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.

Retirement Planning: The Danger of Opting for Lazy

The Pension Protection Act of 2006, quite possibly the worst piece of retirement legislation to ever take hold, has some employees allowing their employers to do what they are too lazy to do: diversify their accounts, select the right age-appropriate funds and move allocations. Your contribution might stay the same. It is where that money is going that creates long-term and possibly adverse problems for workers who believe they are on the right path.

The PPA is a business-friendly bill that gives employers new abilities. Some of these changes, which can be blamed on a more economical plan for the employer, do not always translate into a better option for the employee.

An employer can look at the cost of their current plan and deem it too costly to maintain. When this decision is made, the funds that were currently chosen by you are shifted into similar types of funds. That is, if you do anything at all.

When there are changes in your plan, you receive notification, often twice before the event. Failure to react to these changes within the given time frame (often thirty days) allows the employer's new plan sponsor to make changes it deems best for your age. The problem with this kind of power is threefold: One - only on the rarest of occasions does the employer have enough information about your finances to make a good decision; two - the new group of mutual funds in the plan may not resemble the allocations you made previously; three - the default options often do not take into account your personal risk tolerance.

In other words, lazy now has a price.

This can have the most devastating effect on younger workers. They often have the poorest understanding of the age appropriateness of their investments. Some have simply under-invested in equities, preferring to avoid what they have witnessed with older co-workers and their parents. In other words, they do not want to lose money. In other words, they are avoiding risk.

Your employer can change that. New plan sponsors can offer to switch funds on you, to allow you greater exposure to equity risk while switching older workers to less risk exposure. They do this by enrolling unsuspecting (although, as I said, notified in advance) employees into target-dated funds.

I have raised suspicions about these types of funds, their ability to perform better than a simple index fund, and the possibility that these funds (more like a fund full of funds from a particular family and not all of them good) will do better over time. Target-dated funds have no track record and more importantly, no guarantee that the manager at the helm will be able to mix and blend the right investments to achieve growth and capital preservation.

Michael Malone, managing director of MJM401k, a 401(k) consulting company in Phoenix suggests that this is still only a possibility. He said, “There is a degree of paternalism associated with it. If we look at the allocations that employees have, there have been more cases than not that those allocations and selections of funds aren’t necessarily the best things for them.” He warns against doing nothing: “But if you want to maintain your existing elections, you can move back into any elections you want.”

The bottom line for any investor, whether they be independent or enrolled in your company's defined contribution plan is to be aware of any shift. While you can change these fund allocations after the fact in many instances, why would you allow the fund sponsor to do the thinking for you.

If your company has a new 401(K) provider with a new group of funds, try to mimic your investments from the previous sponsor's offerings. This may be a bit more difficult because many of the changes are to plans offering less investment options, not more.

But opting to do nothing could cost you thousands of dollars of potential earnings over the course of career.

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.