How Much Should You Contribute to Your 401(k)?

Answer: $18,000. If you are over age 50, $24,000.

Those are the maximum allowable contributions and it should be everyone’s goal to contribute the maximum, whenever possible. The more you save, the sooner you will reach your goals. The earlier you do this saving, the more likely you will reach or exceed your goals.

At a 4% withdrawal rate in retirement, a $1 million 401(k) account would provide only $40,000 a year or $3,333 a month in income. And since that income is taxable, you will probably need to withhold 10%, 15%, or maybe even 25% of that amount for income taxes. At 15% taxes, you’d be left with $2,833 a month in net income. That amount doesn’t strike me as especially extravagant, and that’s why we should all be trying to figure out how to get $1 million or more into our 401(k) before we do retire.

I’ve found that most people fall into four camps:
1) They don’t participate in the 401(k) at all.
2) They put in just enough to get the company match, maybe 4% or 5% of their income.
3) They contribute 10% because they heard it was a good rule of thumb to save 10%.
4) They put in the maximum every year.

How does that work over the duration of a career? If you could invest $18,000 a year for 30 years, and earn 8%, you’d end with $2,039,000 in your account. Drop that to $8,000 a year, and you’d only have $906,000 after 30 years. That seems pretty good, but what if you are getting a late start – or end up retiring early – and only put in 20 years of contributions to the 401(k)? At $8,000 a year in contributions, you’d only accumulate $366,000 after 20 years. Contribute the maximum of $18,000 and you’d finish with $823,000 at an 8% return.

I have yet to meet anyone who felt that they had accumulated too much money in their 401(k), but I certainly know many who wish they had more, had started earlier, or had made bigger contributions. Some people will ignore their 401(k) or just do the bare minimum. If their employer doesn’t match, many won’t participate at all.

Accumulators recognize the benefits of maximizing their contributions and find a way to make it happen.

Become financially independent sooner.
Bigger tax deduction today, pay less tax.
Have their investments growing tax deferred.
Enjoy a better lifestyle when they do retire. Or retire early!
Live within their means today.
401(k)’s have higher contribution limits than IRAs and no income limits or restrictions.

Saving is the road to wealth. The investing part ends up being pretty straightforward once you have made the commitment to saving enough money. Make your goal to contribute as much as you can to your 401(k). Your future self will thank you for it!

When Can I Retire?

Posted On August 27, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning /

There are a couple of approaches to determine retirement readiness, and while there is no one right answer to this question, that doesn’t mean we cannot make an intelligent examination of the issues facing retirement and create a thorough framework for examining the question.

1) The 4% approach. Figure out how much you need in annual pre-tax income. Subtract Social Security, Pensions, and Annuity payments from this amount to determine your required withdrawal. Multiply this annual amount by 25 (the reciprocal of 4%), and that’s your finish line.

For example, if you need $3,000 a month, or $36,000 a year, on top of Social Security, you would need a nest egg of $900,000. (A 4% withdrawal from $900,000 = $36,000 a year, to reverse it.) That’s a back of an envelope method to answer when you can retire.

2) Monte Carlo analysis. We can do better than the 4% approach above and give you an answer which more closely meets your individual situation. Using our planning software, we can create a future cash flow profile that will consider your financial needs each year.

Spouses retiring in different years? Wondering if starting Social Security early increases your odds of success? Have spending goals, such as travel, buying a second home, or a wedding to pay for? We can consider all of those questions, not to mention adjust for today’s (lower) expected returns.

The Monte Carlo analysis is a computer simulation which runs 1000 trials of randomly generated return paths. Markets may have an “average” return, but volatility means that some years or decades can have vastly different results. A Monte Carlo analysis can show us how a more aggressive approach might lead to a wider dispersion of outcomes, good and bad. Or how a too-conservative approach might actually increase the possibility that you run out of money.

It tells us your percentage chance of success as well as giving us an idea of the range of possible results. It’s a data set which provides a richer picture than just a binary, yes or no answer to whether or not you have enough money to retire.

Even with the elegance of the Monte Carlo results, the underlying assumptions that go into the equation are vital to the outcome. The answer to not outliving your money may depend more on unknowns like the future rate of return, your longevity, the rate of inflation, or government policy than on your age at retirement. Change one or two of these assumptions and what might seem like a minor adjustment can really swamp a plan when multiplied over a 30 year horizon.

Luckily, we don’t have to have a crystal ball to be able to answer the question of retirement age, nor is it an exercise in futility. That’s because managing your money doesn’t stop at retirement . There is still a crucial role to play in investing wisely, rebalancing, managing withdrawals, and revisiting your plan on an ongoing basis.

While all the attention seems to be paid to risks which might derail your retirement, there is a greater possibility that you will actually be able to withdraw more than 4%. After all, 4% was the lowest successful withdrawal rate for almost every 30 year period in history. It’s the worst case scenario of the past century. In most past retirement periods, you could have withdrawn more – sometimes significantly more – than 4% from a diversified portfolio.

