Affluent Americans rush to retire - Article

[disneysteve]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ource=url_link


Apparently I'm trendy. This describes me perfectly. I've gone from expecting to work until 62 to thinking I might be able to cut back at 60 to now trying to nail things down and make 58 or 59 happen. I can totally relate to this article.

[ExFlyBoy5]

So I wonder what happens when all these "newly affluent" retirees start to sell off investments to fund their early retirements? If the numbers are large enough, I could see it throwing a wrench in the gears of FIREcalc.

Quote:

A November study from Pew Research Center found a surge in the number of baby boomers, those born between 1946 and 1964, who reported being retired compared to previous years — 1.2 million more than the historical annual average.

I wasn't too thrilled to hear that my MD has decided to retire early...she was the best doc I have had in my life. BOO!! HISS!! BOO!!

[Yipper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disneysteve https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ource=url_link Apparently I'm trendy. This describes me perfectly. I've gone from expecting to work until 62 to thinking I might be able to cut back at 60 to now trying to nail things down and make 58 or 59 happen. I can totally related to this article.

Same here. Caught this article this morning. Definitely resonates.

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExFlyBoy5 So I wonder what happens when all these "newly affluent" retirees start to sell off investments to fund their early retirements? If the numbers are large enough, I could see it throwing a wrench in the gears of FIREcalc. I wasn't too thrilled to hear that my MD has decided to retire early...she was the best doc I have had in my life. BOO!! HISS!! BOO!!

Bad flyboy!! I once had a cow milking neighbor that told everyone that our 65 plus large animal vet who worked his behind off couldn't retire because he didn't want to break in a new vet. Since the vet is a personal friend of mine, I told the other guy he was a selfish jerk!!!

[jollystomper]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExFlyBoy5 So I wonder what happens when all these "newly affluent" retirees start to sell off investments to fund their early retirements? If the numbers are large enough, I could see it throwing a wrench in the gears of FIREcalc.

I would be surprised if it made any difference. Based on the folks posting here, it seems few sell off their investments once the RE, beyond what they might need for the next year or two. Most still have the majority of their assets in the market. And when the market dips, many rebalance back into stocks, or look at it as a buying opportunity.

[ExFlyBoy5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan Bad flyboy!! I once had a cow milking neighbor that told everyone that our 65 plus large animal vet who worked his behind off couldn't retire because he didn't want to break in a new vet. Since the vet is a personal friend of mine, I told the other guy he was a selfish jerk!!!

Well, obviously I am happy for my MD to be able to retire. Finding one that matched her abilities/bed side manner/etc is going to be tough, though. But I understand that it's a tough business these days and I am happy I am not an MD.

I was similarly dissatisfied when our vet in ATL sold his practice about a year before we left. He was/is a family friend and had been seeing the all the family's critters since 1982. We still haven't found a find a vet that was anywhere close to being as great as he was.

[ExFlyBoy5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollystomper I would be surprised if it made any difference. Based on the folks posting here, it seems few sell off their investments once the RE, beyond what they might need for the next year or two. Most still have the majority of their assets in the market. And when the market dips, many rebalance back into stocks, or look at it as a buying opportunity.

I would guess you are right. Also, I tend to take much of the news with a grain of salt so I would guess the number of folks who will ACTUALLY pull the trigger to be smaller than expected by the pundits.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExFlyBoy5 So I wonder what happens when all these "newly affluent" retirees start to sell off investments to fund their early retirements? If the numbers are large enough, I could see it throwing a wrench in the gears of FIREcalc.

It never works that way. Retirees remain mostly invested.

People were warning about boomer retirees bringing down the market due to selling investments. It didn’t happen that way.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jollystomper I would be surprised if it made any difference. Based on the folks posting here, it seems few sell off their investments once the RE, beyond what they might need for the next year or two. Most still have the majority of their assets in the market. And when the market dips, many rebalance back into stocks, or look at it as a buying opportunity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 It never works that way. Retirees remain mostly invested. People were warning about boomer retirees bringing down the market due to selling investments. It didn’t happen that way.

Also, I think that compared to the large hedge funds with billions and billions (trillions all taken together?) boomers retiring won't make a dent.

[HawkeyeNFO]

BLUF of the article:
The unprecedented surge in shares and home values during an economic crisis is easing the retirement path for those who have savings and investments.

Combined that with the fact that the cubicle sucks, and I'm hopin' to be outta here this year.

[disneysteve]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 It never works that way. Retirees remain mostly invested. People were warning about boomer retirees bringing down the market due to selling investments. It didn’t happen that way.

I never understood why people thought that. Did they think folks would retire and immediately liquidate their portfolios? Will I slowly sell shares after I retire, hopefully for 20 or 30 years? Sure. More likely I'll stay mostly invested and live in part off of the income generated by our portfolio. The selling will mainly start happening when RMDs kick in.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disneysteve I never understood why people thought that. Did they think folks would retire and immediately liquidate their portfolios? Will I slowly sell shares after I retire, hopefully for 20 or 30 years? Sure. More likely I'll stay mostly invested and live in part off of the income generated by our portfolio. The selling will mainly start happening when RMDs kick in.

