Saturday, February 28, 2015

Sticker shock stalls downsizing boomers

Sticker shock stalls downsizing boomers

      
Betsy Friedlander, 66, and Mike Klipper, 67, have adored their light-filled, three-story colonial in suburban Bethesda, Maryland, for nearly three decades. They had the more-than-3,000-square-foot home built, and they raised their two sons in it. Now with the boys grown and gone, they are looking for a new home as part of a new lifestyle.


"I think we wanted to have more of an urban life, if we could be downtown and walk to everything, that would be our preference," said Mike.


But after an exhaustive search of condominiums and townhouses in downtown Washington, D.C., and in downtown Bethesda, they learned a tough lesson about this new lifestyle. It has become incredibly expensive. The prices were so high, and the properties so small, they would be getting very little for their money. One bedroom condos were selling in the $1 million range in some buildings.

A pedestrian walks past a realty sign outside of a row house for sale in Washington.
Andrew Harrer | Bloomberg | Getty Images

A pedestrian walks past a realty sign outside of a row house for sale in Washington.
"We started looking in D.C., and we were shocked, absolutely shocked, because we thought we would be able to sell our house and put a little money in the bank, and buy something we would enjoy," said Betsy. "Even if we went up a substantial amount, we didn't see anything that we could feel comfortable living in."


Even making a lateral move, buying for the same prices as they could sell their home, they would get half the space and still have to pay large condo fees. They finally decided to give up.
"Here we stay!" proclaimed Betsy, with a tinge of regret.


It's a problem facing the baby boom generation (born between 1946 and 1965) from coast to coast, and it is also creating a larger problem for the overall housing market. Boomers were expected to downsize out of their large suburban homes, bringing much needed inventory to the market.
Their desire, however, to live in walkable, urban centers, where they can lead an active physical and cultural lifestyle, is just not affordable in today's tight market. They are therefore staying put longer, and causing a huge shortage of available inventory for the overall housing market. Renting isn't much an option either with rents nationwide at record highs.


"Fifty percent of boomers feel like they can't get out of their house, and that's limiting supply," said Jane Fairweather, whose Bethesda real estate firm represented Betsy and Mike in their search. "So the houses that we're waiting to come on the market, for the young families that are trying to move into the good school systems and the good neighborhoods, aren't coming on."
There were 9 percent fewer homes for sale in January of this year than there were one year ago, according to Realtor.com.


That, in turn, is pushing prices higher for the homes that are listed, because those homes are now seeing bidding wars. Higher prices are then sidelining first-time and even midlevel buyers, in something of a vicious circle.


"We were a bit shocked at the prices, yes," said Howard Sokolove, also a resident of Bethesda.
Sokolove, in his early 70s, is retired, but his slightly younger wife, Ruth, is a baby boomer and still works as a nurse in a nearby hospital. They already sold one of their cars, hoping to move to a more urban setting.


"We would have to spend at least twice as much, maybe 2 ½ times as much for a similar-sized space," said Howard.
The Sokoloves decided to stay put as well, although they worry about aging in a house with stairs and a large yard that needs upkeep.


"I'm learning to love what I've got," he said.
Back at her real estate office, Fairweather explained how she rationalizes these moves to her clients. She asks them to think about what rooms they use the most. The answers are generally the kitchen, family room and bedroom.
   
Baby boomers Besty Friedlander and Mike Klipper
Diana Olick | CNBC

Baby boomers Besty Friedlander and Mike Klipper
"And if you measure that square footage, it's going to be close to what you'll end up with in a condo," said Fairweather, "but it's a major psychological transition, and oftentimes it takes a lot more time to get people ready."


The problem is considerably more acute in higher-priced suburbs of major urban markets, but even in smaller cities, the inventory problem persists.
 
Some builders, like Pulte and Lennar, have put major resources into so-called active-adult communities, where single-level homes are offered at very affordable prices, and they have seen strong demand; these communities, however, are generally not close to urban centers. They tend to be more popular in the South and Midwest and in less urban areas.


"I think that part of the enjoyment that we have is being in a diverse community. That's really important. And diverse in every way. Mike and I enjoy being with people of different generations," said Betsy.


She and Mike said they would not consider moving to an active adult community.



Thursday, February 19, 2015

Should you use your 401(k) before Social Security?

