What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

PBS Frontline : The Retirement Gamble, sorta Must See (4 Viewers)

A New Retirement Rule Aims To Put Customers Before Advisors

Under new regulations issued by the Labor Department on Wednesday, the rules around how financial advisors can invest that money on behalf of clients are about to change.

Under the new rule registered investment advisors and brokers will be required to provide investment advice that’s in the best interest of their clients, a benchmark known as the fiduciary standard.

Previously, a large share of financial advice was often only required to be “suitable” for clients. That standard, according to critics, freed the way for brokers to recommend investments that earned them higher commissions, even if a cheaper alternative would have been better for the investor.

For decades, registered investment advisors have been obligated by law to act in their clients’ best interest. But registered investment advisors represent only about 15 percent of the industry. The remaining 85 percent of brokers and others other types of advisors offering retirement advice are often not bound to the fiduciary standard.

The White House has argued that conflicted retirement advice costs investors at least $17 billion each year in lost savings — a figure that leaders in the financial services industry call greatly inflated.

The rule still allows brokers to earn commissions and other forms of compensation, but in order to recommend products that might pose a conflict they will first have to enter into an enforceable “best interest contract.” Firms will also be required to disclose conflicts of interest, and provide more detailed disclosures about costs, fees and how they make their money.

The original plan called for an eight-month implementation period, though in a key concession by the Obama administration, firms will not have to be fully compliant until Jan. 1, 2018.

The final rule includes several other concessions to the financial services industry, which launched an aggressive lobbying campaign against the regulation, arguing that changes would make investment advice costlier and thus less accessible to millions of Americans. For example, firms will only be required to sign one best interest contract with clients when they open an account. Under the original version of the plan, advisors and customer-service representatives would have had to sign a new contract each time they spoke with a customer.

Still, the final rule preserved several key points long sought by the administration and consumer advocates. One goal of the plan is to safeguard investors when they roll over money from a 401(k) plan into an IRA. Before the rule, this type of recommendation was considered one-time advice, which meant it was often not held to the fiduciary standard. The administration has argued that rollovers based on conflicted advice could rob a typical investor of as much as $12,000 in retirement savings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A New Retirement Rule Aims To Put Customers Before Advisors

Under new regulations issued by the Labor Department on Wednesday, the rules around how financial advisors can invest that money on behalf of clients are about to change.

Under the new rule registered investment advisors and brokers will be required to provide investment advice that’s in the best interest of their clients, a benchmark known as the fiduciary standard.

Previously, a large share of financial advice was often only required to be “suitable” for clients. That standard, according to critics, freed the way for brokers to recommend investments that earned them higher commissions, even if a cheaper alternative would have been better for the investor.

For decades, registered investment advisors have been obligated by law to act in their clients’ best interest. But registered investment advisors represent only about 15 percent of the industry. The remaining 85 percent of brokers and others other types of advisors offering retirement advice are often not bound to the fiduciary standard.

The White House has argued that conflicted retirement advice costs investors at least $17 billion each year in lost savings — a figure that leaders in the financial services industry call greatly inflated.

The rule still allows brokers to earn commissions and other forms of compensation, but in order to recommend products that might pose a conflict they will first have to enter into an enforceable “best interest contract.” Firms will also be required to disclose conflicts of interest, and provide more detailed disclosures about costs, fees and how they make their money.

The original plan called for an eight-month implementation period, though in a key concession by the Obama administration, firms will not have to be fully compliant until Jan. 1, 2018.

The final rule includes several other concessions to the financial services industry, which launched an aggressive lobbying campaign against the regulation, arguing that changes would make investment advice costlier and thus less accessible to millions of Americans. For example, firms will only be required to sign one best interest contract with clients when they open an account. Under the original version of the plan, advisors and customer-service representatives would have had to sign a new contract each time they spoke with a customer.

Still, the final rule preserved several key points long sought by the administration and consumer advocates. One goal of the plan is to safeguard investors when they roll over money from a 401(k) plan into an IRA. Before the rule, this type of recommendation was considered one-time advice, which meant it was often not held to the fiduciary standard. The administration has argued that rollovers based on conflicted advice could rob a typical investor of as much as $12,000 in retirement savings.
Interesting.  Wonder how it will be enforceable

 
That sounds like a really nice situation you have there.   Good for you.
I hate this new board - to the OP that was quoted - take the 9% match assuming you can max out you contribution tax free. Over 15 years you will be far better off.  Is this USC by the way?  Looks very familiar to their plan.

 
Interesting.  Wonder how it will be enforceable
It seems to me that it is fairly subjective. The funny thing is if you talk to advisors now and the stories they tell about a customer wanting to do a particular product and they simply can not do it because the back office says it isn't a good fit. Now a lot of those stories are from bank brokerages and not pure investment so there may be a difference there.

I would think that the safest way for a financial institution to navigate moving forward would be to move towards flat fee advise and away from commissions. Commissions are big income now- a lot of banks have moved towards focusing on business and wealth management since all of the regulatory changes over the last few years as they are not as heavily regulated and are lucrative where as consumer banking is not as much anymore. So, there will certainly be push back on it. It will likely end up happening once firms start getting hammered with being out of compliance and lawsuits.

