MONEY strategies

Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda: What You Can Learn From the Top 3 Pre-Retirement Mistakes

Researchers recently asked people nearing retirement what specific things they wish they'd done differently to better prepare for their post-career lives. Here's your chance to go to school on their answers.

There’s no shame in making retirement-planning mistakes. But it would be a shame not to learn from other people’s mistakes if you have the opportunity to do so. And now you do.

In May, researchers for TIAA-Cref’s Ready-to-Retire Survey asked people age 55 to 64 what steps they wish they had taken during their working years to increase their chances of achieving a secure retirement. You’ll find their answers below, along with the percentage of people who wished they’d made each of these moves. Think of it as your chance to turn their hindsight into your foresight, and boost your retirement prospects by learning, and profiting from, their mistakes.

1. They wished they’d started saving sooner (52%). Retirement can seem like a far-off horizon in the early and even the middle stages of your career. Which makes it easy to put off committing to a serious savings regimen to some vague date in the future. But procrastination can seriously stunt the eventual size of your nest egg.

For example, a 25-year-old who earns $40,000 a year, gets 2% annual pay raises and contributes 10% of salary to a 401(k) plan throughout his career would end up with an account value of almost $830,000 at age 65, assuming a 6% annual return.

If that same person waits just five years until age 30 to start saving for retirement, his nest egg would total just under $645,000 at 65, or roughly $185,000 less than with the earlier start. And if this 25-year-old doesn’t begin saving until age 35, come retirement time his 401(k)’s value would be about $492,000, or about 40% less than had he started in his mid-20s. Better to understand now the bite procrastination can take from retirement security and start saving sooner rather than later.

2. They wished they’d saved more of their paycheck (47%). Given the financial obligations we must take care of in the present—paying the mortgage, funding health insurance, raising a family—it’s not surprising that saving for the future often gets short shrift. That said, if most people take a hard-enough look at their budget, they can usually find smart ways to free up extra bucks to save for retirement.

And it doesn’t take a huge bump in annual savings to significantly boost the eventual size of your nest egg. For example, by just upping the percentage of salary saved from 10% to 12%, the 25-year-old above would end up with a nest egg of just under $1 million at 65 compared with almost $830,000 by saving at a 10% rate. And if through a combination of his own retirement-plan contributions plus any employer-provided match, he can increase his annual savings to 15% of salary—the level recommended by the Boston College Center For Retirement Research—he would have $1.2 million at retirement. The key is to free up those extra bucks for saving as early in your career as you can to maximize the benefit of long-term compounding of investment returns.

3. They wish they’d invested more aggressively (34%). This one is tricky. Yes, investing more of your retirement savings in stocks can lead to higher long-term returns and boost the eventual size of your retirement stash. For example, if our hypothetical 25-year-old saves 15% annually but earns a 7% vs. 6% annual investment return, his age-65 nest egg would jump to nearly $1.6 million.

But a more stock-intensive portfolio is also more vulnerable to setbacks, such as the 57% tumble stock prices took between October 2007 and March 2009. The key is arriving at a portfolio of stocks and bonds that can deliver solid long-term returns that’s also compatible with tolerance for risk, which you can gauge with a Risk Tolerance Questionnaire.

Fortunately, pulling off that balancing act between risk and return is eminently doable. And while the near-retirees surveyed didn’t say anything about investing expenses, I will: Namely, whatever mix of stocks and bonds you eventually settle on, you’ll increase your chances of earning a higher return if you stick to investments with low fees.

More From RealDealRetirement.com

How Smart An Investor Are You? Try This Quiz

More Sex—And 3 Other Tips For A Happier Retirement

The Smart Way To Double Your Nest Egg in 10 Years

 

MONEY year-end moves

3 Smart Year-End Moves for Retirement Savers of All Ages

golden eggs of ascending size
Getty Images

To give your long-term financial security a boost, take one of these steps before December 31.

It’s year-end, and retirement savers of all ages need to check their to-do lists. Here are some suggestions for current retirees, near-retirees, and younger savers just getting started.

