Your Boomer Mortgage: Insurance Offers You Don't Need

On a recent episode of Financial Impact Factor Radio, we discussed the topic of insurance. If you have never tuned into this show, I think you will find it interesting and topical. We have a wide range of guests and often discuss the very questions that concern Baby Boomers, their children and their parents. Because being a Boomer is more than just being a certain age. All of our shows on Financial Impact Factor Radio can be found here.

As a Boomer, I am always intrigued by the offers that begin showing up in my inbox/mailbox. Although they don't on the surface seem to be age related, one can't help but read between the lines. Are they talking to me? Are they worried about whether I will make it to the end? That "end" involves satisfying the largest debt any of us will ever own: our mortgage.

Last week I received a letter in the mail from the bank that holds my mortgage that would make most mortgage holders think twice. It was the offer of life insurance. My bank might think there are good reasons for offering this product that is different that many of the other types of insurance offered with these types of loans. For instance, PMI is private mortgage insurance the bank makes you buy if you are putting less than 20% down on a mortgage. The sole beneficiary in this instance is the lender, who knows that if you are going to default, this riskier loan covers their interest in the transaction. Known as PMI, its cost has begun to weigh on borrowers who find their loans underwater. Once you pass 78% mark because the value of your house compared to the amount of your initial downpayment, you can cancel the policy.

There is also mortgage insurance which for some borrowers seems like a good option as well. Essentially the lure of this product is to pay-off the mortgage in the event of your death. The insurer doesn’t pay you directly instead writing a check directly to the mortgage company or lender.

The letter I received offered a term policy that would last until I turned 80 years old, which is about 26 years from now. Like all insurance policies it plays on your fears and comes at a time when the typical term policy is about to expire if you bought insurance in your thirties, which is typically the time when most folks consider coverage. But it isn’t cheap. In fact, this sort of policy has a seven year flat rate, just a few medical questions without an exam and of course the tug-on-your-heart-strings assurance that your loved ones will be taken care of.

So today I thought we’d talk about late in life insurance coverage and whether we should consider it.

Listen to Financial Impact Factor Radio with your hosts:
Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng of FinancialFootprint.com

The Retirement Recipe

There are numerous analogies floating about concerning what retirement is. For each of us it represents something different. Perhaps it is only a dream, distant and more or less unfathomable. For others, it might seem close and still too far enough away to embrace the concept that one day you might actually do something different. And for Baby Boomers, the path is much clearer, the distance is much closer and the journey much easier to define.

But one thing that is certain: the retirement you envision is a recipe, a cooking lesson of sorts that follows some basic concepts and some self-determined experiments in taste. The degree of cooking you actually engage in when it comes to concocting this plate of retirement options is dependent on the desire and the passion you bring to the process.

Consider the effort it takes to make spaghetti. Everyone has made this at one time or another. Noodles are the prefect vehicle for a meal, sustainable and filling and without adornment, plain and simple. Spaghetti is like an index fund. 

It does a great deal but is not a stand alone ingredient. It needs enhancement, flavors and improvements to make it whole. Building a retirement portfolio with an index fund as the backdrop is an excellent place to begin.

The sauce can be that enhancement and once again, your degree of involvement in the process will make the dish much more vibrant and appetizing. Simply opening a store bought jar is fine for when you are inexperienced, but the concept of all of these ingredients pre-determined by someone else in a production plant somewhere other than your own kitchen is much like the target-date fund. These funds offer a combination of investments already mixed and stirred to the proportion dictated by your age.

For some of, this pre-mixed sauce of investment choices is flavor enough. Like many pre-made food products, the salt level is too high and these manufacturers do this for a good reasons. Salt is the ultimate flavor enhancer, and the perfect seasoning to make unappealing ingredients more so. Store bought jar recipes are quick and easy and for those who have taken the time and effort to make their own sauce (or as my Italian household refers to it: gravy) know the difference a little time and energy can provide to the plate of pasta.

But who has the time to make a great sauce/gravy? When it comes to your retirement plan or simply your investment strategy, we want convenience. But this isn't always the best strategy. A little effort, such as making a sauce/gravy recipe from scratch can make all the difference to the end result. The making of your retirement plan may seem complicated but in truth, it isn't as difficult as we often perceive it to be.

As I mentioned earlier, the index fund is a great foundation and is the pasta in this dish. The sauce enhances the meal's appeal and you can do the same thing with your retirement. We are by our nature prone to certain biases. We fear many things (such as loss) and we tend to follow what others have done (herd mentality). We think we know what we like and dislike but the bottom line is, we gravitate towards what we have been taught to like. In many instances, this is risk.

Risk is a necessary ingredient but it doesn't have to be risky. A portfolio of index funds or similar exchange traded funds can offer some spice to an otherwise risk-free and rather plain approach to your retirement plan. How do you add risk? The simple answer is diversification. Creating a portfolio of index funds (or ETFs) that spread the risk over large swaths of certain sectors can increase the risk without embracing too much risk. In other words, index funds provide seasoning in melodious way, adding flavors that are harmonious.

The subtle blend of not only an index funds that tracks the largest companies (an S&P 500 fund) can add nuanced flavors. Index funds that track mid-cap, small-caps, international offerings, emerging markets and bonds can create the broadest of opportunities for even the most conservative palates. And it can do so with low expenses.

