MONEY mortgages

The Surprising Threat to Your Financial Security in Retirement

House made out of dollar bills with ominous shadow
iStock

More Americans could face a housing-related financial hardship in retirement, according to a new Harvard study.

America’s population is going to experience a dramatic shift during the next 15 years. More than 130 million Americans will be aged 50 or over, and the entire baby boomer generation will be in retirement age — making 20% of the country’s population older than 65. If recent trends continue, there will be a larger number of retirees renting and paying mortgages than ever before.

A recent study published by Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies describes how this could lead an unprecedented number of America’s aging population to face a lower quality of life or even financial hardship. However, the same study also points out that there is time for many of those who could be affected to do something about it.

Housing debt and rent costs pose a big threat

According to the data Harvard researchers put together, homeowners tend to be in a much better financial position than renters. The majority of homeowners over 50 have retirement savings with a median value of $93,000, plus $10,000 in savings. More than three-quarters of renters, on the other hand, have no retirement and only $1,000 in savings on average.

While renters — who don’t have the benefit of home equity wealth — face the biggest challenges, a growing percentage of those 50 and older are carrying mortgage debt. Income levels tend to peak for most in their late 40s before declining in the 50s, and then comes retirement. The result? Housing costs consume a growing percentage of income as those over 50 get older and enter retirement.

How bad is it? Check out this table from the Harvard study:

Source: "Housing America's Older Adults," Harvard University.
Source: “Housing America’s Older Adults,” Harvard University.

More than 40% of those over 65 with a mortgage or rent payment are considered moderately or severely burdened, meaning that at least 30% of their income goes toward housing costs. The percentage drops below 15% when they own their home. If you pay rent or carry a mortgage into retirement, there’s a big chance it will take up a significant amount of your income. In 1992, it was estimated that just more than 60% of those between 50 and 64 had a mortgage, but by 2010, the number had jumped past 70%.

Even more concerning? The rate of those over 65 still paying a mortgage has almost doubled since 1992 to nearly 40%.

The impact of housing costs on retirees

The impact is felt most by those with the lowest incomes, and there is a clear relationship between high housing costs and hardship. Those who are 65 and older and are both in the lowest income quartile and moderately or severely burdened by housing costs spend up to 30% less on food than people in the same income bracket who do not have a housing-cost burden. Those who face a housing-cost burden also spend markedly less on healthcare, including preventative care.

In many cases, these burdens can become too much to bear, often leading retirees to live with a family member — if the option is available. While this is more common in some cultures, this isn’t an appealing option to most Americans, who generally view retirement as an opportunity to be independent. More than 70% of respondents in a recent AARP survey said they want to remain in their current residence as long as they can. Unfortunately, those who carry mortgage debt into retirement are more likely to have financial difficulties and limited choices, and they’re also more likely to have less money in retirement savings.

What to do?

Considering the data and the trends the Harvard study uncovered, more and more Americans could face a housing-related financial hardship in retirement. If you want to avoid that predicament, there are things you can do at any age.

  • Refinance or no? Refinancing typically only makes sense if it will reduce the total amount you pay for your home. Saving $200 per month doesn’t do you any good if you end up paying $3,000 more over the term of the loan. However, if a lower interest rate means you’ll spend less money than you do on your current loan, refinance.
  • Reverse mortgages. If you’re in retirement and have equity in your home, a reverse mortgage might make sense. There are a few different types based on whether you need financial support via monthly income, cash to pay for repairs or taxes on your home, or other needs. However, understand how a reverse mortgage works and what you are giving up before you choose this route. There are housing counseling agencies that can help you figure out the best options for your situation, and for some reverse mortgage programs you are required to meet with a counselor first. Check out the Federal Trade Commission’s website for more information.

