Retirement Income?

[modhatter]

I am currently 63 yrs. old and holding out for another 2 1/2 yrs for Soc Sec. I have one handicapped son, who I am concerned with providing for when I am gone, so my objective is to preserve and hopefully grow my current assets in order to leave what I have for him. Knowing the objective - here is my question. I need a NET income of about $4,000 month to live and pay expences. My current assets are:
My HOme (which I plan to sell next year) $500,000 Net
Cash $400,000
Rental Property (if sold) $500,000 Net
_________
$1,400,000 Assets

I have another small home in Arizona, that I will live in after I sell my home in Florida. My social security will only be approx. $1,600. In order to net $4,000 a month, I need a Gross income of approx. $5,700. My rental income is currently only about $2,000 a month. That's $2,100 short of what I need. I would have liked to put the $500,000 from my house sale into the stock market, but if I do that and take money out each year to help my short fall, I will not grow my money.

I could on the other hand, sell the rental properties ($500,000 Plus add 200,000 cash and keep other $200,000 in MM for emergency funds, and put that money into CD's earning 5% which will give me $2,916. income plus $800 from another rental I have in Arizona, which I would keep. That would bring me up to a gross of $5,316. (about $400 short) This would allow me to put remaining money in stocks for growth, and maybe take small shortfall amount ea. year if I had to.

I am not keen on annuities, as this will do nothing to preserve or grow my assets. When it comes to stocks, I am a novice. I have always had rental property in lieu of stocks. However, I have worked myself ragged with them and would love to be able to get out of them if it made sence. I will admit also, that I am somewhat afraid of the stock market from the stand point of possible loss. (aren't we all, I guess)

Can any of you more seasoned investors comment on my above scenerio and tell me your opinion of what avenue I should take to accomplish my goal.

modhatter

 

[Helios]

Is your son on SSI? depending on the state of residence, can mean 6-700/mo.
Have you visited with an attorney about his future, ie, possible trust fund?

Not so much help as additional issues

 

[charlie]

Vanguard's Wellesley Income Fund (35% large value stock and 65%
intermediate term bonds) pays about 3.8% currently ..... and it has
a decent chance of keeping up with inflation.  It would take about
$663k investment in Wellesley to generate the extra $2100 per
month that you need.  

Wellesley is a very conservative fund ..... even my 89 year old mom
let me put her money there.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[Dreamer]

Your son could possibly be entitled to social security benefits on your social security record if he were disabled prior to age 22.

Dreamer

 

[Art]

Modhotter,

First, if your son is not competent to handle his financial affairs due to age or because he is handicapped, you might want to have a COMPETENT estate planning attorney set up a Special Needs Trust and name a trustee or co-trustee. I don't like bank trustees as they have a reputation of being cold and overly beauracratic. I do like the Santa Fe Trust Co. ( SantaFeTrust.com ) and they may be able to recommend a good attorney for you.

Second, I suggest you not lose any money. Just don't do it. Your determination to get into the stock market for "growth", when many investors feel stocks are 40% or so overvalued, combined with your lack of experience with stocks, sends up all kinds of red flags.

You do not understand annuities based on your comments. A couple of points: A fixed, DEFERRED annuity can be had today that has NO fees or expenses and pays a guaranteed 6 year payout of 4.25% (fed and state tax-deferred), and you have penalty-free access to 10% of your money each year. I don't recommend this, but you could do much worse (American National).

I do like I-Bonds- 4.80%- and you can buy $60,000 per year- maybe more with your son, or if you are married.

I do think a no-lapse life Universal Life insurance policy for your son (NO cash value- just guaranteed death benefit forever) will secure his future and take pressure off you- a SINGLE PAY policy may be better than an annual pay- held in the Special Needs Trust which should be owner and beneficiary of the policy. (Jefferson Pilot, Midland National, Ohio National, West Coast Life and Pacific Life should all be compared).

I do think ALL of your assets should be held in the Special Needs Trust or a Revocable Living Trust to bypass the time/expense of probate.