 
It's sickening in a way that retirement savings is just another big business play. In the last 10-20 years the advertising has exploded, it's subliminally fear based, and it's the epitome of the rich getting richer off the backs of other people's money. Terrible system and trade off for workers from the pension based system enjoyed by previous generations. Just another way corporate America has marginalized workers to the point of being completely disposable and interchangeable.

 
It's sickening in a way that retirement savings is just another big business play. In the last 10-20 years the advertising has exploded, it's subliminally fear based, and it's the epitome of the rich getting richer off the backs of other people's money. Terrible system and trade off for workers from the pension based system enjoyed by previous generations. Just another way corporate America has marginalized workers to the point of being completely disposable and interchangeable.
I disagree. I think the average person takes their retirement savings far too lightly and NEEDS the information thrown in their face. In fact, I love the idea that some jobs will auto enroll you in their 401k plan unless you say otherwise. The average person DOES need to be scared that they haven't saved enough for retirement because the truth is......they haven't.

 
I disagree. I think the average person takes their retirement savings far too lightly and NEEDS the information thrown in their face. In fact, I love the idea that some jobs will auto enroll you in their 401k plan unless you say otherwise. The average person DOES need to be scared that they haven't saved enough for retirement because the truth is......they haven't.
I agree with both to a point.

Often, people pay more than they should or need to. But many times it is within their control and they don't both to exert that control and that is even the people who bother to save for retirement. It is ridiculous how many people basically have next to nothing saved or that every time they leave a job they treat what 401k they had as some sort of bonus and take the money.

 
I disagree. I think the average person takes their retirement savings far too lightly and NEEDS the information thrown in their face. In fact, I love the idea that some jobs will auto enroll you in their 401k plan unless you say otherwise. The average person DOES need to be scared that they haven't saved enough for retirement because the truth is......they haven't.
Two different things. Yes, auto enrollment by companies into a 401K is a good idea, and yes people in general need to more cognizant of retirement needs and perhaps aren't saving enough. My distaste is with the mechanism by which retirement savings is accomplished, and who I see as the the big winners: Vanguard, Prudential, Etrade, TD Ameritrade, etc. Them to you: "save more (so we make more). You: "how much more?" Them: "Just more. You're not saving enough. You're going to die poor." You: "How much will I have to retire with this savings trajectory?": Them "Can't tell ya, depends on the market. So you better save more".

I read that the % of $1 million 401K account balances was less than 1%. Less than 1%. But everyone needs a million dollars, right? To retire? Hell some guys are convinced they need $5 million to retire. Really?  To me it's more of the 1% wall street interests pocketing off the 99%, and meanwhile telling (advertising to) the 99% "save more, save more". That's the part I find sickening, along with the power it has yielded to companies over employees as a trend as well.

 
Two different things. Yes, auto enrollment by companies into a 401K is a good idea, and yes people in general need to more cognizant of retirement needs and perhaps aren't saving enough. My distaste is with the mechanism by which retirement savings is accomplished, and who I see as the the big winners: Vanguard, Prudential, Etrade, TD Ameritrade, etc. Them to you: "save more (so we make more). You: "how much more?" Them: "Just more. You're not saving enough. You're going to die poor." You: "How much will I have to retire with this savings trajectory?": Them "Can't tell ya, depends on the market. So you better save more".

I read that the % of $1 million 401K account balances was less than 1%. Less than 1%. But everyone needs a million dollars, right? To retire? Hell some guys are convinced they need $5 million to retire. Really?  To me it's more of the 1% wall street interests pocketing off the 99%, and meanwhile telling (advertising to) the 99% "save more, save more". That's the part I find sickening, along with the power it has yielded to companies over employees as a trend as well.
You realize a million bucks isn't what it used to be, right?   I mean if you use even an aggressive 5% withdraw rate, that's like 50K a year in retirement plus some social security...  and that's assuming you retire TODAY...    in 20 years that 50k really might not buy you very much at ALL.

2 Million is the new 1 million for retirement.   And if you are in the upper echelon of earners and want to maintain your lifestyle, 3-5 million isn't unrealistic at all.

Every calculator I run tells me that I need nearly 5 million given my life expectancy and how early i want to retire.. so i have to work pretty hard on it.

about 95% of the retirees I know personally and see on a regular basis retired into near poverty situations.. and I take that seriously.     I see a few of the retirees that that are living the Money Magazine lifestyle...  and I want that.   I ask those people how they did it...   it's always the same... save until it hurts, follow solid investment advice.

 
I disagree. I think the average person takes their retirement savings far too lightly and NEEDS the information thrown in their face. In fact, I love the idea that some jobs will auto enroll you in their 401k plan unless you say otherwise. The average person DOES need to be scared that they haven't saved enough for retirement because the truth is......they haven't.
While that is likely true, it doesn't justify creating a right of passage to legislate what one group considers to be smart onto another group.  Those who fail to save will have more money now and less later.  Those who save will have less now and more later. It is a choice with risks on either end. 

 
Two different things. Yes, auto enrollment by companies into a 401K is a good idea, and yes people in general need to more cognizant of retirement needs and perhaps aren't saving enough. My distaste is with the mechanism by which retirement savings is accomplished, and who I see as the the big winners: Vanguard, Prudential, Etrade, TD Ameritrade, etc. Them to you: "save more (so we make more). You: "how much more?" Them: "Just more. You're not saving enough. You're going to die poor." You: "How much will I have to retire with this savings trajectory?": Them "Can't tell ya, depends on the market. So you better save more".