All that said, avoiding financial hardship in retirement takes more than managing your mortgage. A big hedge is entering retirement with as much wealth as possible. Here are some ways to do that:

  • Max out your employee match. If your employer offers a match to retirement account contributions, make sure you’re getting all of it. Even if you’re only a few years from retiring, this is free money; don’t leave it on the table. Furthermore, your 401(k) contributions reduce your taxable income, meaning it will actually hit your paycheck by a smaller amount than your contribution.
  • Catching up. The IRS allows those over age 50 to contribute an extra $1,000 per year to personal IRAs, putting their total contribution limit at $6,500. And contributions to traditional IRAs can reduce your taxable income, just like 401(k) contributions. There are some limitations, so check with your tax pro to see how it affects your situation. Also, while contributions to a Roth IRA aren’t tax-deductible, distributions in retirement are tax-free.
  • Financial assistance and property tax breaks. Whether you’re a homeowner or a renter, there are assistance programs that can help bridge the housing-cost gap. Both state and federal government programs exist, but nobody is going to knock on your door and tell you about them. A good place to start is to contact your local housing authority. The available assistance can also include property tax credits, exemptions, and deferrals. Check with your local tax commissioner to find out what is available in your area.

Stop putting it off

If you’re already in this situation, or know someone who is, then you know the emotional and financial strain it causes. If you’re afraid you might be on the path to be in those straits, then it’s up to you to take steps to change course.

It doesn’t matter whether you’re a few months from 65 or a few months into your first job: Doing nothing gets you nowhere and wastes invaluable time that you can’t get back.

MONEY retirement planning

Smart Moves for Controlling Health Care Costs in Retirement

stethoscope with golf ball
pixhook—Getty Images

Planning for later-life medical costs is essential. These steps can keep you healthy longer and ease your worries.

It’s clear that planning for later-life health care costs is essential for a secure retirement—but figuring out what to do about them is a lot less clear. Out-of-pocket health expenses are not only a big-ticket item but are not predictable or controllable. No wonder few of us build financial strategies for future health needs, preferring the ever-popular ostrich plan: Place head in sand and hope for the best.

“Less than one out of six pre-retirees has ever attempted to estimate how much money they might need for health care and long-term care in retirement,” according to a report by Merrill Lynch and Age Wave, a consulting firm. Knowledge about Medicare is abysmal, the survey found, even among those already enrolled in the program.

And a recent health benefits survey by the Employee Benefits Research Institute, a non-profit retirement industry think tank, found that while nearly half of workers were confident about their ability to get the treatments they need today, only 30% were confident about that ability during the next 10 years, and just 19% are confident once they are eligible for Medicare.

Having a plan is a good way to build confidence. So start by taking a look at the mirror and asking yourself: How long do you think you’ll live and how healthy will you be in your later years?

“A 65-year-old male in excellent health can expect to live to age 87, while the same male in poor health has a life expectancy at age 65 of approximately 81 years,” said a recent study from the Insured Retirement Institute, a trade group that pushes annuity investments. A 65-year-old female in excellent health has a life expectancy of 89, or 84 in poor health. An average couple age 65 has a 40% chance that one or both will live to age 95.

While living to an old age may be better than what’s behind Door Number Two, it may prove costly. Old-age health expenses tend to be loaded into the last few years of life, often to deal with chronic illnesses, especially Alzheimer’s.

Average out-of-pocket health care expenses for that 65-year-old male will be an estimated $246,000 for the rest of his life if he is in poor health and dies at 81, the IRI study said. The lifetime bill rises to $345,000 for the healthy man who survives to an average age of 87.

Adopting healthy lifestyle habits may significantly reduce older-age health expenses. Just as important, it’s the best investment you can make in a higher quality of life during your later years.

The Merrill Lynch-Age Wave study recommends these proactive planning steps:

  1. Map out future out-of-pocket health expenses, including estimating future Medicare premiums and co-pays.
  2. Learn how Medicare and long-term insurance work.
  3. Develop contingency plans, for you and other family members, should illness cause lost income from an extended work disability.
  4. Broaden your planning to include those family members most likely to comprise your caregiving and financial support network.

The IRI report, not surprisingly, sings the virtues of using annuities to provide guaranteed lifetime streams of income to deal with long-running health care expenses. Many financial advisers prefer other investments. But you should at least look at annuity options as part of your long-term financial planning anyway.

