Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Personal Finance Advice and Education!


No. 16

Recommended Posts

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 0:52 PM, Dentist said:

probably true.   I just think of all the money that would get sunk into financial advice... most of which could be found just by posting in this thread.... and it makes me want to be a financial advisor instead of a dentist.

I know Financial Advisors that make crazy money. Doing a loan right now for a FA. Entered his income in at $500K. Though to be fair, through the discussion the income over the last few years has been as low as $300K on a bad year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiger Fan said:

Crystal Ball type question here..but I figured I'd throw it out there for discussion.

For those that do the backdoor roth every year...do you do it at the same time every year or try to time the market somehow?

i do the backdoor roth at the same time every year...  but when I choose to put the money into play sometimes varies.   mostly i just invest it all immediately,  but occasionally i've waited for a big down day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Chadstroma said:

I know Financial Advisors that make crazy money. Doing a loan right now for a FA. Entered his income in at $500K. Though to be fair, through the discussion the income over the last few years has been as low as $300K on a bad year.

I do imagine to make that kind of scratch that you would have to deal with some needy high net worth types who would furiously call/text you on a big market down week in a panic.  I could really see some hassle/BS that may make the job less easy than I think it is.

Not to mention the marketing dollars, or time spent marketing to get new accounts is probably tough for those that really do well with things.   And I'm sure you have to have some thick skin before people irrationally tell you that your plan sucks and they are pulling their assets when it is way beyond your control what the market does.

Then again, I certainly make less than 300k and have to deal with a lot of needy crappy people also.. so there's that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dentist said:

I do imagine to make that kind of scratch that you would have to deal with some needy high net worth types who would furiously call/text you on a big market down week in a panic.  I could really see some hassle/BS that may make the job less easy than I think it is.

Not to mention the marketing dollars, or time spent marketing to get new accounts is probably tough for those that really do well with things.   And I'm sure you have to have some thick skin before people irrationally tell you that your plan sucks and they are pulling their assets when it is way beyond your control what the market does.

Then again, I certainly make less than 300k and have to deal with a lot of needy crappy people also.. so there's that

Part of the reason why I never pursued this course in my career is this. I have dealt with more than a few people who think that they can treat people however they wish because they make a lot of money and are paying you for a service. They tend to be "new money" types because "old money" is already tied in with people that the family has had and "new money" types are the ones that typically hard to work with.

I spoke with a wealth management guy for private banking a few months back. I dug into this with him. He basically said it is was like any other business where you have good people to work with and bad to work with but there is a high level of expectation in general as these people are paying you money to do a job well and have options. He said as long as you are doing your job well then you really don't have issues. These guys make very good money too but they are a whole different world than your typical FA. They work in teams with specializations and many (most) have professional degrees and designations (CPA, MBA, JD, PhD, etc)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright I'm investing in my 401K enough to get my full employer's match. I'm about to be able to divert more money to retirement and was planning on opening a Roth. Planned on investing in the Roth until I eventually hit max contribution, then switch back to max out the 401K contribution. Recent changes now mean I can buy the company's stock (it's an S&P500) at a 15% discount. I like the thought of free money but hate the lack of diversity. What's the move here? I'm leaning toward putting about 10% of my total investments into the stock and having the other 90% in the diversified 401K and Roth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Chadstroma said:

Part of the reason why I never pursued this course in my career is this. I have dealt with more than a few people who think that they can treat people however they wish because they make a lot of money and are paying you for a service. They tend to be "new money" types because "old money" is already tied in with people that the family has had and "new money" types are the ones that typically hard to work with.

