Here Are 27 Reality Checks About Retirement

Never cared for these kinds of lists. Dated information which is misleading. For instance Medicare Advantage plans include Dental and Vision coverage often with $0 monthly premiums. Some plans even return a portion of your part B premium. Scare tactics - what is the point!!
 

Perhaps the best "reality check" is planning for retirement when you are still young enough to build up a nice "cushion". If a person realizes that they, too, will get old, fairly early in their working career, and they begin to set a modest amount aside for that day, retirement can be quite good. However, if they don't do anything until they are well into their '50's, they may find themselves trying to get by with little more than SS.
 
Never cared for these kinds of lists. Dated information which is misleading. For instance Medicare Advantage plans include Dental and Vision coverage often with $0 monthly premiums. Some plans even return a portion of your part B premium. Scare tactics - what is the point!!
Hmmmm...yet you still read the article. :LOL::ROFLMAO: Some things may be "dated" but other points in the article remain relevant.

@Don M. A retirement planning site actually offered an app that would allow users to age themselves. They rationale was that if they saw odler versions of themselves it would motivate them to start saving (or saving more) for retirement.
@garyt1957 Yes, LTC policies will most likely continue to escalate in price. I'm kind of glad I couldn't get a policy.
 
No one knows how long to recover ..2008 was almost recovered in a year ….2000 adjusted for inflation was 12 years ….

but so what .,,even at 65 there is money that won’t be used to eat for 20-30 years …that is the money that goes in to equities .

a 60/40 portfolio has more then a decade in bonds and cash.

are you saying all your retirement money is in equities late in the game ? That is not a market issue if that is the case it’s a poor planning issue …

I suggest you read kitces article on the red zone…

if one is a few year out from retirement then 100% equities is likely not a good idea

https://www.kitces.com/blog/managing-portfolio-size-effect-with-bond-tent-in-retirement-red-zone/
This was my company retirement. My mistake was not to start my own separate retirement. I did not realize it was a "closed" account until I was a few years away from retirement and there was a lot of money in it. Two guys I worked with started separate accounts and I should have looked into doing that when they did. I will start drawing on it next month. Mutual funds are somewhat safer than just buying separate stocks, but there is a good chunk of my money gone. I have been tempted to just cash it out even with the high tax burden at least I won't loose it all. At this point the mutual fund is about 55% of my total retirement money. Like I said before I can survive without the mutual fund, but I will be much more secure with it.
 
LTC insurance is outrageously expensive now if you can even get it.
Yep it is, the reason is long term care is expensive and as @OneEyedDiva 's list says most of us will need it.

Insurance companies need to make a profit, so they have to charge more than they pay out. The reason for buying insurance is to avoid financial devastation from some event, and we have to pay a premium for that. It works pretty well for things that are low consequence but high impact, like home fire. But not so well for long term care. I believe we are better off saving for that inevitability than buying insurance. It will work out better financially in the long run.
 
This was my company retirement. My mistake was not to start my own separate retirement. I did not realize it was a "closed" account until I was a few years away from retirement and there was a lot of money in it. Two guys I worked with started separate accounts and I should have looked into doing that when they did. I will start drawing on it next month. Mutual funds are somewhat safer than just buying separate stocks, but there is a good chunk of my money gone. I have been tempted to just cash it out even with the high tax burden at least I won't loose it all. At this point the mutual fund is about 55% of my total retirement money. Like I said before I can survive without the mutual fund, but I will be much more secure with it.
Cashing it out is probably Not a good idea. If it's money you don't need right now, let it ride....the stock markets always seem to recover. It may take some time...no one knows how long it takes to make a recovery, but that's better than stressing over the "short term".
 
If you look at the statistics most people don’t need long term care.
I hope that's the case with us. We took out a LTC policy about 20 years ago, and have paid thousands in premiums....which go up a little more each year. The cost of good elder care....at home, or in a facility is getting ridiculous....unless you just go to a State Medicaid facility...where the care is minimal.
Personally, I hope this is just money down the drain, and we go quickly....but, if not, at least we won't have to receive bad care, or become a burden to the kids.
 
