Four in 10 retirees and pre-retirees who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning think they should become more conservative with their money as they approach retirement, compared with 28% of this population who maintain a more aggressive investment strategy, MassMutual reported this week.
At the same time, 65% of LGBTQ respondents in a new survey described their investment mix as growth oriented, compared with 52% of the general population.
Thirty-one percent of LGBTQ respondents acknowledged that they may be taking more risk than they should, compared with 22% of other retirees and pre-retirees.
Meanwhile, 17% of both LGBTQ respondents overall and LGBTQ retirees said they wanted their retirement investments to significantly outperform the market, compared with 13% of the general population overall and 9% of general-population retirees.
“MassMutual’s study shows that many LGBTQ retirees and pre-retirees may benefit from consulting a financial advisor about their retirement investment goals,” Catherine Cannon, head of personal markets at MassMutual, said in a statement.
“Of those respondents in our study who do work with a financial advisor, six in 10 say their advisor has encouraged them to change their investment mix and 87% of those folks were advised to become more conservative as they enter retirement.”
Greenwald & Associates conducted the online poll in January among 801 retirees who had left work no more than 15 years earlier and 804 pre-retirees within 15 years of retirement. The study included an oversample of 315 LGBTQ respondents, including 149 pre-retirees and 166 retirees.
Pre-retirees were required to have household incomes of at least $40,000, while retired respondents had at least $100,000 in investable assets and participated in making household financial decisions.
Both the general population and LGBTQ respondents pegged their retirement savings to last 25 years.
However, LGBTQ respondents were more confident that others that their retirement income would last as long as they needed. This may be because they expected to live in retirement for 22 years, two fewer than the general population.