I am sure that if you bought a substantial IMMEDIATE ANNUITY from a AAA rated company, your income needs would be guaranteed solved for life- I personally LOVE the I-Bonds and IMMEDIATE ANNUITY strategy for maximum guaranteed peace of mind- but this would kill many members on this site with boredom. Integrity Life.

RADICAL SIMPLICITY:

You are 65, retired in Arizona, ready to gamble your son's (and your own) financial future in the stock market. Instead, you run IMMEDIATE ANNUITY illustrations and find that if you invest $1,000,000 in Integrity Life's Immediate Annuity on a Life with Installment Refund basis (if you die before getting paid back your $1,000,000 investment, your son (his trust) recovers the balance). (Obviously, you compare IA rates first).

You get a lifetime guaranteed monthly check of $6,100, 61.5% of which is TAX-FREE (IRS exclusion ratio) for about 14 years or so- then it's all taxable.

If you have adequate paid-up life insurance on yourself for your son (no less than $1,000,000) you MAY prefer to get a LIFE ONLY IMMEDIATE ANNUITY, which would pay $6,587, and give you a tax-free exclusion ratio of 63.3%.

Combined with your $1,600/month SS check, your monthly needs are more then met, and every dime you don't need gets put into ever-higher paying I-Bonds.

The $400,000 balance is more than enough to cover a) emergency cash fund, b) SINGLE PREMIUM $1,000,000 no-lapse UL policy for your son (I suggest you do this NOW while you are young as you'll ever be, healthy as you'll ever be, and before the new NAIC reserve requirements raise the cost of these policies 30-40%, probably next year), and  Long Term Care Insurance for yourself (below).

If you are hell-bent on playing in the stock market, use a safety net. Use a Variable Annuity with top-notch "Living Benefits" so your principal is always safe: American Skandia, Jackson National, or Nationwide fit the bill. Vanguard doesn't because it has no living benefits safety net (last time I checked). Yes, you pay for this. No, it's not as expensive as losing your principal in a bear market.

Last, you need Long Term Care Insurance to provide care for yourself in your 80's (obviously, you may need care at any time). It's estimated that roughly half of the people who live into their 80's need LTC, and it wipes people out fast and leaves them at the mercy of Medicaid bureaucrats. (Genworth, John Hancock). Don't think about it. Just get it done.

Finally, if you insist on the stock market without a net, invest $700 in Portfolio Pathfinder (If the inventor, Dick Purcell, will sell it to you- it's for advisors). He's a great guy and if he legally can, he may just do your case for you over the phone, or suggest someone near you. (www.planscan.net) It's a state-of-the-art asset allocation tool combining Modern Portfolio Theory with Monte Carlo Simulations with a client's REAL LIFE GOALS. This is the most advanced such tool on the planet, Dick is a great guy, and if he'll help you run your case and make suggestions (based on your input), you're lucky. But if your assumptions are wrong, the results are wrong. By the way, Dick likes my I-Bond and Immediate Annuity strategy, which his software can illustrate. He's a smart, down-to-earth guy.

Best of Luck,
Art

 

[unclemick]

Take your time. Investigate some of posted suggestions that look promising.

One thing though - 63 is not old - that old horse you rode in on - may have some life left.

I.e. - Once you 'settle in' - your skill set - may have you still liking RE - location, location, location and all that.

With interest rates in an uptrend - I believe CD's will buy you some time to investigate and get comfortable with what works for your situation.

 

[Art]

Modhatter, I've modified my post by adding a fair amount of specific info- you might want to take another look.

Art

 

[brewer12345]

Jeez, I don't know where to begin dissecting Art's post, but I cannot imagine you getting worse advice. The collection of overpriced insurance products he recommends would have you pretty much eaten alive by inflation over time, and for some reason he seems to be trying to scare you into doing the "safe" thing. I'm surprised he didn't suggest and equity-indexed annuity, ferchrissakes.

I suggest you find an attorney who specializes in special needs trusts and related planning. In the meantime, you have plenty of time to figure out what to invest your money in, since you are holding out for SS. Read up, educate yourself on investing, and take your time to make a decision. The equity and other marketts will still be there, so don't rush and make a less than great decision.

