Early National Pension, a Lump Sum Instead of an Annuity, and a Portfolio Entirely in Deposits
Seo Dong-won, born in 1967, will retire at the end of this year at age 58 from a mid-sized construction firm. He expects a DB lump sum of 380 million KRW, holds 120 million in an IRP, and he and his wife (55, a part-time instructor with no workplace pension) have 250 million in bank deposits and 60 million in a balanced fund. They own their apartment outright, valued at 700 million. His national pension entitlement at the statutory pension age of 64 is projected at 1.6 million KRW a month; his wife's own entitlement is negligible. Their planned retirement spending is 3.5 million KRW a month in today's money, and they assume 2.5% inflation. Seo wants to start his national pension at 60 under the early-claim reduction, take the DB lump sum rather than a company annuity, and keep the whole portfolio in deposits because 'the market is too high.' He has no long-term care cover and his father lived to 94.
1. Calculate the retirement income gap and test whether 3.5 million KRW a month is fundable from the assets described.
Read the worked answer
Assets at retirement: 380 + 120 + 250 + 60 = 810 million KRW of financial assets; the apartment is a residence, not an income source.
The bridge years, age 58 to 64. No national pension yet, so spending of 3.5 million a month must come entirely from capital: 42 million a year × 6 = 252 million KRW, or 31% of the portfolio, consumed before any pension starts.
After 64. Pension of 1.6 million a month is 19.2 million a year, leaving a gap of 42 − 19.2 = 22.8 million KRW a year in today's money. That gap must be indexed for inflation for roughly 30 years, given a father who lived to 94 and a wife three years younger.
Verdict: the plan does not close. With everything in deposits earning perhaps 3% against 2.5% inflation, the real return is near zero, so the gap alone needs about 23 million × 30 = 690 million in today's money, on top of the 252 million bridge - more than the 810 million available, before any long-term care cost. The shortfall is not marginal. Options, in order of preference: defer the pension rather than claim early, hold a real-returning growth sleeve for the post-64 decades, plan a partial work bridge from 58 to 62, or reduce the spending target. Choosing none of these means the plan fails quietly around age 80.
2. Evaluate the decision to claim the national pension at 60 instead of at 64 or later, showing the break-even reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Early claiming reduces the benefit permanently - roughly 6% for each year claimed before the statutory age, capped at five years. Claiming at 60 is four years early, so a 24% reduction takes 1.6 million down to about 1.216 million KRW a month, or 14.6 million a year instead of 19.2 million. That is a permanent loss of about 4.6 million a year, indexed.
Break-even. He collects four extra years of reduced benefit (about 58 million) but forgoes 4.6 million a year thereafter. The cumulative crossover falls in the late seventies. Given a father who reached 94, a wife three years younger who is likely to outlive him, and a survivor benefit calculated from his benefit level, the crossover is well inside the expected lifespan. Deferring beyond 64 increases the benefit further (roughly 7.2% a year of deferral, up to five years), pushing the monthly figure toward 2.1 million at 69.
The counter-argument, and why it fails here. Early claiming is right when the alternative is selling depressed assets or borrowing. Seo holds 250 million in deposits that can fund the bridge. Liquidity is not the constraint; longevity is. The recommendation is to defer - and to check the survivor and household-level rules, because a two-person optimisation can differ from a single-life one.
3. Advise on the DB lump sum versus a company annuity, the all-deposit allocation, and the missing long-term care cover.
Read the worked answer
Lump sum vs annuity. The choice is not binary. Rolling the DB benefit into an IRP preserves the tax deferral and allows a phased, annuity-type drawdown, which is generally taxed more favourably than taking the retirement income as a lump sum in one year. Compare on three axes, not one: after-tax proceeds under each route (confirm current pension-income rates rather than quoting memorised figures), the fees and insurer credit standing behind any annuity quote, and the longevity protection the annuity buys. A useful split is to annuitise enough to cover essential spending - housing, food, health - and leave the rest invested for growth and liquidity.
All-deposit allocation. With inflation at 2.5%, deposits deliver a real return near zero, which the gap analysis above shows is unaffordable. Cash is a tool, not a strategy. Hold 24–36 months of withdrawals in deposits so a market fall never forces a sale, and invest the remainder in a diversified real-returning portfolio suited to a 30-year horizon.
Long-term care. This is the largest unhedged risk: a father who reached 94, no cover, and a wife who may need care too. A single long-term care event can consume several years of the 810 million. Price a care annuity or insurance before the all-deposit decision is locked in.