
Help w/ odd Lump Sum vs Fixed Payment COLA'd Pension problem
06102008, 10:00 PM

#1

Confused about dryer sheets
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2

Help w/ odd Lump Sum vs Fixed Payment COLA'd Pension problem
I am retiring soon and I am having trouble evaluating between the lump sum rollover and the fixed payment options of my pension.
Lump Sum:
As an example, the lump sum that would be taken is $30,000. I would like to assume that I could rollover that amount and realize an 810% annual rate of return from an investment portfolio.
Fixed Payment:
As an example, the alternative fixed payment allows $2400/yr for my life and $1800/yr (75%) for my spouse after my death. This option does have a COLA; however, the COLA doesn't kick in until after 5 years, at which point it's 3% annually.
Life Expectancy Assumptions: Let's assume that I live for 15 years after retirement, and that my wife will survive me by 20 years.
So, which is better? The one element I have the most trouble evaluating is
the 3% COLA after 5 years. I know this is of significant value, but I am
not sure what it drives the break even investment earnings point up to.
I would appreciate any ideas. Thanks for your consideration!




Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today  It's Totally Free!
Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that EarlyRetirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

06102008, 11:00 PM

#2

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,983

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsharp
I am retiring soon and I am having trouble evaluating between the lump sum rollover and the fixed payment options of my pension.
Lump Sum:
As an example, the lump sum that would be taken is $30,000. I would like to assume that I could rollover that amount and realize an 810% annual rate of return from an investment portfolio.
Fixed Payment:
As an example, the alternative fixed payment allows $2400/yr for my life and $1800/yr (75%) for my spouse after my death. This option does have a COLA; however, the COLA doesn't kick in until after 5 years, at which point it's 3% annually.
Life Expectancy Assumptions: Let's assume that I live for 15 years after retirement, and that my wife will survive me by 20 years.
So, which is better? The one element I have the most trouble evaluating is
the 3% COLA after 5 years. I know this is of significant value, but I am
not sure what it drives the break even investment earnings point up to.
I would appreciate any ideas. Thanks for your consideration!

This is complicated to do rigorously. A quick and dirty way to know about where you are would be to get an annuity quote for you only with no COLA. If it is anywhere close to $30,000 to provide the $2400 benefit, you know that the pension is a winner.
If it the annuity quote is meaningfully cheaper to produce that $2400 fixed benefit, then you have to do more work. But the 3% COLA, even delayed, and the 75% survivor benefit is actually worth a lot. My of the cuff guess is that this pension is a pretty good deal, provided you think the company will continue to pay it. Incidentally, your discount rate is too high. Probably you should limit yourself to 5% or so when you calculate how much you can withdraw with at least some inflation adjustment.
Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."Scott Adams



06112008, 06:30 AM

#3

Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 44,403

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsharp
I am retiring soon and I am having trouble evaluating between the lump sum rollover and the fixed payment options of my pension.
Lump Sum:
As an example, the lump sum that would be taken is $30,000. I would like to assume that I could rollover that amount and realize an 810% annual rate of return from an investment portfolio.
Fixed Payment:
As an example, the alternative fixed payment allows $2400/yr for my life and $1800/yr (75%) for my spouse after my death. This option does have a COLA; however, the COLA doesn't kick in until after 5 years, at which point it's 3% annually.
Life Expectancy Assumptions: Let's assume that I live for 15 years after retirement, and that my wife will survive me by 20 years.
So, which is better? The one element I have the most trouble evaluating is
the 3% COLA after 5 years. I know this is of significant value, but I am
not sure what it drives the break even investment earnings point up to.
I would appreciate any ideas. Thanks for your consideration!

Well, you could get a rough estimate by dividing your computations into two parts.
(1) Consider the first five years, and what your lump sum payment would earn for you during that time, less the fixed payments and what they would earn for you for the various lengths of time you have them. From these computations, you can get a rough estimate an equivalent lump sum hypothetically given to you on year 5.
(2) Consider year 5 onwards, using the equivalent lump sum you computed above. Subtract 3% from your earnings on the lump sum.
This wouldn't give an exact, tothepenny analysis but that is what I would do in your position as a first attack on the problem. But then I do love fiddling with numbers and making estimates. Probably Ha's idea is the best first approach!



06112008, 06:57 AM

#4

Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sarasota,fl.
Posts: 11,446

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsharp
I would like to assume that I could rollover that amount and realize an 810% annual rate of return from an investment portfolio.

I don't think you can assume 810% anymore . 30,000 at 4% withdrawal is $1200 so you are already ahead . Plus the security of a pension no matter how small is nice to have .



06112008, 09:04 AM

#5

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,624

Quote:
Originally Posted by nsharp
I am retiring soon and I am having trouble evaluating between the lump sum rollover and the fixed payment options of my pension.
Lump Sum:
As an example, the lump sum that would be taken is $30,000. I would like to assume that I could rollover that amount and realize an 810% annual rate of return from an investment portfolio.
Fixed Payment:
As an example, the alternative fixed payment allows $2400/yr for my life and $1800/yr (75%) for my spouse after my death. This option does have a COLA; however, the COLA doesn't kick in until after 5 years, at which point it's 3% annually.
Life Expectancy Assumptions: Let's assume that I live for 15 years after retirement, and that my wife will survive me by 20 years.
So, which is better? The one element I have the most trouble evaluating is
the 3% COLA after 5 years. I know this is of significant value, but I am
not sure what it drives the break even investment earnings point up to.
I would appreciate any ideas. Thanks for your consideration!

If I'm reading this correctly, it seems that a simple Excel spreadsheet answers your question. Set up a column of benefits that looks like this: $2,400 per year for the first 5 years. Then increase by 3% each year for 10 years (going from $2,472 to $3,225). Then increase by 3% and decrease by 25% in the next year (to $2,492). Then increase by 3% annually. The last number is $4,369 in the 35th year.
Now treat those amounts as withdrawals from a fund that starts at $30,000 and earns 8% per year. With all those assumptions the fund has yearend balances of: First year, $29,906 ; 15th year, $21,700 ; 26th year, $1,534 ; 35th year, negative $46,700.
So the fund can't cover the fixed payment for the entire 35 years.
At 10% interest, the fund does much better, ending at a positive $79,774. By coincidence, the breakeven rate is very close to 9%.
Doing the math reminds you how sensitive the result is to the interest rate you choose. Like others above, I'd think that if you need a constant 9% to match the fixed payment, then you're better off with the fixed payment.
A couple notes on the method: 1) You didn't give actual ages. I don't know if there is a 50% chance of your wife living another 35 years, or a 2% chance. That could make a difference.
2) You didn't say how important this money is to you. If this is part of your "must have in order to buy groceries money", then the lifetime guarantee in the fixed payment becomes more important. The calc I did assumes this is "fun" money or estate, and all you care about is maximizing it.
A couple caveats on the math: 1) I assumed a single withdrawal each year at the middle of the year, 2) I assumed the 3% increases were compounded, they could be uniform amounts, and 3) I've been known to make stupid errors when doing simple math. Don't take my word for it, check the numbers.




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)


Thread Tools 
Search this Thread 


Display Modes 
Linear Mode

Posting Rules

You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off




» Recent Threads













» Quick Links