I spoke with a wealth management guy for private banking a few months back. I dug into this with him. He basically said it is was like any other business where you have good people to work with and bad to work with but there is a high level of expectation in general as these people are paying you money to do a job well and have options. He said as long as you are doing your job well then you really don't have issues. These guys make very good money too but they are a whole different world than your typical FA. They work in teams with specializations and many (most) have professional degrees and designations (CPA, MBA, JD, PhD, etc)

do wealth mgt people only deal with minimum net worths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Statcruncher said:

Alright I'm investing in my 401K enough to get my full employer's match. I'm about to be able to divert more money to retirement and was planning on opening a Roth. Planned on investing in the Roth until I eventually hit max contribution, then switch back to max out the 401K contribution. Recent changes now mean I can buy the company's stock (it's an S&P500) at a 15% discount. I like the thought of free money but hate the lack of diversity. What's the move here? I'm leaning toward putting about 10% of my total investments into the stock and having the other 90% in the diversified 401K and Roth.

You can buy 15% discount stock, but it has to be through 401K?  Is that right?

 

What sector?  Appx market cap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Statcruncher said:

Alright I'm investing in my 401K enough to get my full employer's match. I'm about to be able to divert more money to retirement and was planning on opening a Roth. Planned on investing in the Roth until I eventually hit max contribution, then switch back to max out the 401K contribution. Recent changes now mean I can buy the company's stock (it's an S&P500) at a 15% discount. I like the thought of free money but hate the lack of diversity. What's the move here? I'm leaning toward putting about 10% of my total investments into the stock and having the other 90% in the diversified 401K and Roth.

Max out ESPP after 401k match assuming you are able to sell shares.

15% discount = 17.6% margin worst case scenario if you sell immediately. Use ESPP proceeds to fund Roth or other. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Tiger Fan said:

do wealth mgt people only deal with minimum net worths?

Yes. Depending on the bank and the program etc... something like $500K or million in investable assets etc. They are services for high net worth customers.

With the changes in banking over the years making consumer banking unappealing to banks- a lot have focused on building their private banking business. Pretty much all the big and regional banks have them now and even more than a couple small banks too. The specifics of what they require to get in and services provided will vary bank to bank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Statcruncher said:

Alright I'm investing in my 401K enough to get my full employer's match. I'm about to be able to divert more money to retirement and was planning on opening a Roth. Planned on investing in the Roth until I eventually hit max contribution, then switch back to max out the 401K contribution. Recent changes now mean I can buy the company's stock (it's an S&P500) at a 15% discount. I like the thought of free money but hate the lack of diversity. What's the move here? I'm leaning toward putting about 10% of my total investments into the stock and having the other 90% in the diversified 401K and Roth.

The 15% discount means you are starting off with that investment at a 15% return. Hard to beat that but yes, more risk for you. As a cautionary tale- an old employer of mine had that and I took advantage of it. They went bankrupt and I lost it all. :X I would take advantage of it for sure but don't go overboard. Diversify away from it in your investment options for the 401k and Roth. The 10/90 split to me sounds more than reasonable.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, wilked said:

You can buy 15% discount stock, but it has to be through 401K?  Is that right?

 

What sector?  Appx market cap?

Don't want to get too specific but the market cap is between 150 and 200 billion. And it's not through their 401K, I believe it is a straight ESPP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Statcruncher said:

Alright I'm investing in my 401K enough to get my full employer's match. I'm about to be able to divert more money to retirement and was planning on opening a Roth. Planned on investing in the Roth until I eventually hit max contribution, then switch back to max out the 401K contribution. Recent changes now mean I can buy the company's stock (it's an S&P500) at a 15% discount. I like the thought of free money but hate the lack of diversity. What's the move here? I'm leaning toward putting about 10% of my total investments into the stock and having the other 90% in the diversified 401K and Roth.

I'm not sure if we have the same situation.  But I have something similar.  We are allowed to buy up to the IRS max allowed of company stock at 15% discount.  So I buy the IRS max 25K each year.  We only have to hold the stock for about a month after the buy date, and I sell the earliest allowed date.  It means it's ordinary income not LTCG, but I'll take it.  Any income tax I pay on it means I made money.  There's almost no risk because of the holding period.  Things would have to really tank for me to lose money in that short of a time.  If you have to hold for a year or two there is a lot more risk and I wouldn't put too much of your net worth into one stock for a longer period.  But if you can sell off quickly I'd buy as much as you can.  And if it's a pretty small percent of your worth (say less than 5%) that you're holding at a given time I wouldn't be too worried about a year + holding period either.  I certainly wouldn't hold longer for preferential tax treatment though.  It's a benefit but not enough to justify more risk unless this is just a tiny percent of your worth.

