How-To and Q&A User Webinar - Longevity, Mortality, and Dynamic Planning - February 2022

okay and all right i see folks flowing in

0:09

okay

0:28

good afternoon everyone thanks for joining our webinar we will get started in a few minutes as we uh give folks uh

0:35

time to get signed in

1:05

looks like we still got a few more folks coming in here

1:37

okay all right looks like we'll get kicked off

1:43

okay well good afternoon good morning wherever you all are across the states here uh welcome to our user uh income

1:51

lab user q a webinar this month um we are excited to uh present on

1:57

longevity mortality and dynamic planning as well as hear uh your q a and your

2:03

questions um that you may have on this topic as well as other pieces of the software

2:10

a few housekeeping items um as uh for those who this is your first time uh we

2:16

will have uh justin and derek do a presentation for the first half and then we will open up the webinar to uh the q

2:23

a section you'll see in our zoom meeting here that there will be a q a button um

2:29

uh in your toolbar that's where you can go ahead and put in any questions that you have

2:34

keep track of those questions um because you can also see what other people are asking and even uh vote upvote the

2:41

question so that way we can move them up in our queue and then from there we will just go through all the questions and

2:46

get you all some answers outside of that um if there's anything you resonate with as well you can use

2:52

that chat function um as well to share any other uh comments or feedback

2:57

from that we will send out the recording webinar tomorrow for those who want to review again and we will also put the

3:04

webinar recording in our help center okay well justin derick

3:09

glad to see you guys back here again justin i saw i see your screen share so i will turn it over to you

3:18

okay thanks mackley thanks derek thanks everybody for joining um yeah so today we thought we would cover

3:24

um an area that we i don't think have touched on too deeply in these webinars which is

3:30

um longevity planning or dealing with you know mortality

3:36

estimates and things when you're doing dynamic planning so this is definitely an area where

3:42

it's possible to kind of up our game uh as advisors and also like

3:48

take advantage of some some pretty cool things about uh about mortality planning that can really help um

3:55

provide you know better experiences and maybe lower the lower the blood pressure again when when doing um retirement

4:01

income planning um so here's an outline we're going to talk about some things that go into

4:08

developing good playing let plan length estimates because when it comes to mortality that's one of the main

4:14

um the main considerations is kind of using you know actuarial science and and

4:20

mortality and longevity estimates to to come up with a plan length we'll talk about the difference between static and

4:26

dynamic longevity planning and then we'll dive into sort of a a side um

4:32

issue dealing with survival called survivorship dependent cash flows so cash flows that depend on

4:38

on who's alive um at the time okay um and

4:44

we'll try to keep this to you know half an hour probably less actually uh to leave lots of less time

4:50

for questions um so what goes into good plan length estimates when you're doing

4:56

retirement income planning i think probably the first thing to say here is

5:02

we probably need to remain pretty humble so this is one of the areas where in in retirement and complain area in any

5:09

planning where what we would like to know how long someone's going to live is is pretty

5:15

much unknowable so this is not one of the places where if we just try harder we'll come up with

5:21

the answer um so we just sort of have to be okay with with uh not knowing what the what the

5:28

exact uh plan length will be for a person or for a couple

5:34

it's also one of these areas where we're going to be applying concepts from statistics um to

5:39

individual situations and that's perfectly fine it really it helps us um

5:44

uh be as smart as we possibly can about planning but of course it's always important to remember um

5:50

you know a person's actual life experience is going to be one particular thing um and we're using population

5:56

statistics to help um do the planning there um but you know there's no sense

6:02

in which someone uh maybe at some point in the future we can be pretty sure half a population will still be alive and

6:08

half won't but that's that's not true for an individual right uh they're either going to be all the way alive or all the way dead but um so i think just

6:15

kind of those conceptual issues are are important to keep in mind here when whenever you're dealing with

6:20

um longevity issues uh there's just no there's no such thing as

6:26

having kind of a perfect uh perfect plan and perfect foresight on this um so the first thing we want to talk

6:32

about in dealing with trying to come up with with you know longevity estimates or you know

6:37

how long should i plan for is that um you know we want to ground those

6:42

decisions in some particular set of of facts or estimates

6:48

um and it really matters what facts and estimates we we use there so

6:54

um what you see on the screen here is a whole lot of numbers but it's from the top part is from

