MONEY Aging

The One Thing You Need to Get Right for a Secure Retirement

walkable community
Getty Images

As Baby Boomers reach retirement, they need to make sure their homes and communities are age-friendly, a new report finds.

The biggest threat to your retirement security may be the home you live in, according to a study out today by the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies and AARP Foundation.

Your home and its location has an enormous—but often overlooked—impact on your quality of life and financial security in retirement, a problem that will only grow worse as the population of people ages 50 and older surges, according to the report. The number of people over 50 will climb to 133 million in the next 15 years, up more than 70% since 2000.

“Recognizing the implications of this profound demographic shift and taking immediate steps to address these issues is vital to our national standard of living,” says Chris Herbert, acting managing director of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies.

For older adults, their home is typically their single largest expense. One-third of people 50 and older and nearly 40% of people over 80 pay more than one-third of their income for housing, including mortgage or rent. But even if your mortgage is paid off, routine expenses such as maintenance, insurance and property taxes account for a big chunk of your budget.

Despite the costs, most people want to remain in their homes as they age—73% of people 45 and older say they would like to stay in their current residence as long as possible, an AARP survey found. And 67% say they want to remain in the same community. Yet most homes aren’t equipped with basic adaptions that would allow people to remain there as they grow older, such as no-step entry ways or lever-style handles on doors and faucets for easy opening.

Another looming problem is lack of transportation. A majority of older adults live in car-dependent suburban or rural locations, which can isolate them from friends and family. By contrast, seniors in areas that allow them to walk to the store or grab a bus, as well as receive services if necessary, are far better off.

Younger Baby Boomers, those now in their 50s, are particularly at risk for being stuck in housing that won’t work as they age. They have lower incomes and more debt than previous generations—three-quarters of homeowners age 50-64 were still paying off mortgages in 2010, up 12 percentage points from 1992. Younger Baby Boomers are also less likely to be parents: 16% of the youngest baby boomers, age 50 to 59, don’t have children who can take care of them in their older years.

The Harvard/AAARP report calls for federal, state and community-based programs, such as expanding housing, transportation options and senior services, to tackle the problem. But government-based changes, especially ones that need substantial funding, will be slow to materialize.

Even if you’re healthy now, the odds that you’ll need some kind of care grow the longer you live. By age 85, more than two in three adults have at least one disability, including cognitive, mobility or vision problems. Here are several moves to consider now that will help you live comfortably in your later years:

Retrofit your home now. If you want to remain in your current home once you retire, adapt it so it is easier to get around. For example, if your house has a lot of stairs, add a master suite or a full bathroom to the main level so you can live on one floor. Do it while you have the income coming in to pay the costs, as well as the energy to oversee a renovation. You can find guides to age-friendly remodeling projects at AARP’s Livable Communities site and advice at The National Aging in Place Council.

Downsize to a more manageable space. A smaller home or condo will give you less lawn and home to care for, as well as lower your tax, maintenance and insurance costs. There are also many new options for retirement housing are popping up around the country. Co-housing, for example, is a standalone residence linked to a shared space, such as a yard or community room where you can cook and enjoy meals with other residents of the community. House sharing, where a friend, family member or tenant moves in and helps with chores and expenses, is another alternative to consider.

Move to a senior-friendly area. Though few people have traditionally moved in retirement, Baby Boomers are more willing to relocate. Nearly 30% of boomers plan to move when they retire, another AARP survey found. For many, relocating can be a smart way to cut expenses, especially if you move to an area with lower or no taxes and a cheaper cost of living. Look for places with good public transportation, plentiful senior services and walkable areas. For useful resources, check out the list of 31 places AARP is working with to create age-friendly places, a Milken Institute report on senior-friendly big and small cities, and MONEY’s Best Places to Retire.

Make sure you have a strong network. Whether you move or stay put, having a solid network of family and friends is invaluable. The Department of Health and Human Services provides a National Caregiver Support program through the Administration on Aging.

MONEY 401(k)s

Why Your 401(k) May Only Return 4%

Faucet dripping coins
peepo—Getty Images

The biggest dilemma in retirement investing may be how hard it will be to grow our savings in the next decade.

There have been a lot of predictions from professionals lately about what kind of returns we can expect on our investments, and it doesn’t look good. In June PIMCO bond guru Bill Gross announced at the Morningstar conference (and subsequently to almost every media outlet in existence) that a close-to-zero interest rate was the “new neutral.” Gross envisions a market where bonds return just 3% to 4% a year on average, while stocks return a modest 4% to 5%.

Gross’s forecast echoes that of a number of other investment experts, including Ray Dalio, the head of Bridgewater Associates, the world’s largest hedge fund, who called this post-Recession era we are in “the boring years,” during which investors are likely to earn returns of just 3% for bonds and 4% for equities.