 

[Art]

The collection of overpriced insurance products he recommends would have you pretty much eaten alive by inflation over time, and for some reason he seems to be trying to scare you into doing the "safe" thing.

I'm encouraging him to do the "safe" thing because he has a handicapped son he needs to worry about.

As for the policies I suggested being "overpriced", would you care to back that up?

 

[brewer12345]

I'm encouraging him to do the "safe" thing because he has a handicapped son he needs to worry about.

As for the policies I suggested being "overpriced", would you care to back that up?

I put quotes around the word safe because I suspect that in the long run it is not the safest thing to do.

The policies are almost certainly far more expensive than other alternatives (e.g. Vanguard, etc.) available to the average retail investor. How can I say this with confidence? Any insurance company has the following costs that all come out of the customer's pockets and do not apply to low cost non-insurance costs:

- Agent commissions
- Underwriting expenses
- Premium taxes
- Capital requirements imposed by regulators
- Profits required to offset the risk the insurer assumes by selling the product
- Usually, a substantially more expensive overhead

I think a life insurance-funded trust for the son might be worth looking into,a nd if the poster is healthy, a life annuity/no-lapse UL arbitrage might make it even cheaper to fund the trust than a single premium policy. As for the annuity suggestion, I think the OP could do a lot better.

 

[Art]

I think a life insurance-funded trust for the son might be worth looking into,a nd if the poster is healthy, a life annuity/no-lapse UL arbitrage might make it even cheaper to fund the trust than a single premium policy.  As for the annuity suggestion, I think the OP could do a lot better.

Good, we're making progress. So now you agree that a life policy for the son may make sense, but you don't like the idea of the single pay life policy. If Modhopper has a normal life expectancy, he'll save tens of thousands of dollars with a single pay policy vs. out-of-pocket annual premiums for life, but we agree that a life policy on the son makes sense.

The idea of running a single pay life policy against the annuity/annual pay life arbitrage is a good idea.

Don't know what "OP" means.

As for your explanation of why the policies I suggested are over-priced, I suggest you do a little research, as I have, of no-load life companies such as USAA, TIAA-CREF, Ameritas, and compare them (premium vs. guaranteed death benefit) against the life cos. I suggested. Last time I checked, the "traditional" (commissionable) products blew the "no-load" policies out of the water. If you get different results, I'd love to hear about it.

As for comparing the cost of insurance policies that provide guaranteed benefits against investments (Vanguard's or anyone else's) that don't, no comment is required.

 

[laurence]

Modhatter, may I ask what kind of handicap your son has? My daughter is ten months old and has Down Syndrome, so we'll need to look into this ourselves. Martha had some good advice for me w.r.t trusts that I copied into word-I have it on a different computer, I'll get it to you via PM later.


Read, read, read! Do some research, see if you like "4 pillars of investing" before you consider a foray into the stock market, IMHO. Since you seem a little risk averse (aren't we all?) is your home in Arizona paid off? The only instrument that could beat the spread on a mortgage is the stock market, so paying it off reduces that need for exposure. I'm somewhat ignorant on annuities ( I decided they aren't for me at this point) so I'll leave that subject to those better read on it. Good luck, stay strong.

 

[brewer12345]

Art:

There is a reason I usually suggest that people go with USAA, Ameritas and TIAA-CREF: they treat policyholders fairly and they will still be there when you need them (at least USAA and TIAA will be). The reason some of these other fleabag companies often have better-performing products is because the companies have taken on a lot more risk by ffering these products. You buy a product with richer benefits, but you take more risk that the company will not be there when you need them. In contrast, the better companies might have lower benefits, but risk of default is practically nil. Pay me now or pay me later. Generally speaking, you don't want to buy a product with guarantees from someone who might well blow up.

More to the point, I was infact suggesting that buying guaranteed insuranec products is likely a large waste of money or the poster. Naturally, insurance salesman hate to hear this, but tough noogies.

The suggestion of a variable annuity with guarantees is excreble. Expense ratios in the 3 to 3.5% range on those things! You must be kidding.

