MONEY early retirement

The Most Important Move to Make If You Want to Retire Early

Small birdhouse
Michael Blann—Getty Images

Housing is the most dangerous expense for those seeking financial freedom. Here's what you can do to control those costs.

Looking to achieve financial independence and retire sooner? A top priority should be to control expenses—especially your major living expenses like housing, food, transportation, health care, and recreation. We’ll focus on the rest of these spending categories in future columns, but for now let’s take a look at housing—the single largest expense for many, and one that can all too easily sabotage your journey to financial freedom.

Housing-related decisions will impact your financial independence by years, if not decades. Homes are a downright dangerous expense variable, because price tags are high, leverage (borrowing) is usually required, and various financial “experts” with their own agendas are usually involved. And houses expose our vanities, tempting us to spend for the approval of others, instead of in our own best interests. Losses of tens of thousands of dollars are routine in real estate, and can completely derail your savings plan.

Even when you don’t suffer an outright loss, changing homes is expensive. I moved around in my 20’s, had few possessions, and rented, so the cost of relocating was minimal. Then I married, we bought our first house, and had a child. Our next move was punishing: We were forced to sell our house at a steep loss, and, because of all our new stuff, we had to hire professional movers for the first time. When we finally bought a house again, we stayed put for nearly 17 years. In retrospect, that long time in one place was an enormous help in growing our assets and retiring early.

How much does it cost to change homes? By the time you add up the costs of selling, relocating, buying again, and settling in, you can easily spend $20,000, or more. According to Zillow, closing costs to a home buyer run from 2% to 5% of the purchase price. The seller doesn’t have mortgage-related costs but is likely paying a realtor commission as high as 6% or 7%. Then there are moving costs, and the inevitable shakedown costs with any new home: painting, carpets and curtains, repairs, supplies and furnishings, and basic improvements to suit your lifestyle.

In short, changing homes is frightfully expensive, and will probably eat up most of the average family’s potential savings for several years running.

Of course there are scenarios like career moves, where you don’t have the luxury of staying in place. But anytime the choice to move is yours, stop and consider the expenses. The worst possible choice would be an optional move into a larger house that you don’t really need. You are taking on a big one-time expense, plus a bigger ongoing mortgage and maintenance obligation. If more space is truly necessary, consider instead modifying your current home: When our son reached the later teen years, we renovated a larger downstairs room so he could have more space.

Once you’re in your home, be smart about home improvement projects, especially those you can’t do cheaply yourself. Trying to create the “perfect” home is an uphill battle, at best. Borrowing to improve your home is an especially bad idea, in my opinion. You can spend vast sums of money without measurably improving your quality of life. And old assumptions about getting that money back when you sell are outdated. For 2014, Remodeling Magazine reports that the average cost-value ratio for 35 representative home improvement projects stood at just about 66%. In other words, you don’t make money when you sell: rather, you only get about two-thirds of your money back! Financially speaking, that’s a lousy investment.

Lastly, while there are situations where it makes sense, on paper, to hold a mortgage, for those truly dedicated to financial independence, the disadvantages of debt often outweigh the benefits. In general, pay off your mortgage as soon as possible. Using extra income to pay down a mortgage loan can be a solid investment in today’s low-return environment. We paid off our mortgage years before retiring, and the peace of mind was invaluable. Now, in retirement, we rent instead of own. It’s a flexible, economical, and low-hassle lifestyle.

In short, maintaining a home will be one of your largest life expenses. Pay careful attention to your housing decisions if you’re serious about financial freedom!

Darrow Kirkpatrick is a software engineer and author who lived frugally, invested successfully, and retired in 2011 at age 50. He writes regularly about saving, investing and retiring on his blog CanIRetireYet.com. This column appears monthly.

More from Darrow Kirkpatrick:

The Single Most Important Thing You Can Do to Achieve Financial Success

The One Retirement Question You Must Get Right

How to Figure Out Your Real Cost of Living in Retirement

Read next: 3 Little Mistakes That Can Sink Your Retirement

MONEY retirement age

How to Know When It’s Time to Retire

Birthday candles
Fuse—Getty Images

I’ve long argued that one’s quality of life should be a principal factor in deciding when to retire. At the same time, however, financial considerations can’t be ignored. With this in mind, here are three rules of thumb to help you decide whether you’ve reached the perfect age to retire.