These low-return predictions are based, in part, on diminished expectations for the U.S. economy, with the IMF recently warning that our GDP growth may get stuck at 2% for the long term unless Washington adopts significant reforms.

A 4% return would be a huge decline from the historical performance of the U.S. stock market, which has earned an average annual 10% over the last 40 years. Many financial planners still use 8% to 10% as the expected return for stocks in 401(k)s and other investment portfolios. All of which presents a real predicament for those of us in the middle of our careers who have been assuming strong growth will carry us over the finish line.

You see, the real benefit of starting to invest early, the reason people in their 20s are exhorted to open retirement accounts, has always been the power of compounding in the last 10 or so years of a 40 year horizon—the hockey stick uptick on a line graph. But in order to experience that exhilarating growth curve, you need to earn an average annual return in the high single digits, not the low single digits. Compounding simply doesn’t have as much power if you start off earning 10% for 20 years and then earn only 4% for the second 20 years.

If these predictions come true—and I hope that they won’t—it will be much more difficult to make money off of money in the future. This will impact just about everybody age 40 or older: current retirees and people living off fixed incomes, those hoping to retire in five to ten years, and those in mid-career who will need to rethink their strategy moving forward.

The only real solution, as far as I can tell, is to save more and spend less. You can try to earn more, but another strange feature of this recovery-that-doesn’t-feel-like-a-recovery is that while unemployment has dropped, wages have remained stagnant. Besides, depending on your tax bracket, you would have to earn a lot more to get to the same amount after taxes that you could put aside by saving.

So while the investment pundits are making their predictions and coining their phrases, allow me to offer my own: we may now be entering the era of the New Frugal. After three decades of a declining personal savings rate, from 10% in the 1970s to 1% in the 2000s, the financial crisis of 2008 brought savings back up above 5% where it continues to hover. My prediction is that if stock market returns become stagnant, we might continue to see a reduction in consumption and an increase in savings.

What this all means for the economy as a whole I will leave to the experts to ponder. All I know is that if I can no longer expect a 10% average annual return on my retirement fund, I’m going to be a heck of a lot more conservative about how much I spend.

Konigsberg is the author of The Truth About Grief, a contributor to the anthology Money Changes Everything, and a director at Arden Asset Management. The views expressed are solely her own.

MONEY Ask the Expert

The Secret To Saving For Retirement When You Have Nothing Saved At All

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

A: I am a 52-year-old single mother. I have NO savings at all for any kind of retirement. What can I do? Where should I start? I also want to start something for my daughter who is 13. Please, I would really love your help. – Anita, West Long Branch, NJ

A: No retirement savings? Join the crowd. A recent survey by BankRate.com found that 26% of those ages 50 to 65 have nothing at all saved for retirement. But even in your 50s, it’s not too late to catch up or at least improve your situation, says Robert Stammers, director of investor education at the CFA Institute.

“You shouldn’t panic. People who start late have to forge a fiscal discipline, but there are lots of tools you can use to ramp up your savings,” says Stammers, who recently published a guide to the steps to take for a more secure retirement.

First, figure out your retirement goals. When do you want to retire? What kind of lifestyle do you want? What will your biggest expenses be? The answers will determine how much you need to save. If you want to maintain your current living standard, you’ll need to accumulate 10 to 12 times your annual income by 65, according to benchmarks calculated by Charles Farrell, author of Your Money Ratios.

You’ll probably end up with some scary numbers. If you earn $75,000 a year, you might need $750,000 to $900,000 by age 65. That amount would provide 80% of your pre-retirement income, assuming a 5% withdrawal rate. You probably won’t need 100% of your current income, since some spending eases up after you quit working—commuting costs and lunches out—and your taxes may be lower.

If you can live on less than 70% of your pre-retirement income—and many retirees say they live just fine on 66% —you may be able to retire at 65 with a $500,000 nest egg. Delaying retirement till 67 or later can lower your savings goal further to perhaps $400,000. (All these targets assume you’ll also receive Social Security; see what you’re eligible for at SSA.gov.)

Don’t be daunted if these figures seem out of reach. Even getting part-way to the goal can make a big difference in your retirement lifestyle. To get started, find out if you have access to a 401(k)—if you do, enroll pronto and contribute the max. People over 50 are eligible for catch-up contributions, so you can sock away even more than someone younger and you’ll save on taxes. You’ll also likely benefit from an employer match, which is free money. You can use calculators like this one to see how your contributions will grow over time. Someone saving 17% of a $75,000 salary over 15 years will end up with nearly $400,000, assuming an employer match.

If you don’t have a 401(k), then set up an IRA, which will also permit catch-up savings. Still, the contribution limits for IRAs are lower than those for 401(k)s, so you’ll need funnel additional money into a taxable savings account.