If you are asking “When can I retire?”, we need to meet. And if you aren’t asking that question, even if you are 25, you should still be wondering “How much do I need to be financially independent?” Otherwise, you risk being on the treadmill of work forever, and there may just come a day in the distant future, or maybe not so distant future, when you wake up one morning and realize you’d like to do something else.

Reducing Sequence of Returns Risk

Posted On July 23, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning /

The possibility of outliving your money can depend not only on the average return of the stock market, but on the order of those returns. It doesn’t matter if the long-term return is 8%, if your first three years of retirement have a 50% drop like we had going into March of 2009, your original income strategy probably isn’t going to work. Taking an annual withdrawal of $40,000 is feasible on a $1 million portfolio, but not if your principal quickly plummets to $500,000.

We evaluate these scenarios in our financial planning software and can estimate how long your money may last, using Monte Carlo analysis that calculates the probability of success. For most people retiring in their 60’s, we plan for a 30 year horizon, or maybe a little longer. And while this analysis can give us a rough idea of how sound a retirement plan is, no one knows how the market will actually perform in the next 30 years.

What we do know from this process is that the vast majority of the “failures” occur when there are large drops in the market in the early years of retirement. When these losses occur later on, the portfolio has typically grown significantly and the losses are more manageable. This problem of early losses is called Sequence of Returns Risk, and often identifies a critical decade around the retirement date, where losses may have the biggest impact on your ability to fund your retirement.

There are ways to mitigate or even eliminate Sequence of Returns Risk, although, ultimately I think most people will want to embrace some of this risk when they consider the following alternatives. Sequence of Returns risk is unique to investing in Stocks; if you are funding your retirement through a Pension, Social Security, Annuity, or even Bonds, you have none of this risk.

1) Annuitize your principal. By purchasing an Immediate Annuity, you are receiving an income stream that is guaranteed for life. However, you are generally giving up access to your principal, forgoing any remainder for your heirs, and most annuities do not increase payouts for inflation. While there is some possibility that the 4% rule could fail, it is important to remember that the rule applies inflation adjustments to withdrawals, which double your annual withdrawals over the 30 year period. And even with these annual increases, in 90% of past 30-year periods, a retiree would have finished with more money than they started. The potential for further growth and even increased income is what you give up with an annuity.

2) Flexible withdrawals. The practical way to address Sequence of Returns Risk is to recognize upfront that you may need to adjust your withdrawals if the market drops in the first decade. You aren’t going to just increase your spending every year until the portfolio goes to zero, but that’s the assumption of Monte Carlo Analysis. We can do this many ways:

Not automatically increase spending for inflation each year.
Use a fixed percentage withdrawal (say 4%) so that spending adjusts on market returns (instead of a fixed dollar withdrawal).
Reduce withdrawals when the withdrawal rate exceeds a pre-determined ceiling.

It is easier to have flexibility if withdrawals are used for discretionary expenses like travel or entertainment and your primary living expenses are covered by guaranteed sources of income like Social Security.

3) Asset Allocation. If we enter retirement with a conservative allocation, with a higher percentage in bonds, we could spend down bonds first until we reach our target long-term allocation. Although this might hamper growth in the early years, it could significantly reduce the possibility of failure if the first years have poor performance. This is called a Rising Equity Glidepath.

Other allocation methods include not withdrawing from stocks following a down year or keeping 1-3 years of cash available and then replenishing cash during “up” years.

4) Don’t touch your principal. This is old way of conservative investing. You invest in a Balanced Portfolio, maybe 50% stocks and 50% bonds, and only withdraw your interest and dividends, never selling shares of stocks or bonds. In the old days, we could get 5% tax-free munis, and 3% in stock dividends and end up with 4% income, plus rising equity prices. Since you never sell your stocks, there is no sequence of returns risk. This strategy is a little tougher to implement today with such low bond yields.

Investing for income can create added risks, especially if you are reaching for yield into lower quality stocks and bonds. That’s why most professionals and academics favor a total return process over a high income approach.

5) Laddered TIPS. Buy TIPS that mature each year for the next 30 years. Each year, you will get interest from the bonds (fairly small) and your principal from the bonds that mature that year. Since TIPS adjust for inflation, your income and principal will rise with CPI. It is an elegant and secure solution, with a 3 1/3% withdrawal rate that adjusts for inflation.

The only problem is that if you live past 30 years, you will no money left for year 31 and beyond! So I would never recommend that someone put all their money into this strategy. But if you could live by putting 80% of your money into TIPS and put the other 20% into stocks that you wouldn’t touch for 30 years, that may be feasible.

