Baby Boomers are failing to follow the retirement planning disciplines that enabled their parents to achieve a satisfying retirement, according to a new study by NAVA, the Association for Insured Retirement Solutions.
One reason for that could be that Boomers have a less positive view of their parents’ retirement than their parents have, according to a NAVA press release. Sixty-four percent of Baby Boomers categorized their parents’ nest eggs as “modest” or “quite small.” Only 37% of Boomers surveyed said they would be very satisfied with their parents’ lifestyles, and the majority of the Boomers surveyed expect a different lifestyle; with 86% of those respondents expecting it to be better than that of their parents.
Among retired parents of Boomers, most attributed their retirement success to the avoidance of credit card debt (81%), the creation of an emergency fund (86%), and their ability to save enough for retirement (79%). Baby Boomers are not doing as well in these departments.
So far, 57% of Boomers reported success in avoiding credit card debt—24 percentage points less than their parents’ responses. Less than half (44%) of Boomers said they have done a “good job’ saving for retirement. Only 32% of Boomers said they did an “excellent job’ creating an emergency fund.
More Adventurous
However, the study suggests Boomers possess a more adventurous attitude toward retirement investments, which could be to their benefit. The majority is willing to consider new financial products, including annuities, to help them meet their retirement goals, NAVA said.
More specifically, 76% of Boomers expect to invest more aggressively than their parents have done in retirement, and two-thirds expect to differ in their willingness to use new types of financial vehicles, with half saying guaranteed lifetime income annuities provide an “attractive’ option.
Generational Differences in Retirement Planning (GDRP): Adult Children of Retired Parents surveyed more than 1,000 people age 45 to 65 about their expectations for retirement and the experiences of their retired parents. The study compared those findings with a survey of 100 retired people age 70 to 80 regarding their views on retirement as compared with that of their adult children.
By using this site you agree to our network wide Privacy Policy.
In part two of our series on incorporating financial planning services into qualified plans, we’ll analyze profitability margins and work on setting competitive market rates for plan participants.
Advisers typically are compensated from the trails, commissions, or fees generated by plan assets. From a profitability standpoint, this makes sense when you are offering services directly to the plan sponsor or, in general, managing the plan as a whole. When you begin working with plan participants, however, I would argue that this compensation is not enough to remain profitable. Offering services at the participant level goes above and beyond the scope of managing a typical retirement plan relationship; at this level, you can end up spending more time servicing those participants than you originally anticipated. So, if you’re going to incorporate financial planning services into your plan, charge for them!
Establishing fees up-front
Of course, you first need to define the services you will offer to the plan and plan participants. There are many avenues to consider; however, your choice will likely be heavily influenced by the local marketplace and the sophistication level of the business and its employees. For our purposes, we’ll focus on defining the scope of services to be offered.
Let’s say you offer graded versions of financial planning to employees. Your services may look something like this:
Level 1: Basic retirement education planning, with a focus on accumulation, targeting younger employees
Level 2: Retirement check-up for middle-aged employees in the prime of their earning careers
Level 3: Retirement income planning services for those near or at retirement
Level 4: Full financial planning for participants interested in working through their entire financial situations
With a structure like this, the key is to set proper expectations up-front. Obviously, because of the relative sophistication of services at each level, the time you spend on each task, and the fee you charge, will vary. Taking this a step further, you might bill for the following:
Level 1: Retirement education o Expected time spent with individual: 0.50–2 hours o Hourly rate: $60–$100
Level 2: Retirement check-up o Expected time spent with individual: 1–2 hours o Hourly rate: $100–$125
Level 3: Retirement income planning o Expected time spent with individual: 2–5 hours o Hourly rate: $100–$300
Level 4: Financial planning services o Expected time spent with individual: 4–10+ hours o Hourly rate: $250–$500
While you may or may not agree with the hours or pricing in this example, it’s meant to serve a point. When you offer financial planning as a differentiating factor, your success is contingent upon setting the clients’ expectations up-front. That way, they’ll know exactly what to expect—and how much it will cost.
Profitability
In the previous example, I used some basic metrics for determining the scope of services to bring to the table. The services you actually offer, however, will be determined by your expertise, the sophistication of the tools and resources available to you, and your strengths and weaknesses. That being said, it makes sense to define the following:
Sophistication level of plan and plan participants, as well as of clients in local market a. How knowledgeable are they? b. What is their average household income? c. What are competitive fees for these services? d. What are individuals willing to pay?
Time you expect to spend servicing plan participants
Scalability of your practice and staff
Bottom line: profit margins a. How much do you need to make to cover base expenses? b. What is a reasonable profit margin? c. Can you actually achieve this profit margin?
Conclusion
It’s vital that you plan carefully as you establish fees for your financial planning services in the qualified plan market. To ensure profitability, these services shouldn’t be lumped under the fees you receive for managing the plan; instead, they should be offered and paid for as services outside the normal scope of plan management.
Successful advisory practices who offer these services will take the time to conduct a full analysis of their offerings, their practice, their profit margins, and other factors and will use them as a differentiating factor to not only generate additional plan opportunities, but also to create a new revenue stream to help improve their practice’s profitability.