Already Retired: Take Your Distribution

Unfortunately, the “deferred” part of tax-deferred retirement accounts doesn’t last forever. Required minimum distributions (RMDs) must be taken from individual retirement accounts (IRAs) starting in the year you turn 70 1/2 and from 401(k)s at the same age, unless you’re still working for the employer that sponsors the plan.

Fidelity Investments reports that nearly 68% of the company’s IRA account holders who needed to take RMDs for tax year 2014 hadn’t done it as of late October.

It’s important to get this right: Failure to take the correct distribution results in an onerous 50% tax—plus interest—on any required withdrawals you fail to take.

RMDs must be calculated for each account you own by dividing the prior Dec. 31 balance with a life expectancy factor (found in IRS Publication 590). Your account provider may calculate RMDs for you, but the final responsibility is yours. FINRA, the financial services self-regulatory agency, offers a calculator, and the IRS has worksheets to help calculate RMDs.

Take care of RMDs ahead of the year-end rush, advises Joshua Kadish, partner in planning firm RPG Life Transition Specialists in Riverwoods, Ill. “We try to do it by Dec. 1 for all of our clients—if you push it beyond that, the financial institutions are all overwhelmed with year-end paperwork and they’re getting backed up.”

Near-Retired: Consider a Roth

Vanguard reports that 20% of its investors who take an RMD reinvest the funds in a taxable account—in other words, they didn’t need the money. If you fall into this category, consider converting some of your tax-deferred assets to a Roth IRA. No RMDs are required on Roth accounts, which can be beneficial in managing your tax liability in retirement.

You’ll owe income tax on converted funds in the year of conversion. That runs against conventional planning wisdom, which calls for deferring taxes as long as possible. But it’s a strategy that can make sense in certain situations, says Maria Bruno, senior investment analyst in Vanguard’s Investment Counseling & Research group.

“Many retirees find that their income may be lower in the early years of retirement—either because they haven’t filed yet for Social Security, or perhaps one spouse has retired and the other is still working. Doing a conversion that goes to the top of your current tax bracket is something worth considering.”

Bruno suggests a series of partial conversions over time that don’t bump you into a higher marginal bracket. Also, if you’re not retired, check to see if your workplace 401(k) plan offers a Roth option, and consider moving part of your annual contribution there.

Young Savers: Start Early, Bump It Up Annually

“Time is on my side,” sang the Rolling Stones, and it’s true for young savers. Getting an early start is the single best thing you can do for yourself, even if you can’t contribute much right now.

Let the magic of compound returns help you over the years. A study done by Vanguard a couple years ago found that an investor who starts at age 25 with a moderate investment allocation and contributes 6% of salary will finish with 34% more in her account than the same investor who starts at 35—and 64% more than an investor who starts at 45.

Try to increase the amount every year. A recent Charles Schwab survey found that 43% of plan participants haven’t increased their 401(k) contributions in the past two years. Kadish suggests a year-end tally of what you spent during the year and how much you saved. “It’s not what people like to do—but you have a full year under your belt, so it’s a good opportunity to look at where your money went. Could you get more efficient in some area, and save more?”

If you’re a mega-saver already, note that the limit on employee contributions for 401(k) accounts rises to $18,000 next year from $17,500; the catch-up contribution for people age 50 and over rises to $6,000 from $5,500. The IRA limit is unchanged at $5,500, and catch-up contributions stay at $1,000.

MONEY Ask the Expert

Do You Really Need Medigap Insurance If You’re in Good Health?

140603_FF_QA_Obamacare_illo_1
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: We are in good health and have a Medigap Plan N for 2014. With same expected health in 2015, do we need anything more than Medicare A, B, and D plans? —Norbert & Sue

A: Medigap, a private insurance policy that supplements Medicare, picks up where Medicare leaves off, helping you cover co-payments, coinsurance, and deductibles. Some policies also pay for services Medicare doesn’t touch, like medical care outside the U.S.

