How much do YOU think YOU need to retire? ...and at what age will you (and spouse) retire? (Part 1)

DW and I did get pretty excited when our total mortgage debt finally dropped under seven figures. :smiley:

This is a very tough call. On the one hand… absurdly low rates (even on second homes) which aren’t going to last forever. On the other hand… many people think values are artificially high because of the cheap money - when rates finally normalize, values could plummet, particularly in areas where much of the housing stock is discretionary. On the third hand, as the economy improves, more people will want luxuries like second homes which will tend to push the price up. On the fourth hand, demographics and changing lifestyles may depress demand for second homes, which would push prices down.

It’s not an easy decision. :slight_smile:

I don’t think ours will go down that much for years. We’re hoping it’s before we retire, or we might have to move.

I actually don’t know if I want home prices to go up or down. It makes you feel better about your net worth, and rents are higher when they go up, but the taxes go up too. So, I’m on the fence about that, but I’m through with getting more properties. Tired of it.

I have a question about LTC insurance, and I see up thread that people have already been discussing it recently. My husband and I are in our early and mid-fifties. Assuming We can “spare” the hundred thousand to buy long term care insurance and have it paid for the rest of our lives, would you recommend paying the $100K, or investing the $100K and taking our chances. NOTE: The 100K isn’t a quote we have received, but is the amount good friends of ours have recently been quoted as paying over 10 years to have LTC insurance all paid for. If you have recommendations for solid co panties to get quotes from, I’d appreciate that info. also. PM or reply here would be great.

@1214mom, the problem I think is that the fans of LTCi got policies, years ago, that are not available today. Today’s policies are more expensive and have tighter limits on when they kick in, how much per day they cover, etc.

As this Consumer Reports article says, it can be considered by couples who have between $500k and $2.5M in liquid assets; less and you can’t afford it and more you can self-insure.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/08/long-term-care-insurance/index.htm

It has been a contentious topic at Bogleheads. We have personally not purchased LTCi.

LTC really has us confused. We looked at quotes for the two of us, or just one, and both a 10 year option and the more conventional annual premium for life. For us for a shared pool of a hundred something grand each with a 3% annual growth and 90 day exclusion period and a max benefit of 4-5K/month, it was about 3K/year.

I am really glad we got our LTC policies a dozen years ago. They are much less favorable now.

Sometimes employer plans can offer better LTC rates.

Shifting gears a bit, but still pertaining to retirement: I am looking down a short road to retirement–perhaps 2 years-- and I’m curious about fee-only financial planners. I have investments with a couple of ‘advisers’ who are nice people and don’t seem to be leading me astray, but I often wonder if an objective person who has no vested interest in my money would offer similar advise.

Suggestions on the merits/necessity of consulting such a planner as well as tricks for finding a good one would be appreciated.

@Beil1958, I should probably just pass your question by, since I can’t answer it, other than to say that IMO and with no disrespect intended, you are asking the wrong question, or perhaps a question that is at least a decade past its usefulness.

Financial advisers have mostly been replaced in usefulness by software and readily available books. The exceptions are people with complicated situations (special needs kids, $$$$ privately held companies, very large portfolio (>$20M), etc.) and they are usually best served by attorneys.

A few books from the library (Bogleheads Guide to Retirement Planning, for example) and you will know what you need to know. I’m personally a fan of www.maximizeyoursocialsecurity.com and www.ESPlanner for SS planning and consumption smoothing, respectively, but there are free and/or inexpensive alternatives available also.

A while ago a saw a posting on Bogleheads.org (a good resource btw) about how much money had been left on the table because of someone’s use of a financial planner. Eye-opening, and I wish that I could find the link.

So, I guess my opinion as to the merits/necessity are clear. You ask for tricks for finding a good one. I would walk away from anyone unwilling to sign a document indicating that they are a fiduciary and will be held to that standard.

I am willing to pay fees to a true “fee-only” financial advisor - one profits only from clients’ fees and nothing else. The fee-only advisors generally are more costly to hire as a result.

I did see a fee only financial advisor once. She was paid for as a benefit from my employer. She made a bunch of recommendations and ran a program to see whether we had enough money for the financial goals we wanted. She concluded that we needed to earn and save more money. We ended up not following any of her recommendations but I did find her suggestions interesting.

Vanguard offers you a free financial consultation if you meet certain asset qualifications or there is a flat rate fee if your assets are below those qualifications. I had a consultation with them as well at no charge. We are still contemplating the suggestions they made (we tend not to take quick actions on financial matters). Vanguard also offered a 0.3% per year fee to manage your portfolio, I believe, which is lower than most other major brokerages.

We are trying to read up on various financial books and mostly invest in index funds with very low expense ratios. That with H’s pension seem to be working out well for us. We used to use H’s buddy who worked at Dean Witter and lost a TON of money, even during the booming stock market!! We moved it all over to Schwab and have been managing everything on our own ever since.