To free up cash for this saving program, review your budget and find areas where you can cut. “You’ll need to make some hard decisions about your lifestyle,” says Stammers. Small moves can help, such as downgrading your cable and cellphone plans and using coupons to lower food costs. But to make real savings progress, you’ll need to go after some big costs too. Can you cut your mortgage or rent payments by downsizing or moving to a cheaper neighborhood? Can you trade in your car for a cheaper model?

You can speed up your progress by tucking away any raises or windfalls that you may receive. And think about ways you can bring in more income to save—perhaps you have a room to rent out or you may be able to earn extra cash with a part-time job.

As for your goal of saving for your daughter, it’s admirable, but you need to focus on your own retirement. In the long run, achieving your own financial security will benefit your daughter as well—you won’t need to lean on her when you’re older. And by taking these steps, Stammers says, you’ll also be a good financial role model for her.

Do you have a personal finance question for our experts? Write to AskTheExpert@moneymail.com.

MONEY Financial Planning

Get Free Help Getting Your Retirement Off the Ground

Lipsticks in the shape of a dollar sign
Anthony Lee—Getty Images

As a millennial or Gen Xer, you face unique challenges when it comes to retirement. If you need some help getting going, share your story for a chance at a free financial makeover.

The two youngest generations of workers could use a hand with retirement planning.

Gen Xers have had a run of bad luck: a recession that slowed down their careers, a brutal bear market that hit in their early years as investors, and a housing crash that set in just as many had bought a first home.

No wonder they are feeling gloomy about retirement, according to a new survey from the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. Only 12% of Gen X workers say they have fully recovered from the recession.

Millennials, on the other hand, are off to a strong start, outpacing Baby Boomers and Gen Xers when it comes to saving for retirement. According to the Transamerica survey, 70% of millennials with jobs are putting money aside. They began saving at a median age of 22. Still, this group faces steep student loan debts, high unemployment, and uncertain entitlement programs in the future.

If you’re like a lot of people your age, you could use some help getting started, whether it’s tips on how to tame your debts and find money to save or advice on what investments to choose and how to best allocate the funds you’ve built up.

For an upcoming issue of Money magazine and Money.com, we’ll pair several novice retirement savers with financial planners to get a full financial makeover. To participate, you should be comfortable sharing details of your financial life, and keep in mind that story subjects will be photographed for the story.

If you’d like to participate, please fill in the form below. Briefly tell us how you’re doing and what your biggest challenges are. And include a little about your family’s finances, including your income, assets, and debts. All of this information will be kept confidential unless we follow up with you for an interview, and you agree to appear in the story.

We look forward to hearing from you.

MONEY Workplace

What Labor’s Win at Market Basket Means for Your Job Security

140829_RET_Market_1
Elise Amendola/AP

The victory at a New England grocery chain might seem like a fluke. But economic trends show that workers may be finally getting some leverage.

You don’t often hear about it, but every day, in countless workplaces, people make difficult choices to do the right thing by standing up for co-workers—often at great risk to their careers. These workers are the true heroes of this and any other Labor Day. Which is why what happened recently at Market Basket is so unusual: labor won a major victory, and it got a lot of press.

For those who don’t live in the Northeast, Market Basket is a family-owned New England grocery chain. A bitter family feud led to the ouster of the revered CEO, Arthur T. Demoulas. Market Basket’s workers backed his reinstatement with protests and rallies, which ratcheted up after the company threatened to fire some of them. Public opinion was heavily in the workers’ favor. Today the majority owners of the company announced their decision to sell their shares to Demoulas, who not only gets his job back but control of the company to boot.

It’s not everyday that you see relatively low-paid supermarket workers demonstrating on behalf of their CEO. But what’s really unusual here is the display of an all-too-rare commodity in an American workplace: trust between workers and management.

The Great Recession should have been dramatic evidence to those who manage and staff the nation’s workplaces that we’re all in this together. But, of course, it wasn’t. Employers cut payrolls and benefits—remember defined benefit pensions?—some of which perhaps was unavoidable. They also outsourced jobs and even entire operations to lower-cost markets, creating armies of freelancers who work without full salaries or even a 401(k) plan. Yet many companies, if not most, continued to provide upper-management lavish pay packages and perks that further distanced them from the people whose labor was essential to their long-term success.

Some people feel workers will never recover the ground they’ve lost. But there are encouraging signs that labor may be gaining some leverage.

Like an economist who has correctly predicted nine of the past two recessions, I have repeatedly stressed that the U.S. economy is running out of workers. Even though many Baby Boomers are continuing to work past traditional retirement age, the numbers of boomers who have retired exceeds the flow of new entrants into the labor force.

