Couple with a Pension Lump Sum, Social Security Timing, and Dementia Risk
Tom, 63, and Anika, 61, plan to retire in three months. Tom's 401(k) holds $1.4 million and Anika's 403(b) $380,000; they have $210,000 taxable and $95,000 Roth. Tom's pension offers a $420,000 lump sum or $2,350 monthly single-life, or $1,980 with a 100% joint and survivor benefit. Tom's Social Security is $3,100 monthly at his full retirement age of 67; at 63 it is $2,170. Anika's is $1,150 at 62 and $1,700 at 67. They spend $110,000 after tax, including $1,400 monthly for health insurance until Medicare at 65. The mortgage is paid off; they have $60,000 in cash. Anika's mother died at 96 after eight years with dementia; Tom's father died at 72 of a heart attack. They want to leave the house to their two children and 'not run out.' They are uncomfortable with market volatility and have asked whether they should move everything to annuities.
1. Build the Social Security and pension claiming strategy, including the survivor-benefit reasoning and the bridge funding.
Read the worked answer
The pension first. The single-life payout is $2,350 x 12 = $28,200, or 6.71% of $420,000. The 100% joint and survivor payout is $1,980 x 12 = $23,760, or 5.66%. A 5% withdrawal from the lump sum would produce about $21,000, less than the joint and survivor amount, and the pension carries no market risk. Given Anika is younger and likely to live long, the joint and survivor pension is the stronger longevity hedge, subject to plan funding and PBGC coverage. The lump sum is preferable only if the plan is weakly funded or if they need liquidity and can invest at a higher reliable rate.
Social Security: Tom's benefit grows from $2,170 at 63 to $3,100 at 67 and about $3,844 at 70, a 77% increase over the age-63 amount. His break-even versus claiming at 63 is roughly age 80-81. More important, if Tom dies first, Anika's survivor benefit is based on what he was receiving. Delaying to 70 gives her about $3,844 for life instead of $2,170, which is the largest longevity insurance they can buy. Anika's own PIA is $1,700, and half of Tom's PIA is $1,550, so she has no spousal top-up; she should delay her own benefit toward 67 or 70 if health and cash flow allow.
The bridge from 63 to 70 requires roughly $110,000 a year before Social Security. Use the $60,000 cash and $210,000 taxable account first, then withdraw from the 401(k), holding two to three years of spending in cash or short-term Treasuries inside the plan so they are not selling equities in a decline.
2. How should the planner manage sequence-of-returns risk, withdrawal order, and the Roth conversion window around ACA subsidies and IRMAA?
Read the worked answer
Sequence risk is highest in the first five to ten years, exactly when they are bridging to Social Security. The planner should set aside a spending reserve of two to three years in cash, CDs, or short-term Treasuries and refill it from the equity side when markets are up. A guardrail policy is useful: if the portfolio falls 20%, reduce discretionary spending by 10%; if it rises 20%, increase spending modestly. A 4% initial withdrawal on roughly $2.5 million is about $100,000, so $110,000 of spending is feasible but not generous once taxes and health insurance are included.
Withdrawal order should not be a rigid taxable-first rule. Use taxable assets and cash first for the bridge, then tax-deferred withdrawals to fill the lower brackets, and preserve the Roth for later or for the surviving spouse. Partial Roth conversions make sense in low-income years, but timing matters:
- Ages 63-65: conversions raise MAGI and can reduce ACA premium tax credits, so keep conversions small or defer them until Medicare.
- Ages 65-70: IRMAA uses a two-year lookback, so a large conversion at 65 affects premiums at 67. Convert up to the top of the 22% or 24% bracket only after modeling the IRMAA threshold.
- Ages 70-75: Social Security is on, RMDs begin at 75 for both of them under SECURE 2.0, and the conversion window narrows. The best window may be 65-70, not immediately after retirement.
Anika's dementia family history argues for keeping the Roth and the joint pension for the surviving spouse, and for not converting so aggressively that liquidity suffers.
3. Quantify the long-term care risk and compare self-funding, traditional LTC insurance, and a hybrid policy.
Read the worked answer
Anika's mother had eight years of dementia, which is a real warning sign, but it is not a diagnosis. Actuarial risk: roughly 70% of people over 65 will need some long-term care, and women typically need it longer. Current costs vary widely: home care at $30 an hour, assisted living at $5,500 a month, and nursing home care at $10,000 a month. Three years of nursing home care is about $360,000 in today's dollars, and inflation at 3%-5% makes it much larger in 20 years. Against a $2.5 million portfolio, one prolonged event could consume 15%-25% of assets and directly threaten the survivor's income.
Self-funding: earmark $300,000-$400,000 in a separate conservative bucket and treat it as a dedicated care reserve. This preserves flexibility and avoids premium risk, but it is exposed to market risk, inflation, and the behavioral temptation to spend it on other goals.
Traditional LTC: a shared-care policy with a three-year benefit, 90-day elimination period, and 3% compound inflation might cost $4,000-$8,000 a year for the couple at their ages, with future premium increases possible. It leverages the reserve and protects the portfolio, but it is use-it-or-lose-it and the insurer bears underwriting risk.
Hybrid life/LTC: a single-premium or 10-pay policy guarantees a death benefit if care is not needed, which appeals to their legacy goal, but the opportunity cost is high and the LTC benefit may be modest relative to premium.
Given the dementia history and the desire not to run out, the planner should quantify a three-year care event first, then decide whether to self-fund a dedicated bucket, buy a shared traditional policy, or use a hybrid for part of the risk. The answer should not be all annuities; annuities solve longevity, not the cost of care.