Wikinvest Wire

Friday, December 25, 2009

Merry Christmas And Forget About Retiring

For several years now I have been talking about the idea of retirement evolving into something much different that what most people think of by necessity of circumstance. In this decade we have had two events that have cause some people to be permanently underemployed, stocks have not had a normal decade, collectively we have not saved enough, assumptions about home values have been mucked up something awful, some folks have financial burdens of adult children or aged parents (or both) and there are probably other items we could include on this list.

I enjoy exploring the topic and writing about it because I view it as a problem to be solved and think there is much to learn in how people are going about trying to solve the problem.

The catalyst for this post is an article from Yahoo Finance titled 10 Reasons You Shouldn't Retire. Some of the ten reasons were the usual suspects like staying healthier, not needing to tap you retirement funds so soon, continuing to get benefits like health insurance and having more meaning to your life (this is tie in to staying healthier).

One point I have made many times before is that when the time comes you have what you have that is your reality. It does not matter how much you made when you worked or how much you had in your portfolio ten years ago, you have what you have. A lot of the content here is aimed at giving yourself the best shot of maximizing how much you have mostly by avoiding some stupid actions and side stepping certain things but if you lived a $200,000 lifestyle when you worked but only have $1.5 million in your portfolio then something is going to have to give (taking into account the 4% rule $1.5 million would generate $60,000 per year) and social security won't make up the difference.

So how we retire needs to evolve. An easy way part of the solution can be reducing your overhead. Easy in that it is easy to say but not so easy to actually do. This other article from Yahoo Finance talks about cutting expenses by downsizing you car, cable TV package, cell phone package, dropping the health club (to go jogging instead), refinance your mortgage and eat out less.

These are fairly typical suggestions. I think the best way to cut expenses are more long term oriented which is having no mortgage, as opposed to refinancing, and have no car payments. Obviously a car needs to be bought every so often but not every five years. Toyotas often can last for 200,000 miles. One thing I disagree with vehemently is the one about the health club but that's just me. Not working out is the easiest thing in the world to do but exercising obviously provides a chance for keeping health costs down which are obviously much more than $50 or $100 spent at the gym.

In addition to keeping the overhead low some sort of job would seem to be another obvious way to relieve some of the burden from your portfolio. Some sort of job not any old job. I've made the point before about trying to figure out how to monetize your hobby. Some people can do this but I think it takes a lot of planning, time and figuring and not everyone will be able to do it. Obviously if you love your career then staying with it longer would seem like an ideal solution.

I've written about a few off the wall solutions as well. I have mentioned my 78 year old neighbor who does backhoe work countless times (how many hours at $60 per would you need to supplement the income from your portfolio?).

Another one that I just found out about via Joellyn's animal rescue work is that a rescue in Phoenix has a house that they use as a 1-5 day layover for dogs and cats (no more than four of each) in between going from animal control to their foster (or permanent) home. They need someone to live there and care for the animals. They can live there for free and can work outside the home. This would be a bad fit for the vast majority of folks but will be ideal for someone. Someone is going to get a free place to live and get to help animals.

Depending on the type of town you live in there is seasonal work at sporting events. Prescott has minor league sports so the seasons are short in terms of number of home games. The possibilities are only limited by a person's ingenuity. This is a problem to be solved with innovative thought. Often the comments on this sort of post include very inside the box thinking. Successful solutions will require creativity.

8 comments:

retiredinprescott said...

Roger,
Hope you and your family (I'm including the pups) are snug and happy in Walker today.
I can't fault your comments on retirement but I want to show the other side of the coin.

Yes Roger, it is still possible to plan for and have a good retirement without relying heavily on the Government or a Corporation or a Union to fund it.
We self retired a decade ago at ages 52 and 46. By retiring at those ages we gave up most of our Company pensions and all of our Company provided Healthcare. We did it by planning and living responsibly. We lived for many years comfortably but below our means and saved and invested for the future. That is a foreign concept today to the younger generation along with personal responsibility. I have two daughters in their 30s who both have good jobs but both are way in debt and have done almost no planning for the future. They tell me that "the Gov't will take care of them....they think they will get free healthcare and ever rising subsidies for what they need". Unfortunately they will have to learn life's lessons the hard way.

My wife and I live a comfortable retirement in Prescott and it is 80% self provided. We pay for our own high deductible BCBS plan (probably our biggest annual expenses are medical)and most of our living expenses. I did start taking Social Security this year so I do thank the gov't for that.

We both have extensive hobbies and stay very active and healthy. In fact, all the free time to walk, hike, go to the gym, etc. has made my wife and me healthier than we were 15 years ago near the end of our careers.....