If you’re especially worried about running out of money in your 80s— and, God willing, your 90s—then you should explore deferred annuities. Often called longevity insurance, a deferred annuity can be designed to not begin payouts until old age. If you buy one of these products in your 50s or 60s, the insurance company will provide very attractive payment terms. And it should, of course, because it will have the use of your annuity purchase money for 20 or even 30 years, with a good chance you’ll die before they have to pay you a cent.

The other insurance product worth a close look is long-term care insurance. Increasingly, this product is being linked with annuities to provide purchasers with choices—receive annuity payments or use the money for a qualifying long-term care needs. Generally, such hybrid products provide less bang for the buck than a pure annuity or long-term care policy. Also, keep in mind that your goal here should be to protect you and your family from ruinous health care bills. This is primarily an insurance product, not an investment.

Finally, the best annuity around is Social Security. It offers lifetime payments, annual inflation protection and government payment guarantees. That’s why I pound the drum of deferring Social Security until age 70, if it makes sense for your financial, family and longevity profile.

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 401(k)s

Here’s the Least Understood Cost of a 401(k) Loan

401(k) loans aren't always a terrible choice. But make sure you keep saving at the same rate during the loan payback period.

A loan from your 401(k) plan has well-known drawbacks, among them the taxes and penalties that may be due if you lose your job and can’t pay off the loan in a timely way. But there is a subtler issue too: millions of borrowers cut their contribution rate during the loan repayment period and end up losing hundreds of dollars each month in retirement income, new research shows.

Academics and policymakers have long fixated on the costs of money leaking out of tax-deferred accounts through hardship withdrawals, cash-outs when workers switch jobs, and loans that do not get repaid. The problem is big. Some want more curbs on early distributions and believe that funds borrowed from a 401(k) should be insured and that the payback period after a job loss should be much longer.

Yet most people who borrow from their 401(k) plan manage to pay back the loan in full, says Jeanne Thompson, vice president of thought leadership at Fidelity Investments. A more widespread problem is the lost savings—and decades of lost growth on those savings—that result when plan borrowers cut their contribution rate. About 40% of those with a 401(k) loan reduce contributions, and of those a third quit contributing altogether, Fidelity found.

To gauge the impact, Fidelity looked at two 401(k) investors making $50,000 a year and starting at age 25 to save 6% of pay with a 4% company match. Fidelity assumed that at age 35 one investor stopped saving and resumed 10 years later. At the same age, the other investor cut saving in half and resumed five years later. Both employees earned inflation-like raises and the same rate of return (3.2 percentage points above inflation). At age 67 they began drawing down the balance to zero by age 93.

The investor who stopped saving for 10 years wound up with $1,960 of monthly income; the investor who cut saving in half for five years wound up with $2,470 of monthly income. Had they maintained their savings uninterrupted each would have wound up with $2,650 of monthly income. So the annual toll on retirement income came to $2,160 to $8,280.

Nearly one million workers in a Fidelity administered 401(k) plan initiated a loan in the year ending June 30, the company said. That’s about 11% of all its participants and part of rising trend, the company says. The typical loan amount is $9,100 unless the loan is to help with the purchase of home—in that case the typical amount borrowed is $23,500.

These figures are generally in line with data from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, which found that the typical unpaid loan balance in 2012 was $7,153 and that 21% of participants eligible for a loan had one outstanding. The loans were relatively modest, representing just 13% of the remaining 401(k) balance.

Workers change their contribution rate for many reasons, including financial setbacks and a big new commitment like payments on a car or mortgage. But cutting contributions to make loan payback easier may be the most common reason—and the least understood cost of a 401(k) loan.

MONEY Ask the Expert

How to Live Well on Less by Retiring Overseas

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: I hear a lot about people retiring overseas to make their retirement savings go further. My wife and I are pretty adventurous. But can we really save money retiring in another country?

