Skip to main content

Women, Longevity Risk & Retirement Saving

Image
By
Will you live to be 100? If you’re a woman, your odds of becoming a centenarian are seemingly better than those of men. In the 2010 U.S. Census, over 80% of Americans aged 100 or older were women.1
 
Will you eventually live alone? According to the Administration on Aging (a division of the federal government’s Department of Health & Human Services), about 47% of women aged 75 or older lived alone in 2010. If that prospect seems troubling, there is another statistic that also may: while 6.7% of men age 65 and older lived in poverty in 2010, 10.7% of women in that age demographic did.2,3
 
Statistics like these carry a message: women need to pay themselves first. A phrase has emerged to describe all this: longevity risk. As so many women outlive their spouses by several years or more, a woman may need several years more worth of retirement income. So there is a need to consider income sources – and investment strategies – for the years after a spouse passes away. 
 
What does this mean for the here and now? It means contributing as much as your budget allows to your retirement accounts. Procrastination is your enemy and compound interest is your friend. It means accepting some investment risk – growth investing for the long run is looking more and more like a necessity. 
 
You will need steady income, and you will need to keep growing your savings. In 2012, Social Security income represented 50.4% of the average annual income for unmarried and widowed woman aged 65 and older. Having a monthly check is certainly comforting, but that check may not be as large as you would like. The average woman 65 or older received but $12,520 in Social Security benefits in 2012.4 
 
You will likely need multiple streams of income in retirement, and fortunately forms of investment, housing decisions and inherited assets can potentially lead to additional income sources. Your income and your savings must also keep up with inflation. Even mild inflation can exact a toll on your purchasing power over time.
 
Risk-averse investing may come with a price. In 2013, the investment giant Allianz surveyed Americans with more than $200,000 in investable assets and unsurprisingly learned that their #1 priority was retirement savings protection. What did surprise some analysts was their penchant for conservative investing during a banner year for stocks.5
 
Memories of the 2008-09 bear market were apparently hard to dispel: 76% of those surveyed indicated that given the choice between an investment offering a 4% return with protection of principal and an investment offering an 8% return but lacked principal protection, they would take the one with the 4% return.5
 
A substandard return shouldn’t seem so attractive. If your portfolio yields 4% a year and inflation is running at 1% a year (as it is now), you can live with it. Your investments aren’t earning much, but the Consumer Price Index isn’t gaining on you. If consumer prices rise 3.3% annually (which was what yearly inflation averaged across 2004-07), you are barely making headway. You actually may be losing ground against certain consumer costs. If inflation tops 4% (and it might, if interest rates take off later in this decade), you have a real problem.6 
 
Cumulative inflation can really eat into things, as a check of a simple inflation calculator reveals. An $18.99 steak dinner at a nice restaurant in 2000 would cost you $24.54 today given the ongoing tame-to-moderate inflation over the last 14 years. That’s 36.3% more.7 
 
As much as we would like to park our retirement money and avoid risk, fixed-income investments don’t always offer much reward these days. Retirees can feel like they are being punished by low interest rates. Interest rates will rise, but equity investments have traditionally offered the potential for greater returns than fixed-income investments and in all likelihood will continue to do so over time. 
 
Growth investing is a necessary response to longevity risk. After all, you can’t risk outliving your retirement savings. Keeping part of your portfolio in the stock market offers you the potential to keep growing your retirement money, thereby offering you the chance have a larger retirement fund from which to withdraw proportionate income.

This is where retirement planning meets investment management: you must meet your lifestyle expenses over the short term (think cash/bonds) and the longer term (think bonds/stocks). Understanding when you need the money is one of the first steps to building a suitable investment solution tailored to support your lifestyle.

Best Regards,

 
Kevin Kroskey, CFP®, MBA

 
This article adapted with permission from MarketingLibrary.net, Inc.
 
Citations.
1 - census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010_census/cb12-239.html [12/10/12]
2 - aoa.gov/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2011/6.aspx [4/10/14]
3 - aoa.gov/Aging_Statistics/Profile/2011/10.aspx [4/10/14]
4 - ssa.gov/pressoffice/factsheets/women.htm [3/14]
5 - foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2013/10/24/wall-streets-rallying-so-why-are-boomers-so-scared/ [10/24/13]
6 - usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/current-inflation-rates/ [4/10/14]
7 - usinflationcalculator.com/ [4/10/14]
 

Popular posts from this blog

Diversification: Disciplinarian of Disciplinarians

By
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. ...
Read more

2013 Key Tax Proposals

By
On February 13, President Obama's Fiscal Year 2013 budget was released. Follow this link to get a full copy of the   2013 Budget . The   Treasury's Green Book   containing general explanations of the Administration's revenue proposals can be found here. Robert Keebler, a leading professional in the area of tax and estate planning, highlighted some of the key proposals potentially affecting taxpayers below: Extend Bush tax cuts for all but the top two brackets. The only change would be to have the 33% and 35% rates go back to their pre-2001 levels of 36% and 39.6%. Taxpayers in the top two marginal brackets would still benefit from reduced rates on the portion of their income taxed in the lower brackets. Raise the long-term capital gains rate to 20% for single taxpayers making more than $200,000 per year, $250,000 for married taxpayers filing jointly and $125,000 for married taxpayers filing separately. Tax rate on qualified dividends would revert to ordinary income t...
Read more

Should We Go Back on the Gold Standard?

By
If you watched the Republican presidential debates, you might have noticed that a number of  candidates yearn for a return to the gold standard—that is, that every dollar issued by the government would be backed by a comparable value in gold bars that were stashed away in a government vault. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas argued that the dollar should have a fixed value in gold, and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky added that printing money without backing in the precious metal destroys the value of our currency. Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, thinks that if not gold, then the dollar could be pegged to a basket of commodities. All are mostly concerned that printing money will cause runaway inflation.   But there may be several problems with this return to the fiscal system of the late 1800s and early 1900s. One is that inflation has barely budged even as the Federal Reserve Board was piling one QE stimulus on top of another, and the government was adding records amoun...
Read more