A couple of years ago, I started a thread (link below) about my hopes of retiring no later than the end of 2016, in my early 50's. In that post, I described that I am in a very high paying (but stressful) occupation. I explained that I thought my organization's management was about to start cutting my compensation, to make more room to increase pay for the slightly younger people nipping at my heels. I explained the struggle I was going through as to whether it was worth it to stay through 2016 and risking the hit to my pride of my colleagues knowing my compensation has been reduced, if that happens, as opposed to quitting earlier with somewhat less $ than hoped. I was hoping to retire with around $8 million of investment assets if I stuck it out through 2016. Various folks on the forum gave me helpful input.
About a year ago, I updated the thread. In the update, I explained that my compensation had not been cut (to that point) and that I was feeling better about holding on until the end of 2016.
As a further update, there has been a bit of a twist that I didn't expect. A couple of months ago, I told my organization's management that I wanted to retire on 12/31/16. However, management doesn't want me to leave so soon. They were honest that my compensation will likely be cut for 2017 (by about 10%) but they said that there is no precedent in our organization for treating someone as young as I am as a "retiree" (as opposed to someone who merely "quit"). The distinction is that retirees by custom have been allowed to continue, at the retiree's full cost, to participate in health coverage that otherwise is available to folks who are still working. There is no contractual requirement that the organization continue coverage for retirees, but they generally have done it, including for people only a couple of years older than myself. There doesn't seem to be an example of somebody calling it quits, as opposed to leaving for another job, at exactly my age.
The organization would like me to stick around longer (preferably at least 2 years), in exchange for guaranteeing that I would have "retiree" status at that time. The claim is that they don't want to create a precedent for continuing health coverage for people in their early 50's - they would like to keep the custom at closer to mid-50's so that people in their early 50's or younger may be more reluctant to bail out at that age. Also, while I am not critical to the organization, I think they believe there could be some disruption in certain client relationships whenever I leave, though I think those could be minimized.
I don't think I have it in me to work two more years unless I REALLY need to do so, but our options locally for privately purchased health coverage are pretty bad; a number of insurers have pulled out of the local market in the state and the only offered options are for HMOs or Exclusive Provider Organizations (zero coverage if you go outside the network). The local hospital we would most want to use is not on the plans that are offered, and our main doctors are not on the plans that are offered.
One possibility is that I stick it out for a shorter period in 2017 (maybe 6 months) and simply use the pay for that period (which would be high six figures for the six months, before taxes) to create a "healthcare fund" and understand that this pot of several hundred thousand dollars is set aside to pay for care that we may not be covered by the crappy insurance we can get in the individual market. In a way, I see it as a form of self-insurance. That amount of money may not be enough to cover, say, an expensive bone marrow transplant at a national cancer center, but it could cover quite a bit. Plus, we do have substantial assets otherwise and certainly could use up some of those assets (and cut other spending) if needed.
If others have thoughts about this, I would appreciate hearing them. Should I just buckle down and work a couple more years even though I really don't want to do so, and accept the hit to my ego of my colleagues knowing that my pay is being cut (which they all will know)? Or, given that we expect to have a high 7-figure portfolio without counting the healthcare fund, is it a reasonable decision to take the risk of trying to partially self-insure as I've described above?
Thanks in advance!
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f26/high-paying-job-hoping-to-retire-in-2016-a-73745.html
About a year ago, I updated the thread. In the update, I explained that my compensation had not been cut (to that point) and that I was feeling better about holding on until the end of 2016.
As a further update, there has been a bit of a twist that I didn't expect. A couple of months ago, I told my organization's management that I wanted to retire on 12/31/16. However, management doesn't want me to leave so soon. They were honest that my compensation will likely be cut for 2017 (by about 10%) but they said that there is no precedent in our organization for treating someone as young as I am as a "retiree" (as opposed to someone who merely "quit"). The distinction is that retirees by custom have been allowed to continue, at the retiree's full cost, to participate in health coverage that otherwise is available to folks who are still working. There is no contractual requirement that the organization continue coverage for retirees, but they generally have done it, including for people only a couple of years older than myself. There doesn't seem to be an example of somebody calling it quits, as opposed to leaving for another job, at exactly my age.
The organization would like me to stick around longer (preferably at least 2 years), in exchange for guaranteeing that I would have "retiree" status at that time. The claim is that they don't want to create a precedent for continuing health coverage for people in their early 50's - they would like to keep the custom at closer to mid-50's so that people in their early 50's or younger may be more reluctant to bail out at that age. Also, while I am not critical to the organization, I think they believe there could be some disruption in certain client relationships whenever I leave, though I think those could be minimized.
I don't think I have it in me to work two more years unless I REALLY need to do so, but our options locally for privately purchased health coverage are pretty bad; a number of insurers have pulled out of the local market in the state and the only offered options are for HMOs or Exclusive Provider Organizations (zero coverage if you go outside the network). The local hospital we would most want to use is not on the plans that are offered, and our main doctors are not on the plans that are offered.
One possibility is that I stick it out for a shorter period in 2017 (maybe 6 months) and simply use the pay for that period (which would be high six figures for the six months, before taxes) to create a "healthcare fund" and understand that this pot of several hundred thousand dollars is set aside to pay for care that we may not be covered by the crappy insurance we can get in the individual market. In a way, I see it as a form of self-insurance. That amount of money may not be enough to cover, say, an expensive bone marrow transplant at a national cancer center, but it could cover quite a bit. Plus, we do have substantial assets otherwise and certainly could use up some of those assets (and cut other spending) if needed.
If others have thoughts about this, I would appreciate hearing them. Should I just buckle down and work a couple more years even though I really don't want to do so, and accept the hit to my ego of my colleagues knowing that my pay is being cut (which they all will know)? Or, given that we expect to have a high 7-figure portfolio without counting the healthcare fund, is it a reasonable decision to take the risk of trying to partially self-insure as I've described above?
Thanks in advance!
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f26/high-paying-job-hoping-to-retire-in-2016-a-73745.html
Excellent! 
