Longevity & Aging

No doubt about it: at some point we’re neither semi-retired, findependent or fully retired. We’re out there in a retirement community or retirement home, and maybe for a few years near the end of this incarnation, some time to reflect on it all in a nursing home. Our Longevity & Aging category features our own unique blog posts, as well as blog feeds from Mark Venning’s ChangeRangers.com and other experts.

Some fascinating Retirement Statistics

Posted By |

 

By Fritz Gilbert, RetirementManifesto.com

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Call me a nerd, but I love studying retirement statistics (for the record, I prefer to consider myself curious).  When something as dramatic as COVID comes along, it really makes the numbers interesting.

If you’re curious like me, you’ll enjoy today’s post.  A compilation of some fascinating retirement statistics I recently came across, including some graphs for those of you who prefer to view the charts.

If you’re interested in how you compare to “average,” you’ll also find today’s post of interest.  Wondering what impact COVID has had on retirement confidence?  We’ve got that covered, as well.

Curiosity-seekers, unite.  This one is for you …

What’s retirement really like? What impact has COVID had? Today, a look at some fascinating retirement statistics.  

Fascinating Retirement Statistics

A while back, as I was doing some research for my post titled The Mad Retirement Rush of 2020, I came across an article with some interesting retirement statistics and saved the link into a draft post (I do that a lot, with over 100 draft posts currently holding ideas for future posts).  I wanted to do further research on retirement statistics to see how many I could compile for a dedicated post on the topic.

Today, I’m pleased to publish the resulting work and share what I’ve found during my research.  A variety of fascinating retirement statistics, dedicated to all of the fellow retirement nerds in the house.

With that, let’s dig into some numbers:

Retirement Readiness Statistics

how much people have saved for retirement

  • 51% of Baby Boomers are still paying on their mortgage in retirement, and 40% struggle to pay off their credit card debt.  (Source: Legaljobs.com)
  • 1 out of 12 Americans believes they’ll never retire at all.  (Source: Legaljobs.com)
  • 50% of retirees retired earlier than they would have liked. (Source:  TDAmeritrade Retirement Survey)

will you retire earlier than planned

  • 73% of retirees say their retirement was a “full-time stop,” with only 19% experiencing a gradual transition (e.g., fewer hours).  Among those still working, half expect a gradual transition. Related, only 30% of retirees work for money in retirement, whereas 72% of workers expect to work for some pay in retirement. (Source:  2021 EBRI Retirement Confidence Survey)
  • The average US household had $255,000 in their retirement accounts in 2019, a 5% increase from 2016 (Source: MagnifyMoney)
  • Among those with 401(k), the average balance by age is shown below: (source, Personal Capital as cited in MagnifyMoney)

what is the average 401k balance

 

COVID’s Impact on Retirement Confidence

  • While the majority of workers are still confident of their ability to retire, 34% of workers are less confident in their ability to live comfortably in retirement than they were pre-COVID.

is retirement less secure because of covid

  • COVID has caused 1 in 4 workers to adjust their expected retirement date, with 17% now planning to retire later and 6% who plan to retire earlier.
  • 32% of workers say COVID has negatively impacted their ability to save for retirement.

has covid made it harder to save for retirement

All statistics in the above section compliments of  2021 EBRI Retirement Confidence Survey

  • 30% of Americans with retirement accounts reported making withdrawals from them in the first two months of the COVID pandemic.  The average withdrawal was $6,757 (Source:  Investment News)

Baby Boomer Statistics

  • Every day, 10,000 Baby Boomers turn 65 years old.  (Source: Legaljobs.com)
  • 8 in 10 retirees report that their overall lifestyle is as expected or better. Only 26% of retirees report spending is higher than expected. (Source:  2021 EBRI Retirement Confidence Survey)
  • Baby Boomer retirements increased significantly in 2020 vs. prior years.  By September 2020, 40% of Baby Boomers were retired. (Source:  Pew Research) Continue Reading…

Why you should (or shouldn’t) defer OAS to Age 70

Posted By |

I’ve long advocated that anyone who expects to live a long life should consider deferring their Canada Pension Plan to age 70. Doing so can increase your CPP payments by nearly 50% – an income stream that is both inflation-protected and payable for life. If taking CPP at 70 is such a good idea, why not also defer OAS to age 70?

Many people are unaware of the option to defer taking OAS benefits up to age 70. This measure was introduced for those who retired on or after July 1, 2013 – so it is still relatively new. Similar to deferring CPP, the start date for your OAS pension can be deferred up to five years with the pension payable increased by 0.6% for each month that the pension is deferred.

