Comparing the Economic and Conventional Approaches to Financial Planning

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

NBER Working Paper No. 7321
Issued in August 1999
NBER Program(s):Economics of Aging

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 in pdf format
   (286 K)

email paper

Machine-readable bibliographic record - MARC, RIS, BibTeX

Document Object Identifier (DOI): 10.3386/w7321

Published: Kotlikoff, Laurence J. (ed.) Essays on Saving, Bequests, Altruism, and Life-Cycle Planning. MIT Press, 2001.

Users who downloaded this paper also downloaded* these:
Leeper and Sims w4761 Toward a Modern Macroeconomic Model Usable for Policy Analysis
Fernández-Villaverde, Rubio-Ramírez, and Sargent t0308 A, B, C's (and D)'s for Understanding VARs
Doan, Litterman, and Sims w1202 Forecasting and Conditional Projection Using Realistic Prior Distributions
Sargent, Williams, and Zha w12606 The Conquest of South American Inflation
van Rooij, Lusardi, and Alessie w17339 Financial Literacy, Retirement Planning, and Household Wealth
NBER Videos

National Bureau of Economic Research, 1050 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138; 617-868-3900; email:

Contact Us