A: Retiring abroad isn’t for everyone—but more and more people are doing it. Nearly 550,000 Americans receive their Social Security benefits abroad, up from nearly 400,000 in 2000, according to the Social Security Administration. That’s a small number compared to the 43 million people over 65 receiving Social Security benefits. Still, 3.3 million of America’s 78 million Baby Boomers say they are interested in retiring abroad, according to Travel Market Report.

The growing interest in overseas living isn’t all that surprising, considering the worries of many pre-retirees about making their money last. There’s no question that you can live well on less in many countries. But to make that happen, you’ll need to plan carefully, says Dan Prescher, an editor at International Living, which publishes guides on the best places to retire overseas.

For most Americans, the biggest savings are a result of the lower prices for health care and housing overseas, says Prescher, who lives in Ecuador with his wife Suzan Haskins. The couple co-authored a book. The International Living Guide To Retiring Overseas On A Budget.

Most countries have a national healthcare system that cover all residents, and monthly premiums are often less than $100. It’s relatively easy to become a resident of another country, which typically involve proving you’ll have at least a modest amount of income, perhaps $1,000 a month.

But quality of health services varies, so research carefully, especially if you have medical problems. Even in countries with well-rated health care systems, the best services are centered around metropolitan areas. “Larger cities have more hospitals and doctors. The farther out you go, the quicker the quality falls off,” says Prescher.

Though Medicare doesn’t cover you if you live abroad, it’s still an option, and one that you should probably keep open. If you sign up—you’re eligible at age 65—and keep paying your premiums, you can use Medicare when you are back in the U.S.

Home prices, property taxes and utilities can be significantly lower in Mexico and countries in Central and South America, which are popular with U.S. retirees. In Mexico, you can find a nice three-bedroom villa near the beach for as little as $150,000, says Prescher.

But you’ll pay a premium for many other needs. Gas and utilities can cost a lot more than in the U.S. And you will also pay far more for anything that needs to be imported, such as computers and electronics or American food and clothing. “A can of Campbell soup can easily cost $4.50,” says Prescher. “You have to ruthlessly profile yourself, and see what you can or can’t live without, when you are figuring out your spending in retirement.”

Then there are taxes. As long as you’re a U.S. citizen, you have to pay income taxes to the IRS, no matter where you live or where your assets are located. Even if you don’t owe taxes, you must file a return. If you have financial accounts with more than $10,000 in a foreign bank, you must file forms on those holdings. In addition, the new Foreign Accounts and Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), which requires foreign banks to file U.S. paperwork for ex-pat accounts, has made many of them wary of working with Americans. You may also need to pay taxes in the country where you reside if you own assets there.

Check out safety issues too. Use the State Department’s Retirement Abroad advisory for information for country-specific reports on crimes, infrastructure problems and even scams that target Americans abroad.

The best way to find out if retiring abroad is for you is to spend as much time in your favorite city or village before you commit. Go during the off-season, when it may be rainy or super hot. See how difficult it is to get the things you want and what’s available at the grocery store. Read the local papers and check out online resources. In addition to International Living’s annual Best Places to Retire Overseas rankings, AARP writes about retiring abroad and Expatinfodesk.com publishes relocation guides.

The most valuable information will come from talking to other ex-pats when you’re visiting the country, as well a through message boards and online communities. “You’ll find that ex-pats have to have a sense of adventure and patience to understand that things are done differently,” says Prescher. “For many people, it’s a retirement dream come true.”

MONEY Social Security

How Student Loans Are Jeopardizing Seniors’ Retirements

Senior overwhelmed with debt
Chris Fertnig—Getty Images

Old debts are haunting retirees, as the federal government goes after their Social Security checks for repayment.

It’s a rude awakening for a growing number of seniors: They file for Social Security, then discover that the federal government plans to take part of their benefit to pay off delinquent student loans, tax bills, child support or alimony.

This month the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released findings on the problem of rising student debt burdens among retirees—and how the government goes after delinquent borrowers by going after wages, tax refunds and Social Security checks.

Under federal law, benefits can be attached and seized to pay child support and alimony obligations, collection of overdue federal taxes and court-ordered restitution to victims of crimes. Benefits also can be attached for any federal non-tax debt, including student loans.

