Senate Weighs in With Some Useful Retirement Savings Suggestions but ...

Canada's Senate committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce announced a half-dozen recommendations on how the government could enhance retirement savings in its Oct.19 report Canadians Saving for Their Future: A Secure Retirement.

The recommendation that would likely have the most beneficial effect is the suggestion to establish a Canada-wide plan for retirement saving and investing. The new plan would entail setting up five or so professionally-managed, competitively-sourced investment funds into which savings deductions/contributions of Canadians 18 and over would go. It's a pretty good but incomplete plan. Why?

1. Auto Enrollment - the report calls the plan "voluntary" but that means an optional opt-out, which few people will do. As the famous book Nudge explains (and as the use of the word in the report slyly suggest that the Senate committee is aware of the idea), the difference between voluntary opt-in and opt-out is huge and participation rates will be as good as universal, up in the 90+% range. Goodbye to the costly sales and marketing overhead cost of retail funds because it's a captive market.
2. Fiduciary Duty Governance and Management and Competitive Sourcing - they call it a commitment to avoid "real and perceived conflicts of interest". Professional managers can add diversification, discipline and net value when the fees they charge are restrained - i.e. the gross investment return isn't sucked dry by the fees. Hello to much lower fees from the powerful negotiating position that such a massive plan will have and hello to a resulting much higher net return to investors with much higher end value retirement savings.
   
3. Optional RRSP or TFSA - it is valuable to have the flexibility of being able to contribute to the right account for one's tax situation / income level (the familiar question about whether your tax rate will be lower in retirement - RRSP better, or whether your absolute income is low - TFSA better) and retirement goal (if legacy desired, TFSA better).

The report does not address a few key issues related to this idea:

• Savings Deduction Rate? - how much should it be? Maybe 9% would do, the same as for CPP, which aims to replace about 25% of pre-retirement income, so such a contribution rate in this plan would provide another 25%. A less desirable method would be to allow the contribution rate to be chosen by the contributor but then the new plan should have a default rate with option to change it (another nudge).
  
• Sequence of Returns Risk - the danger of a market plunge, such as happened in 2008, at the intended time of retirement is that the total available to purchase an annuity is vastly reduced and permanently low retirement income would result. The alternative of withdrawals from a RRIF would see much lower sustainable withdrawals. Of course, nobody would retire after a market crash if they possibly could and they would deal with the market returns risk by continuing to work however long it took for market and retirement savings recovery. That's not the only way to deal with this risk though. The method of the CPP is to have a defined benefit payment coming no matter what the state of the market - did the CPP announce a reduction of payments in 2008 even though its investment portfolio dropped about 20%? The reason the CPP can maintain payments is that it can, as a fund with a very long term investment horizon, smooth out market humps and bumps, knowing that savers continue to provide cash inflow. There is time risk sharing going on within CPP that the Senate's proposal lacks, which to my mind is a very important feature of making retirement saving feel secure and actually be so.
• Conversion to Retirement Income, Inflation Risk, Longevity Risk and Annuities - a retirement savings plan, such as the one proposed, must be converted into an income stream and the report does not consider how this will be done, except for brief off-hand references to buying an annuity. Yet the income conversion vehicle, its cost and its effectiveness in countering inflation and longevity risks determine the success of the whole retirement income exercise. This cannot be considered apart from the savings phase method with the assumption that all will be well. Choose an annuity and even low, normal 2% inflation eats away a huge portion of the value of a fixed payment annuity over the longer and longer retirement periods of today. Real constant-value CPI-adjusted annuities are almost absent from the Canadian marketplace. Most annuities on the market in effect provide income for life at a fast (high inflation) or slow declining standard of living. I bet that's not what people want or need. There is also the problem that the market is lop-sided - the people who want to buy annuities are those who figure they will live longer and not those who will die off sooner and whose cash helps maintain a higher standard of living for the survivors. (Those who believe this is unfair could be reminded that sharing the risk means everyone gets higher payments than if no one shares) The annuity-selling insurance companies know about likely-to-live longer annuity buyers of course, and so annuity payouts are even lower. Contrast that with CPP where everyone, early and late deceased, automatically and without choice to opt out, gets into the annuity payment stream. Choose the other option to generate income, a RRIF from which withdrawals are taken, people have the very hard job to figure out how much to withdraw given their uncertainty how long they will live and need income. Live too long and you run out of money. There is no longevity risk sharing. People can either be very cautious, withdrawing slowly, and perhaps live a much more restrained lifestyle than they might have liked, or they can live high, perhaps to discover that they must drastically reduce their spending later on. Pooled assets with no opt out (i.e. with longevity risk sharing) during withdrawal means higher payments for everyone and much less worry along the way. The prime example of a successful end-to-end solution is the CPP - you pay in a certain amount per year and you are guaranteed (by the most stable provider around, the Federal government) a certain inflation-adjusted amount for however long you live.