I can do our investments, but have found our financial guy has done great for us and even with the fees is doing very well by us.

I like people getting financial advice (by fee, or by financial advisor who wants your business). It doesn’t hurt to check your current plan.

The key thing is understanding your investments. Do not let an investment person have you ‘trust’ them w/o understanding exactly. Many people pay high fees for an annuity that may not be right for them for example, or some other insurance product.

It doesn’t hurt to read some of the great literature out there (magazines, books, internet).

Our financial guy present examples to learn from. One soon to be retiree was glad to check with him, as he had some company stock in his 401(k) that had appreciated 500%; had he taken other advice and just rolled the 401(k) into an IRA, he would have lost the ability to use a tax scenario with the Net Unrealized Appreciation - and it would have cost him $55,000 ultimately in federal taxes.

Below is a detailed explanation that may be helpful to some. Unfortunately when it comes to financial planning, you can lead a horse to water… I do agree with Dave Ramsey when financial goals differ between H and W, it is a marriage issue - same goes for retirement planning - both spouses need to have some of what they want in retirement for happiness, and that needs to be planned and communicated.

Another example was with a young lady, Hannah, concerned about her parents’ financial nest egg. Hannah told Don that her folks have had the same advisor for years, a broker at _______. He is the same guy everyone uses in their small Northern Illinois town. She said her parents are both in their 50s, have pinched pennies their entire lives to save all they could, and have accumulated a nice little nest egg of just over a million bucks.

Although they have done very well for themselves, Hannah is concerned because she knows they lost 50 percent of their retirement savings in 2008 and she believes their advisor has done nothing since then to change his so-called ‘strategy’. Each week, Hannah sends her parents the online link to _______ in the hopes that they will come to the realization that they need to take control of their financial future and explore new financial strategies. So far they have refused to make any changes. They are putting their heads in the sand. And Hannah is beside herself when she hears their reasons.

Hannah’s parents acknowledge that they lost a lot in 2008, but accept it because in their minds, so did everyone else. Plus, they reason, ‘it’s okay’ since they are back to even now. Don told Hannah to explain to her parents that the financial industry is flooded with myths and misconceptions, and the idea that “everyone lost in 2008” is a big one. When markets started to go south in 2008, some financial strategies went to cash to minimize losses. Those strategies were actively managed to minimize the downside. Unfortunately, during the fiasco of 2008, Hannah’s parents were told by their broker to sit tight and not to sell; they were told that the losses they had were just paper losses. If I lose 50 percent of my money, well, that is a real loss to me. How about you?

And while their portfolio might be back to the amount it was six years ago before the crash, Hannah’s parents lost six years! That means any interest that they could have earned, let’s say 6 percent, has been lost every year. Now, what is 6 percent on a million, and another 6 percent, and another 6 percent, so on and so forth . . . well, a lot! Hannah’s folks are six years closer to retirement, and well behind where they could have been.

Hannah’s parents also believe that their current strategy is fine because their broker has said that, conservatively, he estimates 7 percent growth each year on average for the rest of their lives. Most people would assume that means if you have $100,000, then after five years, you will have just over $130,000. ($100,000, $107,000, $114,490, $122,504, and $131,080). Oh boy, another misconception. Let’s say, as many people predict, the market takes a dip this next year and Hannah’s parents lose 50 percent of their portfolio. But over the next four years they gain 15 percent, 25 percent, 15 percent, and 30 percent respectively. While that leaves them with a 7 percent average growth over five years (-50+15+25+15+30)/5), with that heavy hit in the first year, most of that time is spent trying to recoup their initial loss. If you do the math, after five years they end up with only a bit more than $107,000. Now, imagine withdrawing income from this? Hannah agrees, this is not a pretty picture. This gal gets it. She is smart, and deeply cares for her folks.

Hannah went on to tell me that she told her mom to ask their advisor what happened to their portfolio in 2001, 2002, and 2008, and to ask him what his strategy is to protect them from another year like those. Her mother’s response was that she does not want to know all of those things; she just wants someone to take her money and know what they are supposed to do with it. This could be the final nail in their financial coffin. Unfortunately, in times like these, everyone must take ownership of their financial future and to do that, we must ask some hard questions.

I can’t count how many people went to cash in 2008 and have been reluctant to get back in at “all time market highs.” I didn’t have a broker, still don’t, but I hung tight. Over 10 years (which includes 2008 obviously), my IRR is ~6% . My 5 year is ~9%. So, 2008 dinged me, but I didn’t “lose 6 years.” I don’t remember exactly how down I was in 2008, but it wasn’t pretty.

