Search results

This paper advances the specification and estimation of econometric models of retirement and saving in two earner families. The complications introduced by the interaction of retirement decisions by husbands and wives have led researchers to adopt a number of simplifications. Our analysis relaxes these restrictions. The model includes three labor market states, full-time work, partial retirement, and full retirement; reverse flows from states of lesser to greater work; an extended choice set created when spouses make independent retirement decisions; heterogeneity in time preference; varying taste parameters for full-time and part-time work; and the possibility of changes in preferences after retirement.

Given the ongoing attention surrounding public sector defined benefit pensions, the participating plan sponsors such as local units of government may be tempted to reduce their future pension liabilities, possibly at the expense of their former employees. Alternatively, public sector employees may act to withdraw their pension contributions if they have concerns related to the sustainability of their employer's pension plan. Nonvested, terminated employees have the option of leaving their contributions on account or taking them as a distribution in the form of a rollover to a qualifying retirement account, or a cash-out. Because a cash distribution carries with it the potential for retirement savings ‘leakage,’ it continues to be of public concern.

This study contributes to the literature by examining determinants of the distribution decisions of terminated employees and is first to specifically explore the association of pension funding levels as a determinant of such decision. Decisions of 46,608 employees who separated employment between 2010 and 2013 were examined. The results suggest that a decrease in the employer's pension funding is associated with increased probability that the terminated employee will take a refund of their contributions. Additionally, the data reveal that 88% of the terminating employees who took a refund requested to receive it in the form of a cash-out, totaling about $38 million of cash distributions. Lastly, about 1,000 of those employees each cashed out more than $8,000, thus suggesting the pension leakage problem warrants further research and perhaps policy changes.

The authors herein carry out a literature review of retirement planning and highlights that proper retirement planning starts by looking at the level of income an individual is likely to continue receiving at retirement if they were to take no action, then comparing this to what they would need to lead the lifestyle they desire. The authors review the traditional economic theories that many are accustomed to when interpreting financial matters (i.e., rational behavior) and compares this to the various studies and articles found in literature. The authors then dig into retirement planning in Malta and the behavioral obstacles to proper planning and how these are tackled in different European countries.

In the 1990s, individuals aged 18–64 were eligible for disability insurance, if their work capacity was reduced by at least 25 percent (50 percent before 1993). In the beginning of the period, before 1991, disability insurance could also be granted for labor market reasons (i.e., if unemployed had been compensated long enough to exhaust their benefits – obtained benefits for 300 days). This possibility was gradually phased out after 1991. In 1995, the enforcement of the rules was tightened. When evaluating applications for disability pensions, local insurance offices now had to request a medical certificate and a work-related test of the applicant's degree of work capacity. Local offices also had to consult the applicant's employer, physician, or other qualified personnel, and even pay personal visits to the applicant. The possibilities for rehabilitating the applicant should also be investigated. From 1997, work incapacity should be evaluated in relation to all possible employment opportunities. Potential income changes resulting from changes in employment should not affect the evaluation⁴ (National Social Insurance Board, 2005).

In this chapter our objective was to gain an understanding of what affects Maltese individuals’ behaviors when it comes to retirement planning. Given that longevity is on the increase, state pension income is limited (and most probably unsustainable over the long term) and that many individuals expect to be able to enjoy a comfortable retirement, it sets out to determine which macro- and micro-environmental factors are likely to encourage positive behavior or otherwise.

We did this by consulting and analyzing existing literature in chapter 8 of this book and designing an online survey which was specifically created to capture qualitative data about public sentiment and behaviors with respect to retirement planning.

The study identifies a general sense of confusion in relation to financial concepts related to retirement. In line with other countries’ findings, the prevalence of myopia, procrastination and inertia has also been observed through the research undertaken.

Through established behavioral finance theories and literature, as well as actual European practical examples, the research explores the best ways of “nudging” people into recognizing the importance of acting and making the right long-term financial decisions, to their own benefit and to that of society.

Notwithstanding, that overall savings of the Maltese are around the average established for Europe, the study found that savings tend to be shorter term, and therefore insignificant when considering the actual requirements for the desired quality of life at retirement. The research showed how, as with other countries, behavioral biases have been limiting people from acting or making the right choices.

Of the most prominent of behaviors, procrastination, myopia, and inertia were observed. In the local market, these seemed to stem from a sense of disorientation as to the meaning of certain concepts, how to initiate the process and which actions to take. In fact, although many did not admit it outright, respondents showed low levels of confidence in their abilities, and avoid acting out of fear that it may not be the right choice. At the same time, they would try to rationalize their lack of action by the premise that things would sort themselves out, although this is typically labeled as overconfidence, it is likely to be an attempt to feel better about their stance on the matter.

Examine tax-related decisions of married couples to determine whether decisions are made jointly or if one spouse dominates the decision. We also examine characteristics related to decision styles.

Questionnaires completed independently by both the husband and wife.

Nearly 40 percent of the couples make tax decisions jointly, while the remaining couples allow one spouse to dominate tax-related decisions. The results indicate that when one spouse dominates the decisions, it is most often the wife. We also find that couples are more likely to share tax-related decision responsibility jointly when the husband earns significantly more than the wife, when the couple has greater income as a family, and when they are a new couple.

Prior research has generally not recognized tax decisions by married couples as a joint decision or attempted to determine whether tax decisions are dominated by the husband or wife. This issue has implications for interpreting research results in light of prior research that has found that tax-related decisions vary significantly by gender. The finding that many couples make joint decisions suggests that an interesting avenue for future research would be to determine the nature of that joint decision making and whether it is collaborative, bargaining, or something else.

Prior research on tax-related decisions has not recognized that for approximately 40 percent of tax returns filed, the unit of study is not a single individual but a married couple.

To what extent do couples expect to retire together? What distinguishes “atypical congruent” couples who expect to retire separately? What distinguishes “non-congruent” couples who disagree on retirement plans? Using U.S. Health and Retirement Study (HRS) data, we find that “Atypical Congruent” (separate retirement) couples have shorter marriages, larger age differences, unequal decision-making, dependent children, and pension plans for both husband and wife. They are also more frequently interracial or minority couples. “Non-Congruent” couples (who disagree on retirement plans) are distinguished by wife's earnings and husband's occupational status and work schedule.