OAS Eligibility

By the way, unlike CPP there is no complicated formula to determine your eligibility and payment amount. That’s because OAS benefits are paid for out of general tax revenues of the Government of Canada. You do not pay into it directly. In fact, you can receive OAS even if you’ve never worked or if you are still working.

Simply put, you may qualify for a full OAS pension if you resided in Canada for at least 40 years after turning 18 (when you turn 65).

To be eligible for any OAS benefits you must:

  • be 65 years old or older
  • be a Canadian citizen or a legal resident at the time your OAS pension application is approved, and
  • have resided in Canada for at least 10 years since the age of 18

You can apply for Old Age Security up to 11 months before you want your OAS pension to start.

Your deferred OAS pension will start on the date you indicate in writing on your Application for the Old Age Security Pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement.

There is no financial advantage to defer your OAS pension after age 70. In fact, you risk losing benefits. If you’re over the age of 70 and not collecting OAS benefits make sure to apply for OAS right away.

Here are three reasons why you should defer OAS to age 70:

1). Enhanced Benefit – Defer OAS to 70 and get up to 36% more!

The standard age to take your OAS pension is 65. Unlike CPP, there is no option to take OAS early, such as at age 60. But you can defer it up to 60 months (five years) in exchange for an enhanced benefit.

Deferring OAS to age 70 can be a wise decision. You’ll receive 7.2% more each year that you delay taking OAS (up to a maximum of 36% more if you take OAS at age 70). Note that there is no incentive to delay taking OAS after age 70.

Here’s an example. The maximum monthly payment one can receive at age 65 (as of July 2021) is $626.49. Expressed in annual terms, that equals $7,553.88.

Let’s look at the impact of deferring OAS to age 70. Benefits will increase by 0.6% for each month of deferral, so by age 70 we’ll see a total increase of 36%. That brings our annual OAS pension to $10,273 – an increase of $2,719 per year for your lifetime (indexed to inflation).

2). Avoid / Reduce OAS Clawback

In my experience working with clients in my fee-only practice, retirees are loath to give up any of their OAS benefits due to OAS clawbacks. That means designing retirement income and withdrawal strategies specifically to avoid or reduce the OAS clawback.

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) calls this OAS clawback an OAS pension recovery tax. If your income exceeds $79,845 (2021) then you are required to pay back some or all of the OAS pension you receive from July 2022 to June 2023. For every dollar of income above the threshold, your OAS pension is reduced by 15 cents. OAS is fully clawed back when income exceeds $129,581 (2021).

So, does deferring OAS help avoid or reduce the OAS clawback? In many cases, yes.

One example I’ve come across many times is when a client works beyond their 65th birthday. In this case, they may want to postpone OAS simply because they’re still working and don’t need the income. In some cases, the additional income received from OAS would be partially or completely clawed back due to a high income. Deferring OAS to at least the next calendar year when you’re in a lower tax bracket makes a lot of sense.

Aaron Hector, financial consultant at Doherty & Bryant, says there is a clear advantage to postponing OAS if someone expects their retirement income to push them into the OAS clawback zone.

“Not only will postponement provide them with an enhanced OAS income, it will also in turn provide them with a higher clawback ceiling,” said Mr. Hector.

It might also allow the opportunity to draw down RRSP/RRIF assets between 65 and 70 which would reduce future expected retirement income (lower RRSP/RRIF assets = lower mandatory withdrawals between age 72 and death).

One could also stash any unspent RRSP/RRIF withdrawals into their TFSA. Growing their TFSA in retirement gives retirees the valuable ability to withdraw money tax-free any time and not have that income affect their means-tested benefits (such as OAS).

3). Take OAS at 70 to protect against Longevity Risk

It’s counterintuitive to defer taking pensions such as CPP and OAS (even with an enhanced benefit for waiting) because it forces retirees to tap into their personal savings – depleting their nest egg earlier and faster than they’d prefer. Indeed, people are reluctant to spend their capital.

Rethinking Retirement (RIP) and FIRE

Posted By |

 

By Dale Roberts, cutthecrapinvesting

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Today’s post will weave together retirement as seen in a more traditional sense and those who practice F.I.R.E. – an acronym for financial independence and retire early. In the Globe and Mail Brenda Bouw offered that the COVID pandemic is giving early retirees second thoughts, they’re going back to work. On FiPhysician, Dr. David Graham offers that traditional retirement is dead – RIP. The old approach will fall on its face. We might run out of money before we run out of time. We will also see how Justwealth has crushed mutual funds over the last five years. Enjoy. We’re rethinking retirement on the Sunday Reads.