Up till now labor shortages were masked by steep employment declines during the recession. But the recovery has slowly reduced unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office just forecast improved economic growth rates over the next few years. And the Wall Street Journal, among others, recently reported that shortages of unskilled labor are forcing up wage rates in some parts of the economy. And other indicators show that the job picture is brightening for those looking for work.

No question, this recovery remains very disappointing. We haven’t recovered enough lost jobs. Real wage gains remain elusive. There are few if any signs that the economic gap between rich and poor is narrowing. But even abysmal growth will, over time, lead to spot labor shortages. And with immigration reform stalled, boosting the nation’s labor supply with more newcomers is not going to happen anytime soon, which will give workers more bargaining power.

Employers may already be responding. Gallup reports that 58% of workers—both full- and part-time—are “completely satisfied” with their job security. That’s a new high, which exceeds levels just before the recession and even the levels during the dot-com euphoria of the late ’90s. Gallup also found that 71% of workers were completely satisfied with their relations with co-workers, 63% with the flexibility of their working hours, and even 60% with their boss or immediate supervisor.

Confident employees are more likely to push back against their bosses and to seek other jobs if current employers fail to meet their needs. If today’s attitudes do translate into more employee assertiveness, we can expect to see not only higher wages and improved retirement benefits, but also increased demands for restructuring jobs and job responsibilities. This would mean jobs with more flexibility, jobs that use technology to allow teams to work together from different locales, and jobs that measure outputs and judge workers on results, not the number of hours they worked or time spent at meetings in the office.

Achieving such results will stretch both managers and employees. And it will require major efforts to rebuild trust. For now, I will just wish you a happy Labor Day, with a special shout-out to the folks at Market Basket.

Philip Moeller is an expert on retirement, aging, and health. He is an award-winning business journalist and a research fellow at the Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College. Reach him at moeller.philip@gmail.com or @PhilMoeller on Twitter.

MONEY Pensions

How To Be a Millionaire — and Not Even Know It

Book whose pages are hundred dollar bills
iStock

A financial adviser explains to two teachers why they don't need a lot of money in the bank to be rich.

Mr. and Mrs. Rodrigues, 65 and 66 years old, were in my office. Their plan was to retire later this year. But they were worried.

“Our friends are retiring with Social Security, lump sum rollovers, and large investment accounts,” said Mr. Rodrigues, a school teacher from the North Shore of Boston. “All my wife and I will get is a lousy pension.”

Mr. Rodrigues continued: “A teacher’s pay is mediocre compared to what our friends earn in the private sector. We know that when we start our career. But with retirement staring us in the face, and no more regular paycheck, I’m worried.”

Public school teachers are among the worst-paid professionals in America – if you look at their paycheck alone. But when it comes to retirement packages, they have some of the best financial security in the country.

For private sector employees, the responsibility of managing retirement income sits largely on their shoulders. Sure, Social Security will provide a portion of many people’s retirement income, but for most, it is up to the retiree to figure out how to pull money from IRAs, 401(k)s, investment accounts, and/or bank accounts to support their lifestyle each year. Throughout retirement, many worry about running out of money or the possibility of their investments’ losing value.

Teachers, on the other hand, have a much larger safety net.

Both of the Rodrigueses worked as high school teachers for more than 30 years. Each was due a life-only pension of $60,000 upon retirement. That totaled a guaranteed lifetime income of $10,000 per month, or $120,000 per year. When one of them dies, the decedent’s pension will end, but the survivor will continue receiving his or her own $60,000 income.

The Rodrigueses told me they needed about $85,000 a year.

Surely their pension would cover their income needs.* And since the two both teach and live in Massachusetts, their pension will be exempt from state tax.

As for their balance sheet, they had no mortgage, no credit card debts, and no car payments. They had a $350,000 home, $18,000 cash in the bank, and a $134,000 investment account.

But as far as the Rodrigueses were concerned, they hadn’t saved enough.

“All my friends boast about the size of the 401(k)s they rolled over to IRAs,” Mr. Rodrigues said. “Some of them say they have more than $1 million for retirement.”

It was time to show the couple that their retirement situation wasn’t so gloomy – especially considering what their private-sector friends would need in assets to create the same income stream.

“What if I told you that your financial situation is better than most Americans?” I asked.

They thought I was joking.

Their friends, I explained, would need about $1.7 million to match their $120,000 pension income for life.

To explain my case, I pulled out a report on annuities that addressed the question of how much money a person would need at age 65 to generate a certain number of dollars in annual income.

Here’s an abbreviated version of the answer:

Annual Pension Lump Sum Needed
$48,000 $700,539
$60,000 $876,886
$75,000 $1,100,736

If you work in the private sector, are you a little jealous? If you’re a teacher, do you feel a little richer?