1. Have you saved enough money?

The “multiply by-25″ rule is a popular tool that retirement experts encourage people to use to estimate whether they’ve saved enough money to stop working and, at least hopefully, begin a life of leisure.

Here’s how it works: Multiply your desired annual income in retirement, less projected annual Social Security benefits, by 25. If your savings are greater than that, then you’re in good shape. If not, then you may not be financially ready to retire.

For example, let’s say that Bob and Mary Jane estimate they’ll spend $40,000 a year in retirement. Using the rule of 25, they’ll need savings of $1 million.

A slightly different iteration of this is the “multiply by-300″ rule. This is the same thing, but it focuses on months instead of years — that is, take your average monthly expenditures, minus your monthly Social Security check, and multiply that by 300.

If your savings are greater than that, then you’re all set. If not, then you might want to continue working for a few more years.

2. Will you have enough income?

This question is related to the first one, but it attacks the issue from a slightly different angle. As such, it also has its own rule of thumb: the 4% rule.

This rule holds that you can safely withdraw 4% from your portfolio every year and still be confident it will last through retirement. Thus, to determine if you’ll have enough income in retirement, multiply your portfolio by 4% and then add in your projected annual Social Security benefits — to learn one potential problem with this rule, click here.

If the sum of these two numbers is enough to cover your expenses, then you’re ready to retire. If not, then it may behoove you to put off retirement for a while longer, as doing so should allow your portfolio to continue growing. It will also give your Social Security benefits time to accrue delayed retirement credits.

3. Is your portfolio properly allocated?

Finally, determining if you’re ready to retire isn’t just about how much you’ve saved, it’s also about how your savings are allocated into various asset classes — namely, stocks and bonds.

To be ready for retirement, you want to make sure that your assets are invested in as safe of a way as possible. To do so, it’s smart to steer your portfolio increasingly toward fixed-income investments like bonds as you approach your desired retirement age.

Experts use the following rule to determine the proper allocation: “The percentage of your portfolio invested in bonds should equal your age.” Thus, if you’re 60 years old, then 60% of your portfolio should be in bonds and 40% in stocks. If you’re 55, then the split is 55% to 45%, respectively.

While this may seem like it has less to do with the timing of retirement than the former two rules, the reality is that it’s of equal importance. As my colleague Morgan Housel has discussed in the past, one of investors’ biggest mistakes is to underestimate the volatility in the stock market. According to Morgan’s research, stocks fall by an average of 10% once every 11 months.

Suffice it to say, a drop of this magnitude would have a material impact on both of the preceding rules, as a 10% decline in your stock holdings would equate to a much smaller income under the 4% rule and, as a corollary, it would call for a delayed retirement date under the multiply by-25 rule.

And the impact of this would be even more exaggerated if the lions’ share of your assets were still in stocks as opposed to bonds. Consequently, the culmination of your strategy to bring your portfolio into accord with this final rule is a key step in determining the perfect age at which you’re ready to pull the trigger and actually retire.

MONEY Social Security

The Social Security Mistake Even Its Reps Are Making

The rules surrounding claiming requirements are so complicated that the official source of information doesn't always get them right. Here's some guidance that will save you money—and keep you from settling for bad advice.

Claiming Social Security benefits is an exercise in timing. Benefits are pegged to what the agency calls your Full Retirement Age, or FRA, 66 for those now near retirement. Claim too early—or too late—and you could be out truly big bucks.

First, there are early retirement reductions. For example, if you file at the earliest claiming age of 62, your benefits will be reduced by up to 25 percent. Early claiming reductions are even greater for spousal benefits: up to 30 percent if a spouse files at 62 versus 66.

The agency also has rules affecting the maximum benefits that qualifying family members may receive based on a person’s earnings record. So if a worker files early, the whole family stands to lose benefits.

The effects of early claiming don’t end there. If a person files for spousal benefits before reaching their FRA, Social Security deems them to be filing at the same time for their own retirement benefits. They will receive the greater of the two amounts, but will not be able to file a restricted application for just the spousal benefit.