It seems the student loan crisis isn’t just for young people. The GAO found that 706,000 of households headed by those aged 65 or older have outstanding student debts. That’s just 3% of all households, but the debt they hold has ballooned from $2.8 billion in 2005 to about $18.2 billion last year. Some 27% of those loans are in default.

If you’re among the 191,000 households that GAO estimates have defaulted, your Social Security benefits can be attached and seized.

“When that happens, the federal government pays off the creditor, and now it’s a debt to the federal government,” says Avram L. Sacks, an attorney who specializes in Social Security law. “So they can go after you for the loans—and now that students are reaching retirement age, long-forgotten debts are coming back to haunt them.”

The amounts that can be seized are limited, and the maximum amounts vary. In the case of any federal non-tax debt, including student loan debt, the government can take up to 15% of your monthly Social Security check. That’s a painful bite for low-income seniors living primarily on their benefits.

The law prohibits any attachment due to a federal non-tax debt that reduces a monthly benefit below $750. (Federal tax debt is not subject to this limitation.) Retirement and disability checks can be attached, but Supplemental Security Income—a program of benefits for low-income people administered by the Social Security Administration—is exempt.

In alimony or child support situations, garnishment is limited to the lesser of whatever maximums are set by states or the federal limit. The federal limits vary from 50% to 65% depending on how much the debt is in arrears and on whether the debtor is supporting a spouse or child. In victim restitution cases, the limit is 25% of the benefit.

Benefits can be deducted through an “administrative offset” against the amount the government sends you or through garnishment. In the case of garnishment, banks are required to protect the two most recent months of benefits that have been paid into your account, and the bank must notify you within five days that benefits have been attached.

Sacks advises people who have had benefits attached to establish stand-alone bank accounts for their Social Security deposits. “It’s much more simple and safe, and makes it much easier to trace funds,” he says.

Sacks says the government has been going after benefits more often because of changes in federal law and court rulings that have widened its powers. He urges people in their pre-retirement years to make every effort to pay off delinquent debts.

“It can be painful, but consider going to legal aid or finding a non-profit debt counselor who can help negotiate repayment. The worst thing is to ignore it.”

The government can go after delinquent debt while you’re working—but that requires a court judgment. ” are a known asset over which the federal government has total control,” says Sacks.

He adds that people sometimes are blindsided by garnishment for unpaid debts they had forgotten about. If you’re not sure about a federal debt, contact the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (800 304-3107), which serves as a clearinghouse for debts.

If the bureau shows a debt that you dispute, contact the agency that is owed. Do the same if your benefits already have been tapped. “Don’t try to deal with the Social Security Administration,” says Sacks. “They don’t have direct responsibility for the attachment.”

Finally, Sacks notes funds not in the bank can’t be garnished. Most people don’t hang on to Social Security benefits for long—they’re used to meet living expenses. “I hate to urge people to keep money under the mattress, but money that’s been sitting in a bank account for more than two months is exposed to attachment.”

MONEY housing

How the Financial Crisis Put Up Two More Barriers to a Secure Retirement

Two new studies underline housing and income challenges facing older Americans.

Monday marks the sixth anniversary of the bankruptcy filing of Lehman Brothers, a key event in the Wall Street meltdown that led to the Great Recession. The recession wreaked havoc on the retirement plans of millions of Americans, and two studies released last week suggest that most of us haven’t recovered well.

To be more precise: Middle- and lower-income Americans haven’t recovered at all, while the wealthiest households have done fine.

The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University (JCHS) issued its findings on the challenges we face meeting the housing needs of an aging population in the years ahead. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve Board released its triennial Survey of Consumer Finances (SCF), a highly regarded resource for understanding American households’ finances.

The Harvard study found that our existing housing stock is ill-suited to meet seniors’ needs, including affordability, accessibility, social connectivity and support services. And high housing costs are eating into the ability of low-income older adults to pay for necessities like food and healthcare.