This additional insurance is not necessary, but, says Fred Riccardi, client services director at the Medicare Rights Center, “if you can afford to, have a Medigap policy. It provides protection for high out-of-pocket costs, especially if you become ill or need to receive more care as you age.” (If you already have some supplemental retiree health insurance through a former employer or union, you may be able to skip Medigap; you also don’t need a Medigap policy if you chose a Medicare Advantage Plan, or Medicare Part C.)

If you purchase Medigap, you’ll owe a monthly premium on top of what you pay for Medicare Part B. The cost ranges from a median annual premium of $936 for Medigap Plan K coverage to $1,952 for Plan F coverage, according to a survey of insurers by Weiss Ratings. The median cost for your plan N was $1,332 a year.

Even if you didn’t end up needing your Medicap policy this year, however, think twice before you drop it.

If you skip signing up when you’re first eligible, or if you buy a Medigap plan and later drop it, you might not be able to get another policy down the road, or you may have to pay far more for the coverage.

Under federal law, you’re guaranteed the right to buy a Medigap policy during a six-month open enrollment period that begins the month you turn 65 and join Medicare, says Riccardi. (To avoid a gap in coverage, you can apply earlier.) During this time, insurance companies cannot deny you coverage, and they must offer you the best available rates regardless of your health. You can compare the types of Medigap plans at Medicare.gov.

You also have a guaranteed right to buy most Medigap policies within 63 days of losing certain types of health coverage, including private group health insurance and a Medigap policy or Medicare Advantage plan that ends its coverage. You also have this fresh window if you joined a Medicare Advantage plan when you first became eligible for Medicare and dropped out within the first 12 months.

Most states follow the federal rules, but some, such as New York and Connecticut, allow you to buy a policy any time, says Riccardi. Call your State Health Insurance Assistance Program to learn more.

Outside of one of these federally or state-protected windows, you’ll be able to buy a policy only if you find a company willing to sell you one.And they can charge you a higher premium based on your health status, and you may have to wait six months before the policy will cover pre-existing conditions.

MONEY retirement planning

Money Makeover: Married 20-Somethings With $135,000 in Debt—And Roommates

The Liebhards
Julian Dufort

A young couple gets some advice on how to save for the future even while saddled with loads of student debt.

Samantha and Travis Liebhard, both 24, met as college freshmen, married right after graduating in 2012, and quickly moved to Minneapolis so that Travis could start his graduate pharmacy program at the University of Minnesota—Twin Cities.

They face intimidating debts: Travis has racked up $135,000 in student loans and expects to incur another $60,000 before graduation. Barely making ends meet this year, the couple came up with an idea: Why not cut their $1,500 monthly rent in half by giving up their big two-bedroom apartment and finding room­mates to share a similarly priced four-bedroom unit?

So in September, two of Travis’s classmates moved in with the Liebhards. Now Samantha’s $40,000 salary in her public relations job and Travis’s $8,000 pay from a part-time hospital job seem like enough to get by on. Samantha complains about dishes in the sink and clothes left on the floor, but the four roommates get along well. “It’s helping me prepare to have children one day,” she jokes.

Retirement seems far away, given the Liebhards’ more urgent financial concerns, starting with the student debt. The couple also want to have kids and buy a house, but Travis won’t be making a full pharmacist’s salary of about $120,000 for another four years; after his expected graduation in 2016 comes a two-year residency, paying about $40,000 annually.

The Liebhards don’t know whether to save for re­tirement now or just focus on their debt. So far the couple have only $2,000 in the bank and $3,200 in retirement accounts. Samantha wants to get serious about saving for retirement, but Travis isn’t sure: “It’s hard for me to even think about retirement until we can real­ly do something about it.”

Helping the Liebhards navigate their options is Sophia Bera of Gen Y Planning in Minneapolis. The key to success, she says, is to have a reasonable spending plan and take incremental steps.

The Advice

Save in moderation: Given how much Travis owes, plus the 6.8% interest rate on most of his loans, repaying debt should indeed be the couple’s top priority, says Bera. So for now Samantha should only bump up her 4% 401(k) contribution to 6%—enough to get her full match. Her 401(k) portfolio—half in a 2020 target-date fund and half in a large-cap U.S. stock fund—is too conservative for her age and not properly diversified, says Bera. Her plan’s 2050 target-date fund, which is 80% in stocks, would be a better choice.