Note that I have a relatively conservative asset allocation (55% stocks, 45% bonds, heading towards 50/50). Had I been longer equities, I would have done better in the past few years. But, why would I pull my goalie in the last minute of the game if I’m up 5-4? I apologize for the sports metaphor, but wanted to throw a hockey one in there because, well, you always see football and baseball ones.

I have read enough to know there’s a lot I DON’T know!! That’s why I’m interested in consulting a fee-only adviser. Those who are compensated via commission plan are really salespeople who have something to sell that may or may not be in my best interest. It’s easy for me to see how a fee-only adviser would be more objective and, often, the preferable path to responsibly taking care of one’s assets.

Am I missing something?

When I retire, I’ll receive a large (relative term) lump sum as a part of my retirement package and I need to make sure I’m investing that money wisely. I have other assets that need to last and it seems prudent to get competent advice.

@Bell1958, what I think you’re missing is that for most of us, it isn’t rocket science. And if it were, it’s unlikely 99% of FAs could help you. They almost invariably come up with something over-complicated, in large part to make you think they are worth the money.

Buy or borrow “A Bogleheads Guide to Retirement Planning” and read it. Perhaps read some of the books recommended there. If you’ve got the time, hang around Bogleheads.org for a bit.

If it makes you comfortable, get a fee-only (NOT fee-based) advisor to look over your plan afterwards. But not beforehand. Better yet, run it past the good people at Bogleheads, who give freely of their time and expertise with no hidden agenda.

If you are unsure what to do with the retirement lump sum, see http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Managing_a_windfall

If it’s an option, consider taking it as an annuity. It is often the better choice (but not always).

I explained a lot on a much earlier post (on this thread) about how our financial guy has us in some investments that are ‘closed’. One of the fund managers came to a dinner hosted by our financial guy, and we got to understand what he does - it is in these large bond funds and he looks at penny changes because it plays into how the fund can do very well. Way beyond what I am capable (or even interested) in doing.

We still have a majority of our retirement $$ in H’s 401(k) which we are limited to investment choices. So we move that around as we need to.

There are some investors on this thread that are very comfortable and happy to manage their own funds.

@beil1958 you are wise to learn what you can, because you don’t want to make a mistake of doing some kind of a rollover and then find out you made a tax mistake, or buy into an annuity and find out that was not a wise annuity…

We all want to avoid Bernie Madhofs in this country. I just heard where holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel lost his nest egg with Bernie Madhof. Shame.

I do think there are some good publications out there. Go to Barnes and Noble, library, etc to start reading. A few subscriptions is also an inexpensive way to get information readily accessible.

We took a short course located at local college taught by the financial guy we chose. The good thing is H understands things from Don. You know how H may not like to learn stuff from W…

I think I can do “hang tight” What I can’t do is sell when it’s low and buy back again. I think FAs may be able to help there. We’ve always had a FA until 2012. They took care of 2008 thankfully. They sold and bought in 2008-9 generating a huge capital loss. The loss came in very handy when I took it over in 2012 and converted individual stocks to index funds.

Financial advisors (particularly the fee-only ones) can view your portfolio objectively and without emotion. Sometimes, we are caught up with the inevitable human emotion and not able to sell a particular stock at a loss or profit. FA don’t have that. They will have no problem advise you to execute transactions.
I think fee-only FA’s are worth their keep… the only thing is…They are not inexpensive.

I’ve been thinking about what makes people want a FA when, to my mind anyway, they are unnecessary except in exceptional circumstances (special needs dependent, privately held business, portfolio > $20M, etc.). It is also my view that in those exceptional circumstances, an estate attorney would be more helpful.

Most occupied rooms that I walk into, I’m neither the smartest nor the dumbest guy there. Nevertheless, I can manage a 7 digit portfolio quite comfortably. A good case can be made for having one fund (eg, LifeStrategy), but a better case can be made for two funds (Total Stock Market and Total Bond Market). If you want, add Total International Stock Fund. If you have OCD, dabble in REITs, TIPS, etc. but realistically, 3 funds will give you control over fund location (if you’re in a high tax bracket), diversification, rebalancing options, and asset allocation control. Some of us (me, guilty) thought life had to be more complicated and have a dozen funds (and one stock) that are difficult to simplify because of capital gains issues (in taxable), but our tax-deferred assets are literally in 3 funds. Dirtbag employers might not make such options available, but more and more have low-cost index fund choices in their retirement plans.

Anyway, so I was thinking back to when I had a broker. I remember the old E.F. Hutton commercials where one person says “My broker is E.F. Hutton. And E.F. Hutton says…” and everyone gets silent and listens (probably many of you are old enough to remember). I think I was trying to create that effect, sort of like a kid playing dress up. Instead of a FA, I get much the same mileage and satisfaction by referring to my savings as “my portfolio” and that doesn’t cost a fee :). The reassurance of being able to say “my Financial Adviser …” is expensive, and, unless you fall into a special exception, unnecessary.

Just my $0.02.