The Rodrigues were shocked. Soon Mr. Rodrigues calmed down and Mrs. Rodrigues smiled. Their jealousy was replaced with a renewed appreciation for the decades of service they provided to the local community.

Whether your pension is $30,000, $60,000 or $90,000, consider the amount of money that’s needed to guarantee your income. It’s probably far more than you think. And it’s not impacted by the stock market, interest rates, and world economic issues.

With a guaranteed income and the likelihood of state tax exemption on their pension, Mr. and Mrs. Rodrigues felt like royalty. After all, they had just learned that they were millionaires.

—————————————-

* The survivor’s $60,000 pension, of course, would be less than the $85,000 annual income the two of them say they’ll need. A few strategies to address this: (1) Expect a reduced spending need in a one-person household. (2) Draw income from the couple’s other assets. (3) Downsize and use the net proceeds from the house’s sale to supplement spending needs. (4) Select the survivor option for their pensions, rather than the life-only option. They would have a reduced monthly income check while they are both living, yet upon one of their deaths the survivor would receive a reduced survivor monthly pension benefit along with his or her own pension.
—————————————-

Marc S. Freedman, CFP, is president and CEO of Freedman Financial in Peabody, Mass. He has been delivering financial planning advice to mass affluent Baby Boomers for more than two decades. He is the author of Retiring for the GENIUS, and he is host of “Dollars & Sense,” a weekly radio show on North Shore 104.9 in Beverly, Mass.

MONEY working in retirement

Here’s the Best Way to Rescue Your Retirement and Find Happiness Too

A second career can provide income as well as meaning. This advice from retirement expert Chris Farrell can help you plan your next venture.

Chris Farrell has a hot retirement investing tip for you, but it’s not a stock or bond.

Farrell wants you to invest in yourself. In his new book, Unretirement (Bloomsbury Press), he argues that developing skills that can help you earn income well past traditional retirement age offers a better return on investment than any financial instrument—and it can help transform the economy as it continues to heal from the Great Recession.

Farrell is senior economics contributor at public radio’s Marketplace, a contributing editor at Bloomberg Businessweek and a columnist for the Minneapolis Star Tribune. In a recent interview, I asked him to describe his vision of unretirement.

Q: How do you define “unretirement”?

“Unretirement” is about the financial impact of working longer. If you can work well into your 60s, even earning just a part-time income through a bridge job or contract work, you’ll make so much more in the course of a year than you could from saving.

That changes the financial picture—and not just income. You also don’t have to tap your retirement nest egg during those years, and you might be able to add to it. And it allows you to realistically wait to claim Social Security between age 66 and 70, depending on your health and personal circumstances.

Q: What are the essential tools and strategies for people trying to figure out how to unretire? Where should they begin?

The most important thing is to begin by asking yourself what it is you want to be doing—what kind of work. Do informational interviews with people. The real asset that older workers have is their networks—the people who have known them over the years. Talk with them to find out if you need to add new skills.

Don’t romanticize any particular idea—research it. Think about how you can take your existing skills and move into a different sector of the economy with those.

Q: One of the biggest obstacles facing older workers is age bias. Are employers adapting to help older people keep working longer?

The only evidence I’ve seen of that is at companies that face very tight labor markets—typically technology businesses. It’s also true for the nursing profession. For the rest of the economy, I’ve been to conference after conference focused on older workers, where employers wring their hands about all the brain power walking out the door. They’re sincere, but when they go back to the office they really aren’t motivated to do anything about it because the labor market isn’t strong enough

Q: If that’s the case, how will unretirement be able to take hold as a trend?

The economy is getting better, and labor markets are tightening. But this also will be driven by grassroots change. Many leading-edge boomers are negotiating their own deals, starting businesses or setting themselves up for self-employment with a portfolio of part-time jobs. It’s very do-it-yourself.

And attitudes are changing—there will be enormous pressure from society as people push for this. They’re going to be saying, “We’re pretty well educated, and healthier than we were before, and the numbers don’t work for us to go down to Florida or Arizona and retire—and we actually don’t want to do that.”

Q: There’s a great debate under way over whether we are headed for a crisis in retirement security or not. What’s your view?

I don’t think there will be a retirement crisis if we continue to work longer. But we’re going to want to do it with jobs that provide meaning rather than those that make people just miserable enough that they have to continue to work.

One thing that upsets me is that we have a conflation of financial stresses facing the middle class and pretending that the middle class will be in poverty in retirement—and that’s just not true. There is a group that is really vulnerable—they’ve worked all their lives for companies that don’t provide retirement or health insurance benefits. That is the really vulnerable group.

I think two-thirds of our society will be fine, but for this other group, it’s not about investing in a 401(k), because they simply don’t have the money. For them, Social Security will be the entire retirement plan.

