I made some subtle changes to The Golden Albatross webpage the other day. First, on the home (aka splash) page, I added three paragraphs under a subsection called “Services” that briefly describe the paid pension analysis services I now offer. Those paragraphs also quickly explain why I’m charging for services. Second, I created a permanent page called Pension Analysis Services, where I provide an in-depth explanation of the range of services on offer. I also explain the technicalities of how hiring my services works.
In case you don’t want to click away, here it is.
Since “what I offer” got a web page, I wanted to circle back with an article about “why.” By doing so, I will have a permanent explanation for anyone who asks, nested under the “what I offer” page. More importantly, I want to explain “why” because paying me pension analysis is a marked departure from the original intent for The Golden Albatross website. In all, I provide five solid reasons, which I list below. Continue reading →
I’m back with another edition of the Pension Couch. I produce Pension Couch articles from edited and sanitized exchanges with readers who ask me defined benefit (DB) pension questions. It’s a way for me to create posts with useful pension-related information without the additional work required to write one from scratch. In this edition, I answer a reader’s “what if” question about replacing lost pension income by taking a higher-paying non-pensionable job. As a question, it fits well with this blog’s stay-or-go Golden Albatross theme. Therefore, I believe it’s worth your time.
This article’s request came from a reader who I called Kai. He specifically asked how much he’d need to save and invest at a new non-pensionable job to replace lost annual pension income from his current pensionable job… if he decided to leave six years earlier than planned. On the face of it, that’s a straightforward question. The answer, however, required modeling his retirement savings and investment options and then determining if they could replace the potential lost pension income.
Readers ask me some form of the “replacing pension income” question a lot, which tells me two things. First, many readers have contemplated leaving their often lower-salaried pensionable jobs for higher salaried non-pensionable jobs. Second, many readers also understand these scenarios involve trade-offs connected to their pension’s ultimate value in retirement. But, as just mentioned, mathematically modeling these “what if” questions can be complicated. Fortunately, in this article, I demonstrate how to determine if replacing pension income is feasible without resorting to complex math formulas. Instead, I use a free website and free retirement planning software, which you can easily replicate, should you need to answer the same question. Continue reading →
Helping pensionable workers determine the value of their defined benefit (DB) pension to make well-informed Golden Albatross decisions is the raison d’être for this website. Thus, I write most of my articles for pensionable workers trying to determine whether staying for their DB pension is worth it. However, those aren’t the only articles I write. Although much smaller in number, I also publish articles for pensionable workers who decide to stay. If a unifying theme to those articles exists, it’s pension maximization.
What’s pension maximization? In practical terms, pension maximization ensures your pension’s positive impact in retirement is as significant as possible. You maximize your pension by taking active steps during your pensionable career. My Gap Number, Roth vs. Traditional, buying back years, and pension geoarbitrage articles provide examples of actionable steps pensioners can take. That said, unlike my Golden Albatross-themed articles, I never laid out a framework for pension maximization. In other words, after a worker decides to stay, I never answered the simple “now what?” question.
The remainder of this article, and its follow-on, layout my framework for answering “now what?” I call this framework Grumpus Maximization.
Yes, it’s a somewhat cheesy metaphor. But, Grumpus Maximization is a catchphrase designed to stick, much like the Golden Albatross. Who knows? It might even aid future marketing attempts like printing t-shirts with “Got Pension?” on the front and “Get Maximized @ grumpusmaximus.com” on the back …
That’s not helping, is it? Fine, I’ll sidebar the marketing discussion for now. Continue reading →
Not every blog post I publish stands the test of time. While I always aim to produce “evergreen” articles, meaning they stand on their merits regardless of age, I don’t always succeed. My original pension subsidized healthcare post was a great example of this shortcoming.
When I published the article, the US’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, appeared on its way to the scrap heap due to domestic US politics. This made estimating the value of healthcare attached to a US-defined benefit (DB) pension even tougher. It also led me to rant about how overly complex and unfair the system was for those going through their Golden Albatross decision. As a result, I concluded that it was an invaluable benefit for those lucky enough to have healthcare attached to their pension, especially ifthey intended to retire before Medicare eligibility at age 65. Therefore, it should weigh heavily in their Golden Albatross decision.
That was it. I didn’t develop any complex formulas or provide helpful suggestions on accomplishing the seemingly impossible. Nor did I provide many links to others who had tried. So much for value-added, huh?
In Part 28 of the Pension Series, I stated that age, tenure, and (in some cases) gender mattered more than any singular pension design element during a pensionable worker’s Golden Albatross pension decision. I based that statement on the evidence from my master’s thesis research. For my thesis, I ran a survey for pensioners and pensionable workers which I called the Golden Albatross survey. To complete the thesis I statistically analyzed the results of the survey, which I discussed in Pension Series Part 28. This post expands on the gender portion of those findings by focusing on the impact of defined benefit pensions for women in retirement.
Much like Pension Series Part 24 (Black Pensions), for this article I examine if and how the Golden Albatross decision-making framework should be modified for a specific sub-set of pensionable workers. In this case, that sub-set is women. In doing so, I specifically focus on the disparities in retirement savings between men and women and the impact of defined benefit (DB) pensions on women’s retirement outcomes. I conclude that the Golden Albatross calculation is different for female versus male pensionable workers. Continue reading →
What should pensionable employees who leave their job before normal retirement age (NRA) do with their pension at their former employer? Should they roll the pension over into a self-directed retirement account like an IRA? Or, should they wait until NRA and collect the annuity?