Bank some cash: Because the Liebhards have little saved for emergencies, Bera says they should put Travis’s $800 monthly pay­check­—the amount they are saving in rent—into a savings account; the goal is for that to reach $10,000, or three months of their net pay. Next, they need to budget Samantha’s $2,600 monthly take-home pay. Bera suggests $800 for the fixed costs of rent and phones, and $1,500 to be divided between discretionary spending and monthly essentials such as groceries.

Attack the debt: The $300 left over in Bera’s proposed budget should go toward paying down interest on Travis’s debt, even though he can defer repayment until after his residency; his current loans are accruing interest amounting to about $7,000 annually. Their payments will likely qualify the couple for an annual $2,500 student loan interest tax deduction over the next few years. Once Travis finishes his residency, Bera says, he should be able to pay off his loans in 10 years at the rate of $2,300 a month, while maxing out his 401(k) contributions ($17,500 is the current annual limit).

Though the Liebhards needn’t have roommates for­ever, says Bera, they should hold off on buying a home. “If you have student loans the size of a mortgage, you should avoid taking out a mortgage,” she says. Samantha is not so sure. “We can wait a few years after Travis graduates,” she says, “but once we have a child who’s able to walk, we’d like to have a place bigger than an apartment.”

More Retirement Money Makeovers:
4 Kids, 2 Jobs, No Time to Plan
30 Years Old and Already Falling Behind

MONEY Investing

The Easy Fix for an Incredibly Common and Costly Retirement Mistake

New proof that just showing up is half the investing game.

Writing about retirement inevitably turns you into the bearer of bad news. But last week brought a positive development: The downward trend in the percentage of workers participating in an employment-based retirement plan reversed course in 2013. The number of workers participating is now at the highest level since 2007, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute (ERBI).

Which means, unfortunately, that from a wealth-building perspective, the timing of the nation’s workforce is actually pretty terrible.

The ERBI has only been tracking participation rates since 1987, a relatively short window, but still a bad pattern has clearly emerged: Workers are less likely to participate after the stock market drops, so they lose out when the market recovers.

The participation of wage and salary workers peaked in 2000 at 51.6%, right before a 3-year bear market that saw the compound annual growth rate (the CAGR, which includes dividends) of the S & P 500 declining 9.11% in 2000, 11.98% in 2001, and 22.27% in 2002. In 2003 however, the S & P rebounded up 28.72%, but retirement plan participation rates continued to decline, hitting a low of 45.5% in 2006 before finally beginning to rise.

Then the same thing happened again after the financial crisis. Participation rates had peaked at 47.7% in 2007, before declining in 2008 when the S & P 500 dropped a whopping 37.22%. Even though the market began to bounce back immediately in 2009, participation rates continued to decline down to 44.2% until that trend finally reversed in 2013 according to the EBRI data released last week. With each stock market shock, the participation rate fell but never fully reached its previous high, so that the 2013 rate of 45.8% is still lower than the 46.1% participation rate seen in 1987.

This bears repeating: The participation rate in an employment-based retirement plan in 2013 was lower than it was in 1987. I don’t think I need to tell you what has happened to the S&P 500 from 1987 to 2013.

Now of course one could argue that it’s harder to save for retirement if your salary has been frozen, or your bonus was cut, or especially if you were forced to take a lower-paying job, as many who were able to stay employed throughout the recession experienced. Employers have also been scaling back or eliminating entirely company matches, which further disincentives workers from participating. But waiting until you start making more money to save for retirement is a losing game, especially if you subscribe to the new theory put forth by Thomas Piketty in his much-discussed but I suspect less-widely read book Capital in the Twenty-First Century.

Piketty’s thesis is that the return on capital in the twenty-first century will be significantly higher than the growth rate of the economy and more specifically the growth of wages (4% to 5% for return, barely 1.5% for wage growth.) Furthermore, the return on capital has always been greater than economic (and wage) growth, except for an anomalous period during the second half of the twentieth century when there was an exceptionally high rate of growth worldwide. It is the inequality of capital ownership that drives wealth inequality, a phenomenon that cannot be reversed as long as the rate of return continues to exceed the rate of growth, or as Piketty helpfully provides, R>G. (Full disclosure: I only read the introduction and then used the index to find sections that most interested me.)