I read that the % of $1 million 401K account balances was less than 1%. Less than 1%. But everyone needs a million dollars, right? To retire? Hell some guys are convinced they need $5 million to retire. Really?  To me it's more of the 1% wall street interests pocketing off the 99%, and meanwhile telling (advertising to) the 99% "save more, save more". That's the part I find sickening, along with the power it has yielded to companies over employees as a trend as well.
You expect them to give a rate of return estimate? Or even a total retirement figure to shoot for?

This would be extremely irresponsible and dangerous. 

Everyone's situation will be different based on many variables (lifestyle before and after retirement, income while working, investment choices, etc etc). The big brokerages can't and shouldn't give out exact percentages and figures for investors to shoot for. At the end of the day, it's the investor's responsibility to become educated enough to have a ball park number or goal for their own unique situation.  

 
Two different things. Yes, auto enrollment by companies into a 401K is a good idea, and yes people in general need to more cognizant of retirement needs and perhaps aren't saving enough. My distaste is with the mechanism by which retirement savings is accomplished, and who I see as the the big winners: Vanguard, Prudential, Etrade, TD Ameritrade, etc. Them to you: "save more (so we make more). You: "how much more?" Them: "Just more. You're not saving enough. You're going to die poor." You: "How much will I have to retire with this savings trajectory?": Them "Can't tell ya, depends on the market. So you better save more".

I read that the % of $1 million 401K account balances was less than 1%. Less than 1%. But everyone needs a million dollars, right? To retire? Hell some guys are convinced they need $5 million to retire. Really?  To me it's more of the 1% wall street interests pocketing off the 99%, and meanwhile telling (advertising to) the 99% "save more, save more". That's the part I find sickening, along with the power it has yielded to companies over employees as a trend as well.
I think you are dead on, today.  Perhaps the 1% with the $1M+ are the brokers, etc. 

They DO tend to feed this fear monster of "no amount is ever enough" and it shouldn't be that way.  People with a pension had the best mechanism, IMO. It is too bad those are farther and fewer between now. 

 
You realize a million bucks isn't what it used to be, right?   I mean if you use even an aggressive 5% withdraw rate, that's like 50K a year in retirement plus some social security...  and that's assuming you retire TODAY...    in 20 years that 50k really might not buy you very much at ALL.

2 Million is the new 1 million for retirement.   And if you are in the upper echelon of earners and want to maintain your lifestyle, 3-5 million isn't unrealistic at all.

Every calculator I run tells me that I need nearly 5 million given my life expectancy and how early i want to retire.. so i have to work pretty hard on it.

about 95% of the retirees I know personally and see on a regular basis retired into near poverty situations.. and I take that seriously.     I see a few of the retirees that that are living the Money Magazine lifestyle...  and I want that.   I ask those people how they did it...   it's always the same... save until it hurts, follow solid investment advice.
Eh, I would take my chances using today's dollars at 62 years of age with $1mil and zero debt plus 2 social security checks. Without SS and assuming 60K per year, Firecalc gives that a 51% chance of success of lasting 30 years. I do like the world where everyone lives until 92 also, can I sign up for that?

 
While that is likely true, it doesn't justify creating a right of passage to legislate what one group considers to be smart onto another group.  Those who fail to save will have more money now and less later.  Those who save will have less now and more later. It is a choice with risks on either end. 


Except if they don't have enough later, I have to take care of them. I can't choose not to do so. 


Correct, this the problem i have when other people choose not to save.

There are going to be so many sob stories coming in the future about how miserable people's lives are because they didn't choose to save...  they had a plan to work until they died.. but got laid off, or became disabled, etc, etc..    and when you don't overplan and futureproof your personal situation..  and then it fails...  well... is that my fault?

So now I have to support you on some sort of welfare program or something because I was smart enough and disciplined enough to save and you weren't?

If you don't save.. and I don't have to support you and the media doesn't shove down my throat that you were "unfortunate" because of a SLEW of bad decision made.. then fine..   But that's not the way it works in this country...  you screw up and I'm pushed to feel sorry for you...  eff that.

 
You realize a million bucks isn't what it used to be, right?   I mean if you use even an aggressive 5% withdraw rate, that's like 50K a year in retirement plus some social security...  and that's assuming you retire TODAY...    in 20 years that 50k really might not buy you very much at ALL.

2 Million is the new 1 million for retirement.   And if you are in the upper echelon of earners and want to maintain your lifestyle, 3-5 million isn't unrealistic at all.

Every calculator I run tells me that I need nearly 5 million given my life expectancy and how early i want to retire.. so i have to work pretty hard on it.

about 95% of the retirees I know personally and see on a regular basis retired into near poverty situations.. and I take that seriously.     I see a few of the retirees that that are living the Money Magazine lifestyle...  and I want that.   I ask those people how they did it...   it's always the same... save until it hurts, follow solid investment advice.
I've read some of your thoughts on this topic in other threads so I have a decent sense of how strongly and aggressively you feel about saving and how you go about it. So I'm not going to (wanting to) poke a bear or anything. I just want to say that I believe it all has to be within perspective and moderation.  We can all choose to live "higher on the hog" at different points in our lives and we can say we want to maintain that into our golden years or we can say we can live more in moderation. It is up to us and its a good choice to have.