Housing is the largest expenditure in most household budgets, and so is a linchpin of financial security and well-being. “It’s really at the nexus of your financial health, physical health and healthcare,” says Jennifer Molinsky, research associate at the JCHS and principal author of the study.

Harvard found that a third of adults over age 50 pay more than 30% of their income for housing—including 37% of people over age 80. Harvard defines that group as “housing cost burdened.” Another group of “severely burdened” older Americans spend more than 50% of income on housing. That group spends 43% less on food, and 59% less on healthcare, compared with households that can afford their housing.

Homeowners are much less likely to be cost-burdened than renters, the study found. But more homeowners are carrying mortgages well into retirement. More than 70% of homeowners aged 50 to 64 were still paying off mortgages in 2010.

The Federal Reserve findings on middle-class retirement prospects are equally troubling. Despite the economy’s gradual mending, the SCF found a widening gap in income and net worth. The top 10% of households was the only income band registering rising income (up 2% since 2010). Households between the 40th and 90th percentiles of income saw little change in average real incomes from 2010 to 2013. And the rate of homeownership was 65%, down from 69% in 2004 and 67% in 2010.

Ownership of retirement plan accounts also fell sharply. In the bottom half of income distribution, just 40% of households owned any type of account—IRA, 401(k) or traditional pension—in 2013, down from 48% in the 2007 survey. The Fed attributes the drop mainly to declining IRA and 401(k) coverage, since defined benefit coverage remained flat. Meanwhile, coverage in the top half of income distribution was much higher. In the top 10%, 95% of families are covered.

Overall, the average value of retirement accounts jumped a substantial 10% from 2010 to 2013, to $201,300. The Fed attributed that to the strong stock market and larger contributions. But for the lowest-income group that owned accounts, the average combined IRA and 401(k) value was just $39,100—and that is down more than 20% from 2007.

Considering the stock market’s strong performance in the intervening years, that suggests many of these households either sold while the market was depressed, drew down savings—or both. Meanwhile, upper-middle-income households saw a gain of 20% since 2007.

In Washington, lobbyists and policymakers have been debating about whether a retirement crisis really is looming. The various sides typically filter the data to support their viewpoints and agendas. But it’s difficult to think of two sources aligned than the Federal Reserve Board and Harvard. The SCF, in particular, is widely viewed as a gold standard survey that will be relied on for many economic reports in the months ahead. It includes information on the household balance sheets, pensions, income and demographic characteristics of about 6,500 families.

The JCHS study was funded by the AARP Foundation and The Hartford insurance company, so there’s a possible agenda there, if you doubt Harvard’s independence as researchers. (I don’t.)

Taken together, the studies paint the portrait of a widening divide in the retirement prospects of working Americans. No matter how the data is sliced, we’ve got problems that need to be addressed.

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 Ask the Expert

5 Strategies for Finding Meaningful Part-Time Work In Retirement

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: I want to find part-time work to bring in extra income when I retire next year. But I don’t want to be a greeter at Walmart. How do I find a job that’s meaningful but still flexible enough for me to enjoy my retirement life?

A: Working in retirement has become the new normal. Nearly three-quarters of workers 50-plus say their ideal retirement will include working, according to a survey by Bank of America Merrill Lynch and Age Wave. But they also want a job that is flexible and fulfilling. Some 62% of working retirees said staying mentally active was the most important reason to work vs just 31% who said they simply needed the money.

“A lot of people are in the same boat. They need to bring in some income and are happy to work but don’t want to go from a professional career to something mindless or boring,” says Tim Driver, CEO of RetirementJobs.com. Still, it’s often challenging for an older worker to find that combination. If you can, start the hunt while you’re still working and your skills are up to date—that way, you can leverage your current contacts. Here are five more tips to consider:

Look to your employer. If you like what you do and want to still use your professional expertise, a natural place to start is with your current employer, says Nancy Collamer, a career coach and author of Second Act Careers. “It might be possible to downshift into a part-time or seasonal schedule, freelance or be on-call as an in-house temp.” For advice on how to ask for a flexible work arrangement, go to WorkOptions.com.

