The Retiring Engineer's Pension Election
Dana, 63, is retiring from a utility company in 14 months. She has $1.1M in her 401(k), $180k in a taxable brokerage account, and a $240k mortgage at 4.1% with 12 years remaining. Her employer offers two pension elections at retirement: a single-life annuity of $4,200/month, or a joint-and-50%-survivor annuity of $3,550/month covering her husband, who is 68 and has $60k in savings and a $1,900/month Social Security benefit. Dana's own Social Security at full retirement age (67) is projected at $2,900/month; at 70 it would be $3,600/month. She wants to retire at 64, is in good health, and has a family history of longevity. She tells you she "just wants the biggest monthly check" and asks you to confirm the single-life option.
1. How should you respond to Dana's request to confirm the single-life election?
Read the worked answer
Do not simply confirm. The single-life annuity pays $650/month more, but it terminates at Dana's death and leaves her husband with only his own Social Security and $60k in savings - a likely shortfall given his age and the loss of her income. Frame the decision around the survivor's standard of living, not the headline number. Quantify the trade-off: $650/month is $7,800/year, but the survivor annuity effectively insures a $3,550/month lifetime income stream for him. If Dana is insistent, document the conversation, present the survivor-income projection in writing, and confirm her husband understands the election. The professional judgment tested here is protecting the survivor against an uninformed choice while respecting client autonomy.
2. Dana also asks whether to claim Social Security at 64, 67, or 70. What factors drive the recommendation, and what would you advise given her profile?
Read the worked answer
Weigh (1) longevity and health, (2) the cost of bridging the gap from retirement to claim age, (3) survivor benefits, and (4) portfolio withdrawal pressure. Delaying from 64 to 70 raises her benefit substantially and, critically, raises the survivor benefit her husband would receive if she dies first - a durable insurance value. With a family history of longevity and a $1.1M 401(k) that can bridge the gap, delaying toward 70 is often attractive, but the bridge must be funded without forcing high withdrawals in a down market. A middle path - claim at 67 while using the pension and a modest 401(k) draw - preserves flexibility. Present the break-even ages but emphasize that break-even analysis alone understates the survivor and longevity-insurance value of delay.
3. What sequence-of-withdrawals and mortgage considerations should you raise before she retires?
Read the worked answer
Consider keeping the 4.1% mortgage rather than paying it off with portfolio assets, since the expected return on a balanced portfolio likely exceeds the after-tax cost of that debt - but confirm her emotional preference for being debt-free in retirement. Sequence withdrawals to (1) spend taxable brokerage first for flexibility and favorable capital-gains treatment, (2) use the 401(k) for the bridge years while in a lower bracket, and (3) preserve tax-deferred assets for later and for heirs. Coordinate with the pension start date and Social Security timing so taxable income stays within a target bracket, and revisit Roth conversion opportunities in the low-income gap years before RMDs begin.