‘Unfounded Optimism’ Noted in Schwab Survey

Results from the Charles Schwab Money Myths survey show a prevailing sense of overconfidence and unfounded optimism among U.S. workers planning for finances after age 50.

The survey reached a nationally representative sample of 998 respondents, ages 30 to 79, with an annual household income of at least $35,000. Researchers say the results show many common money misconceptions that may lead to inappropriate decisionmaking—especially when it comes to such subjects as carrying debt into retirement and working late into life.

Schwab researchers also point to troubling statistics that show in most marriages, one spouse shoulders the primary responsibility for financial planning and the other spouse has minimal involvement. This can have serious ramifications in the event of an unexpected death or divorce.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

While a majority of survey respondents (52%) identified themselves as “very” or “extremely” savvy about personal finance, this population was more likely to agree with a number of money misconceptions, indicating a possible gap between perceived and actual financial knowledge.

The survey also shows that while roughly three out of four Americans (76%) believe it is harder to plan for retirement now than it was for their parents’ generation, they may be overly optimistic about their financial options in the future. For instance, 39% of survey respondents who are still in the work force expect to receive income from a part-time job in retirement, Schwab says, yet only about 4% of current retirees actually do so.

“People want to make good decisions about money and many believe they’re on the right track with their finances, but often they just don’t know what they don’t know,” says Carrie Schwab-Pomerantz, senior vice president of Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. “These blind spots can lead to missteps that can undermine the best-laid plans.”

Common Money Myths

The Schwab survey suggests many Americans operate under money misconceptions, indicating more guidance is needed for important financial decisionmaking. Here’s a rundown of the most prevalent misconceptions described by Schwab researchers:

  • “A will is the best way to ensure your property will be distributed the way you want.” – More than nine in 10 (91%) respondents agreed with this statement, but Schwab researchers point out that a will is often not sufficient to completely control the distribution of assets—especially those in retirement and brokerage accounts. If there is a discrepancy between the beneficiaries named on financial accounts and those named in a will, the beneficiary designations on the financial accounts will prevail, Schwab says.
  • “It’s important to eliminate all debt by the time you retire.” – Not necessarily, Schwab says. Researchers point out that there is “good debt” and “bad debt.” Good debt means lower interest, tax-deductible debt like a mortgage loan. Bad debt means high-interest, non-deductible consumer debt like credit cards. Nearly nine in 10 respondents (88%) agreed with this statement.
  • “After you retire, you can always get another job if you need more money.” – Schwab warns that growing competition in the job market, corporate downsizing and personal health issues make this far more challenging than expected for most retirees. Again, just four in 100 current retirees report holding a part-time job, yet 79% of respondents agreed that working in retirement is a feasible option to address longevity risk.
  • “Every adult should have life insurance.” – Life insurance isn’t for everyone, Schwab argues, but 78% of respondents answered otherwise. Among those who most likely need life insurance are people with minor children or other dependents. Small business owners are also often counseled to carry life insurance, but if a worker doesn’t have dependents, life insurance may be a waste of resources.
  • “You should start taking Social Security as soon as you’re eligible.” – In general, most people leave money on the table because they file too early, Schwab says. The earlier the filing, the smaller the monthly payment that will be received for life. To make the best personal decision, it’s best to crunch the numbers with a skilled adviser, but 52% of respondents erroneously agreed that the earlier the claim, the better.
  • “Retirees shouldn’t have their money in the stock market.” – Nearly four in 10 (38%) respondents agreed with this sentiment, but Schwab points out that stocks are an important part of most portfolios. It’s often appropriate to gradually decrease the percentage of stocks as a worker gets older, but a diversified selection of individual stocks, or stock mutual funds or exchange-traded funds provides the best protection against inflation over the years.

The Importance of Family Finances

Over the last 50 years, the financial world has changed dramatically, researchers explain. Increased life expectancy, the continued demise of the pension plan and the prospect of rising health care costs require Americans to work longer and save more.

Despite a more challenging retirement landscape, nearly one in three survey respondents indicated that they do not seek input from anyone when making financial decisions. Similarly, 43% believe that it’s better for one adult in a household to have primary responsibility for the family’s financial planning and decisionmaking, as opposed to sharing the responsibility across the household, and one in five also say they don’t need to worry about the household finances because they are handled by someone else.