7:00

a study from 2015 from the national academies of um

7:05

science on gaps in life expectancy by income so

7:10

this is just um uh here to to point out that if you kind of

7:16

split the population of the united states into five um those who are in the top 20 percent the

7:23

top quintile have much longer life expectancies than

7:29

those in for example the the bottom quintile so you know there's there's lots that that probably goes into

7:35

explaining this including um you know probably healthcare and and things like that um but

7:41

just taking it at face value i mean it's incredible where we on the male side here we have a 15-year almost 16-year

7:49

um uh i'm sorry 12 12 almost 13-year difference um between

7:56

those two quintiles for those who are interested so this is from 2015 and obviously the um

8:03

you know some of this involves estimates of the future by the folks writing these these articles right so it may not

8:09

actually turn out to be exactly right and then below what i've done is is pulled out some data on

8:14

you know what sort of household income you would need to be in um these

8:19

in these groups in these quintiles so on the left left lower side you'll see

8:25

that 100 and about 112 000 a year in household income would put you

8:31

in that top uh 20 and on average that top 20 percent has a 200 000

8:37

um household income so we see some of these other states and these these numbers aren't from exactly the same

8:43

years right so uh there's definitely some some fudging here but it's close enough to to get us there um

8:50

the thing to note here is that irs um

8:55

period life tables which are for you know the whole population um are

9:01

are much lower than for example this this top 20 the same thing if you saw social security so for males irs tables

9:10

um for a fif these are by the way life expectancy from age 50. so um

9:15

for irs for males that's almost 30 years for females 33 and a half years whereas

9:21

at the top quintile here it's closer to 40 years for for both cases so that's a pretty that's a pretty big

9:27

deal and we need to think about you know for the clients that you're planning for

9:32

what's uh you know what's a reasonable comparison here often folks who have financial advisors will be closer to

9:38

that top quintile here's just more of the same sort of

9:44

pattern but but shown as a survivorship from age 50 to age 5 85

9:54

again some of this is projections but two things to note here one is

10:00

the very high level of survivorship to age 85 for 50 year olds um

10:05

you know that's well over half for the top quintile and then again uh the large gap in

10:11

survivorship between between quintiles finally and i think this is particularly

10:18

interesting um this is survivorship to age 100. again some of this is projections it may not

10:23

turn out to be correct but um the national academies here are saying that those born in 1960

10:32

um who you know had already made it to age 50

10:37

um even for for uh well for both males and females over 20

10:42

uh survivorship to age 100 so which is again it sounds sounds incredible and then these are um projections but but

10:49

still really um really remarkable so um to some extent this is saying if if folks have higher incomes um

10:56

higher access to um to resources uh it's it's not unreasonable to project longer longer

11:04

plan lengths and that we need to pay attention to the population that we're looking at in in providing estimates

11:13

so with this as kind of a background okay there is a lot of data out there and there are ways that we can kind of

11:18

uh shape our uh plan lengths and and um and actuarial estimates what are we

11:24

doing in income lab um so one of the main things we've done is rather than just ask for um an end of

11:33

plan for a person or for each spouse so that sort of euphemism for you know when when to

11:39

kill off the the clients in the plan right um we've instead chosen to ask for

11:46

a uh sort of a longevity risk tolerance so what we wanted to do we talked with

11:51

clients and they generally had an easy time talking about sort of how they compared

11:56

to their peers or or they talked about their family history you know all the women in my family lived to their 90s

12:02

all the men you know have a heart attack at 70. these were the kinds of things that people had access to less so okay

12:08

here seems like a reasonable you know age uh to plan to so

12:14

we take in that information and we apply it to an actuarial model that is that depends

12:20

on society of actuaries mortality tables we use retirement plan participant mortality tables

12:26

that goes a long way toward reflecting that longevity gap

12:32

depending on income levels because if you have a retirement plan if you have a 401k if you have a pension you are more

12:38

likely to be in a higher income level um and then we apply improvement scales

12:44

from 2017 in this case so that just says you know as time goes on we expect

12:49

mortality patterns to change in a particular way and the society of actuaries you know has estimates

12:56

of that um we also have a few other places where we apply mortality adjustment

13:04

and we're going to go through those um today but these are these are all kind of parts of the income lab

