Financial Anxiety Weighs Heavily on Americans

The worries are impacting many aspects of people’s lives, starting with health.

Eighty-five percent of Americans are financially anxious, and 36% say it has gotten worse in the past three years, according to the 2016 Northwestern Mutual Planning & Progress Study. Only 14% say their feelings of financial anxiety have improved, and nearly one-third, 28%, say they worry about their finances every day.

People’s sense of financial unease is impacting many apsects of their lives. Sixty-seven percent say it is negatively affecting their health, 70% say their happiness, 70% their moods, 69% their ability to pursue passions, 61% their home life, 51% their social life and 41% their career.

“Clearly, the impact of financial anxiety in America today runs extremely deep,” says Rebekah Barsch, vice president of planning and sales at Northwestern Mutual. “This research provides a unique window both on the sheer number of people who say they feel anxiety and the effect that financial uncertainty can have on everything, from day-to-day moods to overall health and happiness.”

Americans’ two biggest financial fears are facing an unplanned financial emergency (38%) and incurring an unplanned medical expense due to an illness (34%). These outpaced outliving their retirement savings (21%), losing their job (17%) or being unemployed for an extended period of time (15%).

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

When asked what the source of their financial concerns are, 55% said unexpected expenses, followed by saving for retirement (29%), health care costs (27%), mortgage or rent (25%), credit card debt (25%) and student loan debt (13%).

“There’s the sense that people are just staying afloat, that they’re meeting their most immediate financial needs but that they are worried about what they can’t see or don’t expect,” Barsch says. “They fear the unknown. They don’t know how to plan for the unplanned, and they worry that if something unexpected happens, it could have deep and lasting consequences.”

NEXT: What if they were on solid financial footing?

Conversely, Northwestern Mutual asked people what repercussions on their lives financial security would have. Eighty percent said it would positively impact their health, 84% said their happiness, 81% their moods, 81% their ability to pursue passions, 79% their home life, 74% their social life and 66% their career.

Asked what they would do differently if their financial situation improved, few people pointed to changes. Only 9% said they would change careers, 12% said they would purchase a luxury item like a boat, 15% would stop working, 29% would pursue a passion, 29% would work on their personal health, 32% would leave money to loved ones, and 34% would purchase a home.

Asked what they think are the benefits of financial security, 52% said “peace of mind that I never have to worry about day-to-day expenses,” 22% said the “flexibility to live a desired lifestyle,” and 8% said “freedom to pursue my dreams.”

Harris Poll surveyed 2,646 adults between February 1 and February 10 for Northwestern Mutual. The 2016 Northwestern Mutual Planning & Progress study can be downloaded here.

Glide Paths Should Drive TDF Selection

Most retirement plan sponsors simply rely on what their recordkeeper offers, Morningstar Investment Management says.

Defined contribution retirement plan sponsors are currently selecting target-date funds (TDFs) in a handful of ways, said Nathan Voris, director of sponsor and workplace solutions at Morningstar Investment Management, speaking during a webcast on “Optimal Glide Paths for Defined Contribution Plans.”

Typically, they rely on the proprietary series that their recordkeeper offers, Voris says. They also seek out the cheapest TDF series or try to find those with strong historical performance. “Fees are important but should not be the primary factor,” Voris says. “And because of the changing asset allocation in TDFs, it is hard to track their historical performance.”

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

Instead, he says, sponsors should focus on four “layers of methodology,” in this order. “First, glide path design, followed by asset class exposure to ensure it is appropriately diversified, including fixed income,” Voris says. Next, “the asset allocation methodology and how the allocations in the glide path change over time. Lastly, whether it is active, passive or both. Because the latter is an easy conversation, many sponsors have moved that up to the front of the list, but it is our perspective that this should be the last order of business.”

Since the glide path is the most important factor when selecting a TDF, Morningstar Investment Management believes the first order of business for sponsors and their retirement plan advisers when selecting the appropriate glide path for their plan’s demographics is to determine the participant population’s “risk capacity,” says Lucian Marinescu, director of target date strategies. “A younger workforce has a higher level of ‘human capital,’ which is the value of future earnings, while an older population has a greater level of ‘financial capital,’” Marinescu says.

NEXT: The key participant data

In order to determine this risk capacity, sponsors need to anonymously collect key data on each participant, namely: age, balance, salary, contribution and defined benefit (DB) plan (if applicable), Voris says. Then, sponsors can use Mornginstar’s Glide Path Selection Tool to generate individualized recommendations for each participant, says Daniel Bruns, manager, large market at Morningstar Investment Management. The tool shows the recommendations on a scatter plot that includes the trajectory of the average glide path for all of the participants. This is then overlayed with the glide paths for the three Morningstar Lifetime Indexes—aggressive, moderate and conservative—to determine which is the best fit, Bruns says.

Morningstar Investment Management then illustrated four case studies. For a large manufacturing firm with lower than average salaries, average balances and slightly higher than average deferrals, the tool showed that the desired participant equity risk most closely aligns with the Morningstar Lifetime Moderate Index, Voris says. For a leading technology firm with higher than average salaries, balances and deferrals, the Morningstar Lifetime Aggressive Index is the best fit, Marinescu says.

The third case was a national retailer with lower than average salaries, balances and deferrals, for which the Morningstar Lifetime Conservative Index is the best fit, Bruns says. Finally, the fourth case was a large medical practice with a wide range of salaries between the administrative staff and the doctors. Although this plan’s workforce has above average salaries, balances and deferrals, because of the 25% dispersion, custom target-date funds or managed accounts would be the most appropriate choice, Voris says.

As Morningstar Investment Management notes in a white paper it recently issued, “The Glide Path Selection Problem,” “significant differences within products make the target-date decision perplexing for even the sophisticated investment committee. The most reliable method for assessing the risk capacity of a plan is to perform a quantitative analysis of the plan’s participants, to determine the risk capacity, or appropriate equity exposure, of a specific plan. With so many assets flowing into target-date funds, it is imperative that plan sponsors diligently select the glide path most appropriate for their participants.”

The Morningstar Investment Management white paper can be downloaded here.

«