I hope that's the case with us. We took out a LTC policy about 20 years ago, and have paid thousands in premiums....which go up a little more each year. The cost of good elder care....at home, or in a facility is getting ridiculous....unless you just go to a State Medicaid facility...where the care is minimal.
Personally, I hope this is just money down the drain, and we go quickly....but, if not, at least we won't have to receive bad care, or become a burden to the kids.
We took out a LTC policy over 20 years ago with Transamerica it started at $100 a day with 5% increase each year. 2 years for me and 3 for my wife in 2014 it had gone to paying $208 a day.
Then the increase came. From $425.77 each 6 months for me to $745.09 each 6 months with the 5% annual increase....for my wife it went from $358.75 each 6 months to $663.67 each 6 months.

The good thing we had a choice. Leave the premium as is and live with the $208 a day. We stayed with the $208 a day.

Hope we do not need it.
 
If you look at the statistics most people don’t need long term care.
Statistics mean something to insurers ..in fact they can tell you in a normal year how many of us will die .

but they can’t tell us who .

as humans we only have two outcomes

its us crap happens to or it isn’t .

my dad was on the wrong side of the statistic since someone has to be …he impoverished his wife after spending 5 years in a facility after a stroke left him paralyzed.


which side of the statistic are you Going to be ?
 
This was my company retirement. My mistake was not to start my own separate retirement. I did not realize it was a "closed" account until I was a few years away from retirement and there was a lot of money in it. Two guys I worked with started separate accounts and I should have looked into doing that when they did. I will start drawing on it next month. Mutual funds are somewhat safer than just buying separate stocks, but there is a good chunk of my money gone. I have been tempted to just cash it out even with the high tax burden at least I won't loose it all. At this point the mutual fund is about 55% of my total retirement money. Like I said before I can survive without the mutual fund, but I will be much more secure with it.
As @Don M. pointed out..cashing out now is probably not a good idea, especially if you don't really need the money now. It's the classic, buy high sell low scenario, which is a way many people wind up losing money in the market. It is unfortunate that you didn't start your own individual account. Right now, even if you had, chances are that portfolio would be down too. The market is down...period. Been there...done that more than once and I just wait for it to rebound.
 
Statistics mean something to insurers ..in fact they can tell you in a normal year how many of us will die .

but they can’t tell us who .

as humans we only have two outcomes

its us crap happens to or it isn’t .

my dad was on the wrong side of the statistic since someone has to be …he impoverished his wife after spending 5 years in a facility after a stroke left him paralyzed.


which side of the statistic are you Going to be ?
It's not like LTC insurance pays everything or forever.
 
It's not like LTC insurance pays everything or forever.
Ours does .

we have a New York State partnership plan .

we get 3 years skilled nursing facility coverage and can go to any facility of our choice ..we get six years of in home care .

when the insurance is up a special version of medicaid kicks in and pays all the bills .

our assets are 100% protected with no spend down , look back or anything else .

even the stay at home spouse has no income restrictions.

there plans are golden .

The last two years there are no insurers writing partnership plans here .

if you have one you are grandfathered in .

usage is way higher then insurers predicted .

their stats were a generation old and incomplete as far as recording usage .

insurers are realizing those stats about usage were way off.

right off the state website


New York State Partnership for Long-Term Care​

New York State Partnership for Long-Term Care

This website is intended to provide educational materials and resources for individuals or their representatives who currently own a New York State Partnership policy. For licensed agents, the Partnership training and certification is available for those who wish to refresh their knowledge of the NYS Partnership requirements as well as gain 6 CE credits toward their licensure.

IMPORTANT: As of January 1, 2021, there are no insurance companies currently offering new policy purchases of Partnership qualified products in New York State. This means that there are no new Partnership policies available for purchase at this time. This does not affect current, active insureds who are Partnership qualified.
 
Most states offer partnership plans for long term care .

however most states are not total asset protection plans .

they are called dollar for dollar .

that means if say 300k is spent on your care 300k in assets is protected .

these plans are so so and my opinion is without having 100% asset protection they are not that good .

the most costliest way to get coverage are these hybrid plans …for what you get they are very expensive …

kitces took a look at them and they are way to expensive .

people are fooled because they revert to life insurance .

https://www.kitces.com/blog/is-the-...-annuityltc-insurance-policies-just-a-mirage/
 
As long as you don’t have a stay at home spouse to keep from impoverishing no problem self insuring .
The problem is most don’t really self insure .

to self insure you need to be fully funded day one and need to invest like an insurer in safe secure investments .

that means long term low returns .

we were going to self insure until I realized if I don’t segregate this money and act like an insurance company then I am only saying I am self insuring but really not .

for just a tiny piece of my average long term gains leaving that money invested in the risk pool I can pay for a real protective policy

self insuring gets worse when a stay at home spouse is involved and she realizes she can be impoverished.

our attorney says the bulk of his clients are the self insurers
 
we stumbled into retirement, everything I read says we cannot make it. after 10 years we still have more than enough. my said the other day, "it's because our needs are small."
RJ...that's the ticket. For so many years financial analysts scared people into thinking they had to have a least a million dollars to retire comfortably. More recently I've seen articles that are more realistic mentioning the possibilities for those of us who don't have that much. One is living at, or if possible, below your means. Another change is they used to preach that the best retirement move was that you had to wait until full retirement age to take social security. I'm seeing more articles lately in which analysts admit that isn't always true and in some instances taking SS early can be more beneficial.

