We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,608)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (444)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (811)
  • Wink's Articles (360)
  • Wink's Inside Story (277)
  • Wink's Press Releases (125)
  • Blog Archives

  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • The Annuity Imperative

    April 7, 2011 by Bob Seawright

    As retirement nears, return of capital must trump return on capital.

    Research Magazine | April 1, 2011 | By Bob Seawright

    Retirees and near-retirees often wonder whether they should purchase an annuity to provide sustainable lifetime income — in effect, a guaranteed retirement paycheck — that they cannot outlive. Most do not. That’s often a big mistake. No other financial tool converts lifelong savings into lifelong income as efficiently or as safely.

    Since at least the publication of the “Trinity study” (published by three Trinity University professors in The AAII Journal in Feb. 1998), the financial planning community has focused considerable effort trying to create a “safe withdrawal rate” — the amount which may be withdrawn per year for a given period of time, including adjustments for inflation, without leading to portfolio failure.  A “4 percent rule” is the advice most often given for managing this period of portfolio distribution. The analysis commonly assumes something like a 60/40 equities/bonds portfolio with annual returns in the 7-8 percent range, 10 percent volatility and 3 percent inflation.

    Such assumptions are highly optimistic, obviously, in that an annual Dalbar study, based upon mutual fund flows, shows that the average investor’s return on stocks is dramatically less than the return of the S&P 500 index. Professionals have similar difficulties in both the equity and credit markets. Nearly everyone tends to buy high and sell low.

    Of related concern is that the rule and its variants are explicitly designed to finance a consistent spending plan using a volatile investment strategy.

    Consequently, retirees will accumulate unspent surpluses when markets outperform and face spending shortfalls when markets underperform. Moreover, the success of this approach is highly dependent upon portfolio performance early during the distribution period.

    Perhaps most importantly, if obviously, a “safe” withdrawal rate is dependent upon what one’s definition of safe is. Most results assume safety as something like a 90 percent success rate over a set period of time, commonly 25 to 30 years. Unfortunately, with the consequences of failure being so high — being destitute at a time in life when vulnerability is at a peak — a 10 percent failure rate hardly qualifies as anything like safe.

    Limiting the analysis to a set period of time is similarly deceptive on account of longevity trends. Indeed, according to the Society of Actuaries, there is a 39 percent chance that at least one member of a 65-year-old couple today will live to age 90 and a 15 percent chance that one will live to age 95.

    Those statistics suggest that a 25-year plan isn’t remotely good enough for anything like real safety. The reality is that there will be a significant number of catastrophic outcomes using the 4 percent rule. This alleged safe withdrawal rate is anything but.

    On the other hand, income annuities are incredibly powerful tools for providing sustainable lifetime income and are almost surely the most underutilized financial asset in the market today. As a Wharton Financial Institutions Center (WFIC) study has shown, annuities can assure retirees of an income stream for life at a cost as much as 40 percent less than a traditional stock, bond and cash mix. As a different WFIC study points out:

    “Lifetime income annuities may not be the perfect financial instrument for retirement, but when compared under the rigorous analytical apparatus of economic science to other available choices for retirement income, where risks and returns are carefully balanced, they dominate anything else for most situations. When supplemented with fixed income investments and equities, it is the best way we have now to provide for retirement. There is no other way to do this without spending much more money, or incurring a whole lot more risk coupled with some very good luck.”

    The traditional “three-legged stool” of retirement — Social Security, private pensions and personal savings — is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. Americans’ increased concerns about the viability of Social Security and the trend away from defined benefit pension plans raise serious retirement sustainability challenges. A study prepared by Ernst & Young on behalf of the non-profit Americans for Secure Retirement found that those with guaranteed retirement income beyond Social Security are much better prepared for and in retirement. It also found that middle-income Americans entering retirement without a guaranteed source of income beyond Social Security will, on average, have to reduce their standard of living by 32 percent to minimize (but not guarantee) the likelihood of outliving their assets.

    Beginning January 1, 2011, 77 million baby boomers began turning 65, the traditional American retirement age. The Insured Retirement Institute notes that an average of 7,000 people will be turning 65 each day this year, and that by the beginning of 2012 more than 41 million Americans will be age 65 or older. According to the Census Bureau, the number of Americans 65 and older is projected to increase to 69.4 million in 2030 from 35.5 million in 2000. Some of these retirees will spend their last years financially secure, but many will not.

    That’s why income annuities are so vital. As the Ernst & Young report starkly states:

    “Without additional guaranteed lifetime income streams, such as income provided by an annuity, middle-income Americans are at high risk of outliving their financial assets and living their final years in poverty.”

    In an overwhelming number of cases, the proper question isn’t whether or not retirees should purchase an annuity, but rather how much of their assets they should use to purchase an annuity. This approach has been dubbed “product allocation” (as opposed to asset allocation) by retirement expert Moshe Milevsky. A retiree who is afraid of dying before the actuarial tables suggest (a common excuse for avoiding annuities) ought to consider obtaining life insurance or including a “period certain” on an income annuity, which guarantees payment for a set period of years irrespective of death (in exchange for a lower monthly check).

    Accordingly, those who want to be sure that they will have sustainable lifetime income must make sure that they obtain the guarantees that annuities provide. Otherwise, their financial well-being depends, in effect, upon a roll of the dice. Some might win, but others will lose, and the results of losing in this way are particularly dreadful — being broke and wholly dependent upon others for survival.

    Effective retirement planning requires meaningful risk management and, even more importantly, risk avoidance. That means it can’t be a “wish and hope” strategy. The plan actually has to work. There is no margin of error in this regard, especially for the elderly. Simply put, retirees and near-retirees must avoid risking what they cannot afford to lose.

    Retirement planning has two key objectives, which are often in competition: to maximize the rewards of success and to minimize the consequences of failure. As retirement nears, the second must take priority over the first. Accordingly, during this time period, return of capital must trump return on capital.

    The needs of the future suggest that greater risk, greater uncertainty and greater volatility are all possible and perhaps likely. Annuities provide a powerful foundation for any retirement portfolio and are crucial for efficiently providing a guaranty of sustainable retirement income for life. Good financial planning demands that income annuities become and remain a crucial imperative.

    Originally Posted at AdvisorOne on April 1, 2011 by Bob Seawright.

    Categories: Positive Media
    currency