Line up new clients. Does your career lend itself to consulting or freelance project work? Many fields do, from graphic design and event planning to tax advising and tech services. Consulting or freelancing is an ideal retirement job for retirees because of the flexibility it gives you to choose your projects and how much you want to work, says Driver. There are a number of sites that connect older workers to project work, including Driver’s RetirementJobs.com and RetiredBrains.com.

Fill in at a high level. For mid- and higher-level executives, another option is to temp as an interim executive. Interim execs fill an existing position while the company searches for a permanent replacement. It’s a great option if you still crave the prestige and pace of the executive life, but also want the flexibility to enjoy time off in between assignments, says Collamer. The Riley Guide lists firms that specializing in placing interim execs.

Find your passion. If you want to connect with work that you feel is most meaningful, you may be able to transfer your professional skills to a non-profit that focuses on issues important to you. “While nonprofits depend heavily on volunteers, most have at least a few paid staff positions,” says Collamer. Start volunteering now and see what opportunities are available. Nonprofits with tight budgets may be more open to part-timers. Check out non-profit job sites such as Bridgespan, Idealist and NonProfitJobs. Another good resource is Encore.org, which helps older workers transition to careers with a social purpose.

Seek adventure. Finally, if you’re looking for something totally new, check out CoolWorks.com’s Older and Bolder section. It is aimed at retirees looking for seasonal or temporary jobs at national parks, lodges, ranches and other outdoor destinations.

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

MONEY retirement income

Boomers Are Hoarding Cash in Their 401(k)s—Here’s a Better Strategy

Paul Blow

Yes, you need a cash reserve in retirement, but you can go overboard in the name of safety. Here's how to strike the right balance.

As you close in on retirement, it’s crucial to minimize the risk of big losses in your portfolio. Given how expensive traditional safe havens, such as blue chips and high-quality bonds, have become, that’s tricky to do today. So for many pre-retirees, the go-to solution is more cash.

How much cash is enough? Many savers seem to believe that today’s high market valuations call for a huge stash—the average investor has 36% in cash, up from 26% in 2012, according to a recent study by State Street. The percentage is even higher for Baby Boomers (41%), who are approaching retirement—or already there.

That may be too much of a good thing. Granted, as you start to withdraw money from your retirement savings, having cash on hand is essential. But if you’re counting on your portfolio to support you over two or more decades, it will need to grow. Stashing nearly half in a zero-returning investment won’t get you to your goals.

To strike the right balance between safety and growth, focus on your actual retirement needs, not market conditions. Here’s how.

Safeguard your income. If you have a pension or annuity that, along with Social Security, covers your essential expenses, you probably don’t need a large cash stake. What you need to protect is money you’re counting on for income. Calculate your annual withdrawals and aim to keep two to three years’ worth split between cash and short-term bonds, says Marc Freedman, a financial planner in Peabody, Mass.  That lets you ride out market downturns without having to sell stocks, giving your investments time to recover.

This strategy is especially crucial early on. As a study by T. Rowe Price found, those who retired between 2000 and 2010—a decade that saw two bear markets—would have had to reduce their withdrawals by 25% for three years after each drop to maintain their odds of retirement success.

Budget for unknowns. You may be able to anticipate some extra costs, such as replacing an aging car. Other bills may be totally unexpected—say, your adult child moves back in. “People tend to forget to build in a reserve for unplanned costs,” says Henry Hebeler, head of AnalyzeNow.com, a retirement-planning website.

In addition to a two- to three-year spending account, keep a rainy-day fund with three to six months of cash. Or prepare to cut your budget by 10% if you have to.

Shift gradually. “For pre-retirees, the question is not just how much in cash, but how to get there,” says Minneapolis financial planner Jonathan Guyton. Don’t suddenly sell stocks in year one of retirement. Instead, five to 10 years out, invest new savings in cash and other fixed-income assets to build your reserves, Guyton says. Then keep a healthy allocation in stocks—that’s your best shot at earning the returns you’ll need, and you can replenish your cash account from those gains.

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.

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