Except you’d still likely have more income and more terminal wealth by investing in a Balanced Allocation and applying the 4% rule. However, that is a perhaps 90% likelihood of success, whereas TIPS being guaranteed by the US Government, TIPS have a 100% chance of success. (Note that 30 year TIPS have not been issued in all years, so there are gaps in years that available TIPS mature.)

If the market fell 30% next year, would your retirement be okay? How would you respond? What can you do today about that possibility? If you worry about these types of questions, we can help address your concerns about risk, market volatility, and Sequence of Returns.

What we want to do for each investor is to thoroughly consider your situation and look at your risk tolerance, risk capacity, other sources of retirement income, and find the right balance of growth and safety. Although the ideal risk would be zero, you may need substantially more assets to fund a safety-first approach compared to having some assets invested. And that means that for how much money you do have, the highest standard of living may come from accepting some of the Sequence of Returns Risk that accompanies stock investing.

When a 2% COLA Equals $0

Posted On July 16, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning /

Social Security provides Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs) annually to recipients, based on changes to the Consumer Price Index. According to an article in Reuters this week, the Social Security COLA for 2018 should be around 2%. Social Security participants may be feeling like breaking out the Champagne and party hats, following a 0.3% raise for 2017 and a 0% COLA for 2016.

Unfortunately, and I hate to rain on your parade, the average Social Security participant will not see any of the 2% COLA in 2018. Why not? Because of increases in premiums for Medicare Part B. Most Social Security recipients begin Part B at age 65, and those premiums are automatically withheld from your Social Security payments.

Social Security has a nice benefit, called the “Hold Harmless” rule, which says that your Social Security payment can not drop because of an increase in Medicare costs. In 2016 and 2017 when Medicare costs went up, but Social Security payments did not, recipients did not see a decrease in their benefit amounts. Now, that’s going to catch up with them in 2018.

In 2015, Medicare Part B was $105/month and today premiums are $134. For a typical Social Security benefit of $1,300 a month, a 2% COLA (an increase of $26 a month) will be less than the increase for Part B, so recipients at this level and below will likely see no increase their net payments in 2018. While many didn’t have to pay the increases in Part B over the past two years, their 2018 COLA will be applied first to the changes in Medicare premiums.

I should add that the “Hold Harmless” rule does not apply if you are subject to Medicare’s Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amount. If your income was above $85,000 single, or $170,000 married (two years ago), you would already pay higher premiums for Medicare and would be ineligible for the “Hold Harmless” provision. And if you had worked outside of Social Security, as a Teacher in Texas, for example, you were also ineligible for “Hold Harmless”.

The cost, length, and complexity of retirement has gone up considerably in the past generation. Not sure where to begin? Give me a call, we can help. Preparation begins with planning.

Can You Reduce Required Minimum Distributions?

Posted On June 25, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning, Tax Strategies / 1 Comment

After age 70 1/2, owners of a retirement account like an IRA or 401(k) are required to withdraw a minimum percentage of their account every year. These Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) are taxable as ordinary income, and we meet many investors who do not need to take these withdrawals and would prefer to leave their money in their account.

The questions many investors ask is Can I avoid having to take RMDs? And while the short answer is “no, they are required”, we do have several ways for reducing or delaying taxes from your retirement accounts.

1. Longevity Annuity. In 2014, the IRS created a new rule allowing investors to invest a portion of their IRA into a Qualified Longevity Annuity Contract (QLAC) and not have to pay any RMDs on that money. What the heck is a QLAC, you ask? A QLAC is a deferred annuity where you invest money today and later, you switch it over to a monthly income stream that is guaranteed for life. Previously, these types of deferred annuities didn’t work with IRAs, because you had to take RMDs. Luckily, the IRS saw that many retirees would benefit from this strategy and provided relief from RMDs.

Investors are now permitted to place up to 25% of their retirement portfolio, or $125,000 (whichever is less), into a QLAC and not have to pay any RMDs during the deferral period. Once you do start the income stream, the distributions will be taxable, of course.

For example, a 70 year old male could invest $125,000 into a QLAC and then at age 84, begin receiving $31,033 a year for life. If the owner passes away, any remaining principal will go to their heirs. (Source of quote: Barrons, June 26, 2017)

In retirement planning, we refer to possibility of outliving your money as “longevity risk”, and a QLAC is designed to address that risk by providing an additional income stream once you reach a target age. Payouts must begin by age 85. A QLAC is a great bet if you have high longevity factors: excellent health, family history of long lifespans, etc. If you are wondering if your money will still be around at age 92, then you’re a good candidate for a QLAC.

2. Put Bonds in your IRA. By placing your bond allocation into your IRA, you will save taxes several ways:

You won’t have to pay taxes annually on interest received from bonds.
Stocks, which can receive long-term capital gains rate of 15% in a taxable account, would be treated as ordinary income if in an IRA. Bonds pay the same tax rate in or out of an IRA, but stocks lose their lower tax rate inside an IRA. You have lower overall total taxes by allocating bonds to IRAs and long-term stocks to taxable accounts.
Your IRA will likely grow more slowly with bonds than stocks, meaning your principal and RMDs will be lower than if your IRA is invested for growth.

