Baby Boomers are ill prepared for retirement, the Insured
Retirement Institute (IRI) says in its new report, “Baby Boomers and Retirement
Planning Strategy.” Forty percent have no retirement savings at all, and 69%
have no defined benefit plan. Of those who do have savings, 59% have saved less
than $250,000 and 37% have saved less than $100,000.
Annual expenditures for today’s 65-year-old retiree exceed
$50,000, yet Social Security generates only $16,000 a year on average.
However, the good news, IRI says, is that Boomers can take
steps to rectify the situation. Retiring at age 70 instead of age 65 can reduce
needed retirement savings to approximately $720,000, and moving to an area of
the country with a lower cost of living can further decrease that amount.
A
50-year-old saver who takes advantage of retirement plan catch-up contributions of $6,000
per year until age 70 at a 5.5% annual rate of return will add another $239,000
to their savings. Boomers can also seek help from family, increase their
savings, reduce expenses in retirement and attempt to maintain the best health
possible.
The report concludes, “Statistically, the retirement
realities facing many Boomers are grim. Put simply, they face a dangerous combination
of being under-saved and long-lived. Those at the point of retirement with no
savings and who are unable or unwilling to delay retirement are in the worst position, and will need to take the most drastic steps to reduce expenditures.
Those with time left to build savings can take steps to increase their savings
as much as possible, delay retirement to maximize Social Security and reduce
the cost of lifetime income, and work on reducing anticipated expenditures by
carefully planning both the timing and location of their retirement.”
Each year, technology plays a bigger role in the defined
contribution (DC) world, notes Kelly O’Donnell, executive vice president at
Financial Engines. The Pension Protection Act (PPA) brought a wave of change in
plan design and investments, automating plan features and investment
vehicles, such as with auto-enrollment into target-date funds (TDFs). Then, too, firms increasingly have
been turning to robo-advice and automated asset-allocation models, innovations that
have made retirement planning easier for 401(k) participants, according to a
survey by Financial Engines, a registered independent adviser (RIA).
In “The Human Touch: The Role of Financial Advisors in a
Changing Advice Landscape,” Financial Engines finds that participants still
want something basic and even old-fashioned: a person in their corner.
The one constant Financial Engines saw throughout all the
industry change was the desire for a relationship, O’Donnell notes. “When
people make money decisions, it’s [simultaneously] emotional and rational,” she
points out, spending money now versus delaying in order to potentially have more later. “So
financial advisers continue to be constant in helping people make good
decisions. And we see that TDF users, who you think of as comfortable with
set-it-and-forget-it advice or management, are people who really want to talk
with an adviser.” Financial Engines found 59% of participants not working with
adviser would like to work with one. O’Donnell says this means that solid
investment advice and asset allocation still leave people wanting a personal
relationship to help validate critical financial decisions.
One task the industry will face is finding a way to balance
people’s desire for this human relationship with its own need to scale.
Combining automated portfolio construction that is
personalized for individuals with a remotely accessed real-life adviser is a
model that works well, says William Trout, a senior analyst with research and consulting firm Celent. It speaks to the needs of today’s tech-savvy investors:
“Think Gen Xers and [Baby] Boomers raised on online brokerage and, separately, the
Millennials,” Trout tells PLANADVISER, “who still find comfort and value in the
advice or answers to questions delivered by a real-life person.”
NEXT:
Is there a model that works for participants and is still scalable?
The “blended” model represents a good middle ground for now,
according to Trout, particularly in the retirement planning sphere. It will
meet people’s needs, as well as their desire for an actual connection to
validate their decisions. In the DC world, he says, “the number of variables
and possible inputs necessary to answer the ‘What will I need?’ question makes
the involvement of a human helpful.” But in the longer term, the companies that offer these blended models
might need to find ways to automate more than portfolio construction, Trout
adds.
Technology is going to be a big part of what makes scaling
advice more possible, O’Donnell says. “Being able to get advisers up to speed
very quickly on an individual’s needs is key,” she says. “In addition to the
technology, advisers will look at the ways to scale based on where you’re
distributed. We’re using our investment methodology and advisers are helping
implement this, which gives them more time to spend on the relationship and the
service.”
According to Mike Jurs, director of Financial Engines, the
advisory is making its advisers available to all participants with access to
Financial Engines, not just those with professionally managed accounts, even
those who have never used online advice.
Financial Engines also found participants are
most interested in topics well beyond the scope of traditional retirement
planning, such as determining the appropriate savings rate to reach retirement
goals; turning 401(k) and retirement accounts into reliable income in
retirement; evaluating overall financial wellness; and assessing individual risk
tolerance.
NEXT:
What won’t automation do?
Companies will find ways to automate more complex decisionmaking
around things like asset drawdown post-retirement and even wealth transfer,
Trout believes, dovetailing participants’ interests and the industry’s need to
scale, which will be driven by automation. The “advice value plan” will need to
expand, and “a human being can still filter or tweak the advice.” But to meet
the behavioral needs of Millennials and other investors, automation will be
key.
“As an industry, we have to improve,” O’Donnell says. Some
use the workplace to make access more cost-effective, but it’s just a starting
point. “It’s the people with lower balances that likely need the best advice,”
she cautions. “They have to make the most of what they have, and getting more
access for the average investor, to higher-quality advisers, is something we
have to look at.”
The barriers people face in getting access to an adviser both
sadden and surprise O’Donnell, she says. “People believe they don’t have enough
money for an adviser to pay attention to them,” she says. “The [actual] cost of
an adviser worries them, and they don’t know how an adviser works.” It’s
critical for participants to get much more information and education about how
to work with an adviser.
O’Donnell admits the concerns are valid, as objective
high-quality advice often requires a minimum balance. Automated solutions are available
but often don’t offer the services of an adviser, she says: “Looking how to
scale that human touch will be the next chapter.”
“What’s really interesting is that with all of the changes,
this desire to talk with a real-life
person who can validate your strategy
really remains strong among all people,” Jurs says. “It’s about the
relationships you have,” Jurs tells PLANADVISER. “That kitchen table is still
key when you’re making important financial decisions.”
“The Human Touch: The Role of Financial Advisors
in a Changing Advice Landscape” can be accessed from Financial Engines’
website.