These are simple enough questions, but not ones I ever had to deal with personally since my pension never accrued a value while I worked. That said, there are ways to determine the answers to these questions. But, as with many things connected to pensions, such as the Golden Albatross inflection point, it often involves a mix of math and emotion. It certainly did for one reader who had a pension roll-over question, so I made it the topic of this Pension Couch post.
For those that don’t remember, Pension Couch articles are created from lightly edited and sanitized email/message exchanges in which I answer readers’ pension questions. Names and some details have been sanitized to protect the innocent. Also, don’t forget that I speak in general about pensions throughout this post because every pension plan is different. So, make sure you research your specific plan before taking any action! Continue reading →
To justify studying Golden Albatross (i.e., stay-or-go) pensionable job decisions for my master’s program, I made an argument. I’m not talking about a Facebook or Twitter argument where everyone types in CAPITAL LETTERS and no one changes their mind. I’m talking about an academic argument. That’s right, I moved beyond my typical ranting via the interwebs and masqueraded as a social scientist for a few months. Let me tell ya, white lab coats for hairy knuckle draggers are hard to come by!
I’ll let you guess which one is me.
My thesis argued that human resources (HR) managers needed to know which pension design elements made their pensionable workers most likely to stay. Reasons they might need to know this included if pension plan re-design was required after a fiscal crisis — like the dot-com crash in the early 2000s. Since the main reason for offering a pension is to create worker retention, I reasoned that pensionable employers would want to avoid cutting design elements that most attracted workers towards staying.
Of course, the argument was hypothetical. I have neither the ear of HR managers anywhere nor the nerve to advocate cutting design elements from pensions. I simply made the argument to convince my advisor and those (un)lucky enough to grade my thesis. However, after collecting and analyzing the results from my pension survey, I was ready to declare ‘Don’t mess with healthcare!’ to any HR manager that would listen.
If you’ve read Pension Series Part 27, then you know why. Survey participants ranked ‘pension subsidized healthcare’ as the design element that made them consider staying at their job the most during their Golden Albatross decision. In fact, the final weighted score for healthcare was ten percentage points higher than the second-place design element, ‘immediate annuity.’ Therefore, the results appeared to support a ‘keep your money grubbing hands off of healthcare’ declaration.
That said, I’m glad I didn’t declare this straight away. As you’re about to find out, age, tenure, and gender are far more powerful elements during a Golden Albatross decision than any singular pension design element — even one as popular as healthcare. Continue reading →
Believe it or not, I get fan emails from time to time. They come in many different forms. Some of it is precisely what it sounds like, meaning people take the time to drop me a nice note and say how much they liked the blog, the book (or both), or how much something I wrote resonated with them. I’d be lying if I didn’t say that my ego likes those emails. I’d also be lying if I said I have great tracking system for responding to all them. So, if I owe you a response, please accept my apology in advance as I try to work through the backlog. More importantly, please keep sending those types of emails because I find them extremely motivating. They help me write, even on days when I’m not feeling particularly creative.
Advice requests are another form of fan emails I receive. Those motivate me too because I get to help people directly. Most of the time, the advice being sought is pension-related. For instance, sometimes, people want me to analyze their pension as a whole. In contrast, others ask about a specific pension design element. Anyone who’d like to see or listen to me provide an overall analysis of a pension can check out the ChooseFI episode where I counseled a young married couple about the wife’s pension.
Less often, advice requests center on career/life issues associated with pensionable jobs. These issues sometimes include a mental health angle. Since I blog about my mental health issues connected to my previous pensionable job, it’s no surprise that readers reach out with similar problems or questions. That’s the gist of the latest email, which I discuss below. Continue reading →
I loved the Animaniacs cartoon when I was a teenager, especially one episode called “Survey Ladies.” In it, two ladies run around a shopping mall hounding the Animaniacs screaming, “would you like to take a survey?” and asking crazy questions like, “would you eat beans with George Wendt?” For those of you who don’t know, George Wendt was Norm in the sitcom Cheers.
That’s how I felt in March 2021 as I administered a pension survey to US-based pensionable workers and retirees from several personal finance Facebook groups and my blog’s email distribution list. I ran around (virtually) trying to convince pensionable workers and retirees to take my survey and answer many seemingly crazy pension-related questions. Sadly, I couldn’t figure out a way to work George Wendt or beans into it. Continue reading →
Guess what? I may not have needed to coin the Golden Albatross metaphor! It’s sad but true. I cried (on the inside) when I discovered that business management academics had an entire theory that captured employees’ stay-or-go psychological condition long before I arrived on the scene with the Golden Albatross. It’s called ‘continuance commitment.’
While neither as catchy as the Golden Albatross nor limited to just pensionable workers, continuance commitment fits the Golden Albatross metaphor perfectly. The only difference is that the Golden Albatross describes the situation for pensionable workers. On the other hand, continuance commitment captures the stay or go feeling that any worker might face while working any type of job.
Is this albatross masquerading as a management theory?
This post is all about continuance commitment and why I think it’s vital that pensionable workers know about it. The article starts small, with a definition of continuance commitment, and then moves on to the general theory. I then explain how continuance commitment fits into the study of voluntary employee turnover. I also link continuance commitment, voluntary turnover, and defined benefit pensions (DBPs) together. Afterward, I take a quick look at how continuance commitment ties into pension plan design, which I discussed in Pension Series Part 25. I do this to set up the discussion for Part 27 of the Pension Series. Finally, I end on a cautionary note about the types of employees continuance commitment produces. Continue reading →
