SPRINGFIELD, Mass., July 16, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --Elaine Sarsynski, executive vice president of MassMutual's Retirement Services Division and chairman and CEO of MassMutual International LLC, was a featured guest on Bloomberg's "Taking Stock" radio program on July 11. Hosted by Bloomberg news anchors Pimm Fox and Courtney Donohoe, the show focused on the subject of retirement preparedness and what steps Americans can take to better prepare.

(Photo: http://photos.prnewswire.com/prnh/20100927/NE72118-a )

Ms. Sarsynski is on a crusade to drive awareness of challenges facing Americans as they plan and save for retirement and is particularly focused on helping to bring attention to specific concerns facing women. During the interview, she discussed the findings of recent qualitative research sponsored by MassMutual Retirement Services that provided insights into what retirement plan/401(k) participants are thinking and feeling about retirement.

The research, conducted between December 5, 2011 and February 17, 2012, revealed that, while about a third of surveyed participants in retirement plans administered by MassMutual began saving at an early age, the rest of the respondents ranged in age from late teens to late fifties. Many wished they had "paid more attention" and had implemented a "more strategic plan" to achieve their retirement goals.

On the subject of health care, Ms. Sarsynski affirmed that it is, indeed, a topic of great importance to retirement plan participants. She emphasized that retirement is "not a sprint" but rather a long-term proposition that requires saving consistently throughout an individual's working life to achieve sufficient savings levels.

"This research clearly demonstrates the need for financial advisors and retirement plan providers like MassMutual to help Americans figure out what it means to have adequate replacement income in retirement and then help them devise a strategy to make it happen," says Sarsynski. "At MassMutual, we are trying to change the conversation to one that's more about monthly income and what it will take for an individual saver to reach a sufficient level to sustain them in retirement. Financial advisors have a critical role in this discussion and women often need even more help," adds Sarsynski.

MassMutual's participant website, http://www.retiresmart.com, features its RetireSmart(SM) Ready tool, designed to help individuals calculate and adjust their savings levels to help them increase the likelihood of accomplishing this goal. MassMutual also offers a PlanSmart(SM) Analysis report that helps employers offering retirement plans to evaluate this measure at the plan level.

Ms. Sarsynski quoted one participant as saying, "I started putting money away at 26, but didn't really start planning and paying attention until I was 44." She stated that this was a common theme among survey respondents.

For more information about MassMutual's retirement services, please call your retirement plan advisor or contact MassMutual at (888) 626-4911, http://www.massmutual.com/retire.

MassMutual Financial Group is a marketing name for Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company (MassMutual) [of which Retirement Services is a division] and its affiliated companies and sales representatives. MassMutual is headquartered in Springfield, Massachusetts and its major affiliates include: Babson Capital Management LLC; Baring Asset Management Limited; Cornerstone Real Estate Advisers LLC; The First Mercantile Trust Company; MassMutual International LLC; MML Investors Services, LLC, Member FINRA and SIPC; OppenheimerFunds, Inc.; and The MassMutual Trust Company, FSB.

Read more:
MassMutual's Elaine Sarsynski Interviewed by Bloomberg Radio on Retirement Issues Facing Americans

(MoneyWatch) Although women are fairly confident in their ability to achieve financial goals like buying a house, they tend to be less certain about ensuring they have enough money for retirement and protecting their investments from the vagaries of the market, according to a recent Prudential study.

The study also found a difference in the level of confidence between women younger than 35 and female baby-boomers. Both groups have well-defined financial goals, but younger women often identify themselves as investment beginners and are less likely to say they feel well-prepared to make wise financial decisions.

This apparent gap confidence gap also reflects a knowledge and experience gap. That may be due in part to the the economic crisis, which has heightened women's recognition of the need to develop a financial plan that will meet long-term financial goals. It's also long been the case that women typically lag men in accumulating retirement savings.

One reason that's a concern -- women live longer in retirement. For example, if a man and women were each targeting retirement income of $5,000 per month, and the woman was expected to live five years longer in retirement, then she would need to have saved about $120,000 more by the beginning of her retirement. For the average woman, this can translate to an additional savings requirement of two to three percentage points per year over an entire working life, compared to what men must sock away.

Clearly, then, it is important to for women to run the numbers and estimate how much they need to save for their retirement. But what can they do to boost their confidence about being prepared for the future? There are several strategies that, if taken collectively, can help.

Go for retirement benefits

When seeking employment, look forcompanies that offer benefits tailored to women, such as paid-parental leave and retirement savings programs. This combination of benefits can help reduce the impact on retirement savings when taking extended leave. Also look for employers who offer retirement plans that include generous employer-matching contributions.

