Financial Planning - Pension Pitch: A Bad Bet
Pension Pitch: A Bad Bet
Some members are receiving an unexpected pitch from insurance salesmen
called "Pension Enhancement", "Alternative Retirement Option",
or "Funding the Pension Differential". Basically, the proposal
is that a married member can improve their post- retirement income by
choosing the life only option and buying an insurance policy to duplicate
the benefits of the joint and survivor options under Wisconsin Retirement
System.
The pitch is something as follows: "How would you
like to increase your retirement income without risking your spouse's
benefits if anything happens to you? Not only would you get more income
while you are alive, your spouse will have more flexibility because she
can control the source of the survivors benefit (she can choose a lump-sum
benefit or monthly income). And, you may well have something left over
to leave to your children upon death. "All this at no cost
to you!"
Under rare circumstances would pension enhancement be a net benefit to
the member or spouse in their normal life expectancy. In analysis the
majority of members would be making a very costly, bad bet. The bottom
line is that unless you are in excellent health; a non-smoker; have a
family history of longevity; your spouse is at least 10 years younger
than you are; and you expect your spouse to die before you do; don't make
the bet because the odds greatly favor the insurance company.
The problem with most presentations I have reviewed is:
l. The time value of the costs and benefits are generally not computed.
2. The amount of insurance is understated by not providing for annual
increases in the pension benefit or using an unreasonably high discount
rate.
3. The potential benefits are not considered after-tax.
In a recent analysis of a proposal to a male member, age 55 (who intended
to retire at age 62) with an age 50 spouse; the only scenario which would
result in an economic benefit to the member was if his spouse died before
he did and he lived to age 82. As long as they both lived or if he died
first; the cost exceeded the benefit.
One possible solution to be considered if you are approached
on "pension enhancement" is to tell the agent that you want
to see a proposal showing the circumstances under which you will have
an economical benefit, and those under which you are going to lose. The
proposal will need to indicate the present value of all costs
and benefits (suggest an 8% discount factor) include an annual 4% increase
in pension benefits and compute the benefits in after-tax terms. If you
can get a proposal as outlined and would like some additional help in
analysis, send a copy of the proposal to me and I will try to help you
make a decision. Without an unbiased analysis, my recommendation is to
"Just Say No".