Forget the Rule of Thumb: Saving 10% of Your Salary Is No Longer Enough
Just when folks ought to be saving more, they are saving less. Trouble ahead? You'd better believe it.
Yes, I have heard all the arguments about how the true savings rate is higher than the 1.3% calculated for 2004 by the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis, or BEA. But don't let that distract you from the bigger issue.
In a world of disappearing company pensions, skimpy bond yields, rich stock valuations and rising life expectancies, anybody interested in a comfortable retirement should be saving a truckload of money every year -- and yet most folks aren't.
? Rate debate. Among pundits, belittling the official savings rate has become something of a national pastime. Some of the arguments seem a little suspect, like the suggestion that buying televisions, cars and other consumer durables ought to be considered saving rather than spending.
Other criticisms are more valid. For instance, stock-market gains don't count toward the official savings rate, which strikes me as the right way to do it. Problem is, under the BEA's methodology, if a winning stock is sold and capital-gains taxes are paid, that tax payment reduces the savings rate.
Still, the impact isn't huge. Even in a big year for capital-gains taxes, like 2000, removing the tax impact would boost the savings rate by a mere 1.7 percentage points, calculates BEA research economist Marshall Reinsdorf.
More important, just because the true savings rate is a tad higher is hardly cause for celebration. The fact is, we should still be mighty worried, for two reasons.
? Double trouble. First, the official methodology may be flawed, as critics charge. But it is applied consistently. In other words, if the methodology is understating savings today, then presumably it's also understating savings in earlier years, suggesting we have indeed become more profligate.
Last year's 1.3% savings rate was the lowest since 1934 and well below the 8% to 10% of disposable income that was typically saved in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The decline in the savings rate is "too big to explain away," Mr. Reinsdorf argues. "The overall conclusion, that people are saving less than they used to, doesn't change."
That brings us to the second problem: Instead of saving less, we ought to be saving more. After all, traditional defined-benefit pension plans are disappearing, even as we face a longer retirement.
Today, a 65-year-old man can expect to live an additional 17 years. That compares with 13 years for a man who turned 65 in 1950. Meanwhile, a 65-year-old woman can now expect to live 20 more years, versus 16 years in 1950.
Adding to our financial difficulties, we are looking at modest investment returns, especially after the heady gains of the past quarter century.
Consider bonds. The yield on the 10-year Treasury note went from almost 16% in 1981 to 4% today, driving up bond prices along the way. That's a one-time gain that won't be repeated. Yields can't fall another 12 percentage points.
Similarly, the stock market went from less than eight times trailing 12-month reported earnings in 1982 to 20 times earnings today. Stocks can't repeat the climb from eight to 20 times earnings (unless, of course, we get a big crash first).
Yet, oddly enough, the savings rate has been criticized because it doesn't include these increases in household wealth. True, when their investments appreciate, folks may feel wealthier and that may explain the low savings rate. But capital gains don't regularly add to wealth, the way regular savings do -- and big gains may, in fact, augur badly for the future.
In recent years, Americans have also seen their wealth balloon because of the booming real-estate market, and pundits have cited those gains to explain the low savings rate. But this strikes me as a dubious reason to save less.
Sure, upon retirement, you could take out a reverse mortgage or sell your San Francisco townhouse and buy cheaper digs in Des Moines. But let's be realistic: How many folks are going to adopt these strategies?
? Saving yourself. Whenever I decry the low savings rate, I get email from folks who note that, if everybody saved like crazy, the U.S. economy would grind to a halt.
OK, we'll make it our little secret. We won't tell the neighbors that they are saving pathetically little and that they probably won't retire until age 76. Let them do their patriotic duty by storming the shopping mall on the weekend.
But for goodness sake, save yourself. The figures suggest there's a lot of saving needed. According to AARP's analysis of the Federal Reserve's 2001 Survey of Consumer Finances, households headed by baby boomers had median financial assets of just $50,700. Based on a 5% withdrawal rate, that would generate a meager $2,535 of annual retirement income.
What to do? Forget the old rule of thumb that says you should sock away 10% of your pretax income every year. Today, folks need to save a lot more than that, argues Frank Moore, a financial planner in Ann Arbor, Mich.
"The 10% goes back to the days when most people had a defined-benefit pension plan," he notes. "The idea was that, if you saved 10% and you had a pension and Social Security, you'd be in great shape. But today, many people have lost that defined-benefit pension plan. I think people should be saving at least 15% or 20%."