OP = Original poster

 

[Art]

There is a reason I usually suggest that people go with USAA, Ameritas and TIAA-CREF: they treat policyholders fairly and they will still be there when you need them (at least USAA and TIAA will be).  The reason some of these other fleabag companies often have better-performing products is because the companies have taken on a lot more risk by ffering these products. 

Brewer, I suggest you check the ratings of the companies I mentioned before referring to them as "fleabag companies".

There are certain problems best solved by investments, and other problems best solved by insurance. Obviously, we disagree in this case.

As for your opinion that VAs with living benefits are "excreble", first, I dispute the 3-3.5% total expenses you quoted, second I question whether you are familiar with the current generation of living benefit riders (not to mention the death benefit riders). That said, they are not for everyone. But they may be appropriate in this case IF Modhopper decides he wants to invest in the stock market for the benefit of his handicapped son.

 

[brewer12345]

Brewer, I suggest you check the ratings of the companies I mentioned before referring to them as "fleabag companies".

There are certain problems best solved by investments, and other problems best solved by insurance. Obviously, we disagree in this case.

As for your opinion that VAs with living benefits are "excreble", first, I dispute the 3-3.5% total expenses you quoted, second I question whether you are familiar with the current generation of living benefit riders (not to mention the death benefit riders). That said, they are not for everyone. But they may be appropriate in this case IF Modhopper decides he wants to invest in the stock market for the benefit of his handicapped son.

Yes, I am aware of the ratings. JP is probably a long term survivor. Other than that, I would much prefer to deal with a well-run mutual company (NOT Ohio National) and one that is unlikely or never going to demutualize.

I am also painfully well aware of the stuff sloshing around the VA market and most of it is overpriced crap, especially so after a lot of companies got burned by underpricing or poorly designing their products and then got caught with their pants down in the bear market. And, yes, by the time you add the kinds of guarantees you are suggesting to most VAs in the market, you are north of 300BP a year and the client is getting screwed.

There are indeed some problems best solved with insurance. I personally have a life insurance policy (term), homeowners', car, and umbrrella insurance. However, there arre a lot of "problems" that aren't really problems until the mark client has been properly terrrified educated by the conman agent.

 

[Art]

Brewer, I'm tremendously reassured to hear you say Jefferson Pilot is probably a long term survivor. Maybe AAA rated 100+ year old Integrity Life will squeak by, too.

As for the "conman" comment, sorry you felt the need to go there. I know you're an investment advisor, but we're talking about a 63 year old man with a handicapped son and NO MARKET EXPERIENCE. He CAN take an unrecoverable loss in the stock market. A fixed SPIA (single premium immediate annuity) WOULD give him a guaranteed check for life (much more than enough to cover his stated needs) and the excess invested in I-Bonds WOULD deal with his inflation concerns.

I know you're a hotshot investment pro- but we're not talking about YOU- we're talking about the poster. If you think my recommendation of a SPIA of any amount in this case makes me a conman, once again, no comment is required.

 

[brewer12345]

Hey, an index fund portfolio doesn't take more than a room temperature IQ to put together. Even an insurance agent could do it.

The problem with the SPIA is it leaves you open to the vagaries of inflation over time. I bonds protect purchasing power of the amount put in, but that might or might not be enough to offset the ravages of inflation over time. In the meantime, the SPIA generated a nice, fat commission for somebody.

As for the ratings of any particular company: Tell me, what was UnumProvident's rating 10 or 15 years ago? How well-served do you think their policyholders feel? Now compare that to USAA or TIAA.

 

[Art]

Hey, an index fund portfolio doesn't take more than a room temperature IQ to put together.  Even an insurance agent could do it. 

The problem with the SPIA is it leaves you open to the vagaries of inflation over time.  I bonds protect purchasing power of the amount put in, but that might or might not be enough to offset the ravages of inflation over time.  In the meantime, the SPIA generated a nice, fat commission for somebody.

The problem with an index fund portfolio is he can lose a huge chunk of cash for many, many years.

And I understand your concern that an agent collects a commission on a SPIA, since you worked for free as an investment advisor before retiring. You DID work for free, didn't you? 