If you apply R>G to retirement planning, it follows that it’s more important to be in the market than to wait for a raise or to reach the next step on the career ladder to start participating in a plan. The usual caveats apply: First you must get rid of any high-interest debt and create a three-month cushion for emergencies. But once you’re in a plan, if the economy—and your income along with it—hits some major bumps, it’s even more important to continue to contribute lest you miss out on the upside. Just remember: R>G.

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.

More on retirement investing:

Should I invest in bonds or bond mutual funds?

What is the right mix of stocks and bonds for me?

How often should I check my retirement investments?

Read next: Why Americans Can’t Answer the Most Basic Retirement Question

MONEY IRAs

Closing the Loophole Behind $10 Million Tax-Free Retirement Accounts

Fewer than 1,100 of 43 million IRA owners have what may be called outsized balances, and the IRS wants to rein them in.

The former presidential hopeful Mitt Romney lit a fuse three years ago when he disclosed his IRA was valued at as much as $102 million. Now the federal government wants to keep the issue from exploding, and is weighing actions that would prevent rich people from accumulating so much in a tax-advantaged account.

Last week, the General Accounting Office recommended that the IRS either restrict the types of investments held in IRAs or set a ceiling for IRA account balances. The idea is to give all taxpayers equal ability to save while making certain the amounts put away tax-advantaged do not go beyond what is generally regarded as sufficient savings to secure a comfortable retirement.

Romney’s campaign disclosure caught almost everyone by surprise. How could one person build such a large IRA balance when yearly allowable contributions — up to $5,500 a year in 2014 and $6,500 if you’re age 50 or older — have always been comparatively low? The answer lies in the types of investments he and privileged others were able to put in their IRA: extremely low-priced and often non-public securities that later soared in value.

One such security might be the shares of a privately owned business. These can reasonably be expected to take flight if the business does well and later goes public. That produces a wealth of tax-advantaged savings to company founders, investment bankers and venture capitalists. But these gains are not generally available to any other investor. Once an asset is inside an IRA there is no limit to how valuable it may become and still remain in the tax-advantaged account.

Restricting eligible IRA holdings to publicly available securities is one way to level the field and rein in the accumulation of tax-advantaged wealth. Another way is to cap IRA balances at, say, $5 million and require IRA holders to take an immediate taxable distribution anytime their combined IRA holdings exceed that threshold.

The GAO found that the federal government stands to forego $17 billion of 2014 tax revenue through the IRA contributions of individuals. That’s not a high price to pay for added retirement security for the masses. The problem is that under current rules only a select few will ever be able to put together multi-million-dollar IRAs. There are 43 million IRA owners in the U.S. with total assets of $5.2 trillion. Fewer than 10,000 have more than $5 million, and the GAO seems to have little quarrel with even this group. They tend to be above-average earners past age 65 who had been contributing to their IRA for many years—pretty much exactly as designed.

But just over 1,100 have account values greater than $10 million and only 300 have account values greater than $25 million, the GAO found. “The accumulation of these large IRA balances by a small number of investors stands in contrast to Congress’s aim to prevent the tax-favored accumulation of balances exceeding what is needed for retirement,” the report states.

Officials are now gathering data on the types of assets held in IRAs, including the so-called “carried interest” stake that private equity managers have in the investment funds they run. These stakes, which give them a percentage of a fund’s gain, are another way that a select few manage to sock away multiple millions of dollars in IRAs. No one doubts the data will illustrate that only a privileged few have access to outsized IRA savings. The Romney campaign showed us that three years ago.

Read next: 3 Ways to Have a Happier, Healthier Retirement

MONEY retirement planning

Retirement Makeover: 30 Years Old, and Already Falling Behind

Chianti Lomax
Julian Dufort

When she turned 30, Chianti Lomax had an epiphany: Her salary and savings weren't enough to buy a home or start a family. MONEY paired her with a financial expert for help with a plan.