Edited by Niles Standish
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Chadstroma said:

The 15% discount means you are starting off with that investment at a 15% return. Hard to beat that but yes, more risk for you. As a cautionary tale- an old employer of mine had that and I took advantage of it. They went bankrupt and I lost it all. :X I would take advantage of it for sure but don't go overboard. Diversify away from it in your investment options for the 401k and Roth. The 10/90 split to me sounds more than reasonable.

It is a 17.6% return on a 15% discount, assuming the stock goes down during ESPP period.  I have been in 3 companies with ESPP programs.. usually you get 15% off the lowest price of either the opening date or closing date prices.  So the 17.6 is worst case scenario assuming you can sell more or less immediately.

The key is selling it (or most of it) asap.

Edited by matuski
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, matuski said:

It is a 17.6% return on a 15% discount, assuming the stock goes down during ESPP period.  I have been in 3 companies with ESPP programs.. usually you get 15% off the lowest price of either the opening date or closing date prices.  So the 17.6 is worst case scenario assuming you can sell more or less immediately.

The key is selling it (or most of it) asap.

that's my initial thought - is there something preventing you from buying as much as you can and selling it quickly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

that's my initial thought - is there something preventing you from buying as much as you can and selling it quickly?

All 3 I have been a part of have been a buy in over a period of 6 months (deducted from paycheck), at the end of the 6 months your money buys stock at 15% of the lesser of the two dates' stock price, then you have to wait for insider trading windows to open (usually a month).

25k annual maximum per IRS.  

Pretty good deal and a LOT of people don't do it because they don't understand it.  If you can defer having that money for 6 months it is a no brainer.

Edited by matuski
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Chadstroma said:

Part of the reason why I never pursued this course in my career is this. I have dealt with more than a few people who think that they can treat people however they wish because they make a lot of money and are paying you for a service. They tend to be "new money" types because "old money" is already tied in with people that the family has had and "new money" types are the ones that typically hard to work with.

I spoke with a wealth management guy for private banking a few months back. I dug into this with him. He basically said it is was like any other business where you have good people to work with and bad to work with but there is a high level of expectation in general as these people are paying you money to do a job well and have options. He said as long as you are doing your job well then you really don't have issues. These guys make very good money too but they are a whole different world than your typical FA. They work in teams with specializations and many (most) have professional degrees and designations (CPA, MBA, JD, PhD, etc)

I work in this area, in a similar level of business as the guy you talked to.  I agree with him, it all depends on the client.  Some are great, some are not.  I will say you can have issues no matter how great of a job you do.  Some clients are just giant PIAs and ##### and moan about every little thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Statcruncher said:

Alright I'm investing in my 401K enough to get my full employer's match. I'm about to be able to divert more money to retirement and was planning on opening a Roth. Planned on investing in the Roth until I eventually hit max contribution, then switch back to max out the 401K contribution. Recent changes now mean I can buy the company's stock (it's an S&P500) at a 15% discount. I like the thought of free money but hate the lack of diversity. What's the move here? I'm leaning toward putting about 10% of my total investments into the stock and having the other 90% in the diversified 401K and Roth.

I'd put no more than 10% of your assets into the stock.  You don't want to be the guy loading up on stock of the next Enron, Lehman, etc.

If you can sell it, that is great.  The one firm I had an ESPP, we had to wait a year before we could sell.  That really took the fun out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, matuski said:

All 3 I have been a part of have been a buy in over a period of 6 months (deducted from paycheck), at the end of the 6 months your money buys stock at 15% of the lesser of the two dates' stock price, then you have to wait for insider trading windows to open (usually a month).