3. Roth Conversion. Converting your IRA to a Roth means paying the taxes in full today, which is the opposite of trying to defer taking RMDs. However, it may still make sense to do so in certain situations. Once in a Roth, your money will grow tax-free. There are no RMDs on a Roth account; the money grows tax-free for you or your heirs.

If you are already in the top tax bracket and will always be in the top tax bracket, doing a Roth Conversion allows you to “pre-pay” taxes today and then not pay any additional taxes on the future growth of those assets.
If not in the top bracket (39.6%), do a partial conversion that will keep you in your current tax bracket.
If there is another bear market like 2008-2009, and your IRA drops 30%, that would be a good time to convert your IRA and pay taxes on the smaller principal amount. Then any snap back in the market, or future growth, will be yours tax-free. And no more RMDs.
Trump had proposed simplifying the individual tax code to four tax brackets with a much lower top rate of 25%, plus eliminating the Medicare surtaxes. We are holding off on any Roth conversions to see what happens; if these low rates become a reality, that would be an opportune time to look at a Roth Conversion, especially if you believe that tax rates will go back up in the future.

4. Qualified Charitable Distribution. You may be able to use your RMD to fund a charitable donation, which generally eliminates the tax on the distribution. I wrote about this strategy in detail here.

5. Still Working. If you are over age 70 1/2 and still working, you may still be able to participate in your 401(k) at work and not have to take RMDs. The “still working exception” applies if you work the entire year, do not own 5% or more of the company, and the company plan allows you to delay RMDs. If you meet those criteria, you might want to roll old 401(k)s into your current, active 401(k) and not into an IRA. That’s because the “still working exception” only applies to your current employer and 401(k) plan; you still have to pay RMDs on any IRAs or old 401(k) accounts, even if you are still working.

We can help you manage your RMDs and optimize your tax situation. Remember that even if you do have to take an RMD, that doesn’t mean you are required to spend the money. You can always reinvest the proceeds back into an individual or joint account. If you’d like more information on the QLAC or other strategies mentioned here, please send me an email or give us a call.

Replacing Retirement With Work/Life Balance

Posted On June 4, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning /

72% of workers over the age of 50 plan to keep working in retirement, according to a 2014 Study. It seems to me we need a new word for “retirement”, because it no longer has the same meaning as it did 50 years or even 20 years ago. And then when we talk about Retirement Planning, people think it doesn’t apply to them.

Today’s workers are redefining how we think about work, life, money, and prosperity. The idea of achieving The Good Life varies from person to person, but there is a rising recognition that our sense of satisfaction and well being comes from a work/life balance and not simply having more money.

The traditional Retirement of working full-time to age 65, collecting your pension, and never working again, is disappearing. This change doesn’t just affect people in their sixties. Workers in their thirties, forties, and fifties are saying “Why should I work 50 hours a week during the prime of my life and not enjoy myself?”

And older adults don’t want to be thrown on the trash heap of obsolescence. They still have much to contribute, enjoy the challenge of work, and want to know that they can make a difference in the world.

The revolution is in how we think about work. People are no longer content to sacrifice their life for a company, career, or 401(k) account. Some call this The New Retirement, and while it does replace our old ideas about Retirement, these approaches have nothing to do with age. You could be 65 or 35 and embracing a whole different approach to work and retirement.

Below are 8 ways people are working and living differently today. Which are you? Which do you want to be? Where is your ideal work/life balance?

1) The Encore Career. Leave behind your practical first career and embark on something that fills you with joy. For some it may be working in the non-profit sector, or on a hobby, or passion. For others, it may be volunteer work if they do not need an income.

2) The Frugals. Many Americans will have to work forever to afford a huge house, new cars, and luxury lifestyle. More people today are rejecting consumerism with the belief that working to try to “Keep up with Joneses” is actually preventing you from enjoying your life. The Frugals are self-reliant and happy to find what they need used, on sale, or go without!

3) The Minimalists. They may live in a tiny house, have a very small wardrobe, or just hate clutter. It is surprising to me how many Minimalists used to have a lot of debt (student loans, car payments, credit cards. mortgages), and made a 180-degree turn to believing that less is more. Simplicity is happiness. Like the Frugals, Minimalists recognize that if you cut your annual expenses from $50,000 to $25,000, you only need half the assets or income to support your needs. That changes your reasons for work.

4) The Part-Timer. Also called the Phased Retirement, it’s a move from working full-time to less than full-time. Many part-timers work just enough to cover their bills. While that sounds spartan, if you are not touching your IRA or 401(k) for years, you are still letting those assets grow! Some companies are happy to have their veteran employees continue part-time, bringing their wealth of experience and knowledge to projects. And for many people, working 10-20 hours a week is the perfect amount to be enjoyable and rewarding, without being exhausting or too stressful.