Also of interest in the findings, Schwab says, is that more than twice as many women (13%) as men (5%) say they are not the primary financial decision-maker in their household.

“It’s so important for both adults in a household to be involved in the important money management decisions,” says Schwab-Pomerantz. “In far too many marriages, one spouse shoulders the primary responsibility and the other spouse has minimal involvement. In the event of death or divorce, the ramifications of this can be devastating.”

More information on the “Money Myths” survey is available at www.aboutschwab.com.

Companies Focus on Elective Deferred Compensation

When it comes to executive retirement arrangements, a recent study reveals a continued emphasis by U.S. companies on elective deferred compensation.

Towers Watson finds that such arrangements allow executives to control the timing of the taxation of incentive payouts and are therefore seen as a critical component of the overall executive wealth accumulation opportunity.

The study of executive retirement benefit practices during 2013, “Executive Retirement Benefits: Recent Actions and Design Considerations,” examines the design and prevalence of non-qualified retirement plans in U.S. organizations. Topics covered include the types of plans offered, the level of benefits provided to a typical executive and the prevalence of key benefit provisions.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Although the percentage of U.S. employers that sponsor non-qualified defined benefit retirement plans (NQDBs) continues to decline, reflecting the closing or freezing of many broad-based DB plans, most of the organizations queried for the study (71%) continue to provide some type of employer-paid arrangement. This includes NQDBs or non-qualified defined contribution plans (NQDCs). On average, these plans deliver an additional 5% to 7% of earnings in annual retirement income to the typical mid-level executive.

The study finds that for 2013, the majority of organizations (72%) also provided elective deferral arrangements (EDAs) without any employer matching contributions. While the percentage of organizations offering EDAs has declined slightly in recent years, these plans remain the most prevalent type of non-qualified retirement arrangement.

According to study, these plans are taking on added importance for many high-level workers and many organizations are putting more emphasis on communicating to their executives that the EDA is a significant part of their long-term capital accumulation opportunity. However, Towers Watson notes that proposed tax reforms submitted recently to Congress could decrease the tax advantages of non-qualified deferred compensation programs.

The study also finds that:

  • About half of the organizations that continue to sponsor employer-paid non-qualified plans (DB or DC) offer pure “restoration” benefits only (i.e., the minimum level of benefits necessary to restore those lost as a result of statutory limits on benefit levels or the amount of pay that can be taken into account in benefit formulas). True supplemental executive retirement plans (i.e., plans that provide benefits in excess of pure restoration) continue to be more prevalent among organizations that sponsor NQDB plans.
  • NQDB plans are more likely to include annual incentive compensation in determining benefits than are NQDC plans in calculating employer contributions.
  • While most non-qualified retirement plans cover broad groups of executives, 20% of the organizations studied provide supplemental individual retirement benefit arrangements for one or more of the named executive officers. These one-off arrangements are generally designed to compensate mid-career hires for any loss in benefit value due to their change in employment.
  • In terms of income replacement, the median level of retirement benefits (including from qualified and non-qualified plans and Social Security) provided for an average mid-level executive is 30% of total cash earnings at age 62 and 37% at age 65.
  • Although there’s no requirement to disclose whether and how nonqualified plans are funded, data from the study shows that 17% of organizations with NQDB plans and 23% of those with NQDC plans use some type of funding vehicle to secure their non-qualified retirement plan arrangements. The most commonly disclosed funding vehicle is a “rabbi” (or grantor) trust. Although the publicly disclosed data is limited, the study suggests that company interest in funding non-qualified liabilities continues to be high and that 50% or more of organizations that sponsor these plans set aside some assets to secure the benefits, often using company-owned life insurance or mutual funds.

The study also reveals that the ongoing shift toward DC approaches for broad-based populations has not translated into a corresponding shift in employer contributions toward non-qualified arrangements for executives. This is evidenced by a net decline in non-qualified employer-paid plan sponsorship, according to Towers Watson. Employers may be using other reward elements (e.g., enhanced long-term incentives) and expanded elective deferral opportunities to compensate for the reduction in traditional employer-paid non-qualified retirement benefits, although the study notes there is no specific data on the extent to which such replacement is taking place.

The study focused on the executive retirement practices in 352 organizations and compares the current state (through mid-year 2013) with research findings from 2009 and 2011, based on company proxy disclosures.

More information about the study, including where to download it, can be found here.

«