Description: Describes the challenges of using replacement ratios for retirement planning and suggests alternative approaches including spending strategies such as the 4% rule or divide your age by 20 (Feel Free spending) rule. Identifies and prioritizes different types of spending needs including sustenance, lifestyle, health care and bequest. In addition the article provides data showing how spending typically drops as retirees age and discusses how to take this into account when planning when to retire or how much to spend in retirement.

Description: Many retirement actuaries have experience developing, implementing, and monitoring Liability Driven Investing (LDI) strategies for plan sponsors. These strategies typically involve modifying a plan’s investment strategy to remove a significant portion of the investment and interest rate risk now or at some point in the future when specific triggers are met. The tactics often involve the use of fixed income assets to cash flow and/or duration match the liabilities. In the spirit of helping actuaries expand their roles in an evolving defined contribution world, this article explores the application of LDI and derisking strategies within defined contribution and individual retirement accounts. The economic theory behind this approach is called the lifecycle hypothesis, or lifecycle finance. The benefits of the lifecycle finance method are that it provides a safe approach to save for retirement and a secure source of floor income during retirement. Similar to pension plans, each individual has his or her own idiosyncratic needs, wants, and risks that should be considered. Actuaries are uniquely situated to help defined contribution plan sponsors, individuals, and even themselves implement the lifecycle finance approach by developing and distributing tools and methods that focus on income (rather than wealth), LDI strategies, and personalization.

Description: There is no silver bullet to improving retirement income outcomes for retirees. However, a combination of changes can be of significant value in addressing this overlooked issue. Although QLACs on the surface have potential value, they are not nearly as efficient as they could be. So far, employer plans have provided limited options for retirement income solutions. IRAs may not cost effectively serve the best interest of retirees. Employer plans should be encouraged to become retirement income providers and alternative approaches should be considered. The current prohibition on allowing plans to modify benefit payouts based on mortality experience should be reconsidered to allow for innovative plan income designs. Improvements to the deaccumulation stage of the retiree nest egg are challenging yet necessary.