But some have worried that using just indexes leaves the portfolio simply mimicking the cycles of the market. In other words, your attempt to get good flavor may achieve little more than what opening a jar of sauce might provide your spaghetti will. This is where the actively managed fund enters the equation.

While actively managed funds are continuously maligned in the press and by index/ETF advocates everywhere, they can add a kick to a portfolio in the right dose. Like many overpowering flavors, used in moderation can increase the enjoyment of the dish. I suggest moderation (which is another term for diversification) because too much can overpower; too little can make the process boring.

This sort of dish, once created and joined together, spaghetti and sauce, provide nourishment and satisfaction. And like your retirement plan, depends on how much is on the plate to get to that point. Few of us put a couple of strands and spoonful of sauce on the plate and expect to be satisfied. Your contribution, kept at a minimum is somewhat like that: not enough to quell the appetite. But if you pile it on, as many do, you will have a filling meal even if you don't eat it all. Your contribution to your retirement has similar results: more money when you do finally retire than you can consume.

Yes, the analogy is a stretch but the concept is clear: your retirement is dish made with care and served in heaping portions. What sort of retirement meal are you cooking?

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and a fellow Boomer

College: The Cost of Boomer Re-Education

When Baby Boomers send their son or daughter off to college this year they might keep this in mind: the person sitting next to them in that lecture hall is more likely now than ever before to be your age, or close to it. If the rates of college borrowing are any indication, forty year olds and older are finding themselves back in school. While attending college has been touted most recently as a way to add ten-years to your life, or at least your mental health, these students are more interested on improving their chances at getting a job. Not a better one; any job.

The stress facing an older worker or recently unemployed person turned student can be monumental. There may be numerous reasons why you didn't complete college in the first place or find yourself with a worthless piece of paper from your previous go-around. None of those matter. You have decided, and the experts suggest that this is correct, that getting more training is better than not.

But college at forty or older comes with its own unique problems. Not the least of which is the worth of the education. College tuitions are increasing as parents of children in the typical age group know all too well. When you make the decision to return to school as an older worker, the cost may be offset by some prior attendance experience or work-life experience.

One of the easiest ways to offset the tuition cost is to challenge the course, suggesting to over 2,900 accredited colleges that you know what that course offers and don't need to take it for the credit. This challenge not only save money but time that could be better spent getting the education sooner to allow you to get back in the hunt for employment.  CLEP, the College Level Exam Program, is the most widely accepted "life experience" challenge exam program and the one every older student should use. The CLEP program features 32 single-subject college exams and five general exams. (For more information about CLEP exams, contact: The College Board, 800-257-9558.)

There are other ways to help in getting your degree quicker and for less cost. Your employer might have in-house programs designed to finance higher and continuing education. If you are not employed, research and study what you know as much as possible before taking these tests.

You have three things that are to your advantage and three things working against your success.

The three things in your favor. First: you probably have the focus to do well. College isn't your first experience with independence. Of course I'm not suggesting that all-students entering or in college aren't focused; they just have a higher degree of potential available distractions to take them off course. Two: you know how much this is really costing. You have a better concept of what these dollars cost against what they can return. Three: Your work ethic comes from actually working and should be transferrable, at least in your head, to a better framework of organization. In other words, you can place the most important tasks first and that ability to prioritize is probably something you didn't even realize you possessed.

The three things working against you. One: Your focus to do well may actually overload your ability to do as well as you would have hoped. Taking on too much will find you in conflict with the rigors of what your daily life has become. This is certainly not insurmountable. Experts agree that you should get as much sleep as possible and find a scheduled time to study and prepare. That advice is given to twenty year olds as well. But it is doubly important for the older student.

Two: You have a much firmer grasp of time and the time you have left to not only pay back the loan but to do so with enough of an income to make it worthwhile. And like younger students, you need to balance the loan to potential income. According to the STudent Loan Network: "By keeping your borrowing to one year's salary, you're effectively dedicating 10% of your future income to repayment, which is a manageable amount of debt. Statistically speaking, graduates who have 10% or less of their income dedicated to debt repayment are able to manage their debts; those who exceed 15% of their income tend to default." And for the older worker, this calculation is incredibly difficult to make. There is no guarantee that you will get adequate compensation when you do get a job upon graduation.

Three: Your work ethic will actually work against you. You may have previously sleep-walked in your previous job, focused on  the daily grind with the least amount of energy. Re-prioritizing your life will come without the usual support groups afforded the younger student, you will need to build a self-centered support and wedge it into your regular routine. College for the older student requires an enormous amount of focus. There are some things that can help you keep the objective in reach and not lose your forward momentum. They include: staying organized, getting more sleep than you afforded yourself when you were working, and studying. The last may take a little re-learning so be sure to give yourself time to learn how to learn again.

If you are still working, don't become complacent. Continue to improve your chances and opportunities even if life has become somewhat complicated. Spending a little at a time is far wiser than borrowing a huge sum to attend college full-time. If you aren't working, keep in mind that even the best degrees don't always end up in the best paying jobs. Get as much counseling as you can before picking a course of study. Some job choices are fleeting or don't return in salary what you expect them to pay.

