How Does Dipping into Your Pension Affect Your Retirement Wealth?

Although pensions, both public and private, are intended to provide income during retirement, a growing number of American workers receive part or all their employer-provided pensions in the form of a cash settlement, called a lump-sum distribution, when they change jobs. They have many choices of what to do with that money: for example, they can rool it over into an Individual Retirement Account (IRA), spend the money or pay or debt, transfer it to the pension plan of a new employer, or even leave the money with the old employer's pension plan. Policymakers are concerned that workers who spend their pension distributions on current consumption are depriving themselves of the financial resources they will need for retirement. This policy brief describes some results from an ongoing study on the long-term economic consequences of lump-sum pension distributions. The study uses detailed information on employment histories, pensions, and wealth from Wave 1 (1992) of the Health and Retirement Study (HRS), a nationally representative survey of individuals between the ages of 41 and 61.

House Prices and Home Owner Saving Behavior

This paper examines the empirical link between house price appreciation and the savings behavior of home owners during the 1980s. The analysis uses household asset and debt data for a sample of under age sixty-five home owning households from the 1984 and 1989 waves of the PSID to construct changes in real household wealth as a measure of household saving behavior. Cross-time and cross-regional variation in housing market conditions are used to identify behavior savings effects. The empirical analysis suggests that the estimated marginal propensity to consume out of real housing capital gains is 0.03 for the median saver household. However, there is an asymmetry in the saving response to both total and unanticipated real housing capital gains. All of the savings offset comes from households that experience real housing capital losses. Households that experience real gains do not change their saving behavior. The existence of this asymmetry casts doubt on the power of changes in house prices to explain the time series path of saving in the U.S.

Have 401(k)s Raised Household Saving? Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study

401(k)-type pension arrangements are the most popular tax subsidy to household saving in the U.S. This study uses self- and firm-reported pension information, Social Security, and household wealth data from 1992 Health and Retirement Study (HRS) to examine the extent to which 401(k) pension plans have raised household saving. Comparison of self- and firm-reported pension information indicates significant measurement error in self-reported 401(k) eligibility. This error has biased the estimated 401(k) saving effects in all previous studies upward significantly and differentially by income category. There is evidence of significant measurement error in pension assets as well. Overall, the estimates that account for both types of measurement error suggest that 401(k)s have not raised household saving. All of the estimates are significantly lower than those implied by previous studies that have found large effects. The most plausible explanation for the large estimated offset to household saving is firm-level substitution of 401(k)s for other pensions. Even though very little of the average dollar of 401(k) wealth appears to be new household saving, 401(k)s may have stimulated saving significantly for lower-to-middle income households and, hence, increased retirement income security for an important segment of the population.pensions; household saving

The elasticity of intertemporal substitution: new evidence from 401(k) participation

A key parameter in economics is the elasticity of intertemporal substitution (EIS), which measures the extent to which consumers shift total expenditures across time in response to changes in the effective rate of return. In contrast to the previous literature, which primarily has relied on Euler equation methods and generated a wide range of estimates, we show how a life-cycle-consistent econometric specification of employee 401(k) participation along with plausibly exogenous variation in rates of return due to employer matching contributions can be used to generate new estimates of the EIS. Because firms often cap the generosity of the match, employer matching generates nonlinearities in household budget sets. We draw on non-linear budget-set estimation methods rooted in the public economics literature, and using detailed administrative contribution, earnings, and pension-plan data for a sample of 401(k)-eligible households from the Health and Retirement Study, we estimate the EIS to be 0.74 in our richest specification, with a 95% confidence interval that ranges from 0.37 to 1.21.Elasticity (Economic) ; Consumer behavior ; Econometric models

Employer matching and 401 (k) participation: evidence from the health and retirement study

Employer matching of employee 401(k) contributions can provide a powerful incentive to save for retirement and is a key component in pension-plan design in the United States. Using detailed administrative contribution, earnings, and pension-plan data from the Health and Retirement Study, this analysis formulates a life-cycle-consistent discrete choice regression model of 401(k) participation and estimates the determinants of participation accounting for non-linearities in the household budget set induced by matching. The estimates indicate that an increase in the match rate by 25 cents per dollar of employee contribution raises 401(k) participation by 3.75 to 6 percentage points, and the estimated elasticity of participation with respect to matching ranges from 0.02-0.07. The estimated elasticity of intertemporal substitution is 0.74-0.83. Overall, the analysis reveals that matching is a rather poor instrument with which to raise retirement saving.Saving and investment ; Taxation ; Pensions

Employer Matching and 401(k) Saving: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study

Employer matching of employee 401(k) contributions can provide a powerful incentive to save for retirement and is a key component in pension-plan design in the United States. Using detailed administrative contribution, earnings, and pension-plan data from the Health and Retirement Study, this analysis formulates a life-cycle-consistent econometric specification of 401(k) saving and estimates the determinants of saving accounting for non-linearities in the household budget set induced by matching. The participation estimates indicate that an increase in the match rate by 25 cents per dollar of employee contribution raises 401(k) participation by 3.75 to 6 percentage points, and the estimated elasticity of participation with respect to matching ranges from 0.02-0.07. The parametric and semi-parametric estimates for saving indicate that an increase in the match rate by 25 cents per dollar of employee contribution raises 401(k) saving by $400-$700 (in 1991 dollars). The estimated elasticity of 401(k) saving to matching is also small and ranges from 0.09-0.12 overall, with just under half of this effect on the intensive margin. Overall, the analysis reveals that matching is a rather poor policy instrument with which to raise retirement saving.

Does Medicare Part D Protect the Elderly from Financial Risk?

The Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 added the Part D prescription drug benefit to the Medicare program. This addition, which became effective in 2006, increased Medicare program costs by more than 10 percent in order to provide, for the first time, prescription drug coverage to enrollees. Part D has since enrolled a sizeable share of elders and now pays for a large percentage of their prescriptions. Despite the program’s size and importance, however, little is known about its effectiveness. One way to measure its success is to determine to what extent it provides financial security to elders. If Part D covers prescription drug spending that was putting older Americans at financial risk, it may result in large social gains. If it simply substitutes for – or “crowds out” – existing insurance arrangements, the social gains may be much smaller. Beyond a crowd-out analysis, a full evaluation of Part D also needs to consider other social benefits and costs, such as the potential health benefits and the efficiency costs of subsidizing drug coverage. The study summarized in this brief evaluates Part D’s impact using the 2002-5 and 2007 waves of the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) before and right after the program’s implementation. The brief is organized as follows. The first section presents background on Part D. The second section describes the MEPS data. The third section presents the results of Part D’s effect on prescription drug coverage and expenditures and offers a tentative assessment of the program’s overall social impact. The final section concludes that Part D has resulted in substantial crowd out of both coverage and expenditures and, as of 2007, has produced only modest benefits.