THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING
SCOTT BURNS

Defined-benefit pension is a huge contributor to financial security in retirement

August 30, 2008
  • Email|
  • Print|
  • Single Page|
  • |
Text size +

A new study indicates most of us will die broke.

Ernst & Young LLP recently completed research on financial security in retirement. The study examines the retirement savings and other resources for Americans with $50,000 to $100,000 of preretirement income. It considers investment returns, volatility, healthcare expenses, and takes into account the eventual death of a spouse. The study concludes that households with a defined-benefit pension as well as Social Security and savings are far less likely to outlive their savings than households without a defined-benefit pension.

A couple with preretirement earnings of $75,000 that will have a pension has a 31 percent chance of outliving their assets. That couple without a pension has a 90 percent chance of outliving assets.

The study confirms what Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, has been warning for years - that a smaller role for Social Security benefits, rising Medicare premiums, and disappearing pensions will make the retirement of younger workers far more difficult than those of current and past retirees. Worse, in her book "Coming Up Short," she shows that 401(k) plans are a poor replacement for worker pensions.

So where is the hopeful news?

  • Between the lines of the study. Fewer workers can expect to receive pensions from their employer, but it is possible to create your own. Just convert some of your retirement savings into a lifetime annuity. A single female without a pension, for instance, has about a 75 percent chance of outliving her assets. With a pension, the odds go down to about 25 percent. The change in the odds is similar for single males. While it's not so dramatic for married couples (90 percent down to about 54 percent), it's clear that having a guaranteed lifetime income in addition to Social Security adds major security to retirement.

  • Assumptions in the study. It was done for Americans for Secure Retirement and like most retirement research was done for the financial services industry. It assumes we need to replace a large portion of the income being earned immediately prior to retirement. Most of us have never had 70 to 85 percent of our income to spend on ourselves.

    Why? Because we've made heavy commitments throughout our adult lives. Take those completed commitments (children, mortgage, etc.) into account, and the income you need to replace in retirement is far lower than the 70-plus percent called for by the financial services industry.

    If you are single, rent, have no children, and never borrowed for education, the conventional replacement goals are relevant. But if you ever married, had children and worked on paying off a 30-year home mortgage, you've never had 70 to 85 percent of your income to spend on yourself and spouse. Consequently, the income you need to replace may be 15 to 30 percentage points lower.

    Scott Burns is a syndicated columnist. He can be reached at scott@scottburns.com.

    • Email
    • Email
    • Print
    • Print
    • Single page
    • Single page
    • Reprints
    • Reprints
    • Share
    • Share
    • Comment
    • Comment
     
    • Share on DiggShare on Digg
    • Tag with Del.icio.us Save this article
    • powered by Del.icio.us
    Your Name Your e-mail address (for return address purposes) E-mail address of recipients (separate multiple addresses with commas) Name and both e-mail fields are required.
    Message (optional)
    Disclaimer: Boston.com does not share this information or keep it permanently, as it is for the sole purpose of sending this one time e-mail.