Q: That suggests we will need to beef up Social Security, at least for the lowest-income retirees.

Absolutely. If a majority of us are healthy and continue to work and pay into the Social Security system, we will become a wealthier society—and we will be able to afford to be more generous with Social Security.

Chris Farrell’s write columns on second careers for NextAvenue.com, which also appear on Money.com; you can find his articles here.

MONEY retirement planning

Why Gen X Feels Lousiest About the Recession and Retirement

THE BREAKFAST CLUB, from left: Molly Ringwald, Anthony Michael Hall, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson, 1985.
Three decades after "The Breakfast Club" hit theaters, Gen X is still struggling. Universal—Courtesy Everett Collection

Sandwiched between much larger generations and stuck with modest 401(k)s, Gen Xers get no love from financial planners, marketers or media. No wonder they're feeling low.

The Great Recession took a heavy toll on all generations. Yet the downturn and slow recovery seem to have left Generation X feeling most glum.

Defined as those aged 36 to 49, Gen X members are least likely to say they have recovered from the crisis, according to the latest Transamerica Retirement Survey. They are most likely to say they will have a harder time reaching financial security than their parents. Gen X also is far more likely to strongly believe that Social Security will not be there for them and that personal savings will be their primary source of income in retirement.

“Generation X is clearly behind the eight ball,” says Catherine Collinson, president of the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies. “They need a vote of confidence. But they still have time to fix their problems.”

Arguably, Gen X was feeling most beat up even before the recession. This group is in the toughest phase of life: kids at home, a mortgage, not yet in peak earning years. Mid-life crises typically hit at this age. Studies show that the busy child-rearing years tend to be the unhappiest of our life. The happiest years are 23 and 69 with a big dip in between.

And let’s not forget that Gen X is only two-thirds the size of Millennial (ages 18 to 35) and Baby Boomer (ages 50 to 68) populations. Marketing companies and the media have largely ignored this generation, which early on acquired the downbeat label: slackers. Collinson believes the financial industry is equally focused on older and younger generations, leaving Gen X all alone.

“They have to stake out a plan and pursue it on their own,” she says. “The harsh reality is people have to take on increasing responsibility for their own financial security.”

Maybe that’s why Gen X believes it must build a bigger nest egg. Asked for their retirement number, the median Gen X respondent said they need $1 million. Nearly a third said $2 million or more. The median figure for both Millennials and boomers was $800,000 with only 29% and 23%, respectively, saying they would need $2 million or more.

Perhaps Gen X is being realistic. Even $1 million won’t provide a cushy lifestyle. A 64-year-old retiring next year with that amount would receive an annual payout of only $49,000 a year, according to Blackrock’s CoRI index, which tracks the income your savings will provide in retirement. Looked at another way: purchasing an immediate annuity for $1 million today would buy $5,000 of monthly income, according to ImmediateAnnuities.com. Not bad. But less than most might expect.

Gen X has boosted savings since the recession, the survey found. The typical Gen X nest egg is now $70,000, more than double savings of just $32,000 in 2007. This suggests that Gen X did a good job of sticking to their 401(k) contribution rate during the downturn, buying stocks while they were low and enjoying the rebound. Millennials did a little better, going from $9,000 to $32,000. Baby Boomers were less likely to hang in through the tough times, partly because older boomers were already retired and taking distributions. The median boomer next egg has risen to $127,000 from $75,000 in 2007.

Overall, Baby Boomers felt the brunt of the downturn. They suffered more layoffs and wage cuts, took a bigger hit to their assets, and by a wide margin more Boomers believe their standard of living will fall in retirement. But at least many Boomers are still blessed with traditional pensions and have a better shot at collecting full Social Security benefits.

Millennials are old enough to have learned from the downturn but not so old that they had many assets at risk. This generation began saving at age 22, vs. age 27 for Gen X and age 35 for boomers. Millennials also benefit from modern 401(k) plan structures with easy and smart investment options like target-date funds and managed accounts.

Meanwhile, Gen X is largely pensionless and was something of a 401(k) guinea pig when members entered the labor force. Plans then were untested and lacked many of today’s investment options or any educational material. The plans may have been mismanaged, subject to higher fees or even ignored. Even today, the Gen X contribution rate of 7% lags that of Millennials (8%) and Boomers (10%). Gen X is also most likely to borrow or take an early withdrawal from their plan (27%, vs. 20% for Millennials and 23% for boomers). Some of this relates to their period in life. But they have other reasons to feel glum too.

Still, there is some hope for Gen X. Recent research by EBRI found that if this generation manages to keep investing in their 401(k)s, most could end up with a decent retirement—no worse than Baby Boomers. And they still have time. If Gen Xers raise their savings rate a bit more, they can retire even more comfortably.