13:10

um software and technology where um where actuarial data and longevity estimates

13:17

um have a role to play so let's talk now about

13:24

how we come to plan length estimates so one key thing is that when you're

13:30

producing an income lab plan whether you're doing it for a single person or a joint couple matters a lot

13:37

because if you are doing it for a joint couple you'll be looking at joint survivorship and joint survivorship is

13:43

just the chances that at least one person and a couple is still alive in the future and these are

13:50

always higher than single survivorship um so that's because you know it could be

13:56

either either person so in this case you see um you see survivorship curves for

14:02

um a male age 65 a female age 65 and a couple both age 65 and you can see the

14:10

blue line is is quite a bit higher so that can sometimes be a little bit confusing um for those who

14:16

are used to specifying um longevity estimates or you know

14:21

end-of-life estimates for for each individual right so you might say okay husband i'm going to plan to 86 and wife

14:28

i'm going to plan to 93. well the plan that you'll see and typically might go to to age 93 in

14:37

income lab and contrast what you would see is that it the plan will be longer than you

14:43

would uh have for either person on their own in order to handle this kind of joint

14:49

um survivorship effect um another thing i just mentioned that

14:55

we're trying to use longevity risk tolerance um which isn't you know necessarily how you talk about it with

15:00

clients it's more okay let's get a feeling are you you know based on family history based

15:06

on your own uh you know lifestyle and history um you're you know history of uh your

15:13

health history maybe you you know exercise a lot and eat great and you know haven't don't have a lot much

15:18

history of health problems or vice versa you know where where should we put ourselves on this

15:25

kind of longevity risk spectrum and um

15:30

so you'll see here how again this matters so for example um if you set

15:35

yourself as you know kind of in the 50th percentile as a male and you're age 65

15:42

you're a little bit between you know 20 and 25 years maybe it's right about in between 22 and a half years or so um if you're

15:50

joint with another um you know 65 year old you want to be at the 50th percentile you're just under 30 years

15:56

right so there's this is as you as you move kind of the sliders in the income lab um longevity settings you're

16:04

essentially moving along these these curves right so what we mean by

16:09

longevity risk tolerance is um the chances of uh outliving the plan length right so if

16:17

you want um you know right in the middle hey i want a 50

16:22

chance of being above 50 chance of being low you you choose 50. um it's actually you'll see the reverse in in in the um

16:30

in the software itself uh what i have along here is longevity percentile but you know 90th percentile means 10 chance

16:36

of living longer than that right so it's that's the more conservative the longer planning length right

16:42

and then um we don't just sort of stop there and say

16:48

okay great we have a plan length let's just leave it because income lab

16:53

technology is dynamic what you're doing is setting this plan on a we could call it a plan length curve a

17:00

plan like glide path right so that as time goes on the plan length will decrease over time but crucially it

17:07

won't decrease you know one year for every year you live um so

17:12

every year you live you actually extend your longevity slightly so by choosing a longevity

17:19

risk tolerance single or joint you are essentially saying hey for this

17:24

plan we're gonna we're gonna ride this uh this plan length path down

17:30

over time so that last piece has to do with um

17:35

dynamic longevity planning so the difference between kind of statically you know establishing a plan length and

17:41

then sticking with it versus returning to the plan length decision over and over

17:48

again over time in order to update your estimates for things we now know

17:55

the very you know the minimum we would learn over time is that you have survived right so every month you

18:01

survive we learn we learn more um so what is the difference between

18:06

static and dynamic longevity planning i've already gone over it a little bit but

18:11

if you're doing kind of static planning typically you would specify a kind of an end of retirement for usually for each

18:17

person um what this tends to do and i think in a very rational way if

18:23

you're you're presented with the question of hey let's let's establish an end of retirement date

18:29

and it's it's framed as you know a one-time only decision

18:34

that will incentivize very high estimates um in other words you're trying to lower

18:40

the risk of overrunning the plan length estimate because it feels like you only have one one chance to do so right so

18:45

the perception of risk is higher in dynamic planning the way that we do it on an income lab is

18:52

because what's what's being kept constant is the longevity risk tolerance

18:57

unless you decide to change it right maybe somebody gets a diagnosis or something and you can come in and make those changes but if you don't what's

19:03

being kept constant is the longevity risk tolerance and so because you're always redoing the plan

19:09

length you're never going to catch up to the initial estimate right so it's always getting pushed out over time this