Veteran personal finance journalist Robert Powell answers your questions for USA WEEKEND.
My wife would like to retire at 62. Would it be better for to use the funds from her 401(k) first to get to the age of 65 before filing for Social Security? 

— James Baker, Missoula, Mont.

Every situation is different. But it can be beneficial for many individuals to consider waiting to at least full retirement age (FRA) before starting Social Security and using 401(k) or IRA distributions to fund the "bridge period" between the time retirement starts and Social Security is claimed, says James Mahaney, a vice president with Prudential Financial.

The reasons are two-fold. One, if your wife starts Social Security at age 62, she'll lock in a permanent "real" reduction of 25%. "I say 'real' because the lower benefit will provide a smaller base on which cost-of-living-adjustments will apply into the future," says Mahaney.
How much your wife's benefit will be reduced will depend on her age. If your wife was born in 1952, for example, she'd receive a monthly benefit of $750 by claiming at age 62 instead of $1,000 had she waited to claim at age 66, or FRA.

Also consider delaying beyond FRA. Why so? Social Security benefits are increased by a certain percentage (depending on year of birth) if your wife and you delay claiming Social Security beyond FRA. The yearly increase is 8% for those born in 1943 or later. Or put another way, instead of getting $1,000 per month from Social Security if she claims at FRA, she stands to get up to $1,320 per month if she waits to claim at age 70, the oldest age for which you can earn delayed retirement credits.
"A Social Security benefit starting at age 66 or later would provide a higher lifetime income stream to your wife and earn higher cost-of-living-adjustments," says Mahaney.

By contrast, let's say your wife has $100,000 in her 401(k) and she withdraws what she would have received had she taken Social Security early; say $9,000 per year for three years. So, her 401(k) would be worth, not including investment gains, $73,000. To be sure, that sounds painful on the surface, but the second reason why the "bridge" tactic works is this: By drawing down your retirement account, you potentially reduce your future required minimum distributions (RMDs), which she would have to take after age 70½. Having a large RMD can often put you into a higher-than-expected tax bracket, as well as cause your Social Security income to become taxable.

Yes, her future investment returns in her 401(k) will be off a smaller base. But consider what your wife gains in the tradeoff. One, a higher guaranteed for life, adjusted-for-inflation monthly Social Security benefit. She can't get that kind of guarantee from her 401(k) or IRA. Or put another way: You can't guarantee that you won't outlive your assets, but you can guarantee that you won't outlive your Social Security benefit. "Keep in mind that today's low interest rate environment makes it challenging for retirees to generate a dependable lifetime income stream similar to what Social Security provides," says Mahaney.

Friday, February 13, 2015

On retirement security, US ranks far behind others

On retirement security, US ranks far behind others


If you are feeling secure about your retirement, congratulations. You're a relative novelty—at least in the U.S.

A new report by Natixis Global Asset Management finds that America barely ranks in the top 20 countries in terms of overall retirement security, coming in just above Slovenia at No. 19. The winner was Switzerland, and northern European countries were heavily represented in the top 20, but the U.S. also lagged behind South Korea and Japan. Even Iceland managed to leapfrog past the U.S., moving from 23 to 4 between 2013 and 2015.

The U.S. ranks 14 in terms of public finances, thanks to low interest rates and inflation. It also rose slightly to 19 on health care, up from 21 in 2014, as the number of uninsured people declined. But on quality of life, largely measuring environmental quality and regulation, the U.S. ranked 25, and in terms of material well-being for individuals, it doesn't even make the top 30.

Income inequality is a big factor in the Natixis measure of material well-being, and John Hailer, president and CEO of Natixis Global Asset Management, said that is what sank the U.S.
"Part of the U.S. is doing great, and others aren't. This index really takes into account how the overall population is doing," he said. "We need to look at programs in place to deal with the well-being of everybody."