Yes, they assumed that retirees would liquidate their portfolios directly upon retiring. Quite weird assumption, actually, and it didn't happen that way. You would expect retirees to draw on their investments over a long period of time.

But I remember dire warnings of massive selling ahead.

[RobbieB]

Blowhards making dire warnings. What's new? Sky is falling.

[Calico]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ExFlyBoy5 So I wonder what happens when all these "newly affluent" retirees start to sell off investments to fund their early retirements? If the numbers are large enough, I could see it throwing a wrench in the gears of FIREcalc. I wasn't too thrilled to hear that my MD has decided to retire early...she was the best doc I have had in my life. BOO!! HISS!! BOO!!

About 8 years ago my doctors began retiring. Since then I have made a point of only selecting doctors in their late 30's - early 40's when I need a new doctor. And I tell all of them they are forbidden from retiring until I kick the bucket decades from now!

[statsman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkeyeNFO The unprecedented surge in shares and home values during an economic crisis is easing the retirement path for those who have savings and investments.

A year before our retirement, we had what we thought was a rough value for our 20+ year house. A year after retirement, we sold the house to move in the fall of 2018, and the house sold for 50% more than what we had been estimating.

We didn't need to sell the house to be retired, nor did we need to sell and move to cash out of it. But it certainly didn't hurt. The value of our house went from about 39% of our NW at that time to 12% today.

[disneysteve]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Yes, they assumed that retirees would liquidate their portfolios directly upon retiring. Quite weird assumption, actually, and it didn't happen that way. You would expect retirees to draw on their investments over a long period of time. But I remember dire warnings of massive selling ahead.

Yep. I remember those warnings, too. Never made sense to me.

[disneysteve]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calico About 8 years ago my doctors began retiring. Since then I have made a point of only selecting doctors in their late 30's - early 40's when I need a new doctor. And I tell all of them they are forbidden from retiring until I kick the bucket decades from now!

There's definitely a trade off. Studies have shown that younger providers tend to be more familiar with the latest treatment guidelines, so you gain that up to date knowledge base. On the flip side, as the article touches on, the "soft" skills aren't taught in school; they develop over years of practice experience.


I'm reminded of the movie Doc Hollywood where Michael J. Fox thought he was a hot shot young doctor know it all and the old time rural doc (Barnard Hughes) was past his prime and needed to pack it in. Of course, over time the young guy learned the value of a lifetime of experience over book knowledge.


I work with many excellent young providers, 25 years my junior. They know their stuff, but I definitely see how our approaches differ and they see it too. They have often commented about how much they appreciate my input because I've got nearly 3 decades of experience that has taught me stuff you just can't learn in school.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by disneysteve There's definitely a trade off. Studies have shown that younger providers tend to be more familiar with the latest treatment guidelines, so you gain that up to date knowledge base. On the flip side, as the article touches on, the "soft" skills aren't taught in school; they develop over years of practice experience. I'm reminded of the movie Doc Hollywood where Michael J. Fox thought he was a hot shot young doctor know it all and the old time rural doc (Barnard Hughes) was past his prime and needed to pack it in. Of course, over time the young guy learned the value of a lifetime of experience over book knowledge. I work with many excellent young providers, 25 years my junior. They know their stuff, but I definitely see how our approaches differ and they see it too. They have often commented about how much they appreciate my input because I've got nearly 3 decades of experience that has taught me stuff you just can't learn in school.

My internist/endocrinologist is in his late 70's, and I dread finding a new one when he retires or dies! He is not the best ever, but he is good enough and I have been going to him for the past 22 years. He understands me and knows how to get me to put extra effort into health measures like losing weight. He knows that I don't complain about anything unless it is already pretty bad (so he pays attention). I guess these are the "soft skills" you mentioned. Also he doesn't make me get my lab work done at Quest, so I can get it done at a smaller, more friendly place. This is good because my local Quest is unusually awful with mean-spirited employees and always crowded.

His assistants have told me that he loves working and will probably work until the day he dies on the job. They said that if/when that happens, they'll let us know long enough in advance to find another doctor. Time will tell.

My dentist, on the other hand, is still in his late 40's. I was his first patient out of dental school. His wife is a pediatrician and together they have a substantial income. So, once his four kids finish college, he might retire earlier than my doctor! Who knows.

[braumeister]

My ophthalmologist retired at the end of 2019 at about 60 years old. I was very happy for her, as she worked hard and was extremely good at what she did.

My urologist retired last year at about 63. I was sad to lose him, but again I was so happy for him as he was an exceptionally good doctor and utterly devoted to his patients' wellbeing.

Isn't it interesting how we can have such high regard for these professionals that we hate to lose their services, and at the same time we like them so much as persons that we're happy they can hang it up and enjoy the rest of their lives?

Maybe I was just lucky, but in my short (21 years) military career I saw this fairly often when one of my superior officers retired. Of course, many military folks start a second career afterward (I certainly did), but those years in uniform are always special somehow.

[Winemaker]

A 69 year old Surgeon? And considering retirement now? Yes, good surgeons are hard to find, and are of great value to society, but "come on, man". Time to give it up.