The popular notion is that we will work longer than our parents, postponing retirement beyond the age of 65. If that's the case, choose a career that gives you longevity in the workforce and not just something that provides a paycheck. And even if all it does is add ten-years to your mental health, it might be worth considering.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and a fellow Boomer.

The Boomer Rollover Conundrum

Boomers will be retiring en masse in the coming years. And with that retirement comes options. For the first time their lives, they will be outside the comfortable boundaries of their employer's retirement plans and on their own. The choices are many and often confusing. That is why I thought it would be informative to discuss over the last couple of days, an option you may have considered.

Today on the Financial Impact Factor Radio with Paul Petillo, Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng we continue the discussion we began yesterday about self-directed IRAs. While having control over your retirement is important, how much risk is too much and who can handle the increased potential of loss or gain.

To listen to yesterday's show, click here.

Here are some outtakes from this conversation:

Yesterday we discussed a different corner of the retirement investment world when we talked about self-directed IRA. I suggested that “If there is one thing we all seem to be seeking and at the same time, remains as elusive it is control. Our investments often seem to want us to master its fate, as if simply involving yourself is enough.” T.S.Eliot seemed to agree although we all know he wasn’t talking about your retirement plans when he wrote: "Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far it is possible to go."

Jim Hitt of AmericanIRA.com to discuss the IRA that you control. There is a lot left to be discussed it seems and little clarification is needed in advance. Jim is a third party administrator or TPA. We have had a few professionals who ply their trade as a go-between, somewhat detached from the other two parties but necessary in the legal and tax compliant execution of a retirement plan. Sometimes we need to be reminded that all retirement investments, 401(k)s, 403(b)s, IRAs in all their incarnations are essentially parts of the tax code. And I’d be willing to wager that when taxes are mentioned, there is a certain fear, perhaps caution that moves to the forefront. Self-directed IRAs are no different.

On numerous occasions, we have, in advance of a guest appearing on the show prepped the listening audience, discussed what we knew about the next day’s topic and did so in almost every instance, without the guest’s knowledge. Today, we’re going to look back.

Most of us have had out retirement plans nestled safely – and I’ll describe what I mean by safely in a moment – inside a 401(k). The way these plans are constructed give us a sense that someone else is watching over us. They choose the investments. They made the match. They suggested that they had a fiduciary responsibility to us. I asked Jim if he had just such a responsibility and he simply replied: no.

So we began the discussion there as I asked Dave and Dave if they would like to tell us what fiduciary responsibility is?

Now we all know that risk is something we need and knowing how much of a risk you can take is key in the way you execute your goals. But this is no easy task when it comes to this type of IRA. "Trust your own instinct, “ as Billy Wilder once said: “Your mistakes might as well be your own, instead of someone else's."

As Baby Boomers begin this massive wave of retirement, many are for the first time going to get their life’s retirement account to control. I was caught by one thing Mr. Hitt suggested as to the people who come to him: they come in good times and bad.

The risk of self-directing your IRA is there. Jim discussed using this money for real estate investment purposes, business opportunities and other investments such as gold, commodities, etc. And it all boils down to coordination.

Listen to Financial Impact Factor Radio with your hosts: Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng of FinancialFootprint.com

The show is broadcast daily, online at 6amPST/9amEST.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer.

Retirement for Boomers: The Fitting Room Method

Sometimes, the message for Boomers is mixed in with a variety of other, often unrelated topics. But if you are like me, they exist in a subsurface thought, an attempt by my subconscious to always be searching for some clue, some answer, some key to this puzzle. 

Last night on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Charles Barkley, basketball star turned sportscaster offered his thoughts on retirement. Granted, professional athletes are hardly the poster boys and girls of those seeking to retire. They have made huge sums of money in a relatively short amount of time and retirement usually means a second, perhaps third career managing that money, be it a car dealership or real estate investments or sportscaster.

So they aren't usually who writers such as me profile as "retirees". And he wasn't directly speaking to Boomers. But he did make one comment that was noteworthy: "I was bored out of mind by the third month of retirement". (I'm paraphrasing of course but it was as close to the quote as I intend to get.) We spend so much of our time and mental effort focusing on the goal of retiring at whatever age we pick, that we seldom realize that for many of us, a whole lifetime may await us when we retire.

I know what you are already thinking: yes, you might live for an additional twenty or thirty years after retiring but they are hardly years of increasing quality. And as one well-to-do acquaintance recently suggested: "rich people never retire". So when I suggest that whole lifetime awaits you in retirement, the suggestion either falls on deaf ears or scares you more than you want to admit.

In reality, you will live at least an additional ten years after whatever date you pick to retire. While 75 or 80 doesn't seem to be that old, at least in the conversations I have overheard, it is. You are not the person you once were and the mechanized hum of that inner world of you is not humming along the way it did when you were forty. In fact, when you were forty you barely heard it. At sixty, your insides send you regular messages. At eighty, I imagine its a cacophony of sounds.

So have you asked yourself what retirement will really be like, beyond the dreams you may have harbored for most of your life? Have you equated what your body has told you about those dreams in some sort of altered wish? 

Probably not. What you may have thought would have been the ideal place to retire, the ideal lifestyle to live, may no longer be what you are capable of doing.