2015 Global Retirement Index

Rank
Country
Retirement Index Score
1 Switzerland 82%
2 Norway 81%
3 Australia 77%
4 Iceland 77%
5 Netherlands 77%
6 Sweden 77%
7 Denmark 77%
8 Austria 76%
9 Germany 76%
10 New Zealand 75%
11 Luxembourg 75%
12 Canada 74%
13 Finland 74%
14 Korea, Rep. 73%
15 Czech Republic 73%
16 Belgium 72%
17 Japan 71%
18 France 71%
19 United States 71%
20 Slovenia 71%
21 Qatar 71%
22 United Kingdom 70%
23 Israel 70%
24 Malta 69%
25 United Arab Emirates 69%
26 Kuwait 69%
27 Estonia 68%
28 Slovak Republic 68%
29 Italy 67%
30 Singapore 67%
Natixis Global Asset Management
 
The new report adds weight to previous studies showing that many Americans are less than financially secure heading into retirement. For example, a Bankrate survey published in 2014 found that 36 percent of Americans were not saving for retirement, and 26 percent of the respondents aged 50 to 64 had not even begun putting money away for after they stop working.


"People that are undersaved for retirement just use the excuse that they'll work forever. That's not always realistic and not always up to you." said Greg McBride, senior vice president and chief financial analyst at Bankrate.com. If that plan doesn't pan out, he added, "that's the point where it can reach a crisis at the household level."

Another 2014 study, by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, found that 64 percent of Americans say that they have saved for retirement, but only 57 percent were currently doing so. Worse, 6 in 10 workers said they and their spouse have saved less than $25,000.


Hailer believes the U.S. could move up in the rankings in the coming years, particularly if some of the European countries currently higher on the list start to have difficulty funding some of their safety net programs providing health care and retirement support.

In Europe, people are "now beginning to get nervous that their governments may not be able to continue to fund" those support programs, he said. "In America, individuals are saying, 'I've got to worry about this now while I am still working, and put money toward health care and retirement.'"
Even so, he said, the report shows the U.S. has work to do.

"We need to be able to expand access to 401(k)s and other workplace plans," he said, and make it easier for small businesses to grow and offer retirement saving opportunities. "We have to find a way for part-time workers to participate" in retirement plans. "Everything's tied together."

Kelley HollandKelley Holland

Monday, February 9, 2015

401(k) Cap?

What a cap on 401(k)s could mean for wealthy savers

DNY59 | Getty Images

The tax advantages of saving for retirement could be a limited-time opportunity for wealthy investors.
President Barack Obama's 2016 fiscal year budget includes a proposal to cap contributions to tax-preferred retirement plans like 401(k)s and IRAs. "While tax-preferred retirement plans are intended to help middle class workers prepare for retirement, loopholes in the tax system have let some wealthy individuals convert these accounts into tax shelters," the White House said. Under the proposal, individuals would be prohibited from contributing to or accruing additional benefits in such accounts once balances reach $3.4 million—enough, it estimates, to provide an annual income of $210,000 in retirement.


Before you panic, take the news with a grain of salt: Financial advisors say the cap is unlikely to pass. "I used to react to proposals and then realized, heck, most of them never get passed, and the ones that do are usually altered," said certified financial planner Carolyn McClanahan, founder and director of financial planning at Life Planning Partners. "I've learned with politics, you worry about it when it actually happens."
Nor will most consumers come close to saving enough to be affected. The average 401(k) balance hit a record high last year—of $91,300, according to Fidelity Investments. Only 72,000 workers had a balance of $1 million or more, and of those, just 9 percent (roughly 6,480 people) had balances surpassing $2 million.


"I don't think the proposal is going to save that much money in terms of tax savings" for the government, said certified financial planner Clark Randall, founder of Financial Enlightenment in Dallas. "And any attempt to limit retirement planning sends the wrong message to consumers."


For wealthier people, a $3.4 million cap will mean diversifying assets, a strategy those clients are already used to from bumping up against annual contribution caps. "People who have the ability to save, they're going to save it one way or another," said McClanahan. "They're just not going to get the tax benefit now." That might be municipal bonds, life insurance, annuities or a taxable brokerage account.
It's tough to gauge the impact of those lost tax savings, which would depend on how many more working years someone has before retirement to set aside funds and let them grow, Randall said. Many of the people with large 401(k) balances got there because they made big contributions, not because they made astute investments, he said.


Details about how the proposal would be implemented are sparse—and those could further affect wealthy consumers. It's unclear, for example, if someone who amassed $3.4 million would be able to let it remain there and grow, or be forced to shift any excess from market gains into another savings vehicle, said McClanahan. Or if you could contribute more if portfolio losses dropped the total below that cap.
 
"The devil is in the details, and I haven't seen those details yet," she said.