Singles and Couples Face Distinct Planning Hurdles

Academics working with the Michigan Retirement Research Center have carefully developed a new retiree spending model showing singles tend to have higher medical spending in retirement vs. their married counterparts.

Findings from a new research paper, “Couples’ and Singles’ Savings After Retirement,” by Mariacristina De Nardi, Eric French and John Bailey Jones, suggest singles “live less long than people who are part of a couple, but are more likely to end up in a nursing home in any given year.”

For that reason, the researchers suggest, a single should expect to have higher medical spending than a member of a couple.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news. ïĄ

As stated in the paper and an accompanying explanatory brief, the researchers worked to “model the saving problem of retired couples and singles facing uncertain longevity and medical expenses in [the] presence of means-tested social insurance.” The team’s goal was to identify a data-based methodology for evaluating the complex interplay of the various saving motivations and investment opportunities for couples and singles in this situation.

Explaining the key features of their model, the researchers note that a couple’s assets tend to drop sharply with the death of a spouse. “By the time the second spouse dies, a large fraction of the wealth of the original couple has vanished, with the wealth drops at the time of death of each spouse explaining most of the decline,” the paper says.

The researchers therefore observe that a large share of the decline in assets of a given retired couple over time is due to the high medical expenses most people face preceding death. “This suggests that a large fraction of all assets held in retirement are used to insure oneself against the risk of high medical and death expenses,” the paper says.

This does not exactly line up with the conventional wisdom that singles and couples slowly spend down assets in a smooth fashion over time, for example to cover basic living expenses. 

Still, many retired U.S. households, especially those who are couples and have high income, do in fact spend their assets very slowly, “and many people die with large amounts of wealth,” the paper continues. “Basic life cycle models, with no uncertainty, cannot match these patterns. This raises the question of what drives retirees’ saving behaviors. An important complementary question is how the behavior of couples compares with that of single people.”

NEXT: Spending patterns are noisy 

The researchers find being in a couple during retirement “allows its members to pool their longevity and medical expense risks, but also exposes each member to their spouse’s risks, including the income loss that often accompanies a spouse’s death. Because about 50% of Americans age 70 or older are in a couple and about 50% are single, the answers to this question are key in understanding how the elderly’s savings and welfare would respond to potential policy reforms.”

The trio of researchers go on to show that medical expenses and government-provided insurance are important for revealing the saving patterns of single U.S. retirees at all income levels, including high-permanent-income individuals who keep large amounts of assets until very late in life.

“Another important benefit of our methodology is that our model can be used to infer the effects of changing age or family structure on annuitized income for the same household,” the researchers conclude. “For example, our estimates imply that couples in which the male spouse dies at age 80 suffer a 40% decline in income, while couples in which the female spouse dies at age 80 suffer a 30% decline.”

Some of the other implications of the model are downright astounding and show just how variable the retirement planning outlook can be from individual to individual. “For example, a 70-year-old single man at the 10th permanent income percentile in a nursing home expects to live only 2.9 more years, while a 70-year-old married female at the 90th percentile in good health, married to a 73-year-old man in the same health state, expects to live 18.6 more years.”

De Nardi is a professor at University College London, a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a research fellow at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Eric French is a professor at University College London and a senior economist and research adviser at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. John Bailey Jones is an associate professor in the Department of Economics at the State University of New York (SUNY) at Albany. 

Lifetime Income Providers Tout Ongoing Innovation

Retirement plan participants are slowly but surely gaining better access to lifetime income products, according to new reporting from the Insured Retirement Institute. 

The Insured Retirement Institute (IRI) released its annual “State of the Insured Retirement Industry” report this week, detailing how ongoing product innovation among insurance providers and asset managers is improving choice for investors hoping to convert assets into guaranteed income streams.

The preponderance of new products is very much a positive development given anticipated demand for lifetime income options in the years ahead, IRI says, especially options hardwired directly into employer sponsored defined contribution (DC) plans. This has been a particular area of strong provider focus, IRI finds, but regulatory challenges remain and plan sponsors are still somewhat wary of the amount of fiduciary liability that might come along with in-plan lifetime income.

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

Heading into 2016, a vast majority of individuals investing in the DC system say they are open to the idea of in-plan lifetime income options, but only about one in five plan sponsors feel their company would be interested in offering these features. IRI notes that ongoing product development is creating “a wide array of consumer choice regarding lifetime income products, allowing advisers to create retirement plans that better meet the needs of their clients,” both participants and sponsors. (Also see “Income Planning Requires Annuity Know-How.”)

IRI finds product providers delivered a variety of new lifetime income approaches during 2015, with strongest development in the categories of investment-oriented variable annuities (IOVAs), fixed indexed annuities (FIAs), and deferred income annuities (DIAs) that meet qualifying longevity annuity contract (QLAC) criteria.

NEXT: The demographic trends are clear

IRI President and CEO Cathy Weatherford says the demographic case for lifetime income, whether inside or outside the plan, “has never been more pronounced.” Put simply, there is a huge cohort of Americans who control substantial wealth who are all closing in on retirement and looking for ways to control their spending and insure against longevity risk.

“These Americans will live longer in retirement than any generation before, and will be more responsible for their financial security,” Weatherford says. “This is a tremendous opportunity for the retirement income industry, and we are seeing market participants expand and fill out their product shelves to meet this growing need.”

IRI says annuity providers are encouraged by the current market forces and most feel “well-positioned headed into 2016, with strong liquidity and balance sheet fundamentals.”

“In addition to healthy financials, the expectation that interest rates may soon begin to rise should ease macroeconomic headwinds bearing on the lifetime income market,” the report explains. If interest rates reach or exceed 3% by the end of 2016—which is admittedly on the higher end of economists’ current predictions—IRI says income-oriented annuity sales will likely increase significantly.

From a public policy perspective, IRI cautions that the Department of Labor’s forthcoming final fiduciary rule is a “wildcard that all eyes across the industry will be watching.” IRI believes the final form of the rule will determine the level of disruption to the lifetime income industry and the consumers it serves.

NEXT: Other key findings 

While lifetime income product providers are optimistic heading into 2016, the investors they hope to service are feeling anything but. A rather dismal 27% of Baby Boomers are confident their savings will last throughout retirement, for example. While this group represents “a large pool of consumers who can benefit from lifetime income strategies,” it’s less clear that they will have enough assets on average to shape a livable guaranteed retirement income plan.

Looking to particular product lines, IRI finds sales of investment-oriented variable annuities have increased 94% during the past five years, and they now make up 16% of total variable annuity sales. Fixed income annuities also are “experiencing strong sales as a fixed-income substitute and on the attractiveness of optional guaranteed lifetime income benefits.” Sales of FIAs have increased 50% since 2011, IRI explains, further predicting sales of FIAs “should continue to experience growth with the introduction of new products, including those that offer ‘uncapped’ growth on the portion of the contract participating in the index.”

Additional findings show the number of companies offering deferred income annuities has doubled since 2012. As of mid-year 2015, sales of DIAs were tracking near 2014 sales of $2.6 billion. As recently as 2012, sales of DIAs were only $1 billion, IRI says.

Perhaps most impressive: “While only one QLAC product was available at this time in 2014, there are now 11 companies offering QLAC products that are available for use in either [individual retirement accounts] or workplace retirement plans.”

The full report is available for download here.

«

 

You’re viewing the third of three free articles.

  This is your final free article. 

Subscribe to a free PW newsletter - get free online access!

 Don’t leave before subscribing! 

If you’re a subscriber, please login.

Close