So you should try it on for size. First, the dream place. Warm climates attract your tired bones with thoughts of heat and sun and outdoor activities you may have enjoyed for week long vacations while you were working. Resort living is not the same as permanent residency. Many warmer, resort like climates offer an enticing postcard view of how you might end your days. But proximity to good medical care - even if you think you are healthy - should be a consideration.

Hawaii, for example is warm and tropical and part of the US. Medical care there is good. But the cost of living on the islands, and that includes medical, food and utilities, is almost twice the cost of living based on the whole of the contiguous US. Accumulate a month's worth of vacation and spend it in your dream locale before you retire. Many resort locations have rentals that are more residential and less beachfront. Families often seek these places out in the hopes of saving a few bucks. Compared to what it might cost to live there full-time, you will get a fairly accurate picture of the day-today expenses.

I have been an advocate for second careers for as long as I can remember. So try your second career out now. You may like where you live. It is close to friends and family, places you are familiar with and activities you enjoy. So take a month off and stay at home. Mr. Barkley said that by month three he was going crazy. And he had a good sum of money put away to indulge in whatever whim passed his way. You won't have that luxury - you'll be on a fixed income. A month should be enough on the average income to understand what you can do and what you can't afford to do. It will also give you the chance to work at career two.

Which brings me to the last part of my try it on for size. Your income will be fixed. Although in reality, it will be diminishing, which is fixed with minuses. Inflation, taxes and insurance will play a much more major role when it comes to your income. Yes it might be the same amount each month but each passing month will take a little piece of it. Try this concept on for size.

You could do a lot of positive things for yourself in 2012. But pretending to be retired, if only for a month, will give you some clear understanding of what retirement, at least the early years of it, will be like. Doing it while you are working gives you time to alter the course and embrace a new life while still living in your old one.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer

The Boomer Conundrum: To Hire a Financial Planner

On the surface, financial planning has remained the same. You are looking for a path to retirement that will provide you with a secure future, a worry-free post-work life. And financial planners offer you their service as a guide on that journey. But choosing the right one seems to have become more difficult as the industry has converted itself into what they think is more user friendly. How do you chose? 

There was time in the not-too-distant past when financial planners were catering to only the elite investor, one who is already versed in the concept of spending money to keep money. These richer clients understood that making money was the easy part; keeping it on the other hand was tougher. The sort of planners these folks hired were asset-based. This means that if you had wealth, for a percentage of those assets, they would invest to keep it.

They had an interest, albeit conflicted, in keeping your money in motion. Not only would they get a portion of your returns, they might also receive pay from the very products they were suggesting you use. Beyond these conflicts, which have obvious pluses and minuses, their interest was in the growth of your portfolio. They did attempt to cultivate a long-term relationship and the way they constructed their business with ease of access to conversations. And they knew that if they did a good job, they wouldn't hear from you until you stumbled across some idea on your own. They might at the point weigh the option against their own self-interest: less money to manage because, for instance you thought a life insurance policy was a good idea for your estate, would be less of a percentage of the total wealth under management.

Until, of course, things go awry. When the markets nose-dived in 2008, not only did economists and financial students miss the event, but so did financial planners. This exposed to some of these wealthy clients the fallibility of their skills. Paying as much as 2% of the net worth of their portfolios and at the same time, losing value the same as someone who didn't pay anyone for advice, brought the industry to rethink their approach.

Enter the flat-fee financial planner. This seemed like the logical choice for those with not a lot of money but the same needs as those who had much more: they wanted to keep it. The question is, without the incentive to make more based on the strength of the portfolio, it seemed as if this was simply window-dressing planning - they charged a flat fee for people who didn't need a lot of ongoing advice and they didn't offer more than was needed.

Storefront financial planners popped up everywhere. They would take your plan, reconstruct it and channel you into other products, some you might not need. They might suggest refinancing (and they could help). They might restructure your life insurance needs (and they could help). They might steer you towards an annuity (and they could help there as well).

And once that was done and you seemed set, they made money on the commissions these product brought in and did so under the guise that it was all in your best interest. Sometimes it was. The problem was that this yearly or twice yearly visit could cost upwards of $1,000. This might be a good investment for those who are in relatively stable shape. But for many who sought this sort of advice, the money might have been better spent elsewhere.

The next phase of advice giving came as a result of the downturn. While many people lost a great deal of investable net worth, some had un-investable assets. the may have had muh of their net worth tied up in their business for instance, an asset but not one that would be considered liquid. These assets, while seemingly under management would be considered when any advice was given. The concept of protection although came at a cost that sometimes is twice that of the fee-based planner.

The advent of the hourly based financial planner seemed to be a good solution. Much like the service provided by lawyers, the concept of the clock-running seemed to be a good idea for some people. They paid for what they received. The relationship was even more important here than in many of the other types of planning scenarios: planners were paid by the hour so they kept that meter running. Call with a question: and the meter clocked the time. Stop by with a concern: and the meter clocked the visit even as they chatted up your personal life.

Removing the asset-based incentive will keep your financial planner working longer on your plan with results that aren't often eventful. None of this suggests that this group isn't without merit. Far too many people equate the time they spend making money as more fruitful than time spent keeping it. They could, in almost every instance, find the same solutions on their own. Ironically, they could save money by investing some of their own time.

