Skip to main content

Behavioral & Psychological Aspects of the Retirement Decision

An important paper has recently released by the Social Security Administration called Behavioral and Psychological Aspects of the Retirement Decision. It delves into some of the non-financial reasons why people choose to retire when they do. Following are some highlights from the paper.

Many future retirees do not understand the interplay between claiming age and Social Security benefits. Even when they understand the claiming rules, many people claim benefits when it is not economically advisable to do so, as more than half of retirees claim benefits at 62. 

Retirees tend to anchor on ages that have some retirement significance. Why do so many people claim to be "burnt out" at work when they turn 62? Why not 60 or 64 or 68? It's because 62 is the age of eligibility for Social Security benefits. But what if they were to anchor on age 70 instead? Might they push through the burnout, as they would if it occurred at 55 or 60 when retirement clearly was not feasible?

People compare alternatives as either a gain or a loss from the point of reference. When the option to claim benefits at age 68 was framed as resulting in a monetary gain from an age-65 reference point, only 38% of survey respondents chose 68 as the preferred retirement age. But when retiring at 65 was framed as resulting in a monetary loss from the age-68 reference point, 57% chose 68 as the preferred age. This confirms the notion that losses hurt more than the equivalent gains feel good. It also suggests that we might flip our framing of scenarios that involve delaying benefits. Rather than telling clients how much more they'll have if they delay to 70, we might adopt 70 as a reference point and show them how much less they'll have by claiming benefits early. One of the reasons SSA has stopped using the breakeven framework to discuss claiming options with clients is that it was causing clients to claim at 62 so they could start out "ahead." By looking at projected income at specific ages in the future, and by showing them how much less they'll have by claiming at 62, the decision can be framed more accurately.

People do not make accurate predictions of their future emotions. Studies have shown that football fans tend not to be as happy for as long as they would expect after their favorite team wins a big game, nor do they tend to be as unhappy for as long as they would expect following their team's loss. Likewise, pre-retirees think retirement will make them happier for a longer period of time than is actually the case once the initial euphoria wears off and they become bored or miss their friends at work. Conversely, people who hate their jobs tend to overestimate how miserable they actually are, failing to consider upsides such as work perks and the steady paycheck which they now take for granted. In other words, people retire early both because they think working longer will be worse than it is and because they think life in retirement will be better than it is. The grass isn't always that much greener...

People tend to overweight the value of rewards they can receive right away. Studies have shown that when the opportunity to receive a reward (such as money or a prize) is relatively far in the future, people state their intentions to choose a longer, later reward. But as soon as the reward opportunity moves closer to the present, they tend to reverse their preferences and choose the smaller, sooner reward. The closer individuals are to their preferred retirement age, the more future income they are willing to sacrifice in order to retire sooner. In other words, they become more impulsive as they approach retirement. The obvious remedy to this, of course, is to start educate people sooner--at age 50 or 55. Although it is unrealistic pre-commit to a specific retirement age, the previous discussion about reference points suggests that simply having a retirement age in mind may affect retirement behavior.

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

Disciplined diversification works when you do and even when you don't want it to. Diversification in effect forces you to sell the thing that has been doing so well in your portfolio and to buy the thing that hasn't. While this makes rational sense, it is emotionally difficult to execute. Think back to the tail end of 2008--were you selling bonds and cash to buy stocks? Most likely you weren't unless your advisor or some sort of automatic trigger did it for you. Carl Richards of www.behaviorgap.com provided a good reminder of how diversification works in a recent NY Times blog post. The diversification he discusses here is more so related to equity asset-class diversification but also touches on the three basic building blocks--equities, bonds, and cash. He doesn't discuss alternative asset classes -- an asset class that doesn't fit neatly into the three basic categories -- being used to further diversification, but that's a detailed topic for another day.

The Value of Double-Checking & Monitoring Your Retirement Strategy

Motivational speaker Denis Waitley once remarked, “You must stick to your conviction, but be ready to abandon your assumptions.” That statement certainly applies to retirement planning. Your effort must not waver, yet you must also examine it from time to time. 1       Perhaps you may realize that you under-estimated your health insurance costs and will need more retirement income than previously assumed. Or perhaps, with today's low interest rates you are not getting the level of investment returns you counted on. With those factors and others in mind, here are some signs that you may need to double-check your retirement strategy.     Your portfolio lacks significant diversification. Many baby boomers are approaching retirement with portfolios heavily weighted in U.S. equities. As many of them will have long retirements and a sustained need for growth investing, you could argue that this is entirely appropriate. Yet, U.S. equities by some measures may be over-valued by

65-80 Year Olds … A New and Exciting Demography

Should today’s 70-year-old American be considered “old?” How do you define that term these days? Statistically, your average 70-year-old has just a 2% chance of dying within a year. The estimated upper limits of average life expectancy is now 97, and a rapidly growing number of 70-year-olds will live past age 100. Perhaps more importantly, today’s 70-year-olds are in much better shape than their grandparents were at the same age. In most developed countries, healthy life expectancy from age 50 is growing faster than life expectancy itself, suggesting that the period of diminished vigor and ill health towards the end of life is being compressed. A recent series of articles in the Economist magazine suggest that we need a new term for people age 65 to 80, who are generally healthy and hearty, capable of knowledge-based work on an equal footing with 25-year-olds, and who are increasingly being shunted out of the workforce as if they were invalids or, well, “old.” Indeed, the a