My advice/thought to everyone is don't get so caught up trying to chase that "today dollar" (which is uncertain in terms of value tomorrow...or 30 years from now) that you lose sight of the now.  Don't kill yourself daydreaming of how you are going to sit around your money bin counting your $5 million dollars. You might lose out on the opportunities to have something across the broad spectrum of your hopefully long life that you value more than money.

 
Eh, I would take my chances using today's dollars at 62 years of age with $1mil and zero debt plus 2 social security checks. Without SS and assuming 60K per year, Firecalc gives that a 51% chance of success of lasting 30 years. I do like the world where everyone lives until 92 also, can I sign up for that?
I'm sure it will be sufficient for many people.   I'd say if your retirement looks like fishing at local state parks, watching jeoprody, eating at early bird specials, doing crosswords, and taking care of grandchildren, it will last.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

But don't most people aspire to go big?   Be the senior citizen who snowbirds in Barbados, goes on a river cruise in Europe,  spends a few weeks in Vegas, spoils the grandkids, does my crosswords while sitting in first class on the way to Wimbledon, and takes the whole family on a vacation to Cabo, and plays poker a few nights a week in the "big game" at the local casino?

 
Correct, this the problem i have when other people choose not to save.

There are going to be so many sob stories coming in the future about how miserable people's lives are because they didn't choose to save...  they had a plan to work until they died.. but got laid off, or became disabled, etc, etc..    and when you don't overplan and futureproof your personal situation..  and then it fails...  well... is that my fault?

So now I have to support you on some sort of welfare program or something because I was smart enough and disciplined enough to save and you weren't?

If you don't save.. and I don't have to support you and the media doesn't shove down my throat that you were "unfortunate" because of a SLEW of bad decision made.. then fine..   But that's not the way it works in this country...  you screw up and I'm pushed to feel sorry for you...  eff that.
I definitely agree with personal responsibility, and I take a great deal of that upon myself as I suspect most in this thread do. But I also think the retirement system itself has a role in this, and it's not that the majority of people in the U.S are inherently stupid and lazy (although a percentage certainly are). I'm railing against what I see as a system set up as a win-win for Wall Street and corporations, while all of the cost share shifting and responsibility has moved to employees. There used to be more of a mutual investment, or relationship, between employers and employees that has largely vanished, and the current system is a factor in that.

 
Correct, this the problem i have when other people choose not to save.

There are going to be so many sob stories coming in the future about how miserable people's lives are because they didn't choose to save...  they had a plan to work until they died.. but got laid off, or became disabled, etc, etc..    and when you don't overplan and futureproof your personal situation..  and then it fails...  well... is that my fault?

So now I have to support you on some sort of welfare program or something because I was smart enough and disciplined enough to save and you weren't?

If you don't save.. and I don't have to support you and the media doesn't shove down my throat that you were "unfortunate" because of a SLEW of bad decision made.. then fine..   But that's not the way it works in this country...  you screw up and I'm pushed to feel sorry for you...  eff that.
Well guys, that's the part of life where we have to think of ourselves as "mankind" and act sociably to one another.  Don't get me wrong, I get it. You guys (and a lot of us) work hard for what we have. We do things and make sacrifices when others don't. Our hard work shouldn't be given so easily to others who coast by.  But, a  LOT of things can happen in life and some truly are unfortunate and out of people's control and if we don't have a reasonable degree of measure to support us all as a society, then then society WILL fail.  Sleeping on a pile of money in the middle of a dystopia would not be fun. 

You have to have balance and that's where, especially in this country, we have some measure of a voice to make the rules and decide how it will be for all people.  I'm not willing going to sacrifice and earn a dollar just to give 90 cents of it to a guy that lays around drunk all day. But at the same time, I realize I have to give SOMETHING back to the society I live in. Whether that is money, volunteer time, sharing my expertise to others to help them improve themselves.  Whatever it is. To go through life only looking out for number one is likely profitable in the pocket but poor in humanity.

 
We have to take care of people because we let business off the hook for taking care of their retirees.  Hence transfer of wealth and less saving.   Asking people living paycheck to paycheck to save more will always have a poor success rate.  

 
Well guys, that's the part of life where we have to think of ourselves as "mankind" and act sociably to one another.  Don't get me wrong, I get it. You guys (and a lot of us) work hard for what we have. We do things and make sacrifices when others don't. Our hard work shouldn't be given so easily to others who coast by.  But, a  LOT of things can happen in life and some truly are unfortunate and out of people's control and if we don't have a reasonable degree of measure to support us all as a society, then then society WILL fail.  Sleeping on a pile of money in the middle of a dystopia would not be fun. 

You have to have balance and that's where, especially in this country, we have some measure of a voice to make the rules and decide how it will be for all people.  I'm not willing going to sacrifice and earn a dollar just to give 90 cents of it to a guy that lays around drunk all day. But at the same time, I realize I have to give SOMETHING back to the society I live in. Whether that is money, volunteer time, sharing my expertise to others to help them improve themselves.  Whatever it is. To go through life only looking out for number one is likely profitable in the pocket but poor in humanity.
I absolutely don't want to sit on a pile of money in dystopia.