Do you want help getting your retirement planning off the ground? Email makeover@moneymail.com for a chance at a makeover from a financial pro and to appear in the pages of Money magazine.

MONEY retirement income

5 Tips For Tapping Your Nest Egg

Cracked egg
Getty Images—Getty Images

Forget those complex portfolio withdrawal schemes. Here are simple moves for making your money last a lifetime.

It used to be that if you wanted your nest egg to carry you through 30 or more years of retirement, you followed the 4% rule: you withdrew 4% of the value of your savings the first year of retirement and adjusted that dollar amount annually for inflation to maintain purchasing power. But that standard—which was never really as simple as it seemed— has come under a cloud.

So what’s replacing it?

Depends on whom you ask. Some research suggests that if you really want to avoid running out of money in your dotage, you might have to scale back that initial withdrawal to 3%. Vanguard, on the other hand, recently laid out a system that starts with an initial withdrawal rate—which could be 4% or some other rate—and then allows withdrawals to fluctuate within a range based on the previous year’s spending.

JP Morgan Asset Management has also weighed in. After contending in a recent paper that the 4% rule is broken, the firm went on to describe what it refers to as a “dynamic decumulation model” that, while comprehensive, I think would be beyond the abilities of most individual investors to put into practice.

So if you’re a retiree or near-retiree, how can you draw enough savings from your nest egg to live on, yet not so much you run out of dough too soon or so little that you end up sitting on a big pile of assets in your dotage?

Here are my five tips:

Tip #1: Chill. That’s right, relax. No system, no matter how sophisticated, will be able to tell you precisely how much you can safely withdraw from your nest egg. There are just too many things that can happen over the course of a long retirement—markets can go kerflooey, inflation can spike, your spending could rise or fall dramatically in some years, etc. So while you certainly want to monitor withdrawals and your nest egg’s balance, obsessing over them won’t help, could hurt and will make your retirement less enjoyable.

Tip #2: Create a retirement budget. You don’t have be accurate down to the dollar. You just want to have a good idea of the costs you’ll be facing when you initially retire, as well as which expenses might be going away down the road (such as the mortgage or car loan you’ll be paying off).

Ideally, you’ll also want to separate those expenses into two categories—essential and discretionary—so you’ll know how much you can realistically cut back spending should you need to later on. You can do this budgeting with a pencil and paper. But if you use an online tool like Fidelity’s Retirement Income Planner or Vanguard’s Retirement Expenses Worksheet—both of which you’ll find in the Retirement Income section of Real Deal Retirement’s Retirement Toolboxyou’ll find it easier to factor in the inevitable changes into your budget as you age.

Tip #3: Take a hard look at Social Security. The major questions here: When should you claim benefits? At 62, the earliest you’re eligible? At full retirement age (which is 66 for most people nearing retirement today)? And how might you and your spouse coordinate your claiming to maximize your benefit?

Generally, it pays to postpone benefits as your monthly payment rises 7% to 8% (even before increases for inflation) each year you delay between ages 62 and 70 (after 70 you get nothing extra for holding off). But the right move, especially for married couples, will depend on a variety of factors, including how badly you need the money now, whether you have savings that can carry you if you wait to claim and, in the case of married couples, your age and your wife’s age and your earnings.

Best course: Check out one of the growing number of calculators and services that allow you to run different claiming scenarios. T. Rowe Price’s Social Security Benefits Evaluator will run various scenarios free; the Social Security Solutions service makes a recommendation for a fee that ranges from $20 to $250. You’ll find both in the Retirement Toolbox.

Tip #4: Consider an immediate annuity. If you’ll be getting enough assured income to cover most or all of your essential expenses from Social Security and other sources, such as a pension, you may not want or need an annuity. But if you’d like to have more income that you can count on no matter how long you live and regardless of how the markets fare, then you may want to at least think about an annuity. But not just any annuity. I’m talking about an immediate annuity, the type where you hand over a sum to an insurance company (even though you may actually buy the annuity through another investment firm), and the insurer guarantees you (and your spouse, if you wish) a payment for life.

To maximize your monthly payment, you must give up access to the money you devote to an anuity. So even if you decide an annuity makes sense for you, you shouldn’t put all or probably even most your savings into one. You’ll want to have plenty of other money invested in a portfolio of stocks and bonds that can provide long-term growth, and that you can tap if needed for emergencies and such. To learn more about how immediate annuities work, you can click here. And to see how much lifetime income an immediate annuity might provide, you can go to the How Much Guaranteed Income Can You Get? calculator.

Tip #5: Stay flexible. Now to the question of how much you can draw from your savings. If you’re like most people, an initial withdrawal rate of 3% won’t come close to giving you the income you’ll need. Start at 5%, however, and the chances of running out of money substantially increase. So you’re probably looking at an initial withdrawal of 4% to 5%.