19:16

makes less extreme um risk settings viable because again

19:22

that risk of running into them is is i mean it's just impossible um

19:27

here's an example of that so if at age 65 you know joint couple age 5

19:33

65 i decided that i wanted to plan at kind of the the median

19:39

so you know half that population um will will have at least one person living this

19:46

long i would have a plan length of 28.9 years which means by age 94 for both of these

19:54

people we would we would be at zero right so that that would be a linear um plan length

20:01

but that's that's not a reasonable way to do things instead um what we do is we kind of that that

20:07

that curve uh flattens out over time and in the case of income lab we have a

20:14

minimum plan length of five years so you're never going to have a a plan that is you know one month long or something um

20:21

and that's that's part of kind of just a risk management uh piece it's arbitrary but

20:26

but reasonable um crucially though this curve is built in everywhere um so

20:34

it's built in if you've implemented a plan so month by month we're testing to see how much people have aged and how

20:40

that affects the the plan length and even when you're doing plan tests which says okay what if i followed this plan

20:46

what if i took pay raises when the plane called for it and pay cuts when when the plan um said they were necessary

20:53

when that testing is being done the system knows that as time passes you will change your longevity estimates so

21:00

these are these are built into um to the plan test as well

21:06

okay so that was a little bit about how plan lengths and and longevity estimates are

21:12

done in income lab there's another place that's it's um really crucial for looking at um well

21:19

two places where there are mortality adjustments and and things that that can be helpful in planning

21:26

um and these are mortality adjusted cash flows so

21:31

an example of this would be if you if you just think of a couple mortality adjusted cash flows only apply

21:37

in the case of planning for couples um think about social security if two people have social security

21:45

they have if they're both alive there's a total social security amount and then if either one of them passes

21:50

away there's a different social security amount it's it's interesting with longevity

21:56

dependent income that the risk uh associated with longer and shorter plan

22:03

lengths is the reverse of what you're used to with portfolio withdrawals so typically we might say well planning

22:11

for a longer life is it's more conservative in the case of portfolio withdrawals right because

22:16

we're we're planning for taking money out over a longer period of time which means it will be a lower amount all else

22:22

being equal and so that's that's safer right taking out less is safer than taking out more

22:28

um with longevity dependent income it's actually the reverse so if i plan for

22:34

someone to be alive for a very long time so a longer plan um

22:39

in the social security example for example let's say i plan for both of them to live at age 95.

22:45

um well that could vastly overstate the amount of social security income that that couple would

22:51

actually potentially receive through age 95 for both of them because one of them might pass away um so

22:57

actually planning for shorter lifetimes is safer in in the case of longevity

23:03

dependent income so this seems like a dilemma right like

23:08

which way should i go so what we we do actually in order to split the horns of this dilemma is

23:15

um we will for longevity linked income

23:21

we will actually when doing kind of the the more complex um

23:27

analysis so in coming up with the proposed income uh and even in the plan test

23:35

we will mortality adjust numbers where appropriate okay so let's take an example from social security again let's

23:42

say john and mary um you know have the social security you see on the screen

23:47

for a total of 4 dollars a month and if either of them passes away that'll go down to

23:53

um twenty eight hundred so you can see if i plan for both of them to live to age ninety five i'm

23:58

going to assume there's forty six hundred bucks a month that could be really overstating things

24:05

in fact this is a little bit i don't know if it's totally clear in the table but if we don't apply mortality adjustments

24:14

we could have a proposed income this is if they also have a a million dollar portfolio a proposed income of of over 9

24:21

500 a month at what we call in the income lab

24:27

technology is called a a moderate income risk level it's it's a 20 20

24:32

chance that you'll have to reduce income um if i model that as in mortality adjusted

24:39

so i discount these cash flows saying hey it's it's entirely possible not both of these

24:45

people will be alive for the entire plan uh that risk the risk level of that income is actually 50. so

24:52

it's it's even split 50 chance they would have to reduce income 50 chance

24:57

they wouldn't so quite a difference 20 to 50. if i apply mortality adjustments to this

25:03

social security my proposed income goes down from 95 19 to 88

25:09

68 at the same at the same risk level okay so basically what what doing mortality

25:14

adjustments does is it it trims back um proposed income to account for the fact that we can't

25:22

depend on all of this income being with us for the entire plan

25:27

the way that we do this is by applying survivorship probabilities to

25:34

each of these possible income streams so on the left you'll see the chances that both