Chianti Lomax grew up poor in Greenville, S.C., raised by a single mother who supported her four children by holding several jobs at once. Inspired by her mom, Lomax worked her way through high school and college; today, the Alexandria, Va., resident makes $83,000 plus bonuses as a management consultant.

But turning 30 last December, Lomax had an epi­phany: Her career and her 401(k)—now worth $35,000 —weren’t enough to achieve her long-term goals: raising a family and buying a house in the rural South.

Her biggest problem, she realized, was her spending. So she downsized from the $1,200-a-month one-bedroom apartment she rented to a $950 studio, canceled her cable, got a free gym membership by teaching a Zumba class, and gave up the 2010 Honda she leased in favor of a 2004 Acura she paid for in cash. With those savings, she doubled her 401(k) contribution to 6% to get her full employer match.

And yet, nearly a year later, Lomax has only $400 in the bank, along with $12,000 in student loans. Having gone as far as she can by herself, Lomax wants advice. As she puts it, “How can I find more ways to save and make my money grow?”

Marcio Silveira of Pavlov Financial Planning in Arlington, Va., says Lomax is doing many things right, including avoiding credit card debt. Spending, however, remains her weakness. Lomax estimates that she spends $500 a month on extras like weekend meals with friends and $5 nonfat caramel macchiatos, but Silveira, studying her cash flow, says it’s probably more like $700. “That money could be put to far better use,” he says.

The Advice

Track the cash: Silveira says Lomax should log her spending with a free online service like Mint (also available as a smartphone app). That will make her more careful about flashing her debit card, he says, and give her the hard data she needs to create a budget. Lomax should cut her discretionary spending, he thinks, by $500 a month. Can a young, single person really socialize on $50 a week? Silveira says yes, given that Lomax cooks for herself most evenings and is busy with volunteer work. Lomax thinks $75 is more doable. “But I’d like to shoot for $50,” she says. “I like challenging myself.”

Setting More Aside infographic
MONEY

Automate savings: Saving money is easier when it’s not in front of you, says Silveira. He advises Lomax to open a Roth IRA and set up an automatic transfer of $200 a month from her checking account, adding in any year-end bonus to reach the current annual Roth contribution limit of $5,500, and putting all the cash into a low-risk short-term Treasury bond fund.

Initially, says Silveira, the Roth will be an emergency fund. Lomax can withdraw contributions tax-free, but will be less tempted to pull money out for everyday expenses than if the money were in a bank account. Once Lomax has $12,000 in the Roth, she should continue saving in a bank account and gradually reallocate the Roth to a stock- heavy retirement mix. Starting the emergency fund in a Roth, says Silveira, has the bonus of getting Lomax in the habit of saving for retirement outside of her 401(k).

Ramp it up: Lomax should increase her 401(k) contribution to 8% immediately and then again to 10% in January—a $140-a-month increase each time. Doing this in two steps, says Silveira, will make the transition easier. Under Silveira’s plan, Lomax will be setting aside 23% of her salary. She won’t be able to save that much upon starting a family or buying a house, he says, but setting aside so much right now will give her retirement savings many years to compound.

Read next:
12 Ways to Stop Wasting Money and Take Control of Your Stuff
Retirement Makeover: 4 Kids, 2 Jobs, No Time to Plan

MONEY Financial Planning

How Families Can Talk About Money Over Thanksgiving

Family Thanksgiving dinner
Lisa Peardon—Getty Images

Holiday get-togethers are a great time for extended family members to discuss topics like estate planning and eldercare. Here's how to get started.

While most Americans are focused on turkey dinners and Black Friday sales, some financial advisers look to Thanksgiving as a good time for families to bond in an unlikely way: by talking about money.

The holiday spirit and together-time can make it easier for families to discuss important financial matters such as parents’ wills, how family money is managed, retirement plans, charity and eldercare issues, advisers say.

While most parents and adult children believe these discussions are important, few actually have them, according to a study conducted last spring by Fidelity Investments. Family members may avoid broaching these sensitive subjects for fear of offending each other.

