Issue: 354
Sent: 15-09-2009 11:47:02
In this issue:

Investing in Australian DrugsEmail Marketing Business Opportunity - Helen BairstowRetire, then what - 2The Easiest way to do a Client NewsletterWhy Warren Buffett won't buy a NewspaperAverage Returns and Adviser QualificationsHow do I use ATC articles for my clients?
Return to full article list
HomeFree weekly newsletterSelf Managed Super Fund ArticlesContact usLogin AllThingsConsidered.biz

Retire, then what - 2

Click here to buy - A How To Book of SMSF's by Tony Negline
Lester Wills

Last time I referred to a report from Wharton concerning a conference focusing on the post retirement years and how people manage their finances. I will be continuing with that theme in this article.

Much of the conference research touched on how to avoid outliving assets in retirement. Olivier Mitchell, executive director of Wharton's Pension Research Council, commented that accumulation type annuity products have been around a long time, but little attention has been devoted to payout annuities. As she said, "Now that boomers are reaching the crucial realization that retirement is no longer a dream but soon a reality, the question arises as to how people will avoid outliving their assets."

What they found was that inflation-linked lifetime income annuity products have become an important part in many boomer portfolios. However, as she went on to comment, the challenge is to get boomers to understand how long they may actually survive in retirement, and then how to protect against living too long. As she so rightly says, only then will it be possible to get boomers to take longevity risk seriously.

I recall previous work that I was associated with looking at why people did not like the idea of annuities. More recent research in the US found a number of reasons why people do not like annuities, i.e.

The above list is remarkably similar to our findings in Australia. I also recall that many/most people had little or no understanding of annuities with the major concern being that the provider would simply take all their money leaving nothing for them to pass on. Sadly I doubt this lack of knowledge has changed very much since that time.

However, a radically new approach was suggested by William Sharpe (as in the winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics). He argued that traditional retirement security strategies are split into two parts: an investment strategy and a spending policy. He argued that these actually need to be interlocked and integrated suggesting that if they are not, it is not possible to achieve results that are as good as the client deserves.

Sharpe's research team proposed a "lockbox" strategy in which fractions of initial wealth are allocated to virtual accounts, or lockboxes. The money in each lockbox is independently invested, and each year the retiree spends only the contents of that lockbox designated for that year. He explained that "the point is that each lockbox has a strategy which is efficient vis-a-vis its year of maturity. Therefore, the whole thing is efficient."

Sharpe said the "lockbox" concept also protects against age-related problems in savings and retirement spending. "The lockbox maximizes my expected utility at my current age versus 20 years older, or dead. I don't want to wait until I get there because I'll be drooling and I won't know what utility it is. It allows me to think now about the future me and act in loco parentis for my senile and elderly self."

Definitely a different approach and one that deserves thinking about, especially given who is proposing it.

Finally, in her concluding comments, Olivier Mitchell noted deferred annuities have been mandated by the government in Germany and the UK, to protect people against running out of money too soon. It is also worth remembering that Australia is one of the few countries that pays out its retirement benefits as a lump sum and then allows people to do what they wish with it. I would suggest that the approach has to change but whether it does is another matter as it will take a significant amount of backbone for politicians to change the current practice.

For those either wish to read the full article or who wish to subscribe to the Wharton newsletters please go to http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=1755


Share this article
Click to share this article on Facebook Click to share this article on Twitter

Previous article         Next article

 
If you liked this article and would like more by email, subscribe! It's free.

[Bold fields are required]

Your details

Your alternate email address is used only if messages to your primary email address are returned to us.

Industry

Do you work in the financial services industry?

This email is general in nature only and does not constitute or convey specific or professional advice. Legislation changes may occur quickly. Formal advice should be sought before acting in any of the areas discussed. Be aware that the information in these articles may become innaccurate with time. Responsibility is disclaimed for any inaccuracies, errors or omissions. Particular investments are neither invited nor recommended and hence this publication is not "financial product advice" as defined in Section 766B of the above legislation. All expressions of opinion by contributors are published on the basis that they are not to be regarded as expressing the official opinion of any other person or entity unless expressly stated. No responsibility for the accuracy of the opinions or information contained in the contributor's articles is accepted by any other person or entity. Copyright: This publication is copyright. If you wish to reproduce this article you require a license, which can be purchased here, to do so.

 
 
Site design by Raycon