Search News


Browse Archives

News

Staying on the Job

May 8, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Among the many concerns of academics about the economic meltdown last year was that it would interrupt the steady flow of retirements that allow departments to bring in new colleagues who may represent disciplinary shifts (and who typically are paid less).

A survey released by TIAA-CREF on Thursday confirms anecdotal evidence that many professors are indeed pushing back their plans for retirement. The data suggest that colleges may need to provide more incentives for retirements, or see far fewer people leave. And with many institutions already curtailing hiring, retirement delays could make a tight job market for new Ph.D.'s even tighter.

In a series of surveys -- over the last three months of 2008 and the first three months of 2009 -- of TIAA-CREF participants who are at least 50 years old, about one third each month reported delaying planned retirement dates. A similar proportion reported that they were changing their plans for how they would live in retirement, presumably planning for more frugality. (While the survey was conducted of samples from all TIAA-CREF participants, not just those in higher education, the vast majority of participants work in academe.)

Paul J. Yakoboski, principal research fellow at the TIAA-CREF Institute, said that the "significant minority" of professors apparently delaying retirement was large enough that colleges may need to adjust expectations. He noted that many of those hit hard by drops in pension funds also have owned homes for some time, and have viewed that home equity as part of their retirement nest eggs -- and may now find themselves unable to sell their homes or to get a desired price.

For colleges hoping to encourage retirements, this means two things, he said. One is that whatever incentive levels have been offered previously to encourage retirements may not result in much movement now. So the incentives may need to be greater. "It's going to take more today than it would have a year ago," he said. He also said that phased retirement incentives may be more important than ever -- since they may fit the needs of faculty members who want to move in the direction of retirement, but who want a few years for their investment funds or home values to recover.

The survey also examined how participants are handling their (somewhat smaller) retirement accounts. About one third in most recent months have reported that they have changed asset allocations since the economic meltdown started last year.

Yakoboski said that some may be moving investments to "something they perceive as safer," but he said that others may view now as a time that equities are available at lower prices than has been the case. Generally, investment experts advise those who are approaching retirement age -- as the samples of the TIAA-CREF surveys are -- to become less risky in how they allocate their accounts. Some people ignore that advice or just don't monitor their accounts, Yakoboski said, so "the market may be prodding people to do something they should have done all along."

The survey suggests that TIAA-CREF participants are not responding by putting all their money in a mattress. Most months since October, the percentage of those saying that they are decreasing contributions to retirement funds is less than 10 percent, while most months at least 15 percent said that they were increasing contributions.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Staying on the Job

  • Hiring new faculty doesn't save money
  • Posted by Been Compressed and Inverted , Professor/Social sciences at Somewhere in the southeast on May 8, 2009 at 10:30am EDT
  • While I agreed with most of what was said in this article, I found the comment about new hires typically earning less than senior faculty to be quite funny and most definitely untrue, at least at my university where salary compression and inversion runs rampant. My department hired a new assistant professor straight out of grad school not long ago, and his starting salary exceeded what I was earning after 20 years of loyal and productive service to my institution. (And I have gotten consistently high merit ratings all that time.) When you consider typical start-up costs in the social and natural sciences on top of salary compression issues, all of sudden it seems a lot more economically desirable to have the older faculty hanging around. That's not ideal for many other reasons, of course; universities benefit greatly from the energy and new skills of young, tenure-hungry faculty. But the argument that delaying retirement is bad for academia needs to be made on other grounds besides the financial bottom line.

    As for me, if my university offered even a halfway decent early retirement package, I'd be out of here so fast it would make your head swim.

  • TIAA-CREF survey about delayed retirement in academia
  • Posted by DD on May 8, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • It's no wonder everyone in academia has to work longer and pare down their retirement goals when TIAA-CREF has managed our funds so poorly! In their most recent report, I found only 2 of their many funds that met the benchmarks THEY set. Their fund managers need to wake up and smell the coffee - old market strategies of holding securities through the bad times are obsolete. They should have gotten into a stronger cash position, increased their investment in less-risky areas, and not lost money for all of us! Almost every funds is worth less than it was 10 years ago, and that's not even adjusting for inflation! They get their commission every year, so they're not suffering, but they fail to realize we're putting money into our retirement accounts to MAKE money, not to LOSE it! And, unfortunately, TIAA-CREF is our only option for our 403B at work.

    And they wonder why!

  • Get a grip!
  • Posted by reality check on May 8, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • DD, you either have an axe to grind or you're ignorant of market realities - or both. But in any case your diatribe is absurd. First of all, TIAA-CREF pays no commissions and anybody who works with them should know it – they practically tattoo that fact on their reps. And TIAA-CREF is doing better than almost all of its peers. They were astute enough to avoid pretty much all of the financial screw-ups and “emperors-new-clothes” investment schemes (or to use your term “new market strategies”) that have tripped up virtually all of the other major firms. Of course their funds are down in a market downturn – and trying adopting your sage advice to “(get into a stronger cash position, (and increase) their investment in less-risky areas” are sure-fire ways to make market downturns even worse – classic market timing like that is a fool’s paradise. There are plenty of safer alternatives available through TIAA-CREF, but I’m betting you didn’t want to put your money there because the returns weren’t high enough. Your statement that “old market strategies of holding securities through the bad times are obsolete” is evidence enough that you are your own worst financial enemy. Good luck predicting the next market upswing and downswing so you can execute your “new market strategy” of getting out before the fall and getting back in before the rise. I guess that’s why you’re still working. Please tell me you’re not an econ, business, or finance prof!

  • Ditto on CREF and "Experts"
  • Posted on May 8, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • In my blacker moods in looking at my so-called retirement "investments" managed by bankers and "experts," I wonder whether we shouldn't force early retirement onto every person teaching economics and finance and close their departments. Whatever "experts" these units have been graduating for the past five decades, the only expertise most exhibited was hindsight pontification.  The damage organized crime has inflicted on us seems minor compared to the damage inflicted by "experts" of no substance.

  • Posted by Scott on May 8, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • reality check need to get some reality too - T-C makes mistakes too. at the height of the dot-com bubble (what rc might call "emperor has no clothes" time) my medium risk fund was chock full of Cisco and other very risky stuff. T-C is good, but they do not walk on water