That is exactly how it works.

ETA: thanks for the advice guys. Think I will put 10% in and at the end of 6 months I'll hold it for the mandated month. If it goes up or stays the same I'll sell and put it in a Roth. If it dips too much I'll just hold onto it. From then on out every time I can cash out at a fair price I'll keep putting the proceeds into a Roth and hold as little actual stock as possible. Seems like unless the stock drops it's a way to basically put an extra 15% in my Roth. And if that works well I could actually increase above the 10% as long as the stock is doing ok and I have no issues selling it. If the company Enron's I would only be out at most 6 - 12 months worth of investing as I can stop contributing bi-annually. Any flaws in that plan?

Edited by Statcruncher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Andrew74 said:

I work in this area, in a similar level of business as the guy you talked to.  I agree with him, it all depends on the client.  Some are great, some are not.  I will say you can have issues no matter how great of a job you do.  Some clients are just giant PIAs and ##### and moan about every little thing.

True and the wealthier the customer the more often you run into these kinds. I don't so much like that so I have avoided going this route to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Statcruncher said:

That is exactly how it works.

ETA: thanks for the advice guys. Think I will put 10% in and at the end of 6 months I'll hold it for the mandated month. If it goes up or stays the same I'll sell and put it in a Roth. If it dips too much I'll just hold onto it. From then on out every time I can cash out at a fair price I'll keep putting the proceeds into a Roth and hold as little actual stock as possible. Seems like unless the stock drops it's a way to basically put an extra 15% in my Roth. And if that works well I could actually increase above the 10% as long as the stock is doing ok and I have no issues selling it. If the company Enron's I would only be out at most 6 - 12 months worth of investing as I can stop contributing bi-annually. Any flaws in that plan?

while the logic is understandable, I'd recommend not even thinking about the price and just sell at least a large, predetermined amount. take the emotions out of it.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, No. 16 said:

What percentage of your current/final income do you guys expect/should you plan for your 401k to replace once you retire?

 

 

Planned on 70% but doing 55% and its working great.  We saved a lot so we didn't see a lot of the income before.

Could handle it a little lower as well.  We still have one in grade school and one starting local college (state school - reasonably priced ...in comparison to alternatives).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, No. 16 said:

What percentage of your current/final income do you guys expect/should you plan for your 401k to replace once you retire?

 

some guidelines say 80% but that seems too simplistic.  http://www.morningstar.com/advisor/t/92029635/3-approaches-to-income-replacement-ratios-in-retirement.htm

you need to evaluate your lifestyle.

For us, we'll start with the baseline that we currently only spend <70% of our income and invest 30%.  so at least in theory, if we replaced the 70% we wouldn't have to change anything.  BUT we want to do more with it; we want to buy a beach house and live in it half the year while renting it out May-October.  We want to travel more and do other things we aren't doing much of right now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Binky The Doormat said:

Planned on 70% but doing 55% and its working great.  We saved a lot so we didn't see a lot of the income before.

Could handle it a little lower as well.  We still have one in grade school and one starting local college (state school - reasonably priced ...in comparison to alternatives).

You are retired with a kid still in grade school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, matuski said:

You are retired with a kid still in grade school?

Yeah, wasn't the plan, but working for big companies ...things happen.  Got hit with layoffs and chose retirement at 55 and a half, I am 58 now.  

I got married late, married 6 years younger girl and started late with kids.  Was 39 with my first and 47 when we adopted our daughter.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

while the logic is understandable, I'd recommend not even thinking about the price and just sell at least a large, predetermined amount. take the emotions out of it.

I think this is the smart move.  Get out as quickly as possible and don't even look at the price.  Long-term absent an Enron you will make a lot of money doing this because there isn't a long time for the stock to tank and you need to lose 15% in that month to break even so your odds of making money are very high each time.  The only likely way to lose money is to hold on to the stock a long time (and even then you probably won't really lose money just underperform the other funds you would have been buying.