Evan Esar, American humorist who once quipped: "The mint makes it first; it's up to you to make it last." Keep in mind, credentials play a role. Start with the certified financial planner designation and move towards the references. Even if someone you know recommends a planner, do your own background check. Ironically, once you satisfied your inner skeptic, calculate the amount of hours you did and the amount of hours after-the-fact that you questioned your decision.

On today's Financial Impact Factor Radio with Paul Petillo, Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng we discuss the role financial planners can play in your retirement planning. Even as the industry surrounding advice has shifted to a more consumer friendly format, it has become more difficult to chose the right financial planner for the task.

Listen to internet radio with

Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com

and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng

of FinancialFootprint.com

on

The Financial Impact Factor

at Blog Talk Radio

Retirement Planning: The Statistical Boomer

I understand that it is difficult to sum up all of the issues facing our quest for retirement, from our biases to having to participate in a market that seems almost impossible to embrace. So for the sake of this discussion: Here's the problem facing Baby Boomers. 

Paul Barnes wrote in 1987 that the reason ratios (percentages are used ) is a mathematical one "and is basically used to facilitate comparison by adjusting for size".  What he quickly pointed out was that their use is "only good if the ratios possess the appropriate statistical properties for handling and summarizing the data". It is why, when the information culled from a recent Wells Fargo survey expressed as a percentage, that 25% of the adult population would need to work into their eighties, a postponement of retirement that has become newsworthy of late. The survey even suggested that they accepted the fact.

Now we have always been barraged with percentages: 10% off this, we are the 99%ers that, the markets down such-and-such a percentage for month, the quarter, the year. Whatever it is, it blurs some distinct realities by ignoring, as Mr. Barnes suggested, some important data. And we don't need to go far beyond our own observations to find the underlying reasons why some people (25% evidently) are not retiring historically.

Let's start with the unemployment rate. Expressed as a percentage, perhaps because of the space needed to write such a large number over and over, it is hovering at 8.6%, give or take a re-estimate or revision. And quickly you will be told that to add in the disparaged worker, the underemployed person or even the fully employed person who is getting less and the percentage of people who will not be able to retire based on the typical timeline of a thirty year or even forty year career this number becomes almost impossible to calculate. Estimates push the real unemployment rate to around 14%. If you are older and long past the benefit-of-time growing your savings and a stat in this group, the trouble with these numbers can be even more devastating.

Let's from there move towards the participation rate in 401(k) plans. Or better, how about we look at the number of 401(k) plans there are, which is less than 50% of the workplaces. And that is only for those who don't have access to a 401(k). those percentages get worse when you consider that more than half of this group doesn't do a single thing to prepare for retirement.

And what about the folks that do have a 401(k)? Participation rates are up in some surveys, down in others. Chances are, if you were just hired, you were auto-enrolled in your company's plan. Recent numbers suggest that 90% of those newly hired chose to not opt out. While that is a headline number, the 10% who chose not to participate is more worrisome and adds to the quarter who will not have enough for retirement - although they may not be old enough to embrace the full consequence of that decision. But even auto-enrollment has its problems as two-thirds of those who are automatically enrolled don't do anything to adjust the default investment the plan picked.

Pamela Hess, director of retirement research at Hewitt Associates suggests that "Most employees who are automatically enrolled tend to stick with the employer-provided default contribution rate, so simply getting them into the 401(k) plan at a minimal contribution rate isn't going to help them meet their long-term retirement needs." That minimal contribution rate is often 3% and not close to adequate. In fact, in the larger picture, less that sixty percent of those who are in a plan contribute more than 5% of their pre-tax pay.

Ms. Hess believes that  "Companies should strongly consider increasing the default contribution rate and coupling automatic enrollment with contribution escalation, which automatically increases employee contributions to the 401(k) plan and helps get them to a better savings rate over time." Auto-escalation has helped, a method of putting some or all of the employee's raises into the plan but unless the worker understands the implications of failing to do so, they often don't opt for this benefit.

I have pointed out before that the recovery will need jobs that people want to stay in long enough to benefit from the company match. As much lip service as these plans offer when they match the contribution, vesting is still an issue. Some workers may be deciding to not stay long enough to get the matched contribution, a period that usually last five years and decide to not bother. And many who slashed their contributions have not returned to offering them, pushing participation down in their plans even for those who are fully vested. If these businesses have restored the match, they have often cut benefits elsewhere making the choice of contributing more a financial one with a harsh reality.

So when a survey crosses the retirement radar suggesting that 25% of us are planning to work into our eighties, the number misses some key data. Workers who suggest that a retirement number - a dollar amount base on any number of formulae - is what will determine their time of retirement, the estimates they embrace may be outsized. 

These folks fret over the stock market and construct a worse-case scenario for what might happen if the gains they had hoped for fail to materialize.

And then they turn around and overestimate their comfort zone, attempting to replicate exactly what they have now. Here is where they become discouraged. Previous generations of retirees had something we never had: modest outlooks. Skip back just three generations and the elderly were likely to move in with children in retirement.

When the numbers tell only part of the truth, as if shining a narrow beam of light and describing what it illuminates is all that matters to the discussion, we need to refocus and see what we've been missing. Retiring can still happen when it should - which is when you want and not when your retirement account statement says so based on some target. So embracing a time, which 20% of the surveyed did, is a much more realistic parameter. 

The only question left is how can you do it?