The report includes several other worthwhile but less significant suggestions:

• Set a TFSA lifetime contribution limit of $100,000, which could be used immediately in full any time e.g. for an inheritance; helps present-day retirees with taxable accounts
  
• Remove the effect of RRSP withdrawals on means-tested benefits; makes things less complicated and less punitive
  
• Defer RRSP conversion age to 75; helps those who work longer
  
• Have the Financial and Consumer Agency of Canada do financial education and monitor investment advisors (I think they mean financial advisors, which is much broader than investment advisors) - pretty wimpy, they could and should have recommended that fiduciary duty for financial advisors be put into law with some body given policing powers
  

Pension Reform: a Comparison of CPP(IB) vs RRSP / RRIF / LIRA / LRIF / LIF

There's been a lot of talk lately in Canada about pension reform, a very necessary and worthwhile subject, but unfortunately most of the analysis is from the viewpoint or from the self-interested position of government, regulators and the financial industry. Herewith I present a modest contribution to the debate by comparing two of the existing major options from the viewpoint of the retiree or pensioner, in whose interest all this reform supposedly is ultimately most important.

The two options:

• Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and its investment arm, the CPP Investment Board - thus my new acronym CPP(IB)
• RRSP / RRIF / LIRA / LRIF / LIF - the family of registered retirement plans available to individuals, first to save for retirement, and then to draw income from during retirement

The objective is to determine which best meets the first and highest priority of retirement income, the essential spending needs to maintain a lifestyle. I defined my criteria for this objective in my post of June 15 Pension Reform and What Retirees Need, so now I turn to the comparison evaluation as promised then.

First order analysis: What the alternatives deliver today, as promised and as possible. The CPP is very straightforward - once you are eligible and fill in the form to start payments, you receive a monthly cheque, indexed (increased but never decreased e.g. during deflation) for inflation, for the rest of your life. The registered plans are more complicated and the income must somehow be created from investments. I've assumed that the pensioner will follow what I consider to be the best available method to invest within the plans - a portfolio of passive index ETFs, possibly with annuities purchased at some point.

Below is a table with my comparisons and ratings. I haven't bothered with an overall score because the CPP is clearly and massively superior based on doing what it does now.


Second order analysis: drilling down beneath the surface, how sustainable and sure, and what are the risks of each alternative. Below is the table for those results. Again, the CPP is Victoria to St. John's distance ahead of registered plans.


Third order analysis: what investing challenges must be met, what effort and skills does each require to be successful. Big surprise huh? A pattern seems to have emerged as the CPP is again far superior to registered plans.


One could say that the CPP is the best thing since, and for, sliced bread.

RRSPs and the Government's Secret Tax Weapon

Jonathan Chevreau posted today on a BMO Retirement Institute survey finding that boomers expect to receive huge amounts of inheritance money to pay for their retirement.

A quick skim of the Passing it on study reminded me that in the case of inheritances "what you see is not what you will get". The example box on page four of the report shows how an estate worth $350,000 at death can be chopped in no time down to $223,500. That's even before lawyer and executor fees, or probate fees (taxes) get taken out. The reason is that instead of inheritance taxes Canada has a nifty little tax rule called deemed disposition, whereby upon death a person is considered to have sold all property at fair market value and to have cashed in all registered plans like RRSPs, RRIFs, LIRAs, LRIFs etc. There is an exception that a spouse can transfer the registered plans into his or her name without tax being triggered, but eventually the spouse too will die. Sooner or later there will tax to pay and since everything enters the person's income all in the same year, for almost everyone that will mean falling into a much higher, if not the highest, tax bracket.

Think about it, how many people die penniless, their registered plans depleted to nothing? You and I may withdraw RRSP money during retirement at lower marginal tax rates than while we were working but it is pretty sure that come death, our estate will be paying top rates. The government will end not only recouping its tax deductions but may well end up with more tax! That's the secret weapon. If you are dead, you may not care about paying unfairly high taxes on your estate and it is certainly difficult to complain at that point, or to vote against the government.