5) The Retirement Entrepreneurs. Leave behind the 9-5 gig and start your own business as a consultant or by providing a good or service where you have some expertise. Be your own boss, have flexible hours, and work as much or as little as you need. Coupled with a pension, Social Security, or planned withdrawals, and you can still generate plenty of income. Or better yet, “retire” at 50 and use the business to bridge the years until you can tap into those real retirement income sources. In the past, many new businesses were very capital intensive, took long hours (50 hours or more per week), and had high rates of failure. Today’s lifestyle entrepreneurs want the 4-Hour Work Week, to not be an hourly slave, but to make money without huge risks or time commitments. And in the internet age, it can be done!

6) Multiple Income Streams. Many of the most financially secure people I know do not just have one job, they have multiple sources of income. Maybe one job is their main gig, and they also do consulting work, are a Reservist, own real estate, or have a weekend business. This gives you options. If one income stream takes off, you can drop the others and work part-time. In the mean time, you can save aggressively to become independent sooner.

7) The Traveler. Many people want to be able to see the world and spend more time with family. Today, with a laptop and a cell phone, more and more jobs are no longer tied to a desk. Smart people are looking for those positions – or creating them – so that they can work from anywhere. What if you could do your work from the Beach in the winter and the mountains in the summer?

8) The Contract Worker. In many fields, there are needs for short-term positions that may last 1-9 months. Some people will take a contract for 6 months, work hard, and then take off the next 6, 12, or 18 months. They can wait until they find another contract opportunity that interests them.

Francis Bacon said that Money makes a good servant but a bad master. Today more workers are asking how work can support their life and dreams, and not the other way around. They don’t want to be working forever and risk missing out on life. So, let’s put together your budget, look at the numbers, and start making plans. Financial Planning today is no longer just Retirement Planning – it’s helping you achieve your own path to independence, however you want to define it.

Resources for Helping an Aging Parent

Posted On May 28, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning /

Many Americans are helping to care for an aging parent or relative. Even if you’re not today, you may well find yourself in that situation in 5, 10, or 15 years from now. Sometimes that care is directly assisting with daily living, but often that care may be helping someone navigate the challenges of maintaining their independence for as long as possible.

Below are links to resources which can help. Organization and planning are key, and these are areas where a CFP professional like myself can help in ways that go way beyond just managing investments. We’ve organized this into three categories: Planning, Health, and Financial.

PLANNING

The Retirement Problem: What Will You Do With All That Time? From Knowledge@Wharton

Can We Talk? A Financial Guide for Baby Boomers Assisting Their Elderly Parents (book)

10 Tips for Holding a Family Meeting from Psychology Today

HEALTH

Getting Started With Medicare from Medicare.gov

NCQA Health Insurance Plan Ratings for comparing Medicaid Supplement Policies available in your state.

Long Term Care: Costs, How to Pay, Staying in Your Home, from the US Department of Health and Human Services

10 Early Signs and Symptoms of Alzheimer’s from the Alzheimer’s Association

Advance Care Planning from the National Institute on Aging

FINANCIAL

Social Security Retirement Planner

10 Things You Can Do to Avoid Fraud from the FTC

Getting Your Affairs in Order from the National Institute on Aging

Estate Planning for Second Marriages from the American Bar Association

Working with a financial planner is a way to bring a third party to help facilitate important discussions. There are so many vital questions to consider: Where would you like to live as you age? What health issues may impact this decision? Do you have a plan for care or extra help? Who will manage your assets and pay your bills? How will you communicate decisions and wishes to your family?

Planning for health issues, financial objectives, and family communication means parent’s wishes can be honored if or when a crisis occurs. Aging can be very stressful on family members, not to mention potentially a significant financial obligation. I think a lot of us would rather not think about our parents or relatives as aging, but we are doing everyone a disservice if we don’t talk about this and plan ahead.

Extracted from: Planning Concerns for the Aging Population, Susan Korngay, Journal of Financial Planning, April 2017, pp. 27-30.

What is the Best Way to Take Retirement Withdrawals?

Posted On May 21, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning / 1 Comment

If you are looking to retire in the near future or are recently retired, you may be interested to learn that how you take withdrawals from your portfolio may have a dramatic impact on the success of your retirement plan. Here’s a summary of a recent article in the Journal of Financial Planning.

Researchers considered a 60/40 portfolio with 4% withdrawals for retirement to examine different withdrawal strategies. They used historical equity returns since 1970, an assumed 2% rate of return for bonds, 1% in fees, 3% annual inflation increases, and a 30 year retirement horizon. They tested four different ways of withdrawing funds from a $1 million portfolio and calculated the percentage of success of each approach as well as the median portfolio value that was left over at the end of 30 years.

