Showing posts with label BusinessWeek. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BusinessWeek. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Can Women Bridge the Retirement Savings Gap? - BusinessWeek Report

Ellen Hoffman, columnist for BusinessWeek writes, "Can Women Bridge the Retirement Savings Gap?" Let's go backwards first and visit the possible reasons listed for the aformentioned gap:

There are plenty of measurables, documented reasons for women's lower retirement savings. Women spend less time in the labor force, often because of care-giving demands, and/or are more likely to work part-time at some point. They earn about 80 cents on the dollar compared with men. And they're less likely to participate in some type of pension plan. The fact that, on average, women tend to live three years longer than men and live alone for more years intensifies the effects of the savings gap, making it even more crucial for them to prepare better for their golden years.

Two studies, one each from Vanguard and Hewitt are cited supporting the comparison of actual average balances for women and men:

Vanguard, a mutual fund company that also manages retirement plans, reported that in 2007 the average account balance of more than three million participants in their 401(k) plans was $56,723 for women, compared with $95,447 for men. More recently, Hewitt Associates consultants surveyed nearly 2 million participants in large-company 401(k) plans the company manages and found that women had an average of $56,320 in their accounts, compared with over $100,000 for men.

These are sobering statistics. Ms. Hoffman offers some common sense tips for improving women's savings rates (they basically apply to everyone):
  • Start saving as soon as you begin working

  • Design and follow a realistic budget that allows you to join your employer's retirement plan

  • Contribute as much as you can to your company plan or

  • If one is not available—contribute to an IRA

  • Don't take money out of retirement savings to meet short-term needs

Ms. Hoffman also helpfully points out that this savings gap is an issue not just for low-earners:

Linda E. Katz, a financial planner in Huntington, N.Y., says she sees the same problem for women in middle management. Some of them, especially those who live in high-income areas, simply don't make enough money to save much. She also says that she sees quite a few clients who allow financial demands from their children and parents to trump putting away money for their own retirement.

Executives and professional women also need to pay more attention to their future, says Margaret K. O'Meara, a financial planner in Red Bank, N.J. For the high-income women she counsels, "the biggest things are the lifestyle and longevity issues," she says. Her clients may make $250,000 or $300,000 a year and still be behind on retirement saving. One of her clients in her 40s in this income range wants to leave her high-stress job to retire or downsize to part-time work, but she doesn't want to sacrifice the family vacation home or luxuries such as expensive wines and food to save for what could be as much as 40 or 50 years in retirement. Some women also lose a chance to catch up on saving by refusing to charge their college-graduate children for rent, cable TV, or other amenities.

Ms. Hoffman mentions a great reference for women savers: Women's Institute for a Secure Retirement, or WISER at http://www.wiserwomen.org/ which contains a wealth of helpful information.

Sunday, August 10, 2008

BusinessWeek Report: Now Wall Street Wants Your Pension, Too

Matthew Goldstein reports this week in BusinessWeek: "Now Wall Street Wants Your Pension, Too".

The basic idea presented here is that major Wall Street firms want to take over frozen (DB) pension funds from companies, in order to help the sponsoring companies clean up their balance sheets. Mr. Golstein is clearly skeptical about the whole scheme, as he writes:


The folks who brought you the mortgage mess and the ensuing hedge fund blowups, busted buyouts, and credit market gridlock have another bold idea: buying up and running troubled corporate pension plans. And despite the subprime fiasco, some regulators may soon embrace Wall Street's latest scheme.


Great graphic:


The concept of off-loading pension funds sounds great. For businesses it's a chance to rid themselves of struggling plans, which can weigh down a balance sheet. It's especially good timing now. New accounting rules take effect in the next year or so that will require companies to mark their pension assets to prevailing market prices each quarter—a change that could devastate some companies' profits. Meanwhile, many companies no longer want to pay for pensions, troubled or otherwise. A recent report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that most companies freeze their pension plans merely to avoid "the impact of annual contributions to their cash flows."

But the gambit to turn pensions into for-profit enterprises raises troubling questions. Critics, including some on Capitol Hill, worry that financial firms don't have workers' best interest at heart, which would put some 44 million current and future retirees at risk. "We think it's just a terrible idea," says Karen Friedman, policy director for advocacy group Pensions Rights Center. "In the wake of the subprime crisis, it would be crazy to allow financial institutions to manage these plans."


The biggest fear appears to be that these plans, if left in the purview of Wall Street firms, would end up as being a dumping ground for toxic securities such as CDOs and asset-backed securities, and 'who knows what else' that might be manufactured in the future:


Historically, pension funds have been managed conservatively, in keeping with the broad goals of long-term wealth accumulation. Alternative investments such as hedge funds, derivatives, and asset-backed securities represent less than 25% of pension assets. If financial firms get involved, exotic investments could swell to 50% of pensions assets by 2012, predicts McKinsey. The biggest fear is that Wall Street could use retirement portfolios as a dumping ground for its most toxic and troublesome investments. It's not unlike what regulators allege UBS officials did with its stockpile of risky auction-rate securities by trying to off-load them to wealthy clients.


