Registered Investment Advisor

Scott Burns' Articles -- Recent and Archived
Print Article Email Article

The Realities of Retirement Income

070429.jpgIf there is a mythical god in charge of retirement, it would have to be Janus. Best known as the Roman god with two faces--- one looking forward, one back--- Janus was the master of beginnings and endings.

You and I see this every month in magazines. Advertising offers luxurious retirement condos in Florida and Arizona, world-girdling cruises, and mind-boggling automobiles being enjoyed by energetic silver-haired seniors.

Editorial content looks the other way. It warns us of dementia, incipient poverty, and the inevitability of long-term care.

Is it possible that retirement--- for most people, most of the time--- is somewhere in between?

To explore this, I read two studies--- the 2007 Retirement Confidence Survey done by EBRI, the Employee Benefit Research Institute, and a study by the Social Security Administration, "Income of the Population 55 or Older, 2004." The first is an interesting read. The second is recommended for those whose idea of a good time is reading tide tables, but it contains good data. Here is what I culled from the two reports:

  • Most of us are clueless about retirement. EBRI is too polite to actually say "clueless," but it notes that few workers are aware of the impact of receding pensions. Or of the rising age requirement for full Social Security benefits. Worse, only 66 percent of workers have saved money for retirement. Only 43 percent have attempted to calculate how much money they will need as a nest egg. The best you can say is that collectively we are a cheery bunch, prone to believing that things will work out.
  • We're wrong about our sources of retirement income. Those still working expect that personal savings will provide 50 percent of retirement income. They also that expect employment will provide 11 percent and Social Security only 14 percent. But retirees report that Social Security provides 40 percent, while savings provide only 24 percent. Employment is barely worth mentioning at 2 percent.
  • In spite of this, retirement matches or betters what workers expect. Only 6 percent of workers expected to feel "well-off" in retirement, but 8 percent of retirees felt "well-off." Retirees discovered their post retirement spending compared favorably with their pre-retirement spending. While 20 percent of workers expected and 20 percent of retirees experienced large declines in spending, 55 percent of retirees spent the same, or more.

Post-Retirement vs. Pre-Retirement Spending

This table compares retirement spending levels workers expected with what retirees actually experienced.
Spending level Workers (Expected) Retirees (Actual)
Much lower than before you retired

20%

20%

A little lower

34

24

About the same

34

42

A little higher

8

7

Much higher than before you retired

2

6

Source: Employee Benefit Research Institute
  • In retirement, income falls steadily. The Social Security study figures show that income falls dramatically as people age. The median income for married couples declines from $68,612 at ages 55 to 61 to $28,490 for couples 80 and older. For singles, the decline is less severe, dropping from $24,000 to $13,321 (see table for more figures). Retirees who want to see how they are doing can benchmark themselves by comparing their income with the percentage over $100,000 and the median, or 50th percentile, income.For a variety of reasons, these figures understate actual living standards in retirement. Taxes tend to take a smaller bite in retirement. Also, many seniors have no payment obligations and own their homes mortgage-free. And retirees are likely to spend down their principal as well as the income from their savings as they get older.

The Retirement Income Scoreboard:Benchmarking Income as We Age

This table shows sample income levels for retiree couples and singles as they age.
Household Age 55-61 Age 62-64 Age 65-69 Age 70-74 Age 75-79 Age 80 or older
Median Couple $68,612 $54,899 $44,299 $36,750 $30,413 $28,490
Couples with $100k or more 28.6% 18.7% 15.7% 9.7% 6.0% 5.2%
Median Singles $24,000 $19,032 $15,799 $14,263 $13,929 $13,321
Singles with $100k or more 4.2% 2.9% 1.4% 1.7% 1.1% 0.7%
Source: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/income_pop55/2004/incpop04.pdf
  • Social Security is very important for all but the rich. When you examine the sources of cash income those 65 and older have, income from assets is a much smaller percentage than readers of financial publications would expect. Even for those in the second highest income quintile (incomes higher than 60 percent of all households but lower than 20 percent of all households), Social Security was usually the largest single source of income. In 48 percent of those households, it accounted for 50 percent, or more, of all income.
  • Income from assets, on the other hand, plays a small role for most people. In the bottom 80 percent of all households, income from assets accounted for 50 percent or more of income in less than 4 percent of households. Even in the top 20 percent of all households, asset income accounted for 50 percent or more of all income in only 12 percent of households.
Does that mean we shouldn't save and invest? Hardly. It's simply a reminder that retirement income is primarily a political and social contract event.