还是多存点钱吧
正当人们应该多存点钱的时候，相反，他们花得更多。将来会有麻烦？你最好还是相信会有。
根据美国商务部(Commerce Department)经济分析局(Bureau of Economic Analysis)的统计，2004年美国人的储蓄率是1.3%。我也知道很多人认为真实的储蓄率要高于这个水平，但不要让这种观点分散了你对一些更为重要的问题的关注。
如今，公司退休金日益减少，债券收益率微不足道，股票估价较高，人们越来越长寿--在这种情况下，如果想在退休后过上舒适的日子，就应该每年都把一笔不小的数目存起来。然而，大多数人都没有这样做。
--关于比率的争论。很多专业人士都认为官方统计的储蓄率低于实际水平，这几乎已经成为全国上下一致的共识。某些理论值得怀疑，比如有人提出，购买电视机、汽车、和其他耐用消费品应该被视为储蓄而非支出。
另外一些批评则颇有些道理。比如，来自股市的收益没有被算入官方的储蓄率，而我认为这是合理的。但问题是，按照经济分析局的计算方法，如果你出售了一只正在增值的股票，并且也交付了资本利得税，那么你缴纳的这笔税款会降低储蓄率。
尽管如此，这个影响不是很大。据经济分析局经济研究专家马歇尔?莱因斯多尔夫(Marshall Reinsdorf)计算，即便在资本利得颇丰的年份，像2000年，剔除税的影响后，储蓄率也仅上升1.7个百分点。
更为重要的是，实际储蓄率比统计数字稍微高出一点并不足以成为庆幸的理由。事实上，我们仍然应该感到很担忧，理由有两个：
--双重困难。首先，就像批评人士认为的那样，官方的统计方法也许存在缺陷，但它的使用是连贯的。换句话说，如果这个方法低估了目前的储蓄，那么也低估了过去几年的储蓄率，这意味著我们现在确实更加挥霍了。
去年1.3%的储蓄率是自1934以来的最低水平，跟60、70和80年代可支配收入8%至10%的储蓄率相比，也要低很多。莱因斯多尔夫认为，储蓄率下降的幅度如此之大，“三言两语很难解释得清。” “人们不像过去存那么多钱这个总体结论没有变。”
于是就有了另外一个问题：我们应该多储蓄，而不是多消费。不要忘了，传统的定额年金给付计划正在逐渐退出历史舞台，尽管我们现在退休后的日子更长了。
如今，65岁的男性能再活17年，而1950年的时候，65的男性只能再活13年。同样，现在65岁的女性能活到85岁，而1950年时只能活到81岁。
给我们的财务状况雪上加霜的是，现在的投资回报不高，尤其是跟过去25年的丰厚收入相比更是如此。
--考虑债券。1981年的时候，10年期美国国债的收益率为16%，而现在只有4%，这使得债券价格一路攀升。这种收益是一次性的，不会重复。如今，收益率不可能再降12个百分点。
同样，1982年，股市过去12个月的往绩本益比不到8倍，而现在的本益比为20倍。如今，股市的本益比也不可能再重演从8倍到20倍的涨势（当然，除非我们首先遭遇一次崩盘）。
然而，说来也奇怪，储蓄率因为没有把这类家庭财富的增长考虑进去而备受批评。没错，当投资升值时，人们觉得自己更有钱了，而这可以解释为什么储蓄率较低。不过，与稳定的储蓄不同，资本利得并不能稳定增加财富。事实上，高额的投资回报也许是不好的预兆。
最近几年，房地产市场的繁荣使得美国人的财富有所膨胀，有专家引用这些收益来解释储蓄率低下的现象。但我认为这个理由令人怀疑。
当然，退休的时候，你可以进行反向抵押贷款（不必卖掉房子，却有一笔固定收入），或者卖掉在三藩市的排屋，再在德梅因买所便宜的房子。不过，还是让我们实际一点吧：有多少人准备这样做呢？
--自己攒钱吧。每当我抨击储蓄率低下的现象时，都会有人给我发来邮件说，如果每个人都疯狂攒钱，那美国经济就会停滞不前。
好吧，那就让我们私底下悄悄说吧。别告诉我们的邻居，他们的储蓄少得可怜，他们可能要一直工作到76岁还不能退休。就让他们继续为国贡献吧，周末仍然到购物中心去大肆挥霍好了。
不过，看在上帝的份上，还是多存点钱吧。有资料显示，储蓄是很有必要的。根据AARP对美国联邦储备委员会(Federal Reserve) 2001年消费金融调查的分析发现，生育高峰期出生的美国家庭的金融资产的中值只有50,700美元，按照5%的提现率计算，这笔钱只能带来2,535美元的退休年收入。
怎么办？每年把10%的税前收入存起来的经验已经不适用了。密歇根州安娜堡的理财专家弗朗克?莫尔(Frank Moore)指出，如今，人们的储蓄率应该大大超过这个水平。
“储蓄率为10%的时代，多数人都有定额年金给付计划，”他指出。“那时候，如果你存下10%的收入，同时还有退休金和社会保险，那你会过得很好。不过如今，人们已经没有定额年金给付计划了，我认为人们的储蓄率至少应该达到15%或20%。”