Despite the fact that I pay a CRAPLOAD of taxes,  I understand why I must.  Someone has to pay them, and it isn't the poor.   I willfully support the fact that my taxes are needed to support a safety net for those less fortunate.  I donate occasionally to charity to help those in need.

However, if you choose a life of late term poverty due to a disinterest in saving, and a disinterest in reading 1-2 personal finance books so that wall street doesn't swindle you out of your money, then you have chosen your path and I choose not to feel bad about it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I definitely agree with personal responsibility, and I take a great deal of that upon myself as I suspect most in this thread do. But I also think the retirement system itself has a role in this, and it's not that the majority of people in the U.S are inherently stupid and lazy (although a percentage certainly are). I'm railing against what I see as a system set up as a win-win for Wall Street and corporations, while all of the cost share shifting and responsibility has moved to employees. There used to be more of a mutual investment, or relationship, between employers and employees that has largely vanished, and the current system is a factor in that.
You describe the pension system.  It is kind of crazy to look back now and, although I know, by the book, how it all changed, think of why we ever wanted to go from a system of "we all have commitment and skin in the game" to "we're all on our own." 

In the old systems, you had someone with your interests in mind and their company at stake.  Today, fi you fail in your investments, you're on your own. even in a company sponsored 401.  Your employer is basically off the hook. all they have to do is kick in some money in the present and then if it goes to pot, sorry.  With the pensions, the companies had to ongoingly actively manage them to the best of their ability in order to keep themselves in the black. Its a big difference between saying "sorry that guy lost his investments..bad market. bad timing" and "what do you mean the city is bankrupt?" or "did you hear about the fortune 500 company that can't afford to pay it's long-term obligations?"   

 
Anyone want some motivation?  My grandmother (mid-late 80s), who lives about 90 minutes away from me and my parent fell yesterday and broke her arm and hurt her hip.  My dad (retired) went to go get her and let her stay at his house.  My mom is out of town for work, so my Dad called my wife to help her bathe, and go to the bathroom, etc.  Well, grandmother forgot one of her medicines at home and has been ####ting her self all night...which my wife had to clean up.

I say all that b/c I don't want my daughter in law or son cleaning up my #### one day.  I want to be able to afford home health or retirement home or something else.  Those things aren't cheap.

 
You describe the pension system.  It is kind of crazy to look back now and, although I know, by the book, how it all changed, think of why we ever wanted to go from a system of "we all have commitment and skin in the game" to "we're all on our own." 

In the old systems, you had someone with your interests in mind and their company at stake.  Today, fi you fail in your investments, you're on your own. even in a company sponsored 401.  Your employer is basically off the hook. all they have to do is kick in some money in the present and then if it goes to pot, sorry.  With the pensions, the companies had to ongoingly actively manage them to the best of their ability in order to keep themselves in the black. Its a big difference between saying "sorry that guy lost his investments..bad market. bad timing" and "what do you mean the city is bankrupt?" or "did you hear about the fortune 500 company that can't afford to pay it's long-term obligations?"   
That's my point. I don't think "we" all ever wanted to do that. Winners were big corporations and wall street. The consumerism of retirement investing is a huge industry that makes money off of people saving for retirement in a system we (mostly) have to participate in, and they win either way. Just keep investing more, they say. Because you know, fear. And dying poor. And other scary things.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We have to take care of people because we let business off the hook for taking care of their retirees.  Hence transfer of wealth and less saving.   Asking people living paycheck to paycheck to save more will always have a poor success rate.  
Who's asking for that?  I simply want people to spend less than they earn and plan ahead.

Eh, I would take my chances using today's dollars at 62 years of age with $1mil and zero debt plus 2 social security checks. Without SS and assuming 60K per year, Firecalc gives that a 51% chance of success of lasting 30 years. I do like the world where everyone lives until 92 also, can I sign up for that?
FWIW, I ran firecalc, "FIRECalc found that 0 cycles failed, for a success rate of 100.0%."  When I did the Kiplinger calculator saying how much we need to save going forward, it came back with $0.  :oldunsure:  

That's my point. I don't think "we" all ever wanted to do that. Winners were big corporations and wall street. The consumerism of retirement investing is a huge industry that makes money off of people saving for retirement in a system we (mostly) have to participate in, and they win either way. Just keep investing more, they say. Because you know, fear. And dying poor. And other scary things.
When marketing to the masses, what would you want them to say?  There are just too many variables for a one-size-fits-all answer.

I've read some of your thoughts on this topic in other threads so I have a decent sense of how strongly and aggressively you feel about saving and how you go about it. So I'm not going to (wanting to) poke a bear or anything. I just want to say that I believe it all has to be within perspective and moderation.  We can all choose to live "higher on the hog" at different points in our lives and we can say we want to maintain that into our golden years or we can say we can live more in moderation. It is up to us and its a good choice to have.