25:41

john and mary are alive at any point in the future is the is the blue line and the chances that only john or only

25:48

mary are alive are the green or sorry the red and green lines respectively um and you can see over

25:54

time the chances that one of these uh spouses is a widow or widower rises and

26:01

the chances that the couple is they're still both alive goes down and when we combine that with um

26:09

with the amounts of money that social security would provide in each of those cases we get all of the future kind of

26:15

mortality adjusted uh social security levels so

26:20

this i'll go back to the point that um you know nobody's going to be you know 20 alive or anything like that

26:28

these are just um you know statistical adjustments we can make to try to make our

26:34

um our advice more realistic and and adjust for mortality

26:41

or risk mortality risk in that more realistic way

26:47

another place that you'll see mortality adjustments in place is

26:53

in what we call survivor income ratios so you'll find this in the main plan dashboard under cash flows

27:00

and the income sourcing tab and this is just trying to express how much of the current proposed income

27:08

would still be available if one of the spouses

27:14

were not in the plan from today right it's just saying what you know something terrible happens tomorrow how

27:19

would everything be adjusted uh the way that this is calculated is we'll we'll adjust everything for

27:26

the survivorship linked cash flows so if let's say somebody has um you know a single life pension okay well if they

27:33

pass away that'll be dropped out of the plan completely um we'll adjust social security in a way similar to what you

27:39

just saw we'll also adjust from joint to single longevity estimates

27:46

so we'll keep the the settings um in terms of uh

27:52

longevity risk tolerance but adjusts down right so when one person dies the plan length will always go down right

27:58

and that actually makes up a bit for for lost income potentially so for example

28:03

here between mary and john they're losing 14 or 15 of their income if one of them were to pass away and you

28:10

can use that to you can compare that to estimates of how expenses might change if one spouse

28:17

were to pass away in this case a 14 or 15 reduction is is probably within tolerance for for a

28:22

lot of couples but that just depends on the on the situation

28:29

okay so that's um kind of all of the prepared content here but um happy to

28:35

open it up for um derek we have uh thoughts on longevity and plan length planning and

28:42

then we can take some questions yeah well i think you know for me one of the big things with income lab that's

28:49

really neat compared to anything i've used before is really that that process of actually updating the

28:55

plan on an ongoing basis and actually changing that longevity assumption

29:01

over time as the plan gets updated to me that's a it is you know

29:06

and i know blanchett and others have written about how advisors choose longevity

29:11

assumptions and it feels like historically it's always been well what number can i put in that feels

29:17

conservative and it's just going to kind of people end up in 95 or 100 or whatever that

29:22

number might be but you know to actually be able to dynamically you know update a plan keep

29:28

the guardrails on track and have all of that flowing through to me is just so much more powerful and

29:34

so that's really been something that you know is a is a real improvement and changes the

29:40

way you know i think um kind of about how to do that and being

29:45

able to easily you know just just that longevity risk tolerance um

29:52

for a client that feels more inclined to they do have longevity or for somebody that has health concerns or or otherwise

30:00

um yeah to me that's just been a real uh it's it is something that you have to

30:05

be prepared for to communicate because a common question you get from a client is what's the assumption here and in some

30:11

ways that's easier when you're always using 95 you just know that the answer is 95

30:16

but you know the response that i've received from clients from saying something like well you know you know just using kind of based on

30:22

your health and general thoughts there using whatever that expectation is

30:28

um and using actuarial tables and updating that over time is a better way to keep your plan

30:33

on track i've never had anybody that disagrees with that and honestly i've probably

30:39

in my own experience i've had clients push back in almost more in the direction of oh well i'm never going to live that long and i

30:46

have less of that conversation when i tell them we're just using actuarial tables based on their current

30:53

age

31:03

well thanks justin thanks derek um alrighty well looks like we're starting to get some um

31:10

answers in the q a here um for our users on uh please feel free to drop all your

31:15

questions in that q a and we will start um going through the questions uh so you know first one right off the

31:21

bat is um does mortality planning also affect income tax planning not just income but

31:28

deduction number of dependents et etc

31:34

so it it certainly does affect um planning but in the sense that uh at

31:39

some point it is possible maybe even likely that uh a household that you're

31:46

planning for will shift to single uh rates right um

31:52

in the in the estimates that you see in the software we do not make that adjustment um