I've tried getting stats out of Stats Can and the Canada Revenue Agency about the extent of the issue - e.g. what is the average size of registered plans at death - but none seem to be readily available. (An indicator that this issue is real is suggested by Stats Can's table Private Pension Assets of Family Units, which shows that elderly families in 2005 had a median of $186,000 in private pension assets. Another table shows that the net worth of families 65 and older was a median $303,000, of which maybe half might be a tax-exempt principal residence, but the rest would mostly be in some form of taxable savings.) Better it not be too well known, I guess. People might get upset. The problem may get worse over the years as the decline of defined benefit plans means RRSP-type savings become more and more important.

This issue is one reason I am using my TFSA first since that account is "tax pre-paid" for contributions and any gains are tax free, even at death. It is also a reason to take money out of the RRSP when my tax rates are low.

Finally it is a good reason to donate money to charity since the tax credit effectively would mean no tax to pay even at the top marginal rate on the donated amount. Maybe that's why significant numbers of seniors are planning to donate parts of their estate to charity, not to bequeath it all to family.

Book Review: Buying Time by Daryl Diamond

The "buying time" title refers to spending more money early in retirement to have fun and not end up with a big pile of money kept aside for fear of running out with regrets for all the things that never got done in retirement. The subtitle of this book describes better what it is about: "Trading your savings for income and lifestyle in your prime retirement years". The author is a professional retirement planner with his own website.

This book has great value in that there are few if any books (or info on the web it seems) that take an integrated, holistic view of retirement financial planning to show how the whole process starts with lifestyle priorities that then drive a number of complementary financial components and actions. There are many books or websites from which one can obtain precise and comprehensive information and guidance on individual elements such as RRSPs/RRIFs, insurance or annuities but none that put it all together. The book covers all the acronyms and keywords at various degrees of depth: RRSP, locked-in RRSP, RRIF, LIF, LRIF, CPP, OAS, pensions, insurance, annuities, probate, wills. estates, trusts, power of attorney, capital gains, dividends, interest, bonds, equities.

I found very useful Diamond's discussion of the critical lifestyle priorities, namely providing sufficient income throughout retirement (i.e. making sure not to run out money), especially considering major health care requirements for critical illness and long term care, and whatever desire there is to pass along wealth to family or friends (i.e. not the taxman). It was also very helpful to read the explanations of insurance and annuities, something I have not yet spent much time learning the ins and outs of.

The book's stated objective to provide introductory, conceptual level treatment is also, for the DIY person, a major limitation. Diamond's constant refrain is: "to work out an actual detailed plan, go see a financial planner". Is it really beyond the capabilities of an interested, reasonably intelligent person who takes the trouble to buy and read such a book, to go ahead on his/her own?

The other important caveat is that the book needs a major quality improvement overhaul and significant updates. Diamond may be a good financial planner but he needs the services of a good editor to improve grammar, sentence construction, explanations, organization/story line, labeling and such. Many times I found myself saying to myself that something was incorrect, only to think about it and figure out that it was just the awkward explanation. The update is needed for important changes that have occurred since the 2003 publication date: new tax rates for dividends, tax brackets, foreign content rules for registered accounts, RRSP maturity (in the brand new federal government budget) and the introduction of variable payout annuities, which are not mentioned at all (and which annuity authority Moshe Milevsky termed a development which has "... the potential to revolutionize retirement financing in Canada." in his paper How to Completely Avoid Outliving Your Money (about which I wrote a post a few weeks ago).

A pet peeve of mine is the short shrift he gives to Exchange Traded Funds, exactly 11 lines of text, while the whole body of his discussion assumes the use of mutual funds for equity holdings.

Among the interesting but puzzling observations Diamond makes is that the first ten years of retirement are the best ones. Now it makes sense that declining health will limit activities as one gets older. But what if I decide to retire in my mid 50s? Does it mean I will be worse off after 65 compared to someone who retires at 65 and begins to enjoy his ten best years? And in financial terms, will I need less from 65 on than someone who starts his retirement at 65?

It would be very beneficial for the updated revise edition to include four or five annotated case studies of a complete financial plan. Certain themes and situations must arise often enough to be relevant to a large portion of the public. With all his experience, Diamond would surely be able to identify them.

In sum, this is a useful but by no means definitive book on the subject of personal financial management in retirement.