Then, there is view from the PBGC perspective:

If Wall Street gambles with those pension assets and loses, U.S. taxpayers would probably foot the bill. When a company with a pension goes belly up today, the PBGC, under federal law, has to take on the fund's obligations and dole out money to its beneficiaries. It's a costly burden: The PBGC currently runs a $14.1 billion deficit.


BUT there appears to be an army of opinion makiers lined up to help pave the way for this to happen anyway:

Former PBGC director Bradley Belt argues that pension buyouts could actually strengthen the agency. If financially strapped companies could dump the plans rather than ponying up money for them, they might stay out of bankruptcy. That would mean the PBGC wouldn't have to step in and pick up the pieces of the pension. "While there are legitimate regulatory and policy considerations, much of the criticism is misplaced," says Belt, who two years ago teamed up with private equity firm Reservoir Capital to form Palisades Capital Advisors, a pension buyout boutique. "This is really in the public interest if it's done correctly."

The federal agencies that oversee the nation's pension system are expected to weigh in on the issue—potentially paving the way for big firms that have been pursuing it, such as Aon, Cerberus Capital Management, Citigroup, JPMorganChase, Morgan Stanley, and Prudential. JPMorgan has been particularly active in this crusade, sending a letter in September 2007 to several federal agencies with its own "guidelines for pension transfers." The Government Accountability Office, which began studying the proposal at the behest of the Congress, plans to issue a report later this year.

The regulatory point of view is "dim":

The biggest regulatory kink that needs to be ironed out is a tax one. Under federal pension laws, an employer can deduct part of its pension plan contributions. But it's unclear if banks or private equity firms that buy the plan would get the same tax break since they don't technically employ the workers. Squashing that perk could make such buyout deals less appealing to Wall Street. Sources familiar with the situation say the Internal Revenue Service is expected to offer a dim view of extending the current tax break to purely financial buyers. The Bush Administration is likely to take a different stance, favoring such deals in certain circumstances.


"How they do it across the Pond":


Although any restrictions by the federal government could dampen the spirits of the buyout brigade, Wall Street are likely to simply follow the lead of financial firms in Britain. Companies there off-load their pension assets by purchasing a group annuity from an insurer. That market took off 18 months ago when the country's regulators instituted more onerous pension accounting rules. Since then, nearly a dozen specialized insurers have opened up shop to offer the products. Many of the new players are backed by Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Cerberus, Warburg Pincus, and Deutsche Bank—some of the same names that are trying to import the concept to the U.S.

Another battlefront appears to be opening up between Wall Street firms and insurance companies:

U.S. companies already have that avenue of escape thanks to the federal pension rules. But the high costs associated with such insurance products have limited their use. That's already changing. A dozen U.S. life insurers, including John Hancock, Prudential, and MetLife, now offer a way for companies to get rid of the pension burden. And though the market remains small, insurers sold $2.88 billion worth of such policies last year—triple the amount three years ago. Those figures could rise if Wall Street decides set up insurance units to offer those types of annuities.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Business Week - 2008 Retirement Guide


Business Week's 2008 Retirement Guide is out this week. As expected from a magazine of this stature, it was fairly well put together. The tone of the headlines seems to reflect the dour mood prevailing in the financial economy, and in some ways a tad alarmist, starting right from the headlined article.


"Retirement Strategies for Tough Times"



and one chock full of cautionary tales:


"Will You Outlive Your Money" visits the familiar topic which we have covered before in "WSJ Report - How to Bulletproof Your Nest Egg." Notable by their absence, are any references to the new payout mutual funds developed by Vanguard and Fidelity. These funds offer the retirement-stage investor the ability to cheaply obtain a regular income stream without paying the higher fees typically associated with retirement annuity products.

Vanguard's products called "Managed Payout Funds" are based on a given investor's appetite for risk, whereas, Fidelity's product called "Income Replacement Funds" are similarly structured with the biggest difference being their emphasis on "target dates" kind of like target date date portfolios in reverse.


One great article mentioned in the 2008 report is, "Target-Date Funds Hit Their Stride." Some interesting factoids on target date funds:
  • Assets collectively hit $204.2 billion at the end of May 2008, as compared to $116 billion last year
  • Funds managing for a 2020 retirement date snagged the largest share of target date assets
  • Exposure to international equities increased from 7% in a typical fund in 2005 up to 17% in 2007
  • Exposure in REITs has also increased with AllianceBernstein target date funds allocating up to 10% of their assets in this asset class
  • Hedging strategies are also turning up in this class of funds, with TIPs and commodities (the "usual" hedges), along with Bank of America's funds considering some exposure to Asian currencies, nuclear power and water.