"Number Schmumber"
Here's Why I Don't Like Retirement Numbers

My regular readers may recognize that "Number, Schmumber" phrase in today's title, because I've mentioned before that there's a tentative chapter called "Number, Schmumber," in my book-in-process, Platinum Living. My feeling is that one's retirement "number" is a moving target at best, and coming up with one requires a lot of static assumptions at a time when retirement itself is becoming more and more of a dynamic proposition.

To underscore my skepticism, here's a link to a June 9th article from Yahoo Finance entitled, "Is $1 Million Enough to Retire On?" I have recommended several Yahoo Finance articles in the past, but this is not one of them, except as an example of how narrow retirement thinking can get. Yep, this one really set off my "Retirement Hogwash Detector."

For example, the first heading has the scary title, "It's probably not enough," in bold, followed by a quote from the author, Michael Farr, of a book entitled A Million is Not Enough ... (Gee I wonder what his conclusion's going to be?) Although I don't disagree with Farr's recommendations, the little example he uses to make his point completely ignores social security in the equation. That is, since a million will only earn $50,000 a year, if your income needs are more than $50,000 a year, you'll eventually go under... duh!

The second section heading is actually accurate ... For security, try an annuity... It's just bad advice. This author recommends setting aside $200,000 of your million against "emergency medical expenses and buying an inflation protected annuity with the balance. In his example, the remaining $800,000 should be put into an annuity earning $45,000/year, and this, plus your social security (at least he included it) would amount to over $80,000/year and would replace a preretirement income of over $100,000. And actually, if you agree with his premise that the retirement income replacement rate is 80% (more about this later), this analysis is fine.

I have three problems with the annuity argument used here. First, I would never recommend that someone put 80% of their money in ANYTHING. Second, annuities really only make sense for older retirees, when life expectancies get low enough that there really is a premium for leaving your money to the insurance company. This guy is recommending that you do it for a return of 5.625% (45,000/800,000)! Thirdly, I believe that retirement, like the life that leads up to it, should be lived so as to give yourself maximum flexibility to pursue your dreams. And an annuity is one of the LEAST flexible of all investments.

There's a third voice in this article, a voice of reason. His name is Jonathan Pond, and his section is entitled "Stop worrying so much, and get out your golf shoes. Pond wrote a book called You Can Do It! The Boomer's Guide to a Great Retirement. "The financial services industry has made a good living for themselves scaring people," says Pond, a financial planner and author of You Can Do It! The Boomer's Guide to a Great Retirement. "For many people, $100,000 to $200,000 is enough to retire on."

That's certainly good news for many in the Platinum Years readership, and many of my middle income clients. Remember, one of our missions is, "Life planning for the rest of us."

There's another undercurrent of disagreement in the Yahoo Finance article. Just how much income does a person need to replace in retirement? Some say 100% or more, while financial planners like Pond and myself say much less. The financial planning industry in general is quite divided on this point, and yet it is key to the calculation of your retirement number.

I'll be blogging more on various aspects of this topic over the next few days, and I've also moved Pond's book up to the top of my reading list. Meanwhile, "stop worrying so much and go get your golf shoes." :-) Bob

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Benefits of Delaying Social Security

I occasionally plow through dreary assessments of how little we boomers are inclined to save and the risks that creates with our retirement prospects…. I do this reading for you, so you won’t have to :-) Occasionally a gem of wisdom will pop out, making it all worthwhile. And those, of course I will pass along. So from an Economic and Budget Issue Brief from the Congressional Budget Office, dated March 14, 2004, entitled “The Retirement Prospects of the Baby Boomers,” comes an excellent and concise summary from a section entitled “The Effects of Delaying Retirement”: "For households facing shortfalls in their retirement savings, relatively small changes in behavior can have surprisingly large effects. Because people who retire at 62 can expect to live another 20 years, each year they postpone retirement reduces their need for retirement savings by about 5 percent. An extra year of work also increases their Social Security benefits by several percent. Taken together, those effects ...
Read more

Pay Back Your Social Security
It Could Be the Best Annuity You Could Buy

The above title was the original title of yesterday's post , which later became " Social Security Decisions: Important But Not Irrevocable - You Have Much More Flexibility Than You May Think ." I actually posted it with the "Annuity" title above, but after sleeping on it overnight, I realized that yesterday's article was really about flexibility, an important issue in its own right. I have written before about flexibility. The general rule is, "Given two equally attractive decisions, always choose the one that is more "reversible," (i.e. allows you to change your mind later) Flexibilty is a key element in any personal financial decision, and retirement decisions are no exception. In fact, I think flexibility becomes MORE important as you get older, as youre "wiggle room" for creating alternatives diminishes the older you get. And I wrote on this before, in my original article, " Don't Do It ," as a major reason why ...
Read more

Social Security Decisions: Important But Not Irrevocable
You Have Much More Flexibility Than You May Think

I have written several times before on this subject, and my basic premise has been that many boomers are making a big mistake by taking social security at age 62, at least those who don’t fall under the three exceptions to the basic rule of “ Don’t Do It .” Then on February 1st , I wrote about the ability to UNtake social security by basically suspending payments, stopping the clock as it were, and gaining credits in the form of increased future payments. For example, if you start taking payments at 62, and suspend them at age 63½ for three years, at that point you would be 66½ and earning pretty much as if you had started at 65. Now comes an article from Forbes.com entitled “ Trade In Your Social Security Check ,” which describes how you can not only stop the social security clock, but you can RESET IT TO ZERO by paying back all of your previously earned social security checks WITHOUT INTEREST. Which certainly answers one of my original arguments about flexibility. You really c...
Read more