Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Comparing the Economic and Conventional Approaches to Financial Planning

Contents:

Author Info

  • Jagadeesh Gokhale
  • Laurence J. Kotlikoff
  • Mark J. Warshawsky

Abstract

The conventional approach to retirement and life insurance planning, which is used throughout the financial planning industry, differs markedly from the economic approach. The conventional approach asks households to specify how much they want to spend before retirement, after retirement, and in the event of an untimely death of the head or spouse. It then determines the amounts of saving and life insurance needed to achieve these targets. The economic approach is based on the life-cycle model of saving. Its goal is to smooth households' living standards over their life cycles and to ensure comparable living standards for potential survivors. In the economic approach, spending targets are endogenous. They are derived by calculating the most the household can afford to consume in the present given that it wants to preserve that living standard in the future. Although spending targets under the conventional approach can be adjusted in an iterative process to approximate those derived under the economic approach, there are practical limits to doing so. This is particularly the case for households experiencing changing demographics or facing borrowing constraints. This paper illustrates the different saving and insurance recommendations provided by economic financial planning software and the practical application of traditional financial planning software. The two software programs are Economic Security Planner (ESPlanner), developed by Economic Security Planning, Inc., and Quicken Financial Planner (QFP), developed by Intuit. Each program is run on 24 cases, 20 of which are stylized and 4 of which are actual households. The two software programs recommend dramatically different levels of saving or life insurance in each of the 24 cases. The different saving recommendations primarily reflect ESPlanner's adjustment for household demographics and borrowing constraints. The different life insurance recommendations reflect these same factors as well as ESPlanner's accounting for contingent household plans and for Social Security's survivor benefits. The less detailed tax and Social Security retirement benefit calculations used in our implementation of QFP also explain some of the differences between the two programs.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7321.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc in its series NBER Working Papers with number 7321.

as in new window
Length:
Date of creation: Aug 1999
Date of revision:
Publication status: published as Kotlikoff, Laurence J. (ed.) Essays on Saving, Bequests, Altruism, and Life-Cycle Planning. MIT Press, 2001.
Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:7321

Note: AG
Contact details of provider:
Postal: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.
Phone: 617-868-3900
Email:
Web page: http://www.nber.org
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. R. Glenn Hubbard & Jonathan Skinner & Stephen P. Zeldes, 1994. "Precautionary Saving and Social Insurance," NBER Working Papers 4884, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  2. Auerbach, Alan J. & Kotlikoff, Laurence J., 1991. "The adequacy of life insurance purchases," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 215-241, June.
  3. John Y. Campbell & João F. Cocco & Francisco J. Gomes & Pascal J. Maenhout, 2001. "Investing Retirement Wealth: A Life-Cycle Model," NBER Chapters, in: Risk Aspects of Investment-Based Social Security Reform, pages 439-482 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. Alan J. Auerbach & Laurence J. Kotlikoff, 1985. "Life Insurance of the Elderly: Adequacy and Determinants," NBER Working Papers 1737, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Hubbard, R Glenn & Judd, Kenneth L, 1987. "Social Security and Individual Welfare: Precautionary Saving, Borrowing Constraints, and the Payroll Tax," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 630-46, September.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Jagadeesh Gokhale & Laurence J. Kotlikoff & Mark J. Warshawsky, 2001. "Life-cycle saving, limits on contributions to DC pension plans, and lifetime tax benefits," Working Paper 0102, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland.
  2. B. Douglas Bernheim & Lorenzo Forni & Jagadeesh Gokhale & Laurence J. Kotlikoff, 2003. "The Mismatch Between Life Insurance Holdings and Financial Vulnerabilities: Evidence from the Health and Retirement Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 93(1), pages 354-365, March.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:7321. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.