Two answers are worth repeating: you need to become a little more austere in your fifties and save more, much more. The reality of the harsh regime will stiffen your resolve for when work is not what you want to do. It is practice with a safety net. the second is readjusting your expectations and plan for those realities. The investment you make to mentally prepare yourself for this less-than-what-you-had-previously-planned retirement is still a plan and will work. And if its any comfort, the data shows that too many don't even have that!

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor and Founder of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer.

A Retirement Plan in the House

I have to wonder what people sometimes think, Boomers in particular. Confidence is down but spending is up. The recession isn't really a recession but for many it seems like one.The media talks of millions of homeowners looking for mortgage relief, being foreclosed or worse, are feeling the crush of owning a home adversely impact their retirement plans. And yet, some people are still planning a future with their house as part of the process.

Could be a sign of the times and then again, it might be the progression of where we would be in our retirement plan. If the results of the latest Associated Press-LifeGoesStrong.com poll are any indication, we have reached a pivotal point in retirement planning. Should I stay or should I go?

A great many retired couples have told me over the years that the biggest mistake they may have made was selling the family home. They have opted for a dream instead and chased it with their new found retirement freedom. But many failed to take into consideration that a place is more than just a shelter. It can be proximity to children and grandchildren, services such as health care facilities or other seniors and often, in communities that are growing with younger cohorts. And almost equally as many have found the size of the house they own in their pre-retirement years is simply too large to accommodate - or worse, afford.

Should it be a surprise that we begin making post-work plans in midlife? Or is the surprise the decision we make? According to the recent Associated Press-LifeGoesStrong.com poll, three out of ten midlife retirement planners are suggesting that they will look elsewhere when they do retire. And according to the poll, they are resigned to sell the family home for less than what they had thought it was worth a decade ago.

But that is understandable for two reasons: those out-sized estimates of property worth have been adjusted to fit a lackluster economy and there is a greater chance that the equity they may have calculated has shrunk due to refinancing. Folks in the midwest are more likely to stay put, more so than their east coast neighbors.

The poll also suggests according to Barbara Corcoran: "more than four in 10 want a smaller home, 30% would like a different climate, 25% will look for a more affordable home, and 15% will pack up our bags for the sole purpose of moving closer to family." And when they do move these people dream of a one-level home with enough room to accommodate the occasional visitor, close to medical facilities and not in-city. And those that stay put waste almost no time converting their children's rooms into something more focused on their evolving interests.

Oddly, the question of taxes didn't come up in the poll, something of major interest to older people planning on a fixed income lifestyle. A larger home requires upkeep and maintenance that might not configure into a retired income. And the thought of a second home was not amongst the wishes this group had either. In fact, only about 12% want to feel the sea breeze in their graying hair.

The question is: how much of a role should your home play in your retirement plan? Many people have factored in the equity in their plans - or at least they used to - and the mistake made by these folks is twofold. One, you need to live somewhere and two, unless you own your home and have considered the chance that you might reverse the mortgage at some point. this equity is nothing but paper dreams.

A harsh reality but more true than not. If you are factoring in your home as part of an estate, then no doubt you have made all of the considerations, tax and otherwise, surrounding that decision. But if the home will become unmanageable (how hard is the upkeep now?), then looking for the opportunity to sell it, no matter how much you might "love" the house, the location, the neighbors, should be weighed.

As retirees approach that magical time when you either cutback or stop working altogether, the best advice woud be to begin to stage the sale of the property now while your income is less fixed. If you don't sell, you will have a slightly improved place. If it does sell, it will help you get the price, or closer to the price you might think it is worth.

Paul Petillo is a fellow Boomer

On Socially Responsible Investing

Turns out, Boomers are very interested in this sort of investing. On Financial Impact Factor Radio we had Ron Robins, an MBA, founder and analyst for Investing for the Soul to discuss socially responsible investing. Dave K, Dave Ng and myself were curious about what even after decades continues to be a niche investment for many people. The main problem as Mr. Robins pointed out was the lack of recommendation by the financial services industry, even as the need and ultimately the performance of these investments has grown, and the low exposure in 401(k) plans (about 30% of the plans offer them).

Listen to internet radio with

Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com

and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng

of FinancialFootprint.com

on

The Financial Impact Factor

at Blog Talk Radio

An Important Show about Long-Term Care Insurance

On Monday's Financial Impact Factor Radio we had a guest of interest to all Boomers. Jesse Slome of American Association for Long-Term Care Insurance joined us to teach us about LTCI. This is a multi-faceted topic that has long-range implication for the near retiree and their retirement planning strategies as well as someone who is already retired. Jesse was nice enough to stop by and explain many of the nuances of this product and offer some helpful tips on what to look for when buying long-term care insurance, where to purchase it and when.

Listen to internet radiowith

Paul Petillo of Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com

and Dave Kittredge and Dave Ng

of FinancialFootprint.com

on

The Financial Impact Factor

at Blog Talk Radio

Don't be Tempted to Borrow from Your 401(k)

Under the current laws governing tax-deferred retirement plans such as a 401(k), withdrawing money has consequences. I have mentioned many of them here over the years, not the least of which is the early withdrawal penalty, the payment of taxes on those tax deferred investments and of course the loss of retirement money. Yet, those penalties haven’t stopped many of the people who have found it difficult to make their monthly budget work.