Further, they will not be able to suspend their own retirement benefit and take advantage of Social Security’s delayed retirement credits, which add 8% a year to someone’s benefits, adjusted for inflation, between the ages of 66 and 70.

When someone has reached their FRA, however, such deeming no longer applies. The claimant can file for just the retirement or spousal benefit, receiving its full value while letting the second benefit rise in value until they switch to it at a later date.

These are complicated rules. Even if you understand them, Social Security representatives may not, or there may be communications and misunderstandings.

That’s what happened to Steve Hirsh, from Ridgeland, Miss. After reaching his FRA, Hirsh filed for his retirement benefit. His wife, who is younger, has not reached her FRA and has not yet filed for any benefit. The couple’s plan, Steve wrote, is for his wife to claim a spousal benefit at age 66, which would equal half of Steve’s benefit at his FRA.

At the same time, she would suspend her own retirement benefit for four years. Then, when she turned 70, she would stop receiving spousal benefits and begin taking her own retirement benefits, which would have risen during four years of delayed retirement credits and reached their maximum amount.

Steve’s plan is sound, but he said that Social Security didn’t see it that way. “I have been told repeatedly by various Social Security reps that she cannot file for the spousal option because her [earnings] base is more than half of mine,” he wrote to me via email. In other words, her retirement benefit from her own work record would be larger than her spousal benefit from Steve’s work history. “Is the Social Security office correct that we can’t do this because of the relative values of our full base amounts?”

Steve got bad advice from Social Security. Repeatedly. The relative values of a couple’s Social Security earnings can come into play if either spouse files for benefits before reaching FRA and is deemed to be filing for multiple benefits. But deeming ends at FRA, and the relative values of a couple’s covered earnings does not restrict their ability to collect a benefit.

I asked Steve to take another crack at Social Security, and he did. This time, the agency got it right. He sent me the agency’s response, which said in part, “Please note that deemed filing is not applicable for a claimant who is full retirement age (FRA). If an individual is FRA, he or she can file for a spousal benefit and delay filing for his or her own retirement benefit until a later time.”

Steve was delighted. “This will make a significant difference in our overall retirement strategy,” he said.

Beyond congratulating him for being persistent, we should read this as a cautionary tale. Even the official source of Social Security information can make mistakes, and what you don’t know can hurt you. So, do your homework and understand Social Security benefits. If Steve and his wife had taken the agency’s earlier responses at face value, they would have lost a lot of retirement income.

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 early retirement

It’s Time to Rename Retirement

Senior doing yoga on beach
Image Source—Alamy

People change their minds — a lot — when it's time to stop working. Let's acknowledge how flexible retirement can be.

Some clients dream of retiring early. Others would like to work forever if they could. And a third set of clients…well, they’re on the fence.

Let me tell you about one of my clients who falls in that third category, and what my experience with him says about retirement.

When John and his wife (I’ll call them John and Jane) became clients of my firm two years ago, they were both in their early 50s. John, who had been retired for eight months, wanted us to evaluate whether he would be able to stay retired comfortably. Jane, who was still working, planned to stay at her job for another five years.

After crunching the numbers and running through several scenarios, we found that John — and Jane, too, if she wanted to — could retire immediately and most likely not have to work again.

The joy in the room was palpable as John described all the things he wanted to do with his time: Spend more time with his aging parents and his college-age daughter, spend more time fishing, and manage his real estate investment properties.

Fast-forward six months later. John called to let us know that he was going back to work for the same company from which he had retired. “One myth I’ve found out: You think you’re going to catch up on all those projects you’ve put off,” he told us. “You don’t.”

So we revisited John and Jane’s financial plan. Of course, more income made their situation look even better. John felt satisfied and happy to have his old routine back.

Ten months later, we got another phone call from John. He had changed his mind. Once again, he decided he was ready to retire. So we revisited the plan another time. Again, it was all systems go.

“Man, you just made my day,” said John. “No, I take that back. You just made my year!”

Sometimes, like John, we don’t know what we truly want. We grow up thinking we will work as hard as we can, so we can reach our golden years and retire to a life of vacationing, fishing, biking or fill-in-the-blank. And then, like John, we realize we’re not so sure.

