Determining Realistic Retirement Income Adequacy

A DCIIA forum reviewed tactics on calculating future retirement income. 

The Defined Contribution Institutional Investment Association (DCIIA) hosted an Academic Forum session measuring retirement income adequacy for participants and retirees.

David Blanchett, head of retirement research at Morningstar Investment Management, began the session by discussing the issue with retirement income adequacy algorithms. Even if participants have a good retirement income estimate, it’s unlikely to be correct, he said. “Replacement rates will target 70% even if that’s not what you’re looking for,” he added. “It can be a good starting point, but you have to try and figure out what you want to spend and be realistic.”

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

He urges financial plan advisers to ask about specific details related to the participant’s current day-to-day life—think about family size, home equity, income levels, etc. More importantly, ask how much the participant wants to spend in retirement, because even if an adviser has all of the participant’s information, it might not match what their aspirational goal actually is. “The ideal way is to get someone to tell you what they want their plan to be and then get them to that target,” he said.

Bonnie-Jeanne MacDonald, director of financial security research at the National Institute of Ageing at Ryerson University, found in her research that conventional replacement rates and living standards continuity were poorly correlated, at just 11%. “Around the world, our pension systems are based on assumptions. … [It] doesn’t tell us anything about retirement income adequacy,” she said.

MacDonald noted that replacement rates only use employment earnings to determine a standard of living. While earnings are a vital factor in measuring future income, it’s not the sole factor, she said. Look at a participant’s spouse’s earnings, government transfers, investment outcomes, house ownership, debt, tax-exempt savings and more. “All of these components can make a big difference to people’s living standards,” she said. “There’s no percentage that will capture this entire picture. It’s not whether or not the 70% is too big or too small—it’s insufficient information.”

A first step financial advisers should take when projecting retirement income is calculating current living expenses. Determine how much money workers are spending today and compare that with how much they can spend in retirement. Step two is projecting what the participant will likely spend while retired. This kind of information encourages the client to think through their spending habits, MacDonald pointed out. “Because it’s a cash flow, this resonates with people and they can begin asking themselves those questions on how they can fill that gap,” she said.

This tactic can even benefit younger workers, who could be two or three decades away from retirement. “For younger people, it’s going to give them an indication of the direction that they’re going to. It’s a good tool for financial literacy, because it helps people understand how retirement income works,” MacDonald added.

$2.5M Settlement Reached in Teva Pharma Fee Case

The settlement is a victory for the increasingly well-known law firm Capozzi Adler, which has filed numerous ERISA excessive fee lawsuits in the past several years.

A joint settlement agreement motion has been filed in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) excessive fee lawsuit targeting Teva Pharmaceuticals USA.

News of the settlement comes nearly eight months after the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected the defense’s motion to dismiss the suit. The agreement includes no admission of wrongdoing on the part of the Teva defendants, but the firm will pay $2.55 million to end the litigation. The agreement also includes an upper limit on the attorneys’ fees that can be paid to the plaintiffs’ legal representatives, set at $850,000.

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

In the underlying suit, the plaintiffs—three former employees of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA—claimed that the defendants breached their ERISA fiduciary duties by imprudently managing the company’s retirement plan. Distinguishing this challenge from other ongoing fiduciary breach lawsuits is the fact that the plaintiffs did not challenge the performance of any plan investment. Rather, their claims focused more on the fees paid by the plan’s participants, alleging the defendants violated ERISA’s duties of prudence and loyalty by failing to select the least expensive investment options and permitting participants to pay excessive recordkeeping fees.

As is often the case in such settlements, the agreement stipulates that the settlement administrator shall, at the written direction of class counsel, cause the settlement fund’s escrow agent to invest the money in short-term United States agency or Treasury securities (or other instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government or an agency thereof). The agent is further directed to reinvest the proceeds of these investments as they mature in similar instruments at their then-current market rates.

The settlement is a victory for the increasingly well-known law firm Capozzi Adler, which has filed numerous lawsuits in the past several years that echo the claims leveled against Teva. The full texts of the settlement agreement and accompanying orders and documents are available here

«