Think of it this way, pretend the stock is down 15% in that month and you'd rather hold onto the stock until it goes up.  You're essentially buying your company stock instead of whatever you'd buy in your roth.  Not to mention you'd be taxed on any gain which you won't be with the roth and possibly STCG which is as bad as ordinary income in most cases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, No. 16 said:

What percentage of your current/final income do you guys expect/should you plan for your 401k to replace once you retire?

 

We're targeting something around 30% and we're comfortable with that. We won't have a mortgage and we don't have any kids. Although we make good money now, we save a lot and we're looking forward to downsizing our lifestyle, not that we spend crazy money today. Most of our expenses are related to our house - mortgage, property taxes, A/C (gets hot here in Texas), lawn service, cleaning service. We're moving to a more reasonable climate where property taxes are much lower and go to a smaller house.

If Social Security is around it's a bonus but we're planning our budget assuming it won't be. We're trying to be conservative with planning since we want to retire in 5-6 years (I'm 41, she's 45).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Statcruncher said:

That is exactly how it works.

ETA: thanks for the advice guys. Think I will put 10% in and at the end of 6 months I'll hold it for the mandated month. If it goes up or stays the same I'll sell and put it in a Roth. If it dips too much I'll just hold onto it. From then on out every time I can cash out at a fair price I'll keep putting the proceeds into a Roth and hold as little actual stock as possible. Seems like unless the stock drops it's a way to basically put an extra 15% in my Roth. And if that works well I could actually increase above the 10% as long as the stock is doing ok and I have no issues selling it. If the company Enron's I would only be out at most 6 - 12 months worth of investing as I can stop contributing bi-annually. Any flaws in that plan?

Just my opinion but I'd put all you can afford up to either what your company allows or the IRS max.  With no stock movement in that month you're up 17.6%.  If you're allowed to put 25K (IRS max) you're making somewhere in the range of 3750 gain in a year (you're really putting in 21,250 if no gain or loss).  Sure that's ordinary income so you're paying an extra 1250 in taxes but you're still up 2500 playing that game in an average year.  That's imo way better risk/reward than putting the money in your roth or bank account for 6 months.  The majority of my paycheck doesn't come to me until quarter end, just means you need to have an emergency fund saved up to play the game.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Binky The Doormat said:

Yeah, wasn't the plan, but working for big companies ...things happen.  Got hit with layoffs and chose retirement at 55 and a half, I am 58 now.  

I got married late, married 6 years younger girl and started late with kids.  Was 39 with my first and 47 when we adopted our daughter.  

Impressive that retiring was an option.. nice work! :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, No. 16 said:

What percentage of your current/final income do you guys expect/should you plan for your 401k to replace once you retire?

 

 

this is a million dollar question that I've had an extremely difficult time unpacking.

Conventional wisdom says the 80%...  but a lot of my money goes into kids I won't be supporting any further (i hope at least),  saving for retirement (there's 20% right there), a mortgage I'm not going to have (another 20%),  life insurance I won't have to pay, disability insurance I won't have to pay anymore, etc.

In fact currently probably 70% of my current expenditures aren't something I should have to worry about.

Now, as someone who wants to retire before SS and medicare, I know that those expenses are going to be big for me in those first few years of retirement... and the entire point of retiring early is to be able to spend some pretty big money on traveling, activities, etc.. the stuff you never have time for when you work and raise a family... so there's a massive uptick in consumerist spending....   so maybe that all levels out.

On the other side of the coin, you'd have to be pretty confident in yourself that you are going to need a bunch of money post 80-85 when deep airline travel probably wouldn't be something fun,  you probably are slowing down, and there's no stigma to eating at early bird special times.....   I've seen this with my grandfather..  post 80 his expenditures have just fallen off big time compared to his 62-75 time frame where he really did a lot of stuff.