We’ll start with rest in peace RIP retirement on FiPhysician. Or, is retirement an acronym? Of course on this site Dr. Graham inspired – how does the pandemic end?

Well, with the common cold.

We no longer work til we drop dead

That retirement piece shows how retirement risks have changed. We are no longer working until we drop dead Dr. Graham offers. We are living longer (generally are much more healthy) than past decades and centuries and we will spend decades in retirement. The traditional retirement funding approach used by our parents and grandparents will not get the job done. Traditionally, social security (CPP in Canada) a pension and home value would do the trick. That requires a re-think offers Dr. Graham.

For starters those government pension won’t keep up with ‘real inflation’ compared to what the government reports. Lots of fudging of ‘official’ numbers on that front.

So, with the three-legged stool of traditional retirement, you cannot keep up with inflation over longer periods of time. Retirement is an anachronism because you cannot fund it.

On the future of retirement and how we might best prepare …

Consider that which is currently changing the world of employment: smart phones and the gig economy.

You won’t retire in the future; you will monetize your hobby and have gigs from your smart phone. After all, we must move from a knowledge-based society to a wisdom-based one. Everyone has knowledge at the tip of their fingers all the time. Who has all the wisdom?

So funny, as I am personally living that now, and by design. I am living proof as are many in today’s new normal for “retirement”. I have the portfolio, I monetize any knowledge or wisdom that might have value. Any gov pension will be a bonus that will not be counted on in any meaningful way. We have real estate.

Protect the portfolio from inflation

I am also of the school that we can protect our portfolio income assets from inflation. And research shows that we need the true inflation fighters such as gold and other commodities and real assets. Continue Reading…

New Decumulation option on the horizon in Canada

Posted By |

By Andrew Gillies

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

Employees with a workplace pension plan are part of a lucky minority. In the Canadian private sector, less than 25% of workers currently have an employer pension plan.  Most often, the plan offered is a Defined Contribution (DC) arrangement.

DC plans are appealing to employers because they pose few legal or financial risks. Within a typical DC scenario, both the employee and employer contribute money into the employee’s individual account. Come retirement, the onus is on the employee to figure out how to convert these pension savings into steady income.

Decumulation game not easy to win

The name of this game is “Decumulation.”  It’s not an easy game to win. Retirees of DC plans are at risk of burning through their savings too quickly, leaving them without sufficient income in their later years. Conversely, financially conservative retirees may spend too little of their pension savings at the expense of a comfortable retirement.

One foolproof decumulation option DC retirees have is to buy an annuity from an insurance company. An insured annuity is a financial product that retirees can transfer some or all of their pension savings to in order to receive regular, guaranteed payments until death. The downside? This guarantee doesn’t come cheap. The average retiree who purchases an insured annuity can expect to forfeit as much as 20-30% of their pension savings to pay for the promise of predictable lifetime income with no future upside.

More affordable lifetime annuities

Fortunately, a new more affordable type of lifetime annuity will soon be offered through registered DC plans in Canada, and it’s a game changer. The Variable Payment Life Annuity (VPLA) was recently proclaimed into law and is poised to provide an excellent decumulation option for members of registered DC pension plans.

Within a VPLA framework, investment and mortality risks are pooled amongst many retirees, rather than insured at the individual level. This cooperative approach makes the VPLA significantly less expensive, while still delivering reasonably predictable lifetime retirement income.

The trade off, of course, is the “variable” element of the VPLA as payments may fluctuate due to market volatility or mortality experience within the pool. Still, without an insurance company taking large profits, a VPLA will generally pay out a monthly pension substantially greater (20-30% greater) than a traditional insured annuity while retaining future upside potential. Continue Reading…

Why the 4% Rule doesn’t work for FIRE/Early Retirement

Posted By |

 

By Mark and Joe

Special to the Financial Independence Hub

The 4% rule is a common rule of thumb in many retirement planning circles, including the Financial Independence, Retire Early (FIRE) community in particular.

What does the 4% rule actually mean?

Should the 4% rule be used for any FIRE-seeker?

Does the 4% rule really matter to retirement planning at all?

Read on to find out our take, including what rules of thumb (if any) we’re using at Cashflows & Portfolios for our early retirement dreams.

The 4% rule is really a starting point for a safe withdrawal rate

Unlike 2 + 2 = 4, the 4% rule is not really a universal truth for any retirement plan at all.

