psewealth No Comments

Examining the Retirement Account Shortfall

Why aren’t we saving as much as we should?

We know that qualified retirement plans and IRAs are prime long-range savings vehicles; we use them to accumulate assets and invest for the future. So why aren’t some of us amassing the retirement nest eggs that we should?

Why did retirement account balances decline from 2010-13? Looking at Federal Reserve data, the influential Center for Retirement Research at Boston College noticed something unsettling. In that period, the average 401(k)/IRAs balance of a household headed by someone aged 55-64 fell $9,000.1

Wait a minute – haven’t we just witnessed a raging bull market? How could this be?

Moreover, why was the average aggregate 401(k)/IRAs balance of such a household just $111,000 at the end of 2013? These were baby boomers nearing retirement age.1

During 2010-13, the S&P 500 jumped 56%. On that factor alone, the average total retirement account balance for these households should have swelled to at least $187,000 from the 2010 starting point of $120,000.1

That wasn’t the only factor in play, however. The CRR’s Alicia Munnell – a nationally respected authority on retirement accounts and retirement saving – has pinpointed some reasons for the shortfall.

Leaks, loans, fees, interruptions & foreignness. At MarketWatch, Munnell looked at a mock 60-year-old who could have enrolled in a 401(k) plan in 1982. (That was when those retirement accounts first emerged.)  This hypothetical boomer was plainly average, earning Social Security’s average wage for 31 years while deferring 6% of salary into the account.2

This boomer’s investment allocation? Right down the middle, a 50/50 mix of equities and debt instruments. Throw in a 50% employer match during those 31 years, run the numbers using real-life returns across those 31 years, and our theoretical boomer should have amassed $373,000 by the end of 2013. That is 3.36 times as much as the household average noted by the Fed in its 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances – and for an individual aged 55-64, the average total 401(k)/IRAs balance was even lower at $100,000.2

Even over 31 years of saving, a $273,000 disparity in retirement assets is too large to attribute simply to the lack of an employer match or a portfolio’s allocation. Munnell sees other dynamics promoting the gap.

Do investment fees come into play? Oh, yes. In Munnell’s example, fees are the big culprit. Investment expenses (based on data from the Investment Company Institute) eat up $59,000 of the potential balance over these 31 years. So that takes $373,000 down to $314,000.2

Loans and other withdrawals exert an effect. The CRR finds that 1.5% of retirement plan assets “leak out” annually. Putting that 1.5% to work in the example, these leaks cut the mock boomer’s total 401(k)/IRAs balance further to $236,000.2

Too many people don’t (or can’t) contribute steadily to retirement plans, so Munnell calculates a 30% non-participation rate into the equation. (Since 2000, Vanguard has consistently reported that level of non-participation in its workplace retirement plans.) That leaves $165,000.2

Finally, there is foreignness. It took a while for IRAs and 401(k)s to be fully embraced as default retirement savings vehicles; in the 1980s, contribution rates were lower as a byproduct. Munnell chalks up $65,000 of lost gains to that historical factor to arrive at the average individual total 401(k)/IRAs balance of $100,000 cited by the Fed.2

Hasn’t auto-enrollment worked? Thanks to federal law, many employers have been able to automatically enroll workers in qualified retirement plans at a 3% contribution rate since 2006. The downside of auto-enrollment is that some of the auto-enrolled “set it and forget it,” never increasing that contribution rate through the years. This could also factor into the lower-than-expected account holdings.1

One asterisk about all this. The CRR only studied working households that held both IRAs and 401(k)s. It didn’t incorporate households headed by retirees or households that may have rolled over workplace retirement plan assets into IRAs into its dataset.1

Regardless of these numbers, we all have to fund our retirements. Some economists and financial professionals are highly critical of the current retirement savings vehicles, but whether they like them or not, it is certain that these retirement accounts offer remarkable potential to grow wealth in the long term through equity investment and compounding. While the Center’s findings are disconcerting, the takeaway here is that consistent and early contribution, lower fees and avoiding withdrawals can make a big difference in retirement account balances.

Warmest Regards,

april-signature

Citations.

1 – fortune.com/2014/09/16/401k-balances-drop/ [9/16/14]

2 – blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2014/09/25/why-arent-401k-and-ira-balances-bigger/ [9/25/14]

psewealth No Comments

That First RMD from Your IRA

What you need to know.