31:58

in theory you could do it the same way we do with social security right sort of say well on average depending on when

32:04

somebody dies you know you maybe display it as some mix of rates but we thought that would be too too

32:10

confusing um for for clients uh and maybe you know kind of unnecessary uh

32:17

complexity um but what that does mean is for example if you're exploring roth conversions

32:23

um one thing that actually could make roth conversions more attractive to people would be the possibility that in the

32:30

future your taxes would go up because one person has died and and so that's not

32:35

um you know kind of quantified in in those estimates but it's worth thinking about

32:41

and keeping in mind

32:46

and um next question here is um can you please summarize again how you would adjust the

32:52

software if the client says they either have family health problems that leads them to expect a shorter than normal

32:58

lifespan and vice versa um yeah

33:04

sure so um let me pull up so the the main place you see

33:10

this longevity risk setting um come into play is in in longevity settings here and again

33:17

right justin before you get into can you show users where in the software this is because that was also in the chat

33:25

so within income lab you have two two places that you can edit things um

33:31

the kind of main i'd call it source of truth um is you know if i'm

33:37

let's go to the hatchet family here um i can click this uh this pencil icon

33:44

and this is what we call the the household or the household plan and you have lots of lots of inputs here

33:51

within retirement and then power planning

33:56

you have these two sliders the same exact slider is there if you are dealing with

34:02

what we call an income scenario so we have the ability to do a b testing so you can create as many scenarios as you as you want this would

34:09

actually be an interesting um thing to to explore with scenarios right

34:14

longer or shorter longevity planning but you'll see the same thing if you go to the uh the pencil icon inside of one of

34:21

these uh one of these scenarios go to power planning

34:27

um so when you move these again what can be a little jarring for people is your when

34:33

it's joint you're developing a joint plan length right so that they could seem quite long um and we we did see

34:38

some reason to think that's reasonable um but uh you know if let's say you know

34:43

you're lifelong smoker or um you know for whatever reason they're just their reasons to use lower

34:50

longevity estimates you would go to below average you know go toward below average or you know you can go to

34:56

the opposite end say wow we are um really just expecting very long lives

35:03

and and plan for much uh i guess you could say either low

35:08

longevity risk tolerance or just high longevity expectations

35:14

and uh justin maybe while we're here um this next question is um so sometimes uh

35:20

this user runs across longevity outputs that are difficult to explain for example they have a client couple

35:25

with a 12 year age gap between husband and wife husband is 65

35:31

and at an above average setting the software will show the husband living to 103 for example and the wife living to

35:37

91. um can you help the users you know how do i how do they explain this output

35:42

especially when you know male statistically only longer than females yeah so again

35:49

this is because the plan length you're you're trying to produce here is a joint plan length so it is crucially not

35:56

saying that it actually expects the you know let's say the male was older in this case um

36:02

that it actually expects the male to live to 101 it's saying that if if he did

36:08

he would be 101 if he made it to the end of of that plan so

36:14

if you have um you know ideas on how to better present that so that it's not confusing to clients we would certainly

36:19

love to hear them because i agree that could be a little bit um jarring what we need to keep in mind is that

36:26

that difference in age would actually be reflected in a lot of other places but kind of behind the scenes so for example

36:33

i didn't do that here both our age 65 but if i ran these these curves using you know one person who is 65 and one

36:40

person who's 50 um you would see you know for example uh you know for the male this this red line

36:47

would be very low right the chances that only the male is alive or even the the chances that both are alive at the same

36:53

time would be much lower and so that that you would actually have that reflected inside of the analysis but for

36:59

that one place where it says okay your joint plan length is you know 28 years or something um it's

37:06

just going to add 28 to the to the male's current age

37:14

and let's see any other questions we'll give it a few

37:19

minutes to let some more come in oh here is um here's some maybe some feedback on that

37:25

justin uh so perhaps displaying the example curve display along with that joint life expense excess expectancy in

37:33

the software could be helpful there it's a good idea

37:38

i mean i love graphs so um and here's um yes i think another

37:46

point of feedback but uh perhaps this is for another time but having a single report that could compare two or more

37:51

income scenarios um would be great yeah we've had that feedback actually recently um i think and i think

37:59

given that we do allow this income scenario comparison i think that's a great idea