Strategy	Success Percent	Median Ending Value
Spend Stocks First	72%	$912,593
Annual Rebalancing	80%	$730,302
Simple Guardrail	94%	$1,390,418
Spend Bonds First	97%	$4,222,468

Most advisors suggest annual rebalancing. This approach keeps your portfolio pegged at a 60/40 allocation even as 4% annual withdrawals are taken. Note the success rate here was 80%, which means that in 1 out of 5 trials, the strategy failed to provide 30 years of inflation adjusted withdrawals. Annual Rebalancing also had the lowest Median Ending Value, which is important for a cushion if you or your spouse should live longer than 30 years, or if you would like to leave assets to heirs or charity.

The best result was obtained by Spending Bonds First. That means that a retiree would not touch their stocks at all while they spent down their entire 40% in bonds. At 4% withdrawals, it would take about 11 years until you had depleted your bonds and for the following 19 years, you would have a 100% equity portfolio. This type of strategy is sometimes called a “Rising Equity Glidepath” by Michael Kitces and other researchers.

Spending Bonds First might provide the best return because it begins with more than a decade of stock growth, with no withdrawals, which in most periods would have been a significant rate of return. However, this approach is controversial, because most practitioners (and regulators) believe that the typical retiree in their seventies or eighties does not have the risk tolerance to be 100% in equities. But, if you did have the stomach for this type of approach, there is evidence from this article and several others that validates the potential benefits of spending bonds first.

The Simple Guardrail may be easier for most retirees to tolerate and for advisors to adopt because it does not require moving to a 100% equity portfolio. The guardrail is simply this: no withdrawals are taken from stocks following a down year to give them a chance to rebound. The portfolio is also rebalanced back to 60/40 annually. While it doesn’t have the dramatically higher median ending value of Spending Bonds First, the guardrail still offers a noticeable improvement in success versus standard rebalancing, from 80% to 94%.

While Spending Bonds First may offer the best hypothetical results, it may be too aggressive for most retirees. The Simple Guardrail improves results on a more basic premise of giving equities an opportunity to rebound after a down year. In our next down year in equities, we will be talking with clients who are taking distributions about this idea.

The study is interesting, but it assumes one account and does not consider the real world complexities of taxes, multiple types of accounts, or Required Minimum Distributions. We look very thoroughly at each client’s withdrawal strategy to fulfill their income needs in the most efficient manner possible.

Source: Determinants of Retirement Portfolio Sustainability and Their Relative Impacts, DeJong and Robinson, Journal of Financial Planning, April 2017, pp. 54-62.

The Future of Social Security

Posted On May 14, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning /

It seems like the Internet Age has helped create a culture of instant gratification, short attention spans, and sound bites. There is less interest and patience for detailed discussions, long-form journalism, or acknowledging the complex trade-offs of decisions. We have moved into a post-factual world where the truth gets less airplay than spin. Politically, everything is black and white, right or wrong.

Frequently, I see people posting political comments or memes on Facebook about Social Security. These posts are meant to make the other party look like villains, but are often factually incorrect, incomplete, and short-sighted. I avoid getting sucked into these unproductive conversations, but many people could use a better understanding of the numbers and reality of our situation.

We should be having a real, adult conversation about Social Security. It is the future of not only retirement planning, but of our country’s prosperity and debt. I hope this primer below will make the case for why we need to reform Social Security and the challenges we face.

First, it is a myth that Social Security saves your contributions. Social Security is and always has been an entitlement program, like Welfare or Food Stamps. Current taxes are used to pay current benefits. The Social Security taxes you paid in 2015 were paid out to Social Security Beneficiaries in 2015. None of that money was saved for you.

Because of post-WWII demographics, there was for a very long time, a Social Security surplus. They took in more payroll taxes than they paid out in benefits. That annual surplus was invested in the Social Security Trust Fund, to pay a portion of future benefits. It was never the intent or expectation that the Trust Fund would cover all future expenses.

For decades, the Trust Fund saved this surplus. However, in the 1970’s politicians looked for a way to close the budget gap and decided to spend the Trust Fund and replace those assets with IOU’s in the form of Treasury Bonds.

Several years ago, the annual Social Security surplus disappeared and became negative. Today, there is a short-fall where current OASDI taxes are insufficient to cover benefits paid. The short-fall is presently being covered by the Trust Fund through cashing in their Treasury Bonds. This is where all the Facebookers get things wrong – Social Security does have an impact on the deficit. Benefits which are paid from the Trust Fund are now part of our national debt, as new bonds are issued to replace those cashed by the Trust Fund.

Once the Trust Fund reaches zero, the Social Security Administration will be able to cover only 77% of their promised benefits. Every year, the Social Security trustees project when this will occur, presently thought to be 2035. This is the date that Social Security will be insolvent, or “bankrupt”.