For many retirees this is becoming more common. Having time to truly dissect your desires often helps to further clarify your true passions and what fulfills you on a deeper level. Walking through options can help provide peace of mind through these transitions. In today’s world we are seeing more and more of this type of trial-and-error decision-making about retirement. Retire for a while, only to go back to work, and then retire again so you can have control of your time and do things you truly enjoy.

Retiring these days is really just gaining the freedom to do what you want, when you want. It could be part-time work, volunteering, starting a business, or, in John’s case, going back to your old employer for a while.

Going forward, maybe retirement should be renamed “flexibility,” since that seems to be a more appropriate description for the way retirees are actually treating it. So right now, I think I will go spend some time planning my own “flexibility.”

——————–

Smith is a certified financial planner, partner, and adviser with Financial Symmetry, a fee-only financial planning and invesment management firm in Raleigh, N.C. He enjoys helping people do more things they enjoy. His biggest priority is that of a husband and a dad to the three lovely ladies in his life. He is an active member of NAPFA, FPA and a proud graduate of North Carolina State University.

MONEY Social Security

When It Comes to Claiming Spousal Benefits, Timing Is Everything

Seemingly straightforward questions about claiming Social Security spousal benefits can wind up becoming complicated in a hurry. Here's one answer.

Recently I received a question from a reader that opens up all sorts of concerns shared by many couples:

I am four years older than my husband. I have reached my full retirement age (66) in June 2014. My own benefit is very small ($289/month), since my husband is the bread earner. I have been mostly a stay-at-home mom.

Should I just claim my own benefit now and wait four more years for my husband to reach his full retirement age, then apply for spousal benefits? That means he will get about $3,000/month, and I will get half of his benefit.

Or should my husband apply for early retirement now, at age 62, so I can apply for my own spousal benefits? He can then suspend his benefit and wait four more years until his full retirement age to get more money.

Please advise.

First, your husband should not apply for early retirement at 62. If he does so, his benefit will be reduced by 25% from what he would get if he waits until age 66 to file, and a whopping 76% less than if he waits to age 70, when his benefit would hit its maximum.

Further, if he does file at 62, he cannot file and suspend, as you suggest. This ability is not enabled until he reaches his full retirement age of 66. So if he files early, he will be triggering reduced benefits for the rest of his life. And because his benefits are set to be relatively large, this reduction would involve a lot of money.

If your household absolutely needs the money now, or if your husband’s health makes his early retirement advisable, he could file early and then, at 66, suspend his benefits for up to four years. They would then grow by 8% a year from their reduced level at age 62 – better than no increase, but not nearly as large a monthly benefit as if he simply files at age 66 and then suspends.

I normally advise people to wait as long as possible to collect their own benefits. But this is probably not the best advice in your case. Here’s why:

When your husband turns 66 in four years, it’s clear that you should take spousal benefits based on his earnings record. You say he would be entitled to $3,000 a month at that point and that you stand to get half of that, or $1,500 a month. That $3,000 figure seems a little steep to me, so I’d first ask you to make sure that is his projected benefit when he turns 66 and not when he turns 70.

In either event, however, it’s clear that your spousal benefit based on his earnings record is going to be much, much higher than your own retirement benefit. Even if you waited to claim your own retirement benefit until you turned 70, your spousal benefit still would be much higher.

Thus, you’re only going to be collecting your own retirement benefit for four years, from now until your husband turns 66. Even though your own retirement benefits would rise by 8% a year for each of those four years, those deferred benefits would never rise enough to come close to equaling the benefits you will get by filing right away.

So, take the $289 a month for four years, and have your husband wait until he’s 66 to file for his own retirement benefit and enable you to file for a spousal benefit based on his earnings record. He may decide to actually begin his retirement benefits then or, by filing for his benefit and then suspending it, earn annual delayed retirement credits of 8% a year, boosting his benefit by as much as 32% if he suspends until age 70.

If he does wait until 70, he will get his maximum monthly benefit. But you also will benefit should he die before you. That’s because your widow’s benefit would not just be equal to your spousal benefit but would equal his maximum retirement benefit. So, the longer he waits to file, the larger your widow’s benefit will be.

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.