That is where advisers can shine.

“When you help different generations communicate and cooperate on topics that may keep them up at night, it bonds them as a family,” says Doug Liptak, an Atlanta-based adviser who facilitates family meetings for his clients. It can also help the adviser gain the next generation’s trust.

Advisers can encourage their clients to call family meetings. They can also offer to facilitate those meetings or suggest useful tips to families that would rather meet privately.

Talking Turkey

Family meetings should not be held over the holiday table after everyone has had a few drinks, but at another convenient time.

“That may mean in the living room the next afternoon, over dinner at a fun restaurant, or at a ski lodge,” says Morristown, N.J.-based adviser Stewart Massey, who has vacationed with clients’ families to help them hold such mini-summits.

It is critical to have an agenda “and be as transparent as possible,” he says. Discussion points should be written out and distributed to family members a few weeks ahead to avoid surprises. Massey also suggests asking clients which topics are taboo.

Liptak likes to meet one-on-one with family members before the meeting. If you can get to know the personalities and viewpoints of each family member and make everyone feel included and understood, you will be more effective, he says.

“You might have two siblings who are terrible with or ambivalent about money, while the youngest is financially savvy, but you can’t give one person more say,” says Liptak.

It also helps to get everyone motivated if the adviser brings in the client’s children or other family members ahead of time to teach them about money management topics, like how to invest, says Karen Ramsey, founder of RamseyInvesting.com, a Web-based advisory service.

Sometimes the clients are the adult children who are afraid to ask how the parents are set up financially or where documents are, she says.

Ramsey says advisers can help by letting clients and their families know that a little discomfort may come with the territory. She will say, and encourages her clients to say: “There’s something we need to talk about and we’ll all be a little uncomfortable, but it’s okay.”

The adviser can kick off a family meeting by asking leading questions, such as “What one thing would you like to accomplish as a family in 2015?” says Liptak. Then the adviser can take notes and continue to facilitate the discussion by making sure everyone gets heard and pulling out prepared charts and data when necessary.

Massey suggests families build some fun around the meetings. His clients often schedule them around the holidays and in the summer, often tucked into a vacation or weekend retreat. It is a good practice to have them regularly, like board meetings, he says.

And if the family has never had a meeting before?

“Don’t start with the heavy stuff,” says Liptak. “It’s a good time to focus on giving and generosity, like charities the family can contribute to.

“You can collaborate on an agenda for later for the bigger issues.”

MONEY Retirement

The Surprising Reason Employers Want You to Save for Retirement

man fails to make a putt
PM Images—Getty Images

Companies have stepped up their game with better options and features. Still, savings lag.

Employers have come a long way in terms of helping workers save for retirement. They have beefed up financial education efforts, embraced automatic savings features, and moved toward relatively safe one-decision investment options like target-date mutual funds. Yet our retirement savings crisis persists and may be taking a toll on the economy.

Three in four large or mid-sized employers with a 401(k) plan say that insufficient personal savings is a top concern for their workforce, according to a report from Towers Watson. Four in five say poor savings will become an even bigger issue for their employees in the next three years, the report concludes.

Personal money problems are a big and growing distraction at the office. The Society for Human Resources Management found that 83% of HR professionals report that workers’ money issues are having a negative impact on productivity, showing up in absenteeism rates, stress, and diminished ability to focus.

This fallout is one reason more employers are stepping up their game and making it easier to save smart. Today, 25% of 401(k) plans have an automatic enrollment feature, up from 17% five years ago, Fidelity found. And about a third of annual employee contribution hikes come from auto increase. Meanwhile, Fidelity clients with all their savings in a target-date mutual fund have soared to 35% of plan participants from just 3% a decade ago.

Yet companies know they must do more. Only 12% in the Towers report said their employees know how much they need for a secure retirement; only 20% said employees are comfortable making investment decisions. In addition, 53% of employers are concerned that older workers will have to delay retirement. That presents its own set of workplace challenges as employers are left with fewer slots to reward and retain their best younger workers.

