修复美国即将退休危机的一种方式

最近关于来自美国精算学院的退休准备情况的调查得出结论，18至64之间只有三分之一的受访者知道他们的资产持续工作时间。仍然，超过一半的人在退休计划中充满信心。

他们应该是吗？

Using recent mortality estimates, the average 65-year-old man can expect to live until 84, while a woman of the same age should live until about 86. If we average these numbers, we’re looking at about 20 years of retirement to fund. And the mean American household income for those aged 60 to 64 is $50,000 according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. So, funding roughly 20 years of $50,000 is the challenge.

多年来，许多顾问已经实施了通常被称为退休计划的“三足粪便”方法 - 养老金，社会保障和个人储蓄。让我们快速看看每条腿。

根据投资公司研究所的最新研究，今年第二季度，美国退休资产达到26.6万亿美元。二十年前，界定的福利资产超出了界定缴费资产。这不再是案件 - 今天的养老金资产总额约为8.7万亿美元，而IRA和401（k）资产合并为15.9万亿美元。

In 1975, 55 percent of American workers had a pension. By 2017, this number had fallen to roughly 25 percent. For those 25 percent, the average annual benefit is somewhere around $20,000. However, it’s estimated that defined benefit plans — public and private combined — are underfunded by $3 trillion dollars. The first leg of the stool might not be there for many Americans 20 or 30 years down the road.

尽管对社会保障的可持续性有类似的担忧，但数百万退休人员今天严重依赖它。去年，社会保障管理局为超过5300万美元的福利提供了近9000亿美元，平均年收入仅为17,000美元。估计系统如何变化，但许多预测显示，社会保障基金在2035年下运行干燥。

愉快地，定义的贡献资产稳步增长。在那些设法使用像401（k）等车辆的家庭中，平均账户余额约为93,000美元。但是，中位数账户余额仅为26,700美元。

更糟糕的是每三个符合条件的参与者中的一个都没有保存。根据美国经济分析局，1967年7月，个人储蓄率为12.5％。2017年6月，它跌至3.8％ - 社会保障捐款发生的情况确切反向。许多人可能不会储蓄，特别是那些没有养老金的人。

定义的捐款计划展示了另一个问题，因为他们对参与者的一个大型责任造成了一切。在我的经验中，计划参与者不想自己这样做。他们想要回答四个问题：1。保存多少钱？我应该节省多长时间？3.我应该如何投资？4.我会得到什么收入？但他们希望有人为他们做。

幸运的是，许多创新在定义的贡献计划空间有助于这些问题;例如，自动注册和自动升级选择贡献率。合格的违约投资替代品（QDIAS） - 例如选择适当的目标日期基金，以自动投资于托管账户选项，帮助缓解投资决策的负担。

不幸的是，大多数研究表明，定义缴费计划的回报并未保持专业管理养老金的表现，每年落后0.5％至1.0％。

60-〜65岁括号中的平均401（k）账户余额为197,000美元。虽然整个平均账户的双倍账户，即使完全挂账，这种余额也只会产生每年8,000美元的收入。定义的捐款储蓄不会与大多数参与者通过传统界定的福利计划或社会保障产生的退休金收入匹配。

Hybrid plans, which share some elements of defined contribution and defined benefit structures, can solve some of these problems, although they have not been widely adopted. For beneficiaries, these plans provide a lifetime monthly check in retirement instead of a pool of assets and the benefits of professional investment management, such as low fees, economies of scale, and access to the illiquidity premium. For plan sponsors, they have the advantage of some sharing of market risk across stakeholders, and improved cost predictability.

Blackstone Group president Tony James and labor economist Teresa Ghilarducci recently published a book titled Rescuing Retirement, which introduces a federal proposal that has many of these features. But a similar model has already existed in the public sector for nearly 70 years. Although I’m clearly talking my own book, this model is the Texas Municipal Retirement System, and perhaps, for once, the sleepy public sector can serve as prototype for the private sector, helping to prop up an otherwise wobbly stool before its other legs come off.