On the web:

EBRI Issue Brief No. 304

Income of the Population 55 and Over, 2004

Only published comments... Apr 28 2007, 06:00 PM by scottb


Comments

 

ABModerator03 said:

Perhaps an obvious point, but given the financial dependence of most Americans on SS amd Medicare in retirement, these two issues will dominate our domestic politics looking 10 to 15 years out, as the boomer generation retires. As will become increasingly clear, these issues are real and concrete, not abstractions. The political party that addresses these issues most effectively in the eyes of the American people will also dominate our politics.
April 28, 2007 7:06 PM
 

ABModerator03 said:

Scott,

Looking at the data, it appears that withdrawls from IRA, Keogh, 401k and 403b accounts are classed as retirement income. Since these are mostly personal savings to begin with, for the purpose of your analysis, I think it would be reasonable to reclassify them as income from assets.

If this were done, would it noticably have changed the conclusions?

Bryan
April 29, 2007 9:59 AM
 

ABModerator03 said:

If a retiree gets 50% of his income from Social Security, that doesn't mean that the retiree needs or is dependent on Social Security. The retiree could have a large IRA or a large taxable equity portfolio which throws off little income.

Even if his IRA were worth millions of dollars, a reasonably frugal IRA+Social Security+paid-up-home retiree could easily be getting 50% of income from Social Security in the early years. RMDs would change the picture after age 70, of course.

Similarly, a $1 million taxable equity portfolio would be expected to throw off no more than $18,000/yr in dividends. That could easily be less than one's Social Security pension. This doesn't mean that a retiree who has that equity portfolio and spends only the dividends and his Social Security pension actually needs or is dependent on Social Security.
May 5, 2007 7:27 PM
 

Financial Investment said:

What if we’re not improvident fools? That possibility is suggested by a recent study. It received virtually
August 10, 2007 12:44 PM
 

Financial Investment said:

What if we’re not improvident fools? That possibility is suggested by a recent study. It received virtually

August 17, 2007 3:43 PM

About scottb

Scott Burns has covered the changing world of personal finance and investments for nearly 40 years. Today, he ranks as one of the five most widely read personal finance writers in the country. Scott began his career as a newspaper columnist at the Boston Herald in 1977 where he was also the financial editor. Nationally syndicated in 1981 and now distributed by Universal Press, the column appears in newspapers from Boston to Seattle. In 1985 he joined the staff of the Dallas Morning News where his column quickly became one of the most widely read features in the paper. He left the Dallas Morning News in 2006 to become one of the founders of AssetBuilder and its Chief Investment Strategist. Burns is a graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1962). He has written four books, including "The Coming Generational Storm" (MIT Press, 2004) coauthored with economist Laurence J. Kotlikoff. His fourth book, also coauthored with Kotlikoff, was published in 2008 by Simon & Schuster. The paperback edition will be available in January, 2010.  "Spend Til' the End" uses consumption smoothing to demonstrate the errors of conventional financial planning. His business experience includes working as a staffer for a major consulting company and service as a director and audit chairman of a NASDAQ listed manufacturing company. He and his wife now live in Dripping Springs, a "hill country" town about 25 miles outside of Austin.


Contact Us

Open Monday-Friday
9 a.m. - 5 p.m. (CST)

ph. 972.535.4040
fx. 214.556.3848
Email Us

1255 W. 15th Street Suite 240 Plano, Texas 75075