Contribute to a spousal IRA

A common challenge for women who leave a career is that they do not have earnings and therefore do not participate in an employer-provided retirement program, such as a 401(k) plan. As long as their working spouse is earning an income, the non-earning spouse should consider opening and contributing to aSpousal IRA, where their income earning spouses can contribute up to $5,000 per year ($6,000 if 50 or older). Spousal IRAs allow non-earning spouses to continue to accumulate retirement savings in their own retirement accounts, which provides additional individual retirement security in the event of divorce.

Inventory your retirement benefits

Original post:
Retirement confidence boosters for women

Early retirement is a financially sound choice for only 30 percent of 62-year-olds, according to a new analysis conducted by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. But that doesn't mean older workers will need to work indefinitely.

Researchers reviewed income and expected expenses to calculate when households would be able to retire between the ages of 50 and 90. The study found that while not everyone will be ready to retire at 66 or younger, an overwhelming majority will be ready for retirement by age 70.

While the news isn't good for those wishing to retire early, the percent of those financially ready to retire goes up steadily with age.

At age 62, the earliest a senior can begin collecting Social Security benefits, only three in 10 workers will have enough income to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living. Even among high-income households, only 38 percent will be prepared to retire at this age. Of workers able to retire early, 60 percent have a defined benefit plan, such as a traditional pension.

However, by age 66, which is considered the full retirement age by Social Security, the number jumps to just more than half of all households. At age 70, researchers calculate 85 percent of workers will be able to comfortably retire.

According to the report, the findings point to the significance of Social Security benefits as a substantial source of income for retirees. Under current policies, Social Security benefits can be increased for each year an individual delays retirement, up to age 70.

The Boston College researchers completed their analysis by adjusting the National Retirement Risk Index. This index calculates the number of households who are at risk for being unable to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living once they stop working.

The National Retirement Risk Index indicates 51 percent of American households are considered at risk. However, the numbers are calculated based upon individuals retiring at age 65. The Boston College analysis used a variation of the index to determine how much longer most households would have to work before being financially ready for retirement.

According to the findings, Americans can rest assured that working into one's 80s or 90s is not a financial necessity for most people. Instead, for those unable to retire at age 65, most will be able to stop working in less than seven years:

Only 2.8 percent of those sampled would not be able to retire by age 90.

Continued here:
Is 70 the new magic number for retirement?

Retirement conjures up images of spending more time with family and paring down a bucket list, but the reality can be quite different without adequate financial planning.

Here's a guide to what experts say are the five most common mistakes people make when they retire.

Mistake No.1: Not having a plan

Some pre-retirees fail to sufficiently consider what they would like to accomplish after leaving the workforce. According to Christine Fahlund, a senior financial planner at T. Rowe Price, it's essential for people who are considering retirement to identify what activities are going to be interesting and challenging for them in retirement.

"In addition, it is very important for married couples to communicate with one another about what each one wants to do in retirement," she says. "The discussion will provide a good idea of how much it will cost to make their respective visions a reality."

Mistake No. 2: Not enough funds

If pre-retirees expect they will live on much less money in retirement, Fahlund suggests trying to cut down and make lifestyle changes before retirement to see if its viable.

Kevin Worthley, a certified financial planner, says it's essential for pre-retirees to analyze how their retirement income needs will match up with retirement resources.

Mistake No. 3: Not calculating rising costs of living

Worthley says many people fail to calculate inflation, or rising costs of living, when evaluating how much they will need in retirement.

Continued here:
Five Common Retirement Mistakes

This month's enactment of the retirement plan fee disclosure law brings to mind the definition of a true professional -- someone who gives others the same advice they would follow for themselves knowing what they know about their vocation. So a whistle-blower would be someone who steps forward to point out that their fellow associates are not acting professionally. Their collective behavior is self-serving, but nobody wants to mess up a good thing.

Considering the legions of MBAs and Ph.D.s that populate the nation's financial services industry -- and purporting to help people prepare for an adequate retirement -- I find it a little strange that few had thought to calculate the true opportunity cost of retirement plan fees.

All it takes is some punching up of some compound interest figures on a calculator. What it ultimately took was the action of a few whistle-blowers throughout the industry -- starting with John Bogle at Vanguard.

For the past 20 years, the 401(k) industry and the retirement advisory community were charging participants an unconscionable amount and they were accessing their fees from retirement accounts -- the most expensive money anyone could use to pay a bill. The mutual fund industry is arguably the world's most profitable industry because buyers are not price-sensitive. When you are charged a fee but never receive an invoice, or have to write a check, it's the silent spring of stealth billing.