Of course, I am assuming a monthly budget. Without some anchor in reality, not having a budgetcan lead to rash decisions withut considering the far-reaching impact. Without a monthly budget, you will have no idea what could be cut to maintain some level of financial stability when times get rough. It is also safe to assume that if you do not have some sort of monthly accounting of your finances, you probably don’t have an emergency account. Both of these would have served the households with troubled income streams.

Two Georgia Congressmen think that those 401(k) plans might be able to help. Their idea: Hardship Outlays to protect Mortgagee Equity (HOME) Act. Introduced last week, U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson (R-Georgia) and U.S. Representative Tom Graves (R-Georgia) want their proposal considered as a way to keep homeowners in their homes. The concept, somewhat like throwing you a lifeline of your own making and designed to rescue you from poverty in the future offers a short-term fix in the near-term. They believe that if you have been a diligent saver, adding to your 401(k) religiously over the years, you shouldn’t be punished for needing the money now as opposed to later.

Rep. Graves is convinced that the housing crisis is the reason the economy has not recovered. Calling up his decades in the real estate business, he suggests: “This bill will help Americans who risk foreclosure use their own resources to make their mortgage payment on time without being penalized by the federal government.” If his assessment of who may need this money now – 23% of those who have mortgages are underwater but not necessarily facing foreclosure – the government should step out of the way and allow these folks to withdraw that money without penalty.

They are proposing that there be a lifetime cap on these withdrawals of $50,000 or one-half of the present value of one’s 401(k) account (whichever is smaller), so long as those funds are used for that purpose within 120 days of withdrawal. This is not the first bill of its kind.

Since the Great Recession began, Congress has struggled with what to do with corner of the financial world. A similar bill was introduced in 2009 and never debated on the Senate floor.

Numerous homeowners should not be in the homes they own in the first place. They may have obtained these residences with fraudulent applications, been unable to afford those homes during what would be considered a normal buying environment and failed to restructure their loans or worse, keep with the terms of their bankruptcy decisions. Because tax-deferred retirement accounts are not considered in these proceedings, some mortgage holders may have been in a position to financially right their own ship. But because of the penalties associated with tapping those accounts, they simply chose not to.

The HOME Act will allow wealthier homeowners to save their residences without penalty, while the rest of us, those that underfunded their retirement accounts or couldn’t wait for Congress to act, have already drained those accounts, paid the penalties and taxes and tried to move on. This effort woud do little to help those currently in the foreclosure vortex or who have been spat out by the continued downturn in housing.

No matter who you are, this last ditch effort is not the way to go. Reducing future retirement payouts (compounding and time suggest that $50,000 in retirement savings would provide only about $290 a month in retirement – a projected shortfall of over $1200) would set the average wage-earner, hardship or no, back decades in support of keeping the house. Few of these folks, given the opportunity and the consequence of this decision will consider the long-range impact of that decision. And if it gets Congressional approval, it will push the real problem further down the road.

On the surface, it might seem like the right thing to do. But beneath the veneer of a tax and penalty holiday the problems this money promises far outweigh the immediate salve it may provide. There are solutions, none of them pleasant.

If you are seeing the problem on the horizon, don’t wait until the day of reckoning. Contact your lender before you run into problems. If the problem has arrived, keep in mind, as devastating as it seems, it is not the end. While temporary may well last several years, longer if you successfully pursue a bankruptcy, protecting your future, a time when this will all be an unhappy bump in life’s road will be worth the sacrifice.

True, protecting your credit is important. Just keep in mind, it wasn’t as important when you bought the house as it is to you now. This too will pass.

The bottom line: those 401(k) provisions were established decades ago when the thinking was to make it painful to withdraw your money all the while giving you the illusion that if need be, you could tap it. Now provision, recent or past will stop you if you have made up your mind. But for those who see this as an exit strategy for a bad decision, this Act will add to the problem.

I know it’s old school but it is worth repeating: get a budget (and figure worse case scenario, not current spending habits to allow a downturn picture to standout), attempt to negotiate before the problem strikes (ironically, most job losses are not a surprise) and divide this time and the future into two separate lifetimes. Borrowing – or in this case, stealing from the future is not a good short-term remedy. It is a bandaid on a gapping wound.

Paul Petillo is the managing editor of BlueCollarDollar.com/Target2025.com and a fellow Boomer.

Paul's latest book "ReBuilding Wealth in a Paycheck to Paycheck World" is available at Smashwords

The Laws of the Cartoon World

Remember Saturday mornings, cartoon, pajamas and a bowl of cereal. We entered into a world of animation that had rules in play we knew only existed there. Boomers may have forgotten those laws and have grown up thinking that was then, this is now. But perhaps...

It all seems so otherworldly these days. As if everything that seems familiar isn’t and the laws the govern rational – and often irrational behavior no longer apply. Markets are up then down and then post the worst third quarter in recent memory – and we’re not sure what that means. Does it indicate something wicked this way comes or perhaps the end of the episode? So I turned to some laws that explain the world of finance, retirement and just getting-by in a world gone wacky.

Cartoon Law I.

“Any body suspended in space will remain in space until made aware of its situation.” We basically have two things to focus on: our future and what will happen next. We are continually being told to invest, max-out that 401(k), do everything you can now, pain equals pleasure which has replaced risk equals reward. That is until we chance to look down. And you know what happens next.