People say, But I paid into Social Security, I am OWED those benefits! Unfortunately, the Social Security System is broken and the numbers are simply not going to work. When the program began, there were 16 workers for every retiree. Today, there are 3 workers for every retiree, and that ratio is expected to continue to fall to 2 to 1, before the mid-century.

There are a couple of reasons why this has happened. Demographically, the Baby Boomer generation is enormous and there are thousands of people who are starting benefits every day for the next two decades. When Social Security began, the life expectancy at birth was only 65. Today, if you are already 65, the typical beneficiary will probably live another two decades. The retirement period being funded by Social Security has swelled from a couple of years to 20, 30, or more years because of our increasing longevity.

What originally worked in 1935 isn’t possible with today’s population. Every year, the Trustees tell Congress exactly how to fix Social Security. There are only two options: increase taxes or decrease benefits. There is no magic unicorn of preserving promised benefits and not raising taxes. That’s not how Math works. So when a politician promises that they will not lower benefits, they are either in favor of higher taxes or they are just blowing smoke. If they ignore the issue for long enough, it will become their successor’s problem.

Seniors vote and turn out better than any other age group. Politicians and candidates know this. The easiest attack in politics is to say that your opponent wants to “take away your Social Security check”. Up to this point, that war cry has silenced every politician who has proposed Social Security reform, including the bi-partisan Simpson-Bowles commission which came up with comprehensive solutions.

The present approach from politicians is the worst for America: kick the can down the road and let someone else fix it. Parties are too concerned with maintaining their seats over the next two years (or taking them back), to be willing to think longer-term than the next election cycle. The longer we wait to address the short-fall, the more drastic steps will be required.

Simpson-Bowles proposed increasing the Full Retirement Age from 67 to 69 over several decades. This would have had zero impact on current retirees and gave 20 years notice to future retirees. But even this small change brought the full opposition of the AARP, and ultimately none of the commission’s proposals were ever enacted.

Presently, workers and employers pay OASDI taxes on the first $127,200 of earnings (2017). Raising the income ceiling on Social Security taxes will not be sufficient to fully fund benefits, even if we were to eliminate it entirely. There will probably need to be some reduction in benefits if we are to avoid increasing taxes significantly on all workers. But that doesn’t mean that everyone will see their benefits plummet. Ways to reduce benefits include:

Increasing the Full Retirement Age gradually from 67 to 70
Changing how SS calculates cost of living adjustments (COLAs)
Means-testing benefits
Creating a cap on benefits, say to the first $75,000 in income
Adjusting mortality calculations for today’s increased longevity
Lowering the payout formulas and tying them to future increases in longevity

By the way, increasing immigration and the population of younger people would help retirement programs like Social Security. Look at a country like Japan, which has an even higher percentage of retirees than the US, to see the challenges of financially supporting a large segment of the population. The money that is spent on retirement programs, or to finance the debt of those programs, crowds out other government spending which might be better for economic development.

There is no quick fix or easy solution to save Social Security, but it’s time we expect more from our politicians. Fixing Social Security and Medicare will not be easy or painless, but we need to be thinking now about how we can preserve these programs and ensure their viability for younger workers and future generations. Become an informed voter and be on the lookout for when politicians are using issues as ammunition to lob at their opponents, rather than looking at solutions for America. Likes is the one of the most important reactions that a TikTok creator can get for their videos. You feel much more appreciated, when you notice a dramatic growth of the number of free TikTok likes you get. Obviously, TikTokers of all levels are looking for the opportunities to increase the number of likes they get. In this article we will share this information! Here are some tips: Catchy description; Follow the trends; Post videos daily and Paid Promotion. Paid promotion is one of the most effective ways to get more TikTok likes. However, choose the trusted providers wisely, such as tiktoknito.com.

Social Security Planning: Marriage, Divorce, and Survivors

Posted On April 29, 2017 By Scott Stratton, CFP(R), CFA In Retirement Planning /

The Social Security Statement you receive is often incomplete if you are married, were married, or are a widow or widower. Your statement shows your own earnings history and a projection of your individual benefits, but never shows your eligible benefits as a spouse, ex-spouse, or survivor.

In general, when someone is eligible for more than one type of Social Security benefit, they will receive the larger benefit, not both. But how are you supposed to know if the spousal benefit is the larger option? Social Security is helpful with applying for benefits, but they don’t exactly go out of their way to let you know in advance about what benefits you might receive or when you should file for these benefits.

The rules for claiming spousal benefits, divorced spouse benefits, and survivor benefits are poorly understood by the public. And unfortunately, many financial advisors don’t understand these rules either, even though Social Security is the cornerstone of retirement planning for most Americans. Today we are giving you the basics of what you need to know. With this information, you may want to delay or accelerate benefits. The timing of when you take Social Security is a big decision, one which has a major impact on the total lifetime benefits you will receive.