When you reach age 70½, the IRS instructs you to start making withdrawals from your Traditional IRA(s). These IRA withdrawals are also called Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs). You will make them annually from now on.1

If you fail to take your annual RMD or take out less than what is required, the IRS will notice. You will not only owe income taxes on the amount not withdrawn, you will owe 50% more. (The 50% penalty can be waived if you can show the IRS that the shortfall resulted from a “reasonable error” instead of negligence.)1

Many IRA owners have questions about the options and rules related to their initial RMDs, so let’s answer a few.

How does the IRS define age 70½? Its definition is pretty straightforward. If your 70th birthday occurs in the first half of a year, you turn 70½ within that calendar year. If your 70th birthday occurs in the second half of a year, you turn 70½ during the subsequent calendar year.2

Your initial RMD has to be taken by April 1 of the year after you turn 70½. All the RMDs you take in subsequent years must be taken by December 31 of each year.3

So, if you turned 70 during the first six months of 2014, you will be 70½ by the end of 2014 and you must take your first RMD by April 1, 2015. If you turn 70 in the second half of 2014, then you will be 70½ in 2015 and you don’t need to take that initial RMD until April 1, 2016.2

Is waiting until April 1 of the following year to take my first RMD a bad idea? The IRS allows you three extra months to take your first RMD, but it isn’t necessarily doing you a favor. Your initial RMD is taxable in the year it is taken. If you postpone it into the following year, then the taxable portions of both your first RMD and your second RMD must be reported as income on your federal tax return for that following year.2

An example: James and his wife Stephanie file jointly, and they earn $73,800 in 2014 (the upper limit of the 15% federal tax bracket). James turns 70½ in 2014, but he decides to put off his first RMD until April 1, 2015. Bad idea: this means that he will have to take two RMDs before 2015 ends. So his taxable income jumps in 2015 as a result of the dual RMDs, and it pushes them into a higher tax bracket for 2015. The lesson: if you will be 70½ by the time 2014 ends, take your initial RMD by the end of 2014 – it might save you thousands in taxes to do so.4

How do I calculate my first RMD? IRS Publication 590 is your resource. You calculate it using IRS life expectancy tables and your IRA balance on December 31 of the previous year. For that matter, if you Google “how to calculate your RMD” you will see links to RMD worksheets at irs.gov and free RMD calculators provided by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), Kiplinger, Bankrate and others.2,5

If your spouse is at least 10 years younger than you and happens to be designated as the sole beneficiary for one or more IRAs you own, you should refer to Publication 590 instead of a calculator; the calculator may tell you that the RMD is larger than it actually is.6

If you have your IRA with one of the big investment firms, it might calculate your RMD for you and offer to route the amount into another account that you specify. Unless you state otherwise, it will withhold taxes on the amount of the RMD as required by law and give you and the IRS a 1099-R form recording the income distribution.2,5

When I take my RMD, do I have to withdraw the whole amount? No. You can also take it in smaller, successive withdrawals. Your IRA custodian may be able to schedule them for you.3

What if I have multiple traditional IRAs? You then figure out your total RMD by adding up the total of all of your traditional IRA balances on December 31 of the prior year. This total is the basis for the RMD calculation. You can take your RMD from a single IRA or multiple IRAs.1

What if I have a Roth IRA? If you are the original owner of that Roth IRA, you don’t have to take any RMDs. Only inherited Roth IRAs require RMDs.2

It doesn’t pay to wait. At the end of 2013, Fidelity Investments found that 14% of IRA owners required to take their first RMD hadn’t yet done so – they were putting it off until early 2014. Another 40% had withdrawn less than the required amount by December 31. Avoid their behaviors, if you can: when it comes to your initial RMD, procrastination can invite higher-than-normal taxes and a risk of forgetting the deadline.2

Warmest regards,

april-signature

Citations.

1 – irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-regarding-Required-Minimum-Distributions [7/3/14]

2 – tinyurl.com/ktabwnv [3/30/14]

3 – schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/retirement_and_planning/understanding_iras/withdrawals_and_distributions/age_70_and_a_half_and_over [9/11/14]

4 – bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-brackets.aspx [9/11/14]

5 – google.com/search?q=how+to+calculate+your+RMD&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb [9/11/14]

6 – kiplinger.com/tool/retirement/T032-S000-minimum-ira-distribution-calculator-what-is-my-min/ [1/14]