By the way, there are plenty of studies that show that SPIAs used WITH a portfolio of index funds substantially increase the probability of portfolio survival. It doesn't have to be one or the other. In this particular case, I think there's no need to take on the RISK of an index fund portfolio, but it is another option.

 

[brewer12345]

The problem with an index fund portfolio is he can lose a huge chunk of cash for many, many years.

And I understand your concern that an agent collects a commission on a SPIA, since you worked for free as an investment advisor before retiring. You DID work for free, didn't you? 

Yes, the index portfolio can lose for a while, but a diversified portfolio of several low correlation asset classes would mitigate any declines, and one only needs income from year to year, not the whole amount. Go play wth Fiirecalc and you can see what I am talking about.

Oh, and commissions are not per se bad, they are just another expense that must be recovered from the investor's pockets. In contrast, one can set up a very low cost index portfolio with virtually no up-front cost.

 

[Brat]

Regarding Special Needs Trusts.  Some of the state Associations for Retarded Persons have special needs trusts, you need to establish the account but don't need to fund it until you die.  If you live in the State of Washington it appears that the State will match some of the contributions.  A Special Needs Trust established by an individual can be expensive to maintain. 

As you do your estate planning be sure to find someone who is familiar with the issues.  Starting with your state associations for disabled persons would be a good idea.  Don't fund anything until you have researched your options.

 

[Art]

Yes, the index portfolio can lose for a while, but a diversified portfolio of several low correlation asset classes would mitigate any declines, and one only needs income from year to year, not the whole amount.  Go play wth Fiirecalc and you can see what I am talking about.

Oh, and commissions are not per se bad, they are just another expense that must be recovered from the investor's pockets.  In contrast, one can set up a very low cost index portfolio with virtually no up-front cost.

I don't need to play with Firecalc to know that an investor can lose big, and for a long time, with an index fund portfolio- even one that has low correlated asset classes.

And commissions on a SPIA DON'T need to be recovered from the investor's pockets since the guaranteed amount the owner gets is NET of commissions. You're confusing the agent's commission with the fees you charged your clients, which DID have to be recovered from your client's pockets.

 

[brewer12345]

I don't need to play with Firecalc to know that an investor can lose big, and for a long time, with an index fund portfolio- even one that has low correlated asset classes.

And commissions on a SPIA DON'T need to be recovered from the investor's pockets since the guaranteed amount the owner gets is NET of commissions. You're confusing the agent's commission with the fees you charged your clients, which DID have to be recovered from your client's pockets.

So does that scare tactic work well with most of our clients? Doesn't do much for me.

Actually, commissions on SPIAs do get recovered from the customer. You think insurance companies pay commissions because they like agents? Nope, they pay commissions to effectively borrow money for less than they believe they can get by investing the borrowed funds. That's how they make money and stay in business. If the commission ultimately does not come out of the insurer's hide, it has to come out of the customer's hide. I don't think the tooth fairy gets involved in the insurance business.

You clearly have no idea who I am. Unlike some who post here, I am not in the business of charging fees to advise individual clients and never have. Do yourself a favor and don't make too many assumptions about people you don't really now.

 

[Art]

You clearly have no idea who I am.  Unlike some who post here, I am not in the business of charging fees to advise individual clients and never have. 

You have been called an investment advisor on several threads (a description you never corrected), which I assumed meant that you were a licensed professional. My apologies if you are an unlicensed, non-regulated amateur. And no, I have no idea who you are. Nor do I care.

 

[brewer12345]

Art, despite appearances, I really am not interested in pointless sparring. If you really think that a SPIA plus I-bonds solves the problem, they show us. A speadsheet will do more to convince me than any argument we could ever have.

Out of curiosity, are you an agent? I tend to view the sales pitch with suspicion, but often agents do provide a much-needed service: advice. I just wish more of it were objective and higher quality.

 

[Brat]

Art, brewer12345 is a seasoned financial analyst for an investment fund.  He knows the business.   It isn't necessary that contributors agree and we give ourselves permission to test each others recommendations.