1) Spousal Benefits. If you are married, you are eligible for a benefit based on your spouse’s earnings, once your spouse has filed to receive those benefits. If you are at Full Retirement Age (FRA) of 66 or 67, your spousal benefit is equal to 50% of your spouse’s Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). If you start benefits before your FRA, the benefit is reduced. You could start as early as age 62, which would provide a benefit of 32.5% of your spouse’s PIA. Calculate your benefit reduction here.

If your own benefit is already more than 50% of your spouse’s benefit, you would not receive an additional the spousal benefit. When you file for Social Security benefits, the administration will automatically calculate your eligibility for a spousal benefit and pay you whichever amount is higher. A quick check is to compare both spouse’s Social Security statements; if one of your benefits is more than double the other person’s benefit, you are a potential candidate for spousal benefits.

If your spouse is receiving benefits and you have a qualifying child under age 16 or who receives Social Security disability benefits, your spousal benefit is not reduced from the 50% level regardless of age.

Please note that spousal benefits are based on PIA and do not receive increases for Deferred Retirement Credits (DRCs), which occur after FRA until age 70. While the higher-earning spouse will receive DRCs for delaying his or her benefits past FRA, the spousal benefit does not increase. Furthermore, the spousal benefit does not increase after the spouse’s FRA; it is never more than one-half of the PIA. If you are going to receive a spousal benefit, do not wait past your age 66, doing so will not increase your benefit!

2) Divorced Spouse Benefits. If you were married for at least 10 years, you are eligible for a spousal benefit based on your ex-spouse’s earnings. You are eligible for this benefit if you are age 62 or older, unmarried, and your own benefit is less than the spousal benefit. A lot of divorced women, who may have spent years out of the workforce raising a family, are unaware of this benefit.

Unlike regular spousal benefits, your ex-spouse does not have to start receiving Social Security benefits for you to be eligible for a benefit as an ex-spouse, as long as you have been divorced for at least two years.The ex-spouse benefit has no impact on the former spouse or on their subsequent spouses. See Social Security: If You Are Divorced.

If you remarry, you are no longer eligible for a benefit from your first marriage, unless your second marriage also ends by divorce, death, or annulment.

A couple of hypothetical scenarios, below. Please note that the gender in these examples is irrelevant. It could be reversed. The same rules also apply for same-sex marriages now.

a) A man is married four times. The first marriage lasted 11 years, the second lasted 10 years, the third lasted 8 years, and his current (fourth) marriage started three years ago. The current spouse is eligible for a spousal benefit. The first two spouses are eligible for an ex-spouse benefit, but the third is not because that marriage lasted less than 10 years. A person can have multiple ex-spouses, and all marriages which lasted 10+ years qualify for an ex-spouse benefit!

b) A woman was married for 27 years to a high-wage earner, and they divorced years ago. She did not work outside of the home and does not have an earnings record to qualify for her own benefit. She is 66 and unmarried, so she would qualify for a benefit based on her ex-spouse’s record.

However, if she were to marry her current partner, she would no longer be eligible for her ex-spousal benefits. If the new spouse was not receiving benefits, she could not claim spousal benefits until he or she filed for benefits. Additionally, if the new partner is not a high wage earner, her “old” benefit based on the ex-spouse may be higher! Some retirees today are actually not remarrying because of the complexity it adds to their retirement and estate planning. And in some cases, there is an actual reduction in benefits by remarrying.

3) Survivor Benefits. If a spouse has already started their Social Security benefits and then passes away, the surviving spouse may continue to receive that amount or their own, whichever is higher. The survivor’s benefit can never be more than what they would receive if the spouse was still alive.

If the deceased spouse had not yet started benefits, the widow or widower can start survivor benefits as early as age 60, but this amount is reduced based on their age (See Chart). Widows or widowers who remarry after they reach age 60 do not have their survivorship eligibility withdrawn or reduced.

One way to look at the survivorship benefit: which ever spouse has the higher earnings history, that benefit will apply for both spouse’s lifetimes. The higher benefit is essentially a joint benefit. For this reason, it may make sense for the higher earner to delay until age 70 to maximize their benefit. If their spouse is younger, is in terrific health, and has a family history of substantial longevity, it may be profitable to think of the benefit in terms of joint lifetimes.

Additionally, Social Security offers a one-time $255 death benefit and also has benefits for survivors who are disabled or have children under age 16 or who are disabled.

The challenge for planning is that none of these three benefits – spousal, ex-spouse, or survivor – are indicated on your Social Security statement. So it is very easy to make a mistake and not apply for a benefit. I like for my clients to send me a copy of their Social Security statements, and I have to say that more than half of the clients I have met don’t understand how these benefits work, even if they are aware that they are eligible.

Social Security Administration: it’s time to fix your statements. You can do better.