38:05

perfect let's see any more comments or questions from our users

38:26

and i guess derek maybe this is just one for me as i'm speaking with users um as you're kind of speaking to clients

38:32

about the longevity kind of change going from this you know previous static world to more of this dynamic world are you

38:38

seeing any any gaps in kind of your clients being able to understand that shift or just you know what's

38:44

kind of the experiences you're helping people kind of shift to that mentality no i'd say it hasn't been a large

38:52

focal point for me just in terms of my typical planned presentation don't spend a lot of time on

38:58

the longevity assumption um and maybe i should have more conversation around that but uh it

39:05

for me so i just haven't necessarily encountered it a lot it's mostly been um you know more just a

39:12

quick you know in the past we used 95 is a static assumption now we're going to

39:17

dynamically kind of update your age as the plan goes to keep your guard rails on track

39:24

and i haven't had anybody push back now you know do they do they have a really you know in-depth

39:30

understanding of exactly you know what that means and how those change over time and and all that i actually kind of

39:36

doubt it but that you know to me that's the trade-off between what do we communicate as advisors and what do we

39:43

actually need to be showing the client really i go to the doctor and the doctor has all sorts of

39:50

fancy sophisticated tests that they're doing they know all sorts of things behind the behind the scenes um you know

39:56

but at the end of the day i don't need to know that i don't need to see that i just need to know you know what

40:01

actions i need to take and for me you know bringing that back to the income that's part of why i focus so much more

40:07

on the conversation there is where here's where you need to adjust your income up or down based on where

40:13

we're at and here's your guardrails and that's really where i'm trying to keep the conversation focused and then

40:19

of course being able to communicate intelligently about what's underlying that um if we need to go there but i i

40:25

don't tend to jump to that if that makes any sense yep that makes sense

40:31

i appreciate it um for the person who suggested you know maybe adding a little bit more detail

40:38

around survivorship and so on um of the visuals you've seen here

40:45

um you know are there any that seem particularly insightful or useful you

40:50

know for example the survivorship probability graph you see here on the lower left or

40:58

maybe something like

41:03

you know survivorship curves things like that um don't have to answer now but if you want to shoot us an email or

41:09

something if there are you know we're really interested in providing on the software

41:16

whatever visuals or statistics or views are helpful in in helping client

41:22

communication and that's why i said you're right when you have an age gap it could be a little jarring for someone

41:27

you're saying why you know why is he get to live to 105 right so anything we can do to kind of make that

41:33

an easier conversation we really want to avoid bringing bringing up you know kind of distracting elements so if there are

41:40

anything you've seen in this presentation that you think would be useful in your client communication let us know

41:47

and uh this is another comment that just came in um not on this but they said they really like using the household view uh

41:54

in beta right now um so far users if you haven't seen our household view beta feature please check it out and

42:00

definitely give us feedback on that as well um and then the comment here is they'd love to be able to incorporate um the

42:06

planned scenarios too on the household view uh as well that's some cool feedback we can look

42:12

into um and let's see any other questions and i guess for me if we don't have any other

42:19

specific questions on this i know you know our team always thinking about kind of future topics or or kind of different

42:25

things we can do so if anyone has any kind of comments or topics they'd love to see us cover in

42:30

the future please you know drop that in the chat as well uh so that way we can have um reference that as a team when we

42:37

start thinking about um future webinar topics oh and we did have a question come in

42:46

let's see um would love to be able to put in order put in order the accounts

42:51

uh accounts will be spent down and add um fixed index annuities oh i think um

42:58

i think the they would love to be able to change the order of the accounts um based on the order it'll be spent down

43:05

um and include fixed index michael if that's what you're saying or about messing it up feel free to throw another comment in

43:12

there if i messed that up perfect that was it yes i think being able to order the accounts um based on

43:18

how they're being sent down and then add fixed index annuities well justin um

43:24

correct me if i'm wrong but couldn't you do that already by going into the tax center selecting the ordered strategy that

43:31

you'd like and then applying that to the plan yeah that's right so um

43:38

you know for example um i'm in the base plan here you know

43:46

i could do you know many different scenarios um

43:51

here you know let's say okay this one i wanted to

43:56

have a different ordering of how the accounts i spent down i would go into the advanced settings

44:02

and go to taxes now the ordering is by category um so

44:08

it's not so much specifying hey this particular ira um it would be saying you know if i