Cartoon Law II.

“Any body in motion will tend to remain in motion until solid matter intervenes suddenly.” Our retirement goals have experienced this law firsthand.  Hitting the cartoon telephone pole at full speed is, as this Law II suggests, the only way to stop forward motion with any success. There is the comic slide down the pole immediately following the impact which can only mean two things: we will sit as the cartoon stars whirl around our collective heads, trying to regain our reason for moving forward. Once our heads are cleared, Law II is waiting with the next pole a little further down the road.

Cartoon Law III.

“Any body passing through solid matter will leave a perforation conforming to its perimeter.” If you follow the markets, any markets, no matter how much information you think you have, now matter how timely it seems to be, the person in front of you will create their own cookie-cutter hole, exit, leaving you to get ahead of the problem that no one, including you is sure is a problem.  So instead of leaving by the door, they exit through a wall, evidently not a solid enough surface to allow Cartoon Law II to come into play.  We are at the mercy of speculators it seems who apparently have little regard for laws of supply and demand but understand two things: your predictable behavior and the ability of cartoon physics to protect them.

Cartoon Law IV.

“The time required for an object to fall twenty stories is greater than or equal to the time it takes for whoever knocked it off the ledge to spiral down twenty flights to attempt to capture it unbroken.” This is my favorite axiom of all.  Who among us has not seen the Federal Reserve try and do this?  We are watching this occur as we speak as Fed chairman Ben Bernanke races down the stairs with his latest effort in Operation Twist. Only Cartoon Law IV is a waste of time.  The priceless nature of the economy, the object hurtling through global space in this instance, falls victim to the inevitable comic result: it might be too big to fail but the attempt to catch it will prove unsuccessful as well.

Cartoon Law V.

“All principles of gravity are negated by fear.” I offer last quarter’s frenetic trading as proof that investors can spin their feet so quickly that they do not touch the ground while any news good or bad propels most of them straight up a flag pole. These days many average investors are left scratching their heads as they realize that just the sound of the unknown can change the direction of the market dramatically.

Cartoon Law VI.

“As speed increases, objects can be in several places at once.” You know this one as the cloud of dust and debris brawl, to be witnessed as the candidates begin their battle for the White House.  With the economy hanging in the balance or at least by their telling of the tale, the next year should provide numerous occasions of spinning and throttling as no candidate so far can pinpoint where the nation is right now and offer a plan of where we should be.

Cartoon Law VII.

“Certain bodies can pass through solid walls painted to resemble tunnel entrances; others cannot.” This inconsistency has played itself out to great effect in housing.  The folks who stand at the helm of the economy have painted an imaginary tunnel and allowed millions of Americans to pass through but when those that needed help the most attempted to follow, the surface was once again solid. This trick surface has left many wondering why something cohesive can’t be done. Housing may never recover if recovery is gauged by where it was. Yet so many people are wondering why the supposedly smart financial people who aided and abetted in this financial crime won’t simply understand that they have an option – and it isn’t achieved by raising ATM or debit card fees.

Cartoon Law VIII.

“Cartoon cats have more than the traditional nine lives.” They become like water snapping back to whatever they were prior to their mishap, even assuming the shape of the container if they happen to find themselves in one.   Seems that we alone know this to be true and no matter how many times the economy can be “decimated, spliced, splayed, accordion-pleated, spindled, or disassembled, it cannot be destroyed.” It becomes the equivalent of a cartoon mulligan. Someone please tell those in Washington. They think that what the economy needs is simple: more self-regulation and perhaps a little agency consolidation, a trillion dollar cut in spending here and an entitlement cutback there. We’ve seen it before and it gives us hope. We know that after the economy regains its shape, these set-backs (weak dollar, global slowdowns, market volatility and commodity speculation) will prove there are lessons we haven’t really learned and why should we have. We are pretty confident as a group that we will have another life to do it over again. At  least we hope that this cartoon law is real.

Cartoon Law IX.

“Necessity plus Will provokes spontaneous generation.” This opens the door to the “controversial pocket theory” which  “suggests objects can be drawn from unseen recesses of a character’s costume, or from a storehouse immediately off-screen” or can be borrowed directly from what you will owe at some point in the future.  And then, as if by magic, this future they tell us will just show up as if it “merely defers the question of how any absolutely apt object is instantaneously available”. Of course, you do need to believe in magic and if magic is the suspension of disbelief, saving will help – a lot.

Cartoon Law X

“For every vengeance there is an equal and opposite re-vengeance.” This is the one law of animated cartoon motion that also applies to the physical world at large. The bottom line is that we are not to blame. Each time I talk to an expert on my radio show we are told is our behavior that is the reason we are in the mess we are in. Every nuance we have is examined and studied and plans for re-vengeance are hatched. It has become us versus them. Instead of financial products getting simpler and more easy to understand, they ultimately become more nuanced, more layered with possibilities and as they get less expensive, they don’t become less expensive. It seems that all we want is to fall on the right side of cartoon law.

These laws were borrowed liberally from “Elementary Education” by Mark O’Donnell (Knopf (1985) in the hope that when you encounter these situations, you may fall on the right side of cartoon law.

Paul Petillo is the Managing Editor or Target2025.com/BlueCollarDollar.com and a fellow Boomer.