I think as always the best plan is to over-save because it's sure easy to worry about "too much money" at a later date in life....  so i'm going with 70%

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dentist said:

 

this is a million dollar question that I've had an extremely difficult time unpacking.

Conventional wisdom says the 80%...  but a lot of my money goes into kids I won't be supporting any further (i hope at least),  saving for retirement (there's 20% right there), a mortgage I'm not going to have (another 20%),  life insurance I won't have to pay, disability insurance I won't have to pay anymore, etc.

In fact currently probably 70% of my current expenditures aren't something I should have to worry about.

Now, as someone who wants to retire before SS and medicare, I know that those expenses are going to be big for me in those first few years of retirement... and the entire point of retiring early is to be able to spend some pretty big money on traveling, activities, etc.. the stuff you never have time for when you work and raise a family... so there's a massive uptick in consumerist spending....   so maybe that all levels out.

On the other side of the coin, you'd have to be pretty confident in yourself that you are going to need a bunch of money post 80-85 when deep airline travel probably wouldn't be something fun,  you probably are slowing down, and there's no stigma to eating at early bird special times.....   I've seen this with my grandfather..  post 80 his expenditures have just fallen off big time compared to his 62-75 time frame where he really did a lot of stuff.

I think as always the best plan is to over-save because it's sure easy to worry about "too much money" at a later date in life....  so i'm going with 70%

 

Yea, I want the freedom to be able to spend DOING stuff early in retirement when I still without worrying about having money for the duration. But yea, as you get older, your spending will naturally drop as well. Your body wont let you go golfing or travel etc. I want to be in a position where I can maybe 'over' spend early in retirement to enjoy it and then have 'enough' as I get older and just am not spending much because I am naturally not as active.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chadstroma said:

Yea, I want the freedom to be able to spend DOING stuff early in retirement when I still without worrying about having money for the duration. But yea, as you get older, your spending will naturally drop as well. Your body wont let you go golfing or travel etc. I want to be in a position where I can maybe 'over' spend early in retirement to enjoy it and then have 'enough' as I get older and just am not spending much because I am naturally not as active.

Agree 100%

Having said that, I'm really hoping the tech on driverless cars, bionic knees/hips, etc  continues to evolve so that at a minimum I can feel confident traveling domestically into an old age.

Right now we're nervous if my 88 y.o. grandfather has a drive over an hour.   I'm hoping I never have to think about something like that.

I could even get behind the RV lifestyle in the deeper retirement years if I didn't even have to drive it ever or park it or anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think I posted it in one of the other threads, but my grandmother (85ish) will now have to live with my parents.  She needs someone with her 24/7 and cant afford it on her own, and my parents aren't in the position to be able to pay for it at this point (but they tell me they'll have everything covered for them to be taken care of).

Just another thing to consider if you have again parents and haven't had that discussion yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tiger Fan said:

Think I posted it in one of the other threads, but my grandmother (85ish) will now have to live with my parents.  She needs someone with her 24/7 and cant afford it on her own, and my parents aren't in the position to be able to pay for it at this point (but they tell me they'll have everything covered for them to be taken care of).

Just another thing to consider if you have again parents and haven't had that discussion yet.

This I think is one of the most important reasons to save IMO.    Above all you don't want to be a burden to your children if at all possible.   That's goal #1.. and that's tough enough on its own for most people.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Dentist said:

This I think is one of the most important reasons to save IMO.    Above all you don't want to be a burden to your children if at all possible.   That's goal #1.. and that's tough enough on its own for most people.

That's why long term care insurance should be part of the plan.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

That's why long term care insurance should be part of the plan.

Do you have this?  Curious to what you pay.  My employer used to provide it, but cancelled; which means it's probably getting more expensive by the day.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dentist said:

Agree 100%

Having said that, I'm really hoping the tech on driverless cars, bionic knees/hips, etc  continues to evolve so that at a minimum I can feel confident traveling domestically into an old age.