Moreover,

The average equity mutual fund during that 20-year period was earning about 15 percent per year. Money compounding in a retirement plan at that rate doubles every five years. But fees can take a big chunk from the fund; $100 charged in fees in the single year of 1980, for instance, would otherwise have compounded to $1,600 by early 2000 if it had been left in the fund at the beginning of that 20-year stretch.

And remember, fees taken out of your fund also reduce your return. So, for instance, a fund earning 15 percent a year actually gives you a return of 14 percent a year if the fee is 1 percent. When you calculate that missing 1 percent over long periods of time, the opportunity cost goes off the charts: $1.3 million in 30 years on a $10,000 per year annual 401(k) contribution.

Even with more normal 10 percent returns, the cost of the missing 1 percent is $355,000 in 30 years on the same $10,000 annual contribution.

The earliest published attempt to compare the cost to employees among the major retirement plan vendors occurred in 1998. A cost index was the subject of articles in the New York Times followed by Money magazine with its eight-page cover article "Beware Retirement Plan Rip-off." The Labor Department held televised hearings in Washington and then published a pamphlet that warned company decision makers to avoid high fees -- and that was it.

Finally in 2009, some 10 years after initial calls for disclosure, Rep. George Miller took action as head of the Committee on Education and Labor. His efforts resulted in what is now the new fee disclosure legislation that just went into effect this month. Your plan committee now knows what all your costs are, and you will be told along with your September quarter-end statement -- by law. I could argue that this legislation has the potential to add a trillion dollars to retirement accounts over the next 30 years -- at no cost to anyone but the financial services industry.

Continue reading here:
Retirement Planner: Counting the positives of new fee disclosure law

It seems the new mantra is that you need 100% or more of your pre-retirement income to live comfortably in retirement. But shouldn't you be able to get by with much less considering you no longer need to save for retirement and you may no longer have a mortgage? -- David Kolkebeck, Readsboro, Vt.

I agree that the "replacement ratio," or percentage of pre-retirement income advisers claim one needs to live well in retirement, seems to have crept up over the years.

When I started writing for MONEY magazine in the 1980s, people routinely referred to the "70% rule" when discussing the percentage of pre-retirement income one ought to shoot for.

Soon 70% expanded to 80% or 90%, and before long, some people began suggesting that 100% was a more realistic benchmark. A few years ago, one retirement research firm even came up with a figure of 126%.

Related: Can you trust your financial adviser?

Conspiracy theorists see something sinister in this retirement income inflation: Ah, those sly investment firms are pushing the replacement ratio higher, so we have to invest more money in mutual funds and the like, which allows them to collect bigger fees. But I think something less ominous is at work: uncertainty.

The simple fact is that it's tough to know exactly how much income you'll actually need in retirement. A recent study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that household expenditures decline later in life, dropping roughly by a third between ages 65 and 85.

But that doesn't mean your spending will follow that trajectory. Your outlays in retirement can vary widely depending on a number of factors, including: how closely you want your retirement lifestyle to mirror the way you lived during your career; how much you've saved for retirement and your kids' college expenses; whether you retire with a mortgage or other debt; whether you have retiree medical coverage from your company or will rely solely on Medicare; and how much you earned during your career.

So rather than viewing a replacement percentage as something you can pinpoint precisely, think about it as a very general guideline that can help you estimate how much you ought to be saving during your career and to gauge whether you're making progress on the retirement planning front.

As a baseline, I'd start with a replacement ratio of 70% or 75%. That should reflect the fact that many of the expenditures you face during your career -- saving for retirement, work-related expenses, the cost of raising kids -- won't be around after you retire.

Original post:
Pre-retirement income: How much you'll need in retirement

Do you feel ready for retirement? How's your 401(k) and/or individual retirement account doing? Has it recovered completely from the 2008 meltdown -- or are you still playing catch-up?

Yesterday, Alicia Munnell, director of Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, examined a recently released government study of household finances and concluded that as of 2010, the retirement account recovery had stalled. She pointed out that since 2007, the number of employees participating in contributory retirement plans has declined. Meanwhile, the number of cash outs, loans and hardship withdrawals has risen.

According to her calculations, the typical household -- husband and wife together -- approaching retirement had only $120,000 in 401(k) and/or IRA holdings in 2010, about the same as in 2007. If they were to take that money and purchase an immediate annuity with it, they'd get only $575 in monthly income at today's interest rates , she says.

Social Security provides an average of 70 percent of income for people 65 and older, according to Munnell's calculations, which are based on the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. The Social Security Administration reports that as of January 2012, the average Social Security payment for a retired worker was $1,230 per month. If we multiply that by two -- assuming among people retiring today, both halves of most couples qualify for Social Security on their own -- the total household income from Social Security is $2,460 in this mythical family.