Whatever initial withdrawal you start with, be prepared to change it as your needs, market conditions and your nest egg’s value change. If the market has been on a roll and your savings balance soars, you may be able to boost withdrawals. If, on the other hand, a market setback puts a big dent in your savings, you may want to scale back a bit. The idea is to make small adjustments so that you don’t spend so freely that you deplete your savings too soon—or stint so much that you have a huge nest egg late in life (and you realize too late that you could have spent large and enjoyed yourself more early on).

My suggestion: Every year or so go to a retirement calculator like the ones in Real Deal Retirement’s Retirement Toobox and plug in your current financial information. This will give you a sense of whether you can stick to your current level of withdrawals—or whether you need to scale back or (if you’re lucky) give yourself a raise.

MORE FROM REAL DEAL RETIREMENT

Are You A Fox or A Hedgehog In Your Retirement Planning?

Why You Shouldn’t Obsess About A Market Crash

What’s Your Number? Who Cares?

MONEY Social Security

Here’s How to Handle Social Security’s Trickiest Claiming Rule

Grandfather with family
Cavan Images—Getty Images

Your spouse and other family members may depend on Social Security benefits. But their income may be limited by the family benefit "ceiling"—unless you plan now.

Social Security benefits include a surprising array of payments beyond your own retirement benefit. As I wrote last week, these so-called auxiliary benefits, which are geared to your earnings record, may provide income to your spouse (or former spouse), your children and even your parents. If you’re disabled, yet another set of Social Security benefits to your present and former family members may kick in.

This is, overall, a good deal. (And it’s a reason why delaying your own benefits is a thoughtful way to increase benefits to your loved ones.) But there is a big, big catch—it’s called the Family Maximum Benefit (FMB). This rule limits total Social Security payments to you and any eligible family members to a percentage of your own Social Security benefit. And it’s arguably one of the most tricky aspects of figuring out the best Social Security claiming strategy for you and your family.

Basically the FMB limits total payments to you and eligible family members to a total of 150% to 187% of the payments you alone would receive. It thus sets a ceiling on total family benefits—often, a very low ceiling. Here’s how it works:

Let’s say your spouse applies for spousal benefits based on your earnings and the payout is equal to 50% of your retirement benefit. Already we’re up to 150% of your retirement benefit. Now let’s say you have other family members who qualify for benefits—perhaps dependent children—who add another 150%, for a total of 200% on top of your payout. In all, these payments would cost Social Security 300% of your benefit.

This is where the the FMB ceiling comes in. If your FMB is 175% of your retirement benefit, then the rule will require the agency to reduce everyone’s benefit (except yours, which cannot be reduced) to a total of 75% of your benefit. Your family members will have to take nearly a two-thirds’ haircut in their benefits.

For those who want to get deeper into Social Security math—the rest of you can skip ahead—the FMB ceiling is based on what’s called your Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). This is the monthly retirement benefit you would receive if you started payments at what’s known as the Full Retirement Age (FRA), which is age 66 for those born between 1943 and 1954. (The FRA then will rise by two months a year for those born between 1955 and 1959, finally settling at 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later.) If your PIA is projected to be $2,500 in a few years, and you’re using this number for making auxiliary benefit decisions, here’s the way this year’s FMB formula would work:

  • 150% of the first $1,042 of your PIA (or $1,563);
  • 272% of the PIA between $1,042 through $1,505 (or $1,259);
  • 134% of the PIA over $1,505 through $1,962 (or $612); and,
  • 175% of the PIA over $1,962 (or $942).

The sum of these four numbers—$4,376—is the FMB for monthly benefits for all Social Security claims based on your earnings record. It equals 175% of your PIA. There is a separate formula covering FMBs for disabled persons, and it can produce very small benefits for lower-income claimants.

Is there a way around the FMB ceiling? Yes, but only if your family is flexible. Since the FMB limits apply to total benefits being collected on your earnings record in a given year, consider staggering the timing of your family’s claims. That way, they may be able to stay under the ceiling.

Here’s one example: Say you have a spouse and younger children who qualify for benefits. If your FMB would seriously reduce all these benefits, it might be best for your husband or wife to hold off on claiming the spousal benefit and take the child benefits only. The amount of money your family receives might not drop much, if at all. And the child benefits likely will expire anyway when the kids are older. Your spouse can make a claim at a later date, when the benefit also may have risen in value, depending on your age and the age of your significant other. Clearly, when it comes to strategizing benefits, Social Security is a family affair.

Philip Moeller is an expert on retirement, aging, and health. He is an award-winning business journalist and a research fellow at the Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College. Reach him at moeller.philip@gmail.com or @PhilMoeller on Twitter.

Your browser, Internet Explorer 8 or below, is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46,493 other followers