It is, however, in our opinion, a great starting point to understand the impacts of asset decumulation, related to inflation, over time.

As you’ll read more about in the sections below, the 4% rule is fraught with many problems. None more so than for an early retiree or FIRE-seeker. In some cases, for the FIRE community, we believe the 4% rule should no longer be used at all.

Are any financial rules really rules?

Backing up, here is the source for the 4% rule.

The article from 1994!

4% rule

Despite the geeky photo, by all accounts, Bill Bengen was one heckuva guy and a smart guy as well!

Potentially no other retirement planning rule of thumb has received more attention over the last 25-30 years than Bengen’s publication about the 4% rule. This publication in 1994 has triggered a new generation of devotees and arm-chair financial planners that are using this quick-math as a way to cement some retirement dreams. We believe that is a mistake for a few reasons.

First, let’s unpack what the 4% rule really means.

What does the 4% rule actually mean?

From the study:

“In Figures 1 (a)-l(d), a series of graphs illustrates the historical performance of portfolios consisting of 50-percent intermediate-term Treasury notes and 50-percent common stocks (an arbitrary asset allocation chosen for purposes of illustration). I have quantified portfolio performance in terms of “portfolio longevity”: how long the portfolio will last before all its investments have been exhausted by
withdrawals. This is an intuitive approach that is easy to explain to my clients, whose primary goal is making it through retirement without exhausting their funds, and whose secondary goal is accumulating wealth for their heirs.”

Unpacking this further, for those that do not want to read the entire study, here is something more succinct from Bengen:

Assuming a minimum requirement of 30 years of portfolio longevity, a first-year withdrawal of 4 percent, followed by inflation-adjusted withdrawals in subsequent years, should be safe.

 

“Should be safe”.

Again, the theory is one thing. Reality is something different and the financial future is always subject to change. Furthermore, if you’re blindly following this formula without considering whether it’s right for your situation, let alone putting in some guardrail approach to monitor your portfolio value at various checkpoints, you could end up either running out of money prematurely or being left with a huge financial surplus that you could have spent during your retirement. We’ll prove that point in a bit from another leading author.

Should the 4% rule be used for any FIRE-seeker?

Probably not. For many reasons.

Recently, Vanguard published an outstanding article about the need to revise any thinking about the 4% rule for the FIRE movement – a driver for this post.

Although the 4% rule remains a decent rule of thumb we believe most FIRE-seekers should heed the cautions in the Vanguard post. Here are some of our thoughts based on the article’s contents.

  • Caution #1 – FIRE-seekers should not rely on past performance for future returns

We agree. In looking at this Vanguard set of assumptions below, and based on our own personal investing experiences, we believe historical returns should not be used to guarantee any future results.

 

Source: Vanguard article – Fueling the FIRE movement

While the FP Canada Standards Council doesn’t have a multi-year (10-year) return model in mind, they did highlight in their latest projection assumption guidelines that going forward, investor returns may not be as juicy as in years past.

 

Source: FP Canada Standards Council.

This means for any historical studies, while interesting, may not be a great predictor of any future outcomes.

  • Caution #2 – The FIRE-seeking time horizon is longer

Bengen noted in his 1994 study:

“Therefore, I counsel my clients to withdraw at no more than a four-percent rate during the early years of retirement, especially if they retire early (age 60 or younger). Assuming they have normal life expectancies, they should live at least 25-30 years. If they wish to leave some wealth to their heirs, their expected “portfolio lives” should be some longer than that. “

Bengen goes on to say:

“If the client expects to live another 30 years, I point out that the chart shows 31 scenario years when he would outlive his assets, and only 20 which would have been adequate for his purposes (as we shall see later, a different asset allocation would improve this, but it would still be uncomfortable, in my opinion).
This means he has less than a 40-percent chance to successfully negotiate retirement–not very good odds.”

To paraphrase, Bengen’s study was relevant to 30 years in retirement. Not 35 years. Not 40 years and certainly not 50 years like some FIRE-seekers may need if they plan to retire at age 40 and live to age 90 (or beyond).

This is simply a huge reminder that your time horizon is a critical factor when it comes to retirement planning.

  • Caution #3 – FIRE-seekers may need to live with more stocks

Bengen’s 1994 study was based on the following:

“Note that my conclusions above were based on the assumption that the client continually rebalanced a portfolio of 50-percent common stocks and 50-percent intermediate-term Treasuries.” Continue Reading…