Even though I did plan for retirement, I had several thousand dollars less than I had anticipated when I retired, partly because I retired a year earlier than I had planned and I had loaned money to a loved one. Like you, (after 24 years for me) I have more than enough to cover my needs and wants. BTW, requiring less and being happy with what we have is one of the keys to a happy life.
 
RJ...that's the ticket. For so many years financial analysts scared people into thinking they had to have a least a million dollars to retire comfortably. More recently I've seen articles that are more realistic mentioning the possibilities for those of us who don't have that much. One is living at, or if possible, below your means. Another change is they used to preach that the best retirement move was that you had to wait until full retirement age to take social security. I'm seeing more articles lately in which analysts admit that isn't always true and in some instances taking SS early can be more beneficial.

Even though I did plan for retirement, I had several thousand dollars less than I had anticipated when I retired, partly because I retired a year earlier than I had planned and I had loaned money to a loved one. Like you, (after 24 years for me) I have more than enough to cover my needs and wants. BTW, requiring less and being happy with what we have is one of the keys to a happy life.


I don’t know of one reputable advisor or even company that ever said you need a million dollars or more .

The proper way is to use a retirement calculator which simply stress tests the amount you have based on how it will be invested like fire calc or the fidelity planner .

Then it simply adds to it any other income like ss , rental income or pension .

It tells you what a safe assumption is for that level of pay check .

What you need or how you spend it is up to you. ,no different then your check when working.

there is no magical number needed .

There is only the safe capability of a given portfolio size and allocation.

how you spend it is up to you
 
I don’t know of one reputable advisor or even company that ever said you need a million dollars or more .

The proper way is to use a retirement calculator which simply stress tests the amount you have based on how it will be invested like fire calc or the fidelity planner .

Then it simply adds to it any other income like ss , rental income or pension .

It tells you what a safe assumption is for that level of pay check .

What you need or how you spend it is up to you. ,no different then your check when working.

there is no magical number needed .

There is only the safe capability of a given portfolio size and allocation.

how you spend it is up to you
When I first started reading investment magazines like Money and Kiplinger, which I subscribed to decades ago, the million dollar figure was used often, either by outright saying that's what people needed or using that figure as an example when giving sample calculations. Then when I started reading various articles online I found the same thing until fairly recently. I always felt that those types of articles could act to discourage, rather than motivate people who felt there is no way they can ever attain that figure. I do remember once that Money did an article on people who managed to have comfortable retirements on a lot less than the 80% of final salary figure, also often recommended. I never personally spoke with an advisor about how much I would need because I'm a self taught investor and manage my own portfolio. I'm also a perfect example of not needing a million.

Just as analysts have stopped pushing the million dollar thing, there are more of them who admit that in certain instances, taking social security early is beneficial. Until about 3 years ago, I only saw that advice once and it was decades ago. Now I feel more realistic advice and figures are mentioned in many financial articles as well as directing people to retirement calculators so they can figure out what's best for themselves.
 
Cashing it out is probably Not a good idea. If it's money you don't need right now, let it ride....the stock markets always seem to recover. It may take some time...no one knows how long it takes to make a recovery, but that's better than stressing over the "short term".
I think the key phrase is - "if you don't need it".

Stock markets always recover, until some day when they don't. When they do recover, it sometimes takes years and years, which is ok if you are 25, not so ok when you are 75. The market may be as likely to go down another 20% as it is to go up 20%, some think maybe more likely (i.e. high inflation, high energy costs, during a recession (of course no one knows for sure))

I think as with any risk/reward analysis, is the cost of the risk worth the benefit of the reward? At this point in time, will having my investments go up 20% make a significant difference in my life? If my investments go down 20%, will it make a significant difference in my life? Each of us have our own answers to those questions,

I personally think the concept of buy and hold is a young person's game.
 


Back
Top