Richard Staves, an investment adviser representative from Cherry Creek Wealth Management Inc., has affiliated with Redhawk Wealth Advisors for wealth management and retirement plan services.
Staves specializes in tax and financial planning and is
currently the managing member of Cherry Creek Wealth Management Inc. He also
runs a private certified public accountant (CPA) practice. His role at Cherry Creek, and now Redhawk,
involves assisting high net worth clients, retirement plans and businesses in the areas of tax and estate planning,
trusts and gifting, wealth management, employee benefits, insurance and
investment portfolio management.
Staves began his career with accounting firm Arthur Andersen
& Co. and later started his own accounting practice, which subsequently
developed into a full financial services firm and merged with Wells Fargo. He
is a former vice president and senior wealth adviser with the Wells Fargo
Wealth Management Group.
Under the new affiliate arrangement, Staves’ firm gains
access to Redhawk’s retirement tools and applications, including back-office
and service delivery support, as it works to grow Redhawk’s advisory footprint.
Redhawk Wealth Advisors Inc. is a Securities and Exchange
Commission-registered investment adviser (RIA) firm based in Minneapolis,
Minnesota. The firm provides wealth management, retirement plan services, and
practice management support to independent adviser representatives and their
clients.
Americans’
confidence in their ability to afford a comfortable retirement has recovered
somewhat from the record lows of the past five years, according to the 24th
annual Retirement Confidence Survey (RCS).
The survey from the Employee Benefit Research Institute
(EBRI) shows 18% are now very confident (up from 13% in 2013), while 37% are
somewhat confident. Twenty-four percent are not at all confident (statistically
unchanged from 28% in 2013).
This increased confidence is observed almost exclusively
among those with higher household income, but confidence was also found to be
strongly correlated with household participation in a retirement plan
(including an individual retirement account (IRA)). Nearly half of workers
without a retirement plan were not at all confident about their financial
security in retirement, compared with only about one in 10 with a plan.
Ninety percent of workers participating in a retirement plan
had saved for retirement, compared with just one in five of those without a
retirement plan. Cost of living and day-to-day expenses head the list of
reasons why workers do not save (or save more) for retirement, with 53% of workers
citing these factors.
Having
a retirement account matters—both in terms of retirement confidence and in
terms of preparation, Nevin Adams, director of Education and External Relations
at EBRI, and co-author of the RCS report, tells PLANADVISER. “The 2014 RCS
found that respondents with a retirement account were about twice as likely to
have done a retirement needs calculation and to have received professional
investment advice—activities traditionally associated with higher levels of
preparation and confidence. Those who had a retirement account were also
more likely to have set higher savings goals, and to have found retirement to
be about the same or better than expected.”
Retiree confidence in having a financially secure
retirement, which historically tends to exceed worker confidence levels, has
also increased, with 28% very confident (up from 18% in 2013) and 17% not at
all confident (statistically unchanged from 14% in 2013).
There is evidence that workers acknowledge their savings
shortfalls for retirement. One-third (32%) say they need to save up to 20% of
their total household income in order to live comfortably in retirement.
However, many report the need to save an unmanageable level of income for
retirement. Twenty-two percent say they think they need to save between 20% and
29% of their income, and another 22% indicate they need to save 30% or more.
Those without a retirement plan (whether an IRA, defined contribution, or
defined benefit) on a household level are more likely than those with a plan to
think they need to save at least 50% of their income (23% vs. 8%).
Greg Burrows, senior vice president of retirement and investor
services at The Principal Financial Group, an underwriter of the study, tells PLANADVISER
there is an increasing trend in the study of the amount workers think they need
to save. He attributes this, in part, to the lack of use of calculators to help
them gain a reasonable understanding about how much to save. The study shows
only four in 10 use them and those who use them tend to be more confident in
their ability to save for a comfortable retirement.
The RCS found only 44% of workers report they and/or their
spouse have tried to calculate how much money they will need to have saved by
the time they retire so that they can live comfortably in retirement, a level
that has held relatively consistent over the past decade. Workers who have done
a retirement savings needs calculation (compared with those who have not) tend
to have higher levels of savings.
Having
a plan available to them also affects whether workers seek professional advice,
Burrows notes. Among those who do have a plan, about 35% use professional
advice, compared to about 5% among those who do not have a plan. “It’s an
important component to plan sponsors doing the right thing for participants,”
he says.
Roughly one in five workers and 25% of retirees report they
have obtained investment advice from a professional financial adviser who was
paid through fees or commissions, according to the RCS. Twenty-seven percent of
workers who obtained advice say they followed all of it, but more only followed
most (36%) or some (29%). Retirees are more likely to report following all of
the advice (38%). Among those who did not follow all the advice, one-third said
they didn’t trust it, and others had their own ideas or goals or perceived they
couldn’t afford to do what they were told to do.
Amid federal budgetary concerns and questions about the
efficacy of the tax preferences currently provided to workplace retirement
savings plans, some in Congress and elsewhere have proposed changing those
preferences. Respondents to the 2014 RCS were asked how they would respond if
the law were changed such that they could no longer contribute to
employer-sponsored retirement savings plans on a pretax basis, but if instead
contributions and subsequent earnings on those contributions were not subjected
to additional taxes at withdrawal—basically transforming the current 401(k)
structure to a Roth 401(k) approach. Two-thirds (65%) of plan participants said
they would continue to contribute at their current rate, while 16% reported
they would increase their contribution to the plan. Just 10% indicated they
would reduce the amount they contribute to the plan, and 5% percent said they
would stop contributing altogether. While the sample size is extremely small,
one in 10 of those with income less than $35,000 indicated an intention to stop
contributing under these circumstances.
However, Burrows says it is not clear how participants will
actually react if such legislation is passed, regardless of the survey
response. In The Principal’s own client base, about half of clients offer a
Roth feature in their defined contribution plans, but only 5% of participants
utilize this.
The bottom line is employees are more confident in being
able to save for a comfortable retirement if they have a plan available to
them. So, Burrows suggests, if an employer doesn’t have a plan, it needs to
implement one, and if an employer does have one, it needs to use packaged
automation features—automatic enrollment at a 6% default deferral, 1% deferral
increases per year and default into an asset allocation fund. “Use plan design
to drive optimum savings behaviors,” he concludes.
Results
of the 24th annual RCS, conducted by the Employee Benefit Research Institute
(EBRI) and Greenwald & Associates, Inc. are published in the March 2014
EBRI Issue Brief, available online at www.ebri.org.
Several fact sheets, detailing various aspects of the survey’s findings, are
also available. The survey was underwritten by nearly two dozen organizations.