44:14

wanted my tax deferred accounts to be spent first i can drag text deferred up to the

44:19

top um really i can have any any ordering of these of these categories

44:25

if there is a situation where you want a particular account to be spent down

44:33

it really depends on the account type so if i go to

44:40

the portfolio [Music]

44:46

you know here i have an ira for a traditional ira that's that's not an option because it's just being you know

44:52

lumped into these uh these tax kind of general categories

44:57

um but for example if i had you know an inherited retirement account whether it's an ira or anything else i

45:03

can actually say okay this is how we are planning to draw this down so any account type where that is a

45:10

you know like a a requirement whether that's non-qualified deferred comp or inherited um

45:16

inherited accounts those are options so the fact is if if you did have an ira

45:22

for example that you wanted to force to be to be liquidated over time you actually could just simply call it an inherited

45:29

retirement account it would be taxed correctly and you could specify the period over which you want it to be

45:34

liquidated um that is there are a few places where you wouldn't be able to do that a tax mobile

45:40

account would be the obvious one um but for tax deferred i think and for roth it would be easy enough um because

45:47

we also have inherited roth accounts perfect thanks guys

45:53

uh let's see let's see if there's any other comments or feedback

46:00

okay oh yeah there was about one one quick general comment again that um

46:07

justin can you go back to the advanced um settings

46:14

this one will be running let me go back here and it's been you know just kind of a

46:21

as i'm working with clients and we've been you know writing and educating people about what's going on in these these dynamic

46:28

strategies and how to use it like as an advisor like i get really interested in all the details here

46:34

whether it's the tax strategies or the income settings the um you know really diving in into all

46:40

that but to the point you know made before where sometimes you know i

46:46

think it is good to think about how how far in the leads do you really want to go with the typical client

46:51

personally i'm in particular in the income settings that's one that i've i've enjoyed writing about and

46:56

given a lot of thought but it's really not something i'm ever talking to clients about in terms of what that

47:01

actual you know what's what's driving the guardrails i want to be prepared to have that edu that conversation if i can

47:08

but i'm not talking about it and honestly i've i've given these plans to many prospects many clients um and it's not a frequent

47:14

question i'm getting in terms of how do you set the upper and lower guardrail it's just been more yeah

47:20

and this this sounds this sounds like a good plan i'm glad i actually know when i can make it when i need to make an adjustment and

47:26

um the feedback's been really positive so that's kind of the tension for me as an advisor i'm so interested in all this

47:32

stuff but at the same time i like that it's the system's powerful enough to handle that in the background

47:38

make me feel really good about um the income plan i'm putting in place for my clients but i don't need to have

47:44

the conversations on with every client i should say taxes is one area where definitely i'm having that conversation

47:50

and really trying to draw out here's the value of getting you know these tax strategies right here's uh particularly

47:56

when you get into those high tax savings strategies um i think i mentioned on one

48:01

of these you know webinars before but i even have one client where

48:06

the the result came out you know they were saving 500 thousand dollars potentially in getting a roth conversion

48:12

strategy right and they turned you know i i'm just presenting the information and they

48:17

turned around and said wow that would more than pay your fee for us working with you you know through all of a

48:22

retirement and you know they saw the value and i i didn't have to push it from a sales

48:28

standpoint but um you know it's it's making that tangible and they became a client and i think you know that tax

48:34

planning piece of what i'm going to be doing for them is a big part of that so taxes are one area i am talking about but the others

48:40

as much as i love them as an advisor i'm just happy that it's there and automated and working for me in the background

48:46

um without me needing to to do that so just thought i'd share one last comment

48:53

kind of on how much i enjoy the longevity assumptions but also not really talking about them

48:59

that's it thanks derek all right well guys um thank you again we i mean i know i appreciate it and our

49:05

users always give us feedback um when we're meeting with them over zoom how much they appreciate these so you know

49:11

just want to say thanks for putting in the time to kind of dedicate to helping us all all be better um for our users

49:18

you know if you have follow-up questions you know feel free to reach out to your account manager um or to um our info box

49:24

and we are more than happy to set up any zoom meetings to review specific plans or just help answer your questions

49:31

and um as always be on the lookout for our invites for next month's webinars

49:36

thanks everybody all right have a great day everyone

49:42

take care derek