My advice/thought to everyone is don't get so caught up trying to chase that "today dollar" (which is uncertain in terms of value tomorrow...or 30 years from now) that you lose sight of the now.  Don't kill yourself daydreaming of how you are going to sit around your money bin counting your $5 million dollars. You might lose out on the opportunities to have something across the broad spectrum of your hopefully long life that you value more than money.
agreed, we simply do something we call "spend intentionally".  Meaning, don't go blow money just because the urge hits, but think about whether you want that item/dinner/drink before you buy it.  Nobody plans to fail, but many fail to plan. 

 
We have to take care of people because we let business off the hook for taking care of their retirees.  Hence transfer of wealth and less saving.   Asking people living paycheck to paycheck to save more will always have a poor success rate.  
Let the business off the hook? I am not understanding this.

 
I'm sure it will be sufficient for many people.   I'd say if your retirement looks like fishing at local state parks, watching jeoprody, eating at early bird specials, doing crosswords, and taking care of grandchildren, it will last.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

But don't most people aspire to go big?   Be the senior citizen who snowbirds in Barbados, goes on a river cruise in Europe,  spends a few weeks in Vegas, spoils the grandkids, does my crosswords while sitting in first class on the way to Wimbledon, and takes the whole family on a vacation to Cabo, and plays poker a few nights a week in the "big game" at the local casino?
I never would recommend anyone save less, but I have my own observations.

My parents retired a little later than you hope to (they went to the normal 65).  My dad had a solid government job, saved extra, has plenty of money to do what he wants.  My parents had a good 2-3 years of retirement.  Then my mom needed a hip replaced.  Then my dad needed a knee replaced.  The my mom needed a knee replaced.  Then her other hip replaced.  Then my dad had a stroke.  Then my mom needed multiple surgeries for arthritis.  Then my dad had cancer.  Since they turned 69 (they are now 72), they've spent more time either in hospitals, or recovering from surgery, than they've had time to enjoy their retirement.  It's not like they spent a lifetime not taking care of themselves though.  While my mom battled her weight most of her life, they did bike, walk, play tennis together.  My dad ran multiple marathons and ran up until he had a stroke.  They were active.

Granted, their story might have been different had they saved that much more and retired 5-10 years earlier.  But that stuff can happen to anyone by the time you hit 55 (I've seen enough stories of guys dying from heart attacks in their 40s).  You only get to live once, and I'm not going to spend my whole life planning to live when I could be almost dead.

 
I never would recommend anyone save less, but I have my own observations.

My parents retired a little later than you hope to (they went to the normal 65).  My dad had a solid government job, saved extra, has plenty of money to do what he wants.  My parents had a good 2-3 years of retirement.  Then my mom needed a hip replaced.  Then my dad needed a knee replaced.  The my mom needed a knee replaced.  Then her other hip replaced.  Then my dad had a stroke.  Then my mom needed multiple surgeries for arthritis.  Then my dad had cancer.  Since they turned 69 (they are now 72), they've spent more time either in hospitals, or recovering from surgery, than they've had time to enjoy their retirement.  It's not like they spent a lifetime not taking care of themselves though.  While my mom battled her weight most of her life, they did bike, walk, play tennis together.  My dad ran multiple marathons and ran up until he had a stroke.  They were active.

Granted, their story might have been different had they saved that much more and retired 5-10 years earlier.  But that stuff can happen to anyone by the time you hit 55 (I've seen enough stories of guys dying from heart attacks in their 40s).  You only get to live once, and I'm not going to spend my whole life planning to live when I could be almost dead.
Great phrase. 

 
Every calculator I run tells me that I need nearly 5 million given my life expectancy and how early i want to retire.. so i have to work pretty hard on it.
I wonder what kind of lifestyle you are aiming for here.  At 5 mil you should be able to retire now, spend 200k a year (adjusted for inflation) for 50 years and still not run out of money.  And that's at a 3.5% after inflation return.  Under a tad less stringent scenario you're easily at 225k.

 
I never would recommend anyone save less, but I have my own observations.

My parents retired a little later than you hope to (they went to the normal 65).  My dad had a solid government job, saved extra, has plenty of money to do what he wants.  My parents had a good 2-3 years of retirement.  Then my mom needed a hip replaced.  Then my dad needed a knee replaced.  The my mom needed a knee replaced.  Then her other hip replaced.  Then my dad had a stroke.  Then my mom needed multiple surgeries for arthritis.  Then my dad had cancer.  Since they turned 69 (they are now 72), they've spent more time either in hospitals, or recovering from surgery, than they've had time to enjoy their retirement.  It's not like they spent a lifetime not taking care of themselves though.  While my mom battled her weight most of her life, they did bike, walk, play tennis together.  My dad ran multiple marathons and ran up until he had a stroke.  They were active.

Granted, their story might have been different had they saved that much more and retired 5-10 years earlier.  But that stuff can happen to anyone by the time you hit 55 (I've seen enough stories of guys dying from heart attacks in their 40s).  You only get to live once, and I'm not going to spend my whole life planning to live when I could be almost dead.
Yup. The industry would have you believe we'll all live until 92. Better invest more now.

The finance calculators on the net. Look to see who sponsors them, by and large.

 
I never would recommend anyone save less, but I have my own observations.

