Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's edition starts off with a look at how fiduciary rulemaking progress has slowed so much that any real change may now be years away at best, a discussion of how (despite lack of progress on fiduciary minimum standards) the future of advice may include a small number of mega-firms that are really building a focused, holistic and client-centric approach to advice, and a somewhat disturbing article suggesting that financial planners are becoming a target for cybercrooks that are trying to steal client money by sending advisors fake email transfer requests. From there, we have a few interesting retirement articles, including an interview with Moshe Milevsky, a discussion from Wade Pfau looking at the immediate-annuity-versus-systematic-withdrawal debate, and an analysis of median income for households over the past several decades that shows how retirees are actually faring the best of any age group. We also look at an interesting Journal of Financial Planning article about how to better evaluate cash value life insurance illustrations, a discussion whether it really pays to go to cash waiting for interest rates to rise, and a look from Morningstar at how as more and more people adopt indexing approaches new opportunities may be emerging for active managers. We wrap up with two lighter articles, one with tips on how to get more productivity time back with some good email management tips, and an intriguing discussion of how, in light of the fact that even people who now do what they love often found that path only after a period of time and some difficult early years, "follow your passion" may be bad career advice for Generation Y and that instead we need to paint a more nuanced picture of career paths that acknowledge the (inevitably?) difficult early years. Enjoy the reading!
"Save a healthy portion of your income every year from the start of your working years to the end" is a standard of retirement planning advice. Although we may debate about whether the exact number is 10%, 15%, or 20%, or more, the focal point is the same - as long as you save a sufficient portion of your income, you'll have enough savings to fund your retirement.
However, it can actually be even more effective to not save in the early years, and instead invest in one's "human capital" by trying to boost earnings instead of the retirement account balance. In order to make this work, though, it's crucial to keep future spending from rising as fast as future income.
Consequently, the reality is that maybe baby boomers are "behind" in their retirement savings not because they failed to save a percentage of their income, but instead because saving "just" a percentage of income allowed them to consume the rest and increase their spending to unsustainable levels. In turn, this suggests that in the future, the better path to retirement success may not be to save a flat percentage of income every year, but instead to target an appropriate standard of living, raise it conservatively, and save all the rest, however much that may be!Read More...
As more and more baby boomers retire, an increasingly popular strategy is to split pre- and after-tax funds in a 401(k) at retirement, with the goal of rolling over the pre-tax funds into an IRA, and converting the after-tax funds into a Roth IRA, taking advantage of the non-taxable nature of the after-tax contributions.
Yet the effectiveness of the strategy is ambiguous at best; recent guidance from IRS Notice 2009-68 would suggest that the approach shouldn't be allowed at all, and although some esoteric and technical workarounds have been suggested, none have truly been tested or subjected to IRS scrutiny. As a result, while many 401(k) plans are willing to issue separate checks to accommodate those who wish to try the strategy, and the odds of getting caught are low, caution is still merited about whether the client will really end out with the desired tax treatment.Read More...
For retirees who fear the impact of a market downturn on their spending, an increasingly popular strategy is just to hold several years of cash in a reserve account to accomplish near-term spending goals. As the logic goes, if there are years of spending money already available, the portfolio can avoid selling equities in a down market to raise the required cash, and clients don't have to sweat where their retirement income distributions will come from while waiting for the markets to recover.
Yet the mathematics of rebalancing reveals in the truth, even clients following a standard rebalancing strategy don't sell equities in down markets, rendering the cash reserve strategy potentially moot. On the other hand, some benefits still remain - although aside from an indirect short-term tactical bet, the most significant impact of a cash reserve strategy may be more mental than real.
Nonetheless, is the cash reserve bucket strategy still a viable option for retirees? Or is it just another bucket strategy mirage?Read More...
As baby boomers continue into their retirement transition, two portfolio-based strategies are increasingly popular to generate retirement income: the systematic withdrawal strategy, and the bucket strategy. While the former is still the most common approach, the latter has become increasingly popular lately, viewed in part as a strategy to help work around difficult and volatile market environments. Yet while the two strategies approach portfolio construction very differently, the reality is that bucket strategies actually produce asset allocations almost exactly the same as systematic withdrawal strategies; their often-purported differences amount to little more than a mirage! Nonetheless, bucket strategies might actually still be a superior strategy, not because of the differences in portfolio construction, but due to the ways that the client psychologically connects with and understands the strategy!Read More...
In the midst of volatile, ambiguous, and uncertain markets, it’s often difficult to know what to do. In such a high stakes environment, we look for any clues that we can find, to figure out whether what we’re doing is “right” or not. Unfortunately, though, this can lead to trouble, as research shows that the methods and tools our brains use to make decisions are not always rational. For instance, sometimes we look to what others around us are doing, to determine whether our own actions are appropriate or not, rather than doing our own due diligence. In many situations, this form of “social proof” can be an effective means to fit into society. In other situations, though, it can potentially lead to herd behavior. Which raises the question – to what extent are our investment decisions as planners influenced by what other planners are doing, instead of our own due diligence?
Although financial planners often rely on long-term averages when making capital market assumptions - whether to design a portfolio or create a retirement plan - there is a growing body of research that makes it clear: not all starting points are the same. Even over time horizons as long as 20-30 years or more, investing in high valuation environments tends to lead to below-average returns (and a notable dearth of results significantly above average), and the reverse is true if valuation is low when the investor begins. While many have written about the investment implications of market valuation, my interest is broader - how would it change our financial planning recommendations, beyond just the portfolio composition?
Any form of long-term projection is built on the back of assumptions. In the case of a retirement plan, there are several key factors, including portfolio composition (and assumed growth rates), inflation rates, savings, retirement spending, time horizon until retirement, and the duration of retirement. Yet the reality is that not all of these assumptions have equal impact; some are far more dramatic drivers of plan results than others, and which are most important varies by the client situation. In other words, there are assumptions, and there are ASSUMPTIONS! Have you ever examined the sensitivity of your client's financial plan to the assumptions they're using, so you can determine which factors are the most important to focus upon?
- « Previous
- 1
- …
- 37
- 38
- 39
