Francesca Golub-Sass

An Assessment of Life-Cycle Funds

Life-cycle funds offer an intuitive approach to retirement investing. Despite their intuitive appeal, the empirical and theoretical support for life-cycle funds is mixed. We examine life-cycle funds using dynamic optimization techniques to evaluate the optimal asset allocation over the life cycle. In our modeling we introduce a utility function that accounts for the individual’s taste for bearing risk and analyze the role of human capital on allocation decisions. The simulations generally support the use of target retirement date funds once human capital is taken into account. Investment fees, however, could potentially erode any increased asset levels that life-cycle funds create. Ultimately, an appropriate asset allocation depends on individuals’ objectives and the opportunities available in financial markets.

How Much Is the Working-Age Population Saving?

This paper addresses how much individuals are saving for retirement. The standard measure, the personal saving rate reported in the official U.S. National Income and Product Accounts (NIPA), has fallen dramatically and in 2004 stood at a dismal 1.8 percent of disposable personal income. But is this indicator an accurate measure of saving behavior? NIPA combines the saving of the working-age population with the dissaving of retirees. This study attempts to separate the saving of these two groups. Three conclusions emerge from the analysis. First, adjusting the NIPA personal saving rate shows that personal saving by the working-age population is significantly higher than the reported national rate. Moreover, allocating a portion of business saving to workingage households further raises their saving rate. Second, commentators should be careful not to double count saving through employer-sponsored plans by referring to pension saving and personal saving as if they were different components. In fact, for most of the time between 1980 and 2003, pension saving accounted for all of personal saving. Finally, the analysis (inadvertently) helps explain the puzzle surrounding the collapse of the total NIPA personal saving rate beginning in the early 1980s. While capital gains were part of the story in the 1990s, most of the downward trend can be explained by changes in the saving rate of those 65 and over.