My parents retired a little later than you hope to (they went to the normal 65).  My dad had a solid government job, saved extra, has plenty of money to do what he wants.  My parents had a good 2-3 years of retirement.  Then my mom needed a hip replaced.  Then my dad needed a knee replaced.  The my mom needed a knee replaced.  Then her other hip replaced.  Then my dad had a stroke.  Then my mom needed multiple surgeries for arthritis.  Then my dad had cancer.  Since they turned 69 (they are now 72), they've spent more time either in hospitals, or recovering from surgery, than they've had time to enjoy their retirement.  It's not like they spent a lifetime not taking care of themselves though.  While my mom battled her weight most of her life, they did bike, walk, play tennis together.  My dad ran multiple marathons and ran up until he had a stroke.  They were active.

Granted, their story might have been different had they saved that much more and retired 5-10 years earlier.  But that stuff can happen to anyone by the time you hit 55 (I've seen enough stories of guys dying from heart attacks in their 40s).  You only get to live once, and I'm not going to spend my whole life planning to live when I could be almost dead.
Great phrase. 
Everyone is free to make their own decisions, but they also have to deal with the consequences.  Too far to either extreme is unhealthy IMO.

 
Everyone is free to make their own decisions, but they also have to deal with the consequences.  Too far to either extreme is unhealthy IMO.
Agree.

If we all had a crystal ball, we wouldn't be having the conversations.  As always it's a good discussion in here with varying view points. :thumbup:

 
I wonder what kind of lifestyle you are aiming for here.  At 5 mil you should be able to retire now, spend 200k a year (adjusted for inflation) for 50 years and still not run out of money.  And that's at a 3.5% after inflation return.  Under a tad less stringent scenario you're easily at 225k.
1)  big

2) I agree that the 5 mil is probably too much.   I guess I'm shooting for the pie in the sky, and if I miss and end up with 3.5 million when I want to quit at 55 then maybe I'll just have to scale it back a little...   but if you shoot for an easy target I feel like you aren't aiming high enough.

 
I never would recommend anyone save less, but I have my own observations.

My parents retired a little later than you hope to (they went to the normal 65).  My dad had a solid government job, saved extra, has plenty of money to do what he wants.  My parents had a good 2-3 years of retirement.  Then my mom needed a hip replaced.  Then my dad needed a knee replaced.  The my mom needed a knee replaced.  Then her other hip replaced.  Then my dad had a stroke.  Then my mom needed multiple surgeries for arthritis.  Then my dad had cancer.  Since they turned 69 (they are now 72), they've spent more time either in hospitals, or recovering from surgery, than they've had time to enjoy their retirement.  It's not like they spent a lifetime not taking care of themselves though.  While my mom battled her weight most of her life, they did bike, walk, play tennis together.  My dad ran multiple marathons and ran up until he had a stroke.  They were active.

Granted, their story might have been different had they saved that much more and retired 5-10 years earlier.  But that stuff can happen to anyone by the time you hit 55 (I've seen enough stories of guys dying from heart attacks in their 40s).  You only get to live once, and I'm not going to spend my whole life planning to live when I could be almost dead.
My grandfather retired at 62, and he and my grandmother enjoyed a wonderful lifestyle of travel, golf, social life, grandkids, sailing and boating for 20 years until my grandmother got cancer.

He saved hard, and invested hard, and lived a lifestyle most would be envious of for a long time.

He's 88 now and until very recently lived exactly the lifestyle he wanted golfing, snowbirding in padre, etc..  until he has recently been limited by knee/hip issues.   He has no regrets.

My dad is 65 and has been very part-time for 5 years now and is loving every minute of it..  traveling where he wants,  buying land to have the farm he always dreamed of, etc.

My aunt and uncle scrimped and saved while they had young children and now are living on a premium golf course in Dallas and taking mega vacations quarterly.... they have an awesome lifestyle.

We're all shaped by what we see...    all I've seen is that saving paid off time and time and time again for an awesome lifestyle when so many others are poor and destitute.

I could get in a wreck on the way home and die...  and I suppose I'd regret not getting to do some of the things I'd really love to have done if I'd spent earlier....  but at least I've funded a great lifestyle for those I leave behind... if that's the worst thing I've done, I'm good with that.

 
Yup. The industry would have you believe we'll all live until 92. Better invest more now.

The finance calculators on the net. Look to see who sponsors them, by and large.
For a couple at 65 there is about an even chance one of them makes it to 90.  

For finance calculators the best, IMO, are Firecalc, the new one from Personal Capital, and the one (mine, excel) I posted in here.  None are connected to a big company and all make good efforts at quantifying this problem.

 
We have to take care of people because we let business off the hook for taking care of their retirees.  Hence transfer of wealth and less saving.   Asking people living paycheck to paycheck to save more will always have a poor success rate.  
I say we just get to the root of the problem and see WHY so people are living to paycheck to paycheck. It's obvious, isn't it? New cars, big screen TVs, eating out, etc.....people live beyond their means. You shouldn't be blaming big business for that. That's just horrible personal finances and horrible personal responsibility.

 
And I agree we dentist....us/we that are responsible and are saving for retirement shouldn't to have bail out the slackers later on who didn't save when they could. 

 
I say we just get to the root of the problem and see WHY so people are living to paycheck to paycheck. It's obvious, isn't it? New cars, big screen TVs, eating out, etc.....people live beyond their means. You shouldn't be blaming big business for that. That's just horrible personal finances and horrible personal responsibility.
The lifestyle inflation has been ridiculous.