Further innovation in investment options may help. The big missing piece today is a plan choice that converts into simple and cost-efficient guaranteed lifetime income. For a lot of reasons, annuities and other potential solutions have been slow to catch on inside of defined-contribution plans. But the push is on.

Another approach may be educational efforts that reach employees where they want to be found. The vast majority of employers continue to lean on traditional and passive methods of education, including sending out confusing account statements and newsletters, holding boring group meetings, and hosting webcasts. Less than 10% of employers incorporate mobile technology or have tried games designed to motivate employees to save.

These approaches have proved especially useful among young workers, who as a group have begun to save far earlier than previous generations. Still, some important lessons are not getting through. About half of all employers offer tax-free growth through a Roth savings option in their plan, yet only 11% of workers take advantage of the feature, Towers found. This is where better financial education could help.

 

 

MONEY housing

How to Cut Your Single Biggest Expense in Retirement

bouncy castle in suburbia
An age-proof home is one where you can live safely, comfortably, and conveniently in your older years. Sian Kennedy—Getty Images

You're going to spend a lot on housing in retirement. Here's how to make sure your home serves your needs as you age.

The single biggest expense you face in retirement is housing, which accounts for more than 40% of spending for people 65 and older, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Yet all too often, you end up shelling out those bucks for places that don’t serve your needs well as you age.

By age 85, for example, two-thirds of people have some type of disability. If you can’t get around your house or community or you don’t have easy access to the medical and social services you need, you could land in a costly nursing home prematurely, according to a Harvard Center for Joint Housing and AARP study.

“People don’t think about how their home will support their needs until they face a health issue,” says Amy Levner, manager of the Livable Communities initiative at AARP. “It doesn’t have to be a catastrophe either. Even something as simple as a knee replacement could make it difficult to stay in your home or drive, at least short term.”

Here are 3 ways to make sure you’ll stay comfortable in your home as you get older.

1. Get your house in shape: Three-quarters of people would prefer to stay in their current home as long as possible in retirement, according to AARP. Yet just 20% live in a house with features to help them live safely and comfortably there in their older years. Among them: a first-floor bedroom and bath so you can live on the main level if stairs become hard to climb, wider doorways that make getting around easier if you need a walker or wheelchair, and covered entrances so you don’t slip in rain or snow.

Those can be pricey renovations, so the best time to do the work is while you are still employed so that you can use current income to pay the bill instead of tapping savings, says Levner. But many adaptations that make a big difference when you’re older are inexpensive. Those include raising electrical outlets to make them easier to reach, putting grab bars and a shower chair in the bathroom, and installing nonslip gripper mats under area rugs. (A list of the most important steps to take and their typical cost is below.)

2. Take it down a notch: To save money without necessarily moving far away—two-thirds of people want to remain in their hometown when they retire, AARP says—you can downsize to a less expensive, more manageable house. You could use the proceeds from the sale of your current home to add to your retirement savings, while significantly cutting maintenance costs.

The potential savings, based on estimates from the Center for Retirement Research, are compelling. If you move from a $250,000 house to a $150,000 one, for instance, you could net $75,000 to add to your savings, after paying moving and closing costs (typically 10% of the sale price). Meanwhile, your annual bill for upkeep would probably fall from around $8,125 to $4,875, assuming typical property taxes, insurance, and maintenance of about 3.25% of the home’s value. These calculations assume that you own your home outright; if you still have a mortgage, the savings you would reap from downsizing might be even bigger.

141118_ret_ageproof_1

Move in step with your peers: Relocating can also help you cut expenses if you move to an area with lower taxes and a cheaper cost of living. Look for places that have good public transit, transportation services for seniors, and walkable, bike-friendly neighborhoods that are a short distance to stores and entertainment and close to medical facilities.

Where should you go? AARP is now working with dozens of places to create age-friendly communities. They include Birmingham, Denver, Des Moines, and Westchester County in New York (find the list at aarp.org/agefriendly). Next spring AARP will launch an online index with livability data about every community in the U.S. For more inspiration, check out MONEY’s Best Places to Retire.

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