If you subtract the 12.2 percent that Social Security holds back to pay for Medicare parts B and D, this couple will be left with $2,165 plus $575 from the annuity for a total of $2,740 to pay the bills each month. Of course, that's before any defined benefit pension payments, savings outside of retirement accounts and part-time work.

Can two people live on $2,740 a month or $32,880 a year? Or is this -- as Munnell implies -- a retirement planning disaster waiting to happen?

It depends on where this couple lives. Here in small-town Michigan, especially if this couple owns their own home free and clear -- they'll be OK. Their tax bills -- property, federal and state -- will be minimal -- no tax on Social Security. As long as they don't own the Taj Mahal or a brand new Cadillac, insurance should be within their budget. And the rest of the costs are controllable. My garden already has a bumper crop of squash and tomatoes.

In other parts of the country, where taxes and the cost of housing are much higher, surviving on this much income could be trickier.

Anyway, I get tired of reading studies like this one, which is focused on an average that is almost meaningless. The only way retirement planning works is if you analyze your own situation and go from there. Get out your calculator and figure it out. Don't be discouraged by somebody else's bad news.

Read more:
Retirement planning is personal

WEST POINT, Pa., July 12, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --There are many choices to consider when it comes to retirement living. Those contemplating a move to a retirement community will find more options available than ever before. Whether researching a retirement community for yourself or a loved one, it's important to ask the right questions, keeping in mind factors such as present and future needs, community location, and financial situation, among other considerations.

Following these tips from ACTS Retirement-Life Communities will put you on the right path toward finding a retirement community that will best meet your needs now and for the long-term.

1. Check the background of the community: Find out who owns and manages the community, as well as the track record of management. Determine whether the community is accredited for meeting high standards in services, operations and finances. Visit http://www.carf.org for a list of accredited communities by state. Review the financial performance of the organization, including any credit ratings the company has received from agencies like Standard & Poor's or Fitch.

2. Consider future health needs: Retirement communities today offer many amenities and services but not all provide medical care, making another move a possibility should health needs change. Continuing care retirement communities are the only type of senior community that offers independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing care on a single campus. Some CCRCs even offer specialized programs such as memory care, home health care, and adult day programs as part of their services.

3. Get detailed information about fees: Learn what all fees do and do not include, when fees are subject to increase and under what conditions. Ask about the average fee increase over the past five years. Consider the financial advantages and disadvantages of the contract options the community offers.

4. Meet with residents and tour the community: Arrange an appointment to tour the community, meet with residents and staff, and to sample the food and the service. Notice if the community is clean, well maintained and secure.

5. Use a services and amenities checklist: Get a complete information packet that includes application for admission, fee schedules, floor plans and the resident contract. Compare each community's pricing to amenities, programs and services that are important to you.

6. Ask about recreational and social activities: Find out what kind of social, cultural, educational, spiritual and wellness activities are available. Is there an activities director on staff to plan entertainment, events, and trips? Is transportation available?

7. Consider location and find out if there is a waiting list: Is the community located near family, friends, doctor's office, place of worship, and shopping? Find out if there is a waiting list to move into the community and how it works.

For more tips visit http://www.actsretirement.org/guide to download a free booklet called A Consumer's Guide to Retirement Living. This informative resource explains the range of senior living options that are available, and includes checklists, worksheets and important questions to help you confidently research, evaluate, and compare retirement communities.

Read more here:
7 Tips for Choosing a Retirement Community

A top Virginia lawmaker is challenging the U.S. Navy over its refusal to delay the layoff date for some 172 sailors so that they could meet their 15-year service mark, making them eligible for retirement pay.

Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., sent a letter last month to the chief of naval personnel, asking that the Sept. 1, 2012, layoff date be extended another year so that sailors close to meeting the 15-year mark could receive the maximum retirement benefits allowed to them under the law.

The Navy announced in 2011 that it was establishing "enlisted retention boards" to determine which sailors could stay and which sailors must be "involuntarily separated" -- or laid off. The Navy had determined that it was overmanned in about 31 of its 84 "ratings," or jobs, and that 2,947 sailors would need to be let go in order to allow others to be promoted. Of that number, 172 sailors would have made 15 years of service if the Sept. 1, 2012, date were extended another year, a Navy source confirmed to FoxNews.com.

The Navy then reviewed the records of sailors who had served between seven and 15 years -- ranging in rank from first class petty officers to senior chief petty officers -- and made their selection. The Navy claims that during this time, it offered affected sailors the opportunity to convert to another rating in an attempt to keep them from getting laid off. It also says it offered comprehensive assistance to those selected for termination, like contracting with an outside firm to help them find civilian jobs.

