Kotlikoff: Advisors Do Retirement Planning All Wrong

Q&A June 13, 2024 at 04:15 PM
Share & Print

Economist Laurence Kotlikoff

Financial advisors don't have clients' best interests at heart.

To make this case, Boston University economics professor Laurence Kotlikoff points to their use of "conventional" financial planning rather than "economics-based" planning.

"Advisors are systematically telling clients the wrong thing about retirement planning because they're trying to maximize their profits," he argues in an interview with ThinkAdvisor.

Financial advisors guide investors into saving too little, so clients "are left with a 20% chance of being completely destitute apart from getting Social Security," Kotlikoff asserts.

Kotlikoff, who was on Ronald Reagan's Council of Economic Advisers, is founder of Economic Security Planning, a firm that produces economics-based lifetime financial planning software. His newest book is "Social Security Horror Stories," co-written with Terry Savage, the journalist and RIA. 

Kotlikoff labels the 401(k) system "an abject failure" and proposes scrapping it along with Social Security for potential beneficiaries. He also favors eliminating other retirement plans that provide tax breaks because, he says, they all encourage spending, not saving. 

In the interview, the professor suggests instead a new government-provided retirement plan with compulsory saving contributions.

Here are highlights of our conversation:

THINKADVISOR: In a June "Economics Matters" newsletter, you write that the "Wall Street-managed decades-long 401(k) system is an abject failure. It was enacted by Congress, including members of the House Financial Services Committee. Taking bribes from Wall Street is a time-honored tradition." Please explain. 

LAURENCE KOTLIKOFF: It's all of Wall Street, broadly defined — [especially] the mutual fund companies and, to some extent, insurance companies.

Wall Street is the largest contributor to the congressional committees overseeing Wall Street. It's been one hand washing the other for decades.

Regulators FINRA and the SEC are also in bed with these companies.

Look at the calculators that FINRA has online telling you how much to save for retirement. It's enough to make any economist throw up.

They're violating the most basic fiduciary standard in their savings advice right on their homepage.

"The 401(k) system … has enriched Wall Street and provided massive lifetime tax cuts to the rich. [These] … breaks have encouraged spending," you write. Please elaborate.    

The 401(k) system encourages people to buy mutual funds, thereby benefiting the mutual fund companies. Investors aren't saving more — they're putting more money into mutual funds [that they might otherwise have saved on their own]. 

Employers tell employees, "Here's some free money we're contributing [to your 401(k)] account], and here are your options." Some of the funds they have the option to invest in are quite expensive.  

Turning to retirement planning in general, are there any big mistakes that financial advisors are making?

They're doing everything wrong. Advisors are systematically telling clients the wrong thing about retirement planning because they're trying to maximize their profits. They're giving the wrong advice to the American public about what they should do with their savings — how much to save, when to retire, when to take Social Security. 

Everything they're advising is based on how much money [they'll make], not on what's good for the client.

They're using conventional financial planning, diametrically opposed to what economics-based planning advises. 

If anyone at a top business school taught conventional financial planning, they'd be fired.

We have the technology and methods to tell [workers] exactly the right thing to do, but we have to break through Wall Street to get it to people.

What's an example of the wrong advice you say advisors are giving?

A CFP will ask, "How much do you want to spend in retirement, and when do you want to retire?" Then they'll set a target that's 85% of your pre-retirement income. That's miles too high. 

Now they've baited you into making this your target. But the client isn't saving a whole lot and doesn't have a lot of assets.

How can the target be met? 

"Well, let's try different investments," the CFP says. "Put your assets with us, and we're going to charge you a fee."

What's the matter with that?

Eighty percent of the time you may be able to meet your target without running out of money. But what they don't say is that 15% or 20% of the time you'll be financially broke — except for receiving Social Security [because you have been induced to invest in overly risky assets].

The advisor isn't saying, "You're saving far too little, and you need to retire later, downsize and adjust your spending every year when the market does poorly."

They're saying the opposite: "Don't save any more. Retire when you want. When I take care of you, we're going to make your target work for you."

What's the upshot, then?

You're left with a 20% chance of being completely destitute apart from getting Social Security. 

Why are advisors taking that approach?

To make money. It's so you won't walk out of their office and feel bad about needing to save more and spend less, go on fewer vacations, have fewer restaurant meals and work longer.

They're telling you, "Just relax, give us your money, and we'll take care of you."

People have so little knowledge, and the advisors are so friendly and nice. You want to trust this person.

Now back to 401(k)s: Why do you say that system is "a study in failed policy?"

We have a huge saving problem in this country. Three-quarters of Americans aren't saving adequately for retirement, including people using these accounts, a 2022 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago suggests.

When you put people who are cash-flow constrained into an account that lowers their current taxes, it's an incentive to spend more. This hasn't helped our national saving.

Wall Street tries to get people to start Social Security early so they'll leave their retirement account money with them and so [the financial advisors] can have more assets under management upon which to charge fees.

A retirement savings plan you propose involves … "freezing the existing [Social Security] system, paying off all benefits owed" and starting a new system of Personal Security Accounts." What does a PSA entail?

Getting rid of the 401(k) and tax breaks for retirement accounts. Shutting down Social Security at the margin but paying off accrued benefits [and running the PSA system in parallel].

A PSA wouldn't involve Wall Street. And it would have equal treatment of spouses — each having an equal-size account. There would be no sexism, with which the Social Security system is replete. It guarantees at least a zero real return on your contributions.

What about the investing side?

You'd have collective investment with everybody having a fully diversified portfolio. Nobody would have the ability to panic and sell at the bottom and buy at the top.

Would you do away with IRAs too? 

Yes. No one could contribute any longer on a tax-advantaged basis to Roth IRAs or 403(b)s or 457 plans. 

We've been digging a very deep hole in this country with terrible policies for decades. We're not [in a position] to dig a deeper hole. 

Would your PSA system be unique?

It's a version of what Singapore has run. People contribute to a single fund that was globally invested in a diversified manner, and everybody gets the same rate of return and is paid back according to their investment. 

[As I've written], all workers under 60 would be required to contribute 10% of their wages to PSAs. This is in addition to a reduced FICA tax needed to pay off existing Social Security obligations.

Where does investing come in? 

Each cohort's account balances could be used to buy inflation-indexed bonds that would then provide inflation-indexed annuities.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center