Right now we're nervous if my 88 y.o. grandfather has a drive over an hour.   I'm hoping I never have to think about something like that.

I could even get behind the RV lifestyle in the deeper retirement years if I didn't even have to drive it ever or park it or anything.

Hey, I am all for living long and being healthy enough to do stuff!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Tiger Fan said:

Do you have this?  Curious to what you pay.  My employer used to provide it, but cancelled; which means it's probably getting more expensive by the day.  

This is my response from way back in this thread regarding LTC:

It provides 36 months of coverage, $3000/month with simple inflation protection. We qualify if/when we lose two ADLs (Activities of Daily Living - dressing, eating, going to the bathroom, etc.). The money is paid regardless of how much the care costs. This includes things like home health so it wouldn't necessarily have to be in a nursing home or assisted living facility.

She said we signed up back in 2003/2004 when I was in my late 20s and she was in her early 30s. She said the insurance companies typically have policies that provide 2-4 years of coverage. Our coverage is $27/month.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Tiger Fan said:

Think I posted it in one of the other threads, but my grandmother (85ish) will now have to live with my parents.  She needs someone with her 24/7 and cant afford it on her own, and my parents aren't in the position to be able to pay for it at this point (but they tell me they'll have everything covered for them to be taken care of).

Just another thing to consider if you have again parents and haven't had that discussion yet.

My mother is in a position where I think it is just a matter of time before she will be forced to move in with me. She is running out of money and all she has asset wise after the money is a mobile home. Once the money gets to a certain amount- I have already told her that she will have to sell and move in with me. Can't wait to get to $0 and then sell because I will need money to pay for stuff for her even when she is with us. My siblings aren't in positions to do anything so there are no other choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Dentist said:

This I think is one of the most important reasons to save IMO.    Above all you don't want to be a burden to your children if at all possible.   That's goal #1.. and that's tough enough on its own for most people.

It is why I encourage people to fund retirement over education though the typical parent feels like they must do it opposite.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, FUBAR said:

That's why long term care insurance should be part of the plan.

I thought long term care insurance had kind of jumped the shark in terms of being a good bang for buck.   I think it used to be a good deal.. not so much now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dentist said:

I thought long term care insurance had kind of jumped the shark in terms of being a good bang for buck.   I think it used to be a good deal.. not so much now.

Well, if Bernie gets in- everything will be free so who needs insurance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, ZenMaster said:

This is my response from way back in this thread regarding LTC:

It provides 36 months of coverage, $3000/month with simple inflation protection. We qualify if/when we lose two ADLs (Activities of Daily Living - dressing, eating, going to the bathroom, etc.). The money is paid regardless of how much the care costs. This includes things like home health so it wouldn't necessarily have to be in a nursing home or assisted living facility.

She said we signed up back in 2003/2004 when I was in my late 20s and she was in her early 30s. She said the insurance companies typically have policies that provide 2-4 years of coverage. Our coverage is $27/month.

what happens if you outlive the 36 months?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tiger Fan said:

Think I posted it in one of the other threads, but my grandmother (85ish) will now have to live with my parents.  She needs someone with her 24/7 and cant afford it on her own, and my parents aren't in the position to be able to pay for it at this point (but they tell me they'll have everything covered for them to be taken care of).

Just another thing to consider if you have again parents and haven't had that discussion yet.

 

Thankfully she has your parents.  What would happen if they weren't there for her?  

Would she go to a publically funded facility?  (That I would think would be not so great)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Tiger Fan said:

what happens if you outlive the 36 months?

Hopefully at that point I still have some retirement savings and/or Social Security to cover the cost. Hopefully if I need LTC because I can't dress myself or use the bathroom without help my wife pushes me in front of a bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Binky The Doormat said:

Thankfully she has your parents.  What would happen if they weren't there for her?  

Would she go to a publically funded facility?  (That I would think would be not so great)

I honestly have no idea. She has two other kids (albeit further away).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...