But the Navy's handling of the matter did not sit well with Rigell, whose district includes Virginia's Hampton Roads area and who serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

Rigell penned a letter June 11 to Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, requesting that the Navy extend Temporary Early Retirement Authority, or TERA, to sailors who make the 15-year mark by Sept. 30, 2013.

"These sailors and their families endure unique and extraordinary demands and make significant sacrifices over the course of their careers," Rigell wrote. "They are vital to our military readiness and should be given the opportunity to reach 15 years of service before being involuntary separated."

Buskirk rejected Rigell's request, saying in a June 27 reply that, "We evaluated whether individual exceptions should be granted, but determined that permitting sailors to remain beyond the cutoff date would adversely impact ongoing efforts to properly balance the Navys force profile, stabilize enlisted advancement opportunity, and improve overall fleet readiness."

"Additionally, granting exception for those who have not yet separated would create an inequity for those who have already separated," Buskirk wrote.

The law has long required sailors to serve 20 years before they could receive retirement benefits amounting to 50 percent of their base pay. In December 2011, however, Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the Department of Defense the power to reinstate TERA, which is a "temporary, voluntary program that offers voluntary early retirement at a reduced monthly retirement pay to eligible members with 15 to 20 years of active service," according to the Navy's website. Under TERA, members of the Navy, Air Force and Army who have served between 15 and 20 years can receive retirement pay that is calculated using a multi-step formula.

Read the original post:
Lawmaker Fights Navy to Get Sailors Retirement Pay

Lionel WIJESIRI

Human Resources Senior Minister, D. E. W. Gunasekera, recently spoke about the social security system in Sri Lanka. He said that the National Human Resources and Employment policy is now under submission at the Cabinet of Ministers and many issues on social protection and labour strategies have been addressed. Speaking on the retirement benefit schemes, he said, We must reconsider the feasibility of establishing a pension scheme for the workers in the formal private sector. The abortive private sector pension fund needed a much more critical study, analysis and assessment by professional actuaries. He also highlighted the need for a security scheme for informal sector.

Senior Minister D.E.W. Gunasekera

Fund management has become a controversial issue today, he continued, "We have to consider seriously whether we have reached the point of diminishing returns in so far as the management of EPF and ETF is concerned. While we should appreciate the concerns of the workers and their sensitiveness to changes, it is equally important to consider the long term sustainability of these funds," he said.

Human Resources Senior Minister is in the right track. Time has come to recognize that our present social security retirement policy needs to adjust to the changing economic, demographic and social environments. It is also a good idea that the government has begun to make extensive policy analysis and is planning to set up major policy reforms geared towards finding a new balance for social security retirement schemes.

Sri Lanka is currently fortunate to have an extensive social security retirement benefit system with a conceptually modern social assistance scheme. In addition to the universal health care system covering 100 percent of the population extending from birth to death, the country has comprehensive scheme of pensions for public servants, farmers, fisheries and self-employed, and the EPF, ETF and payment of gratuity for private sector workers. The writer believes that, recognizing the changing conditions, improvements are necessary with respect to the targeting and the adequacy of retirement benefits levels, quality and cost effectiveness of the public health care for the old, the personnel coverage of the income security schemes and the adequacy of benefits provided by the provident funds.

As the experience of the developed countries has shown, the presence of a reasonable social safety net for all individuals and households enlarges and strengthens the labour force of a country, adds to its capacity to promote growth and to accept change, and underpins a greater degree of political and social stability. Furthermore, entitlement to adequate levels of social protection is recognized explicitly in the several international declarations dealing with the matter and in the various international labour standards on social security and related issues.

For the world as a whole, three types of countries can be distinguished. In most developed countries and some countries in central and Eastern Europe, full personal coverage has been reached for some benefits, but not for others. In these countries, the extension of coverage can probably be achieved within existing structures. Most of these countries are contemplating new architecture for the financing of pension outlays. They are presently giving careful thought for the development of a new consensus. However, the overwhelming majority of the worlds population, belonging to lower-income developing countries, is without some form of income security in old age or disability.

In many middle-income developing countries, where retirement benefit coverage does not exceed 50 percent, extension of social security coverage will have to be achieved by a combination of adapting existing social security structures and experimenting with new schemes. Sri Lanka belongs to the third category.

Two main problems are at the heart of the issues facing social security retirement schemes in almost all countries of the world. These are questions of coverage and governance.

Read the original:
‘Retirement is the beginning of a journey, not an end’