I blame pay TV, cell phones, broadband, computers,  30 year mortgages, and 60+ month car loans for doing the most effective job and separating people from their money.  

Business and banks have done an incredible job with marketing and finding ways to shear people of their money by way of monthly payments.

Yet, asking people to maybe live in a more affordable home, drive a more affordable car, maybe not have the most recent cellphone with crazy data, or have a premium cable/broadband package with netflix and hbo, etc, etc..  that's somehow unacceptable?

It truly is a wealth transfer... .  the poor/middle class over-consume and the beneficiary is big business and the people that hold stock in said businesses.

A fool and his money are soon parted.

 
My grandfather retired at 62, and he and my grandmother enjoyed a wonderful lifestyle of travel, golf, social life, grandkids, sailing and boating for 20 years until my grandmother got cancer.

He saved hard, and invested hard, and lived a lifestyle most would be envious of for a long time.

He's 88 now and until very recently lived exactly the lifestyle he wanted golfing, snowbirding in padre, etc..  until he has recently been limited by knee/hip issues.   He has no regrets.

My dad is 65 and has been very part-time for 5 years now and is loving every minute of it..  traveling where he wants,  buying land to have the farm he always dreamed of, etc.

My aunt and uncle scrimped and saved while they had young children and now are living on a premium golf course in Dallas and taking mega vacations quarterly.... they have an awesome lifestyle.

We're all shaped by what we see...    all I've seen is that saving paid off time and time and time again for an awesome lifestyle when so many others are poor and destitute.

I could get in a wreck on the way home and die...  and I suppose I'd regret not getting to do some of the things I'd really love to have done if I'd spent earlier....  but at least I've funded a great lifestyle for those I leave behind... if that's the worst thing I've done, I'm good with that.
So your grandparents scrimped when they were young and had a young family to share the good life with, but now that they're alone they're living high on the hog?

I'd prefer to make some fantastic memories with my young wife and kids growing up and living a little less extravagantly when I'm older.  Who needs quarterly mega vacations when you're 70?  How about bi-yearly and use some of that money to take an annual mega vacation with your kids when you're younger?

 
So your grandparents scrimped when they were young and had a young family to share the good life with, but now that they're alone they're living high on the hog?

I'd prefer to make some fantastic memories with my young wife and kids growing up and living a little less extravagantly when I'm older.  Who needs quarterly mega vacations when you're 70?  How about bi-yearly and use some of that money to take an annual mega vacation with your kids when you're younger?
I'm with you.  I don't know how pumped I'm going to be in my 70's to be going on big vacations 4 times a year.   

 
The lifestyle inflation has been ridiculous.

I blame pay TV, cell phones, broadband, computers,  30 year mortgages, and 60+ month car loans for doing the most effective job and separating people from their money.  

Business and banks have done an incredible job with marketing and finding ways to shear people of their money by way of monthly payments.

Yet, asking people to maybe live in a more affordable home, drive a more affordable car, maybe not have the most recent cellphone with crazy data, or have a premium cable/broadband package with netflix and hbo, etc, etc..  that's somehow unacceptable?

It truly is a wealth transfer... .  the poor/middle class over-consume and the beneficiary is big business and the people that hold stock in said businesses.

A fool and his money are soon parted.
I'll agree with your point but take umbrage with the concept that the mortgage is to blame.  Banks allowing people to buy more house than they can really afford, people wanting the biggest/best house possible without thinking about whether they really need it... those are the culprits.

 
So your grandparents scrimped when they were young and had a young family to share the good life with, but now that they're alone they're living high on the hog?

I'd prefer to make some fantastic memories with my young wife and kids growing up and living a little less extravagantly when I'm older.  Who needs quarterly mega vacations when you're 70?  How about bi-yearly and use some of that money to take an annual mega vacation with your kids when you're younger?
Then you spoil your kids and turn them into basspoles who don't save and every subsequent generation of your offspring gets poorer.

When your kids grow up thinking they are middle class, they learn good personal finance lessons and thrive.   That's what my experience has been.

 
I'll agree with your point but take umbrage with the concept that the mortgage is to blame.  Banks allowing people to buy more house than they can really afford, people wanting the biggest/best house possible without thinking about whether they really need it... those are the culprits.


Sure, at it's heart the loan isn't to blame..  neither is the 84 month car loan...  the instruments aren't the issue.. it's the people using them.

But if the instruments weren't available, or at least weren't recommended choices that most people used, it would be better.

The concept that people can afford what the banks are willing to lend is problematic....  again, not the banks fault... their job is to extract as much money from you as possible.

And hey, via my ETFs and mutual funds I own plenty of BoA, Wells Fargo, etc...  so they profit, I profit....  go for it banks!

 
Then you spoil your kids and turn them into basspoles who don't save and every subsequent generation of your offspring gets poorer.

When your kids grow up thinking they are middle class, they learn good personal finance lessons and thrive.   That's what my experience has been.
No middle ground there huh?

You are like the real world Scrooge McDuck, only with fewer feathers and more fascination with excrement.  You wear a monocle by any chance?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Having 5 million in the bank only gives someone more reason to "make me have an accident".

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top