HAVE YOU EVER MADE a plan and then had it go awry? Like the car breaking down on the highway when you’re driving to Christmas dinner, as happened to me several years ago.
Stuff happens. That’s why I can’t understand why many people preparing for retirement seem to have unwavering confidence in their planned budget—one that’s often generated using software or a spreadsheet.
Hiring a financial advisor may help. But for that advice to bolster your chances of success, you must be 100% honest when discussing your goals, your fears, and how you define risk and financial security. Is your goal really to spend every penny and leave nothing to your children? Are you really an aggressive investor and truly willing to live on a tight budget?
I’ve heard people say their planning covers every contingency. Over the next 30 years? I doubt it. I’ve been retired since 2010. In the last three years, I’ve spent $5,000 on an unplanned tree removal and $8,000 on dental work in a single month. In 2021, my former employer dropped our medical and prescription drug coverage, replacing both with a payment to a health reimbursement account that, over time, won’t keep up with premium inflation.
Those are just some examples of what can happen. I’m thinking they aren’t in row 10, column B, of most retirees’ planning spreadsheet.
Some people have supreme confidence in their budget and how much money they need. Unfortunately for many, it may be necessary to live on a strict budget that only covers basic necessities. But is that a desirable plan? Having just enough to get by, based on some cooked-up budget, seems a bit risky.
Surveys consistently show a great disconnect between saving rates, expected retirement income and spending in retirement. I cringe when I read that living in retirement is possible on 40% or even 60% of preretirement income. Will that income really cover all financial risks for 30 years—and perhaps far longer if folks are retiring in their 50s?
My perspective is different from that of most retirees. I have steady income from a pension and Social Security that’s equal to 100% of my preretirement base pay. Perhaps I’m too conservative—and too skeptical of retirees who think they can get by safely on their investments and Social Security.
I try to think ahead, to cover all the bases, to account for life’s “what ifs.” So far in 2022, those “what ifs” include high inflation, a rocky stock market and rising interest rates. I maintain retirees need more than whatever their budget indicates. Their retirement finances should include an emergency fund—and ample financial breathing room.
You should have gotten yourself a reverse mortgage loan to pay for the tree removal and dental work. Under current rules you would get about 47% of the appraised value of your home less about a 4.5% commission on the appraised value and currently earn about 3% yearly on the unused balance(previously 5 or 6% yearly return). On a home valued at $100K times 47% less 4.5% commission that is about $42-43K. And the loan is a nonRecourse loan. I’m sure you know what that means. Your heirs might get less from your house but more from your retirement portfolio. And you do not have to make any payments up to the time you leave your home.
A lot of talented people struggle with numbers and forecasts. I think this makes having a ‘margin of error’ critical when trying to plan 30 years ahead.
Having one’s pension slashed in mid-career doesn’t make it any easier, many of us have been converted to cash value pensions (if that) with values an order of magnitude lower than the plans they replaced.
Even SS is uncertain, as Congress could do anything from funding projected shortfalls to privatizing the system.
I think it’s critical for all of us contemplating retirement to have a plan B and a plan C, to provide protection against worst case scenarios.
Three yeas after I retired my pension was cut by 10% claiming there was a calculation error – there wasn’t.
Based on erroneous analysis my former employer cut the future accrual on a pension plan that was initiated in 1911. Some consultant said the benefit was too high when you factor in 401k and SS value apparently ignoring the fact the worker contributed to both plans and the growth in the 401k was mostly market driven.