Related:
Here’s How to Avoid Making a Huge Social Security Mistake
Here’s How to Handle Social Security’s Trickiest Claiming Rule
How to Claim Social Security Without Shortchanging Your Spouse

MONEY Social Security

How to Claim Social Security Without Shortchanging Your Spouse

Deciding when to take Social Security can have a big impact on your family's income. Here's what you need to know.

When it comes to claiming Social Security, millions of people make this huge mistake: overlooking the impact on their family’s income.

Many people don’t realize that Social Security pays a host of benefits beyond your individual retirement income. The program may also pay so-called auxiliary benefits to your spouse, your children and even your parents. A separate program may provide auxiliary benefits if you become disabled, and, in some cases, if you are divorced or if you have passed away. The amount of these benefits is tied to your earnings record—the wages you’ve earned over a lifetime during which you’ve forked over Social Security payroll taxes—and your decision on when to file your claim.

To make the best choices about when to claim Social Security, anyone who is, or was, married, and especially those with children, needs to consider not only their own retirement benefits but also benefits that might be available to family members. This is especially true of survivor benefits.

Let me give you an example. (I wish it was simple but very little about Social Security is simple.) Say you’re 62 and your wife is 58. You’ve heard that delaying Social Security will raise your income but you want the benefits now, so you begin looking into the process of claiming them.

If you file for benefits at 62 (the earliest claiming age unless you’re disabled or a surviving spouse), they will be reduced by 25% from what you could get at full retirement age, which is 66 for people now approaching retirement. What’s more, that payout would be a whopping 76% less than if you waited until age 70 to file. To use convenient numbers, if your benefit at 66 would be $1,000 a month, you would get only $750 a month if you filed at age 62 but $1,320 a month if you waited until age 70.

Perhaps you’re okay with receiving lower income, if you start getting it sooner. But how about your family members? These reductions would also apply to their auxiliary benefits.

The most dramatic impact of early claiming decisions affects widows. Husbands are overwhelmingly likely to begin taking their retirement benefits before their full retirement age, according to Social Security data. Yet husbands are likely to die several years before their wives, statistics show, which leaves many widows struggling on small incomes.

Granted, many women have salary records of their own, and as their wages have increased over the past 30 years, so have Social Security benefits. But many women now reaching retirement age have not accumulated Social Security benefits equal to that earned by their husbands.

That inequality is a real problem for widows. While they both are alive, each spouse can collect his or her own Social Security benefit. But after one dies, the surviving spouse can only collect the greater of the two benefits. This is likely to be the husband’s benefit, even if it’s been reduced because he filed for it early.

As a result, millions of widows in this country are receiving reduced survivor benefits based on their late husband’s earnings record. Had he waited to file, their survivor benefits would have been higher—much higher in many cases.

The trend is so pronounced that the agency devised a special way of calculating benefits to try and ease its impact. It’s called the Retirement Insurance Benefit Limit, or RIB-LIM in the agency’s acronym-crazy jargon. It’s also known as the Widow(er)’s Limit.

When you make the decision when to claim Social Security, make sure it’s in the best interest of everyone in the family. To really understand this decision, you’ll need to know about Social Security’s family maximum benefits. Tune in next week to learn how they work.

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 retirement planning

The One Retirement Question You Must Get Right

Man slamming his head into chalkboard of theorems in frustration
Getty Images

Figuring out how big a nest egg you need is a huge financial planning challenge. Here are some helpful tips from an expert who retired at 50.

How much money do you need to retire? This is one of the most difficult questions in all of financial planning. Countless words are written, endless fees are charged, and plenty of sleep is lost, just trying to answer it!

But I’ll tell you a secret—a truth that none in financial services and few in the financial media will admit. We don’t know how much you need to retire! Beyond some broad ranges that have worked in the past, it’s practically impossible to calculate the precise amount of money needed to carry you through a retirement lasting decades or more into the future.

Why? Because, in addition to predicting a host of smaller factors, computing how much you need to retire requires pinning down two huge and essentially unknowable variables: the length of your life, and the real return on your investments. (That’s the actual return, after inflation.)

If you misjudge your life expectancy by even a few years, you could potentially die broke, or with tens of thousands of unspent dollars on the table. If you misgauge your real rate of return by just 1% (and the pros miss it by more than that, all the time), the error in a half-million dollar portfolio over a 30-year retirement will be about $175,000—one-third of the starting value, and a lot of money to go missing!

