to a mere shadow of its former generosity. They are expected to return but it will take years before they return to their former levels - if they ever do.

This presents the person planning for retirement (perhaps predicting a retirement income would be a better description) with a dilemma. They are at first troubled by their own human nature.

Many of us have never made the attempt to increase our contribution to make up for the shortfall. Few of us max out these accounts, relying in the employer's match to give us three, possibly more, percentage points of pre-tax income contribution. If your employer stopped putting 3% (of free money) into your account, you risk missing your projections by up to $100,000 over a thirty year career.

To make up for this shortfall, we will need to increase our contribution by at least this much. In the short-term, this will mean taking home less. If your partner has a plan that continues to match, be sure they are contributing enough to receive it.

One or both of you could make up the increase by dividing the increased contribution. This might have a less of an impact on your take home pay.

This can also be done gradually, increasing your contrbution as you receive pay raises or bonuses (using them to offset any yearly income decrease as a result of your increased contribution). But it shouldn't be ignored.

This might also mean adopting increased exposure to more risky investment strategies. Many people are using a far-too conservative approach to their investments for retirement and often too soon. As I said "more risky". Adding a more aggressive fund or two and using the increased contribution to fund it might be the best option to recovering that lost ground quicker. Not always but in the long-term, it might be a risk worth considering.

And while you are making sacrifices, something that everyone seems resigned to do, start getting your financial house in order. A pay decrease shouldn't extend your credit balances on penny. In fact, a little austerity now could go a long way just ten-years down the road. Prepare your entire liability plan to be eliminated by the time you retire. A 30-year mortgage with fifteen viable work years left spells trouble in retirement.

I'm not saying there won't be debt scenarios that are unavoidable, but a mortgage shouldn't be one of them - and neither should outstanding credit debt. With no clear and concise picture of the cost of health care, the ability of Social Security to pay you what you think you have coming, and the performance of that 401(k) as you near retirement, carrying debt in light of this cloudy future can be the storm you were unprepared to deal with.

Retirement Planning: Estimated Recovery of Your 401(k)

We all suffered losses in our retirement plans. We all saw the account balances in our 401(k) drop significantly from their lofty heights in January 2008. The biggest problem with the stock market crisis was not who lost the most - according to the Employee Benefits Research Institute it was those with the highest account balances - but why.

Had you been in your employers plan for less than five years, your account balance did drop, by almost 50% in some instances. But because this group generally made much more in contributions than they received in actual returns, their balances did not fail below zero. Even older workers who began to use these plans at age 55, still have positive balances in their accounts.

Folks who had the largest account balances, generally those in the study group aged 55-64 years old were seriously impacted by the downturn, losing on average 17%. According to EBRI, this median number and losses associated with it were due in large part to an overexposure to equities.

Despite all of the cries to diversify, to protect assets from just this kind of market correction, and the attraction to those gains offered by staying in equities far beyond when it would be considered wise, older retirement plan investors felt the pain to a much greater degree than younger investors/co-workers.

So what should you do if you are aged 55 or older? What should you do if you are younger, aged 20-34 or if you fall in-between those ages?

The older investor, had they stayed put in their original investments, continued to contribute and withdrew no monies from the plan either with loans or withdrawals of cash, will see their portfolios - and this is an estimate - recover in two to five years based on a modest market recovery of 5%. If you made moves to diversify after the fact, such as moving assets into safer investments such as lifestyle/target-dated type funds or simply moved into investments with less equity exposure, the recovery time could be twice what it would have been had you done nothing.

According to the EBRI: "Estimates from the EBRI/ICI 401(k) database show that many participants near retirement had exceptionally high exposure to equities: Nearly 1 in 4 between ages 56–65 had more than 90 percent of their account balances in equities at year-end 2007, and more than 2 in 5 had more than 70 per-cent."

There is a tendency for investors is to concentrate on the short-term rather than long-term performance. This is especially true of younger investors who realized outsized gains in their portfolios during the last four years. They were better suited to risk and were more likely to see those gains as justification to continue to channel money into their plans. Older investors, who may have been good contributors as well, felt larger losses in their portfolios because they had amassed larger balances.

In this type of market downturn, buy and hold may have been the best method of retaining long-term growth - but only for younger investors. Older investors had to learn the lesson of diversification the hard way. But either group, if they have the time and a modest market recovery, should see their balances return in less than a decade.

G is for Gross Income - Retirement Planning

We continue our look at some of the important factors of a good retirement plan. This alphabetical look at what you need to know continues with a look at gross income.

In Retirement Planning, G is for Gross Income

There are very few downsides to owning a Roth IRA. Of course there is the tax advantage. After five years, the money can be withdrawn tax-free. Unlike a traditional IRA, all of the withdrawals are taxed at your regular income. (The reason for this difference is based on whether the money was taxed prior to deposit – traditional IRA deposits were a deduction from taxes whereas a Roth IRA is funded with after tax contributions.)

A traditional IRA requires you to take withdraws by age 70 ½ (actually the date is April 1st in the year following your 70 ½ birthday). A Roth does not have any such requirements, allowing you to keep the money invested until you need it – if ever. And that “if ever” allows you to pass the Roth IRA on to your heirs who, although they would be required to take distributions, would find the added income from the inherited Roth IRA would be tax-free.

While there is no guarantee that your Roth IRA will grow without set-backs – what you pick for your investments determines the portfolio’s possibilities, the ability to save more is restricted not only by age but by gross income.

Age and Income

Your contributions before you reach fifty-years-old are limited in both the Roth IRA and the traditional IRA to $5,000. But after fifty, the annual contribution jumps to $6,000 with adjustments being made thereafter based on inflation.

But gross income also plays a role in how much you can contribute. More specifically, modified gross income. If you are single, that income cannot exceed $101,000 and if you are married, filing jointly, the income limit is set at $159,000. Modified gross income is calculated using IRS publication 590 (turn to page 61) and does not include any Roth conversions you may have made in the current tax year.

What if you make too much? It is a nice problem to have but to avoid not investing at all, the IRS allows you to make non-deductible IRA contributions. Conversions have income limits as well ($100,000 a year for individual or joint filers – sorry, married filers filing separately re not allowed to convert). But hold onto the non-deductible IRA until 2010 and convert without penalty.

There are still taxes to be paid on the conversion however but they can be spread over the following years (2011 and 2012).

A is for Asset Allocation

B is for Balance

C is for Continuity

D is for Diversity

E is for (Tracking) Errors

F is for Free-Float

Retirement Planning - C is for Continuity

Retirement Planning: C is for Continuity

One of the keys to getting from point A (your working days) to point B (your retirement days) is continuity. A retirement plan thrives on the steady flow of cash to work its long-term magic. It can never stop.

These days though, a walk down a grocery aisle or a visit to the gas pumps is almost we need to remind us that our dollar is not going as far as it once was. So you might find yourself looking for ways to free up a little extra spending money for the month. You might even find yourself eyeing the 401(k) contribution you make weekly and are seeing that money better spent in the here and now. It is a human reaction to survival.

If you must lower your contribution, limit yourself to the level of your employer’s matching funds or 5%, whichever is higher. This amount will not have an impact on what your take home pay would have been had you stopped participating completely. Keep that money funding your future. One note of caution, try to save more if things improve. You need to pay yourself first and the key is continuity.

Previously:
A is for Asset Allocation
B is for Balance