Yes Virgina, er..Roger, there still can be a good retirement for a lot of people.....IF they are willing to live responsibly while working and PLAN for their future.

Have a Happy new year and a great 2010.

Anonymous said...

Retiredinprescott. Congratulations on your early and comfortable retirement. A question: I assume you just turned 62. In starting SS at age 62 instead of waiting for a full retirement, did you do the math concerning maximizing SS over your life? What drove you to starting at age 62? Thanks.

Anonymous said...

Roger: There are lots of postings about SDS and other short ETFs tracking inverse of changes daily. But if you hold them for long you have to be careful.
I can understand it for double short funds.
How about sh which is a single short. Will this also create problems if held for long time?
Thanks.

retiredinprescott said...

Anonymous 10:57AM:
Yes I started taking my Social Security this year at age 62. Breakeven is about 15 years vs. waiting for the full normal age 66 or even age 70 payment BUT I don't trust our Government not to implement either means testing or benefit reductions in the next decade or two. My feeling was to grab it now while it is there.
If I make it into my 80s and it turns out I should have waited to take the higher Social Security at 66 or age 70-----Well, I'll still be laughing at that point that I'm still alive and kicking.

Besides, if things get really tough for us in the future I can always take a short drive and go squat on Roger's property and cabin since by then he'll be living on Park Ave in NYC so he can walk to CNBC every day for his interviews...
(a little humor in the Holiday spirit)

Roger Nusbaum said...

single short ETFs can be problematic due to daily resetting also. However they are not guaranteed to have problems. It all depends on the sequence of up and down days.

NYC, funny. I couldn't get my wife to go when I went in Nov for a couple of days, she has no need to go east of the rockies again although we are going to South Dakota in May or June.

RW said...

Didn't really need the dough -- thank goodness I'm good at managing money if nothing else -- but was glad to learn my areas of expertise remained in demand at regional universities so I can pretty much stay "semi-retired" as long as I wish: Staying active is not necessarily the same as staying engaged but by all means combine if possible.

I was listening to a presentation just the other day calling for more flexibility in curriculum because at least 1 out of 5 job descriptions students are presumably preparing for do not currently exist and I could not help thinking, "yeah and another 1 out of 5 job descriptions will probably become obsolete within the same amount of time." Luck of the draw …a social safety net, even a weak one, can make a lot of difference if the draw is bad and your skills no longer in demand.

I never imagined myself living east of the Mississippi myself but was glad to take a job in southern Kentucky when nothing else showed up. Glad I did since among other things I discovered the virtues of multiple lakes and rivers, striped bass, slow talk and cheap land; e.g., 40 acres w/ a solid Amish-built farmhouse (since electrified), barn, pond, pasture and oak woods all for less than $150K in 1998 (take that Silicon Valley).

I'm not there now but could be and wouldn't mind a bit even if I never do learn to care for biscuits dipped in red-eye gravy.

WRT the topic of this thread: Relocation is also part of the retirement evaluation game; place has meaning but don't get too hung up on it.

Looking forward to the new year myself ...but hedged of course [g].

Anonymous said...

Retiredinprescott. This is Anon 10:57 AM again. You think like me on the possibility of the gov't changing the rules to your disadvantage; a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, as the saying goes. I retired a couple of years ago, turn 62 in just a couple months and, according to literature recently received from SS, the yearly increase for delaying SS is 8%. An advantage/option to starting SS at 62, or whenever before full retirement age of 66, is that you can save/invest the money rather than spend it. If you make 8% or more on the investment, you come out ahead. Food for thought.

RW said...

The suspicion that the SS rules will change is not entirely unreasonable but, not surprisingly, the question is actually quite complex and starting early can be more costly as SS income is added to other income for taxation purposes. Here's a useful discussion of the issues involved at http://tinyurl.com/yfxx5vu

OTOH, when the question is phrased "how long does it take for the future value of a reduced income stream begun at age 62 to equal and crossover the future value of an income stream begun at age 66" and assume you can make 8% or better on the stream then the answer is "never" - you will always do better than waiting until age 66. Stated another way, if you can manage a 7% ROI, crossover will not occur until age 104+

An alternative to consider under current social security rules is collect benefits at age 62 but at age 66 withdraw the Social Security claim and pay back all Social Security principle received while keeping the profits. Then resubmit a claim for maximum benefits from there forward. Of course that rule could change but, even if it did, you're no worse off than the early start scenario noted above (assuming you can make a decent return on the principle).

Proud Member Of