So there can be no precise answer to this question. And, yet, you must answer it, in some fashion, if you don’t want to go on working forever. So where do you begin?

As I’ve written before, knowing your expenses is an essential first step to retirement planning. You simply must know what it costs you to live each month, in order to get any sense for what you must save to retire.

From that monthly expense number you can subtract any guaranteed, inflation-adjusted income that you are certain to receive in retirement: Social Security for many of us, pensions for a fortunate few, and annuities for those who buy them.

Your remaining expenses must be funded from your investment portfolio. The traditional approach has been the 4% Rule, which states that you can withdraw 4% of your portfolio in the first year, then adjust that withdrawal amount for inflation each year, without fear of running out over the course of a 30-year retirement. However, some experts say this rule is too optimistic for the current difficult economic times, with low interest rates and high market valuations. On the other hand, if you retire in better economic times, or if you choose to annuitize your assets, the rule might be too conservative. (You can find online tools that will let you see the impact of using different economic assumptions—I mention three of the best retirement calculators in this article.)

Boiling down all the research papers, case studies, and opinions that I have read on this topic—and I read about it nearly every day—I can tell you this: The safe withdrawal rates from your retirement savings probably range from about 5% on the optimistic side to about 3% on the conservative side.

That means, for example, if your living expenses not covered by guaranteed inflation-adjusted income were $3,000 a month in retirement, then you would need between $720,000 in savings on the optimistic side, to $1.2 million on the conservative side, to provide for your lifestyle over a several-decade retirement.

Thus if your savings were in that range you could consider retiring. But there is more to it than that, especially for an early retiree. You would also need to factor in the risk that you would run low, and your ability to do something about it. That risk would be a function of the economic environment you retire into, and the longevity factors in your family. The ability to do something about it would be a function of your age and health at retirement, your professional skills, and your lifestyle flexibility.

In the end, there is no simple answer to the question “Do I have enough to retire?” But, there is a range of possibilities, based on historical data and your own risks and capabilities. And, even after you’ve made the retirement decision, you still need to assess and drive your retirement, especially in the early years. So, once you’ve started on the retirement journey, don’t fall asleep at the wheel!

Darrow Kirkpatrick is a software engineer and author who lived frugally, invested successfully, and retired in 2011 at age 50. He writes regularly about saving, investing and retiring on his blog CanIRetireYet.com. This column appears monthly.

MONEY Retirement

Here’s Why More Americans Are Retiring Earlier Than They Expected

More workers have retired early than late since the Great Recession, new Fed Data show. But it's not a happy story.

It seems counter intuitive: Of all Americans who retired since the Great Recession, more retired earlier than expected than later than expected, a new Fed report shows.

This finding appears to be at odds with everything we’ve heard about the growing need to delay retirement and — my all-time favorite oxymoron — work in retirement.

Yet the numbers don’t lie: 15% of those who have retired since 2008 did so earlier than planned; only 4% did so later than planned. This is according to the latest Fed data, which goes to September 2013.

The data clearly show what we all know: In order to make ends meet, workers intend to stay on the job longer, not shorter. Two in five workers 45 or older plan to delay retirement. Among pre-retirees 55 to 64 years old, only 18% expect to retire on time and stop working altogether. A quarter expects to work as long as they can and another quarter expects to work part-time or become self-employed in retirement.

Taken as a whole, this can only mean that we’ve seen a lot of forced retirements. In the lousy job market of the past few years, millions of older workers downsized out of employment couldn’t find suitable work. They retired rather than keep up the search or work for significantly less. That’s not good, and it helps explain other sobering statistics in the report.

Nearly 40% of households say they are just getting by or struggling to make ends meet, underscoring the uneven recovery. The rebound in stocks has mostly benefited the investing class. Home prices have improved, and that has helped a wider swath of the population—but not as much as you might expect. Of those who have owned their home for at least five years, about half say the value is lower than in 2008.

Meanwhile, many households are suffering from tight credit, student loans and poor retirement savings. Some of these pressures have eased in the past 12 months. The economy grew at a healthy 4% pace last quarter and mortgage lending has loosened up.

But a quarter of households have some form of student debt with an average balance of $27,840. One in five has fallen behind in payments on this debt. At the same time, 31% of workers say they have no retirement savings or pension, including 19% of those aged 55 to 64. Almost half of adults aren’t even thinking about planning for retirement. And yet, as the report shows, retirement may be coming sooner than they expect.

 

 

MONEY early retirement

How Much Money Do I Really Need to Retire at 55?

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: I’m 40 and can’t imagine working till I am 65. If I want to retire in my mid-50s, how can I make sure I have enough money to live a comfortable lifestyle?

A: How much you need to put away depends on the kind of lifestyle you want in retirement. A general rule of thumb is that you’ll need to replace 70% to 80% of your pre-retirement income to have a similar standard of living when you retire. So if you earn $100,000 a year, you’ll need roughly $80,000 in annual income. Some of that will come from Social Security (once you reach retirement age) and a pension, if you get one, so perhaps your portfolio will need to produce $50,000 to $60,000 of that income.

You’ll probably need less than your pre-retirement income because you’re no longer socking away a big chunk of your salary for retirement—and if you are aiming to retire early, you should be maxing out all your savings options and more. Your income taxes will likely be lower and many of the costs associated with working, such as commuting and eating lunch out, will disappear.

But if you retire at 55, you’re looking at funding four decades of retirement. That means you’ll need a much bigger cash stash than someone with a standard 30-year time horizon, says Charles Farrell, CEO of Northstar Investment Advisors and author of Your Money Ratios: Eight Simple Tools for Financial Security.

If you work till the traditional retirement age of 65, you should have 12 times your annual household income saved, says Farrell. For someone earning $100,000 a year, that’s $1.2 million (his figures take Social Security benefits into account). But if you want to quit work at age 55 and replace 75% of your income, you’ll need 18 times your annual income or $1.8 million. That assumes a 4% annual withdrawal rate, adjusted for inflation. “Not only does your money have to last longer but as you draw down your nest egg, your savings has less time to grow,” says Farrell.

If you’re not on track, it’s not too late. As you hit your peak earning years and big expenses fall away, such as college tuition for your kids, you may be able to power save, putting away much bigger chunks of money. Or you can adjust your goal. “Maybe 60 or 62 is more realistic than 55 or you can get by on less than you think,” says Farrell.

If you push back retirement to age 62, you’ll need 16 times your annual salary saved. If you really want to quit work at 55 and you’re willing to live on 60% of your pre-retirement income, you’ll need 15 times your annual income. Or if you can get by on 50% of your household income—say you pay off your mortgage or you significantly downsize your home to cut your post-retirement expenses—a nest egg of 12 times your final income may be enough.

Early retirement requires a willingness to stick to a lifestyle that allows you to save diligently throughout your career, while avoiding money drains like high interest rate debt. If this is your dream, it’ll be well worth the effort.

TIME Business

The World’s Second-Richest Man Thinks You Should Work Only 3 Days a Week

Mexican businessman Slim attends the media after talking in the 20th annual meeting of the Circulo de Montevideo Fundation in Luque
Mexican businessman Carlos Slim attends the 20th annual meeting of the Circulo de Montevideo Fundation in Luque, Paraguay July 17, 2014. Jorge Adorno—Reuters

But retirement would be delayed until age 70 or 75

Carlos Slim, the world’s second-richest man finally said the one thing we’ve all been waiting for a self-made billionaire to say: work less. Way less.

At a business conference in Paraguay, the telecommunications magnate said it was time for a “radical overhaul” in the way people work, the Financial Times reports: people should only work three days a week.

“With three work days a week, we would have more time to relax; for quality of life,” Slim said. “Having four days [off] would be very important to generate new entertainment activities and other ways of being occupied.”

Well said, Mr. Slim. Well said.

But there’s a catch: in exchange for working fewer days a week, we should work for more of our lives. Instead of retiring at 50 or 60, workers should work until the age of 70 or 75, the 74-year-old Slim said.

Slim is the CEO of Telmex, which recently instituted a labor contract for workers to begin in their late teens and retire before they turn 50, with the option of continuing to work past retirement at four days a week for full pay.

Slim is worth upwards of $80 billion, according to Forbes, and is a major philanthropist and passionate Rodin collector.

[FT]

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