Independent
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,629
I'll agree that "most people" reduce their spending as they move through retirement. Note that "most people" are retiring after age 60, which is unusual for this board.
However the Newsweek article uses a lousy statistic - households aged 55-64 vs. households aged 65-74. The first group has more people per household, more workers, more cars, more mortgages, and higher SS taxes. Those differences have nothing to do with four phases of "moving through retirement" in the article.
Similarly, I looked at the 18 planning shortfalls listed in the referenced Society of Actuaries study and didn't notice "declining spending during retirement" on the list.
I do agree that good planning involves identifying types of spending (basic vs. fun, recurring vs. one-time) and planning income to match the spending.
I'm not surprised that a financial adviser wouldn't be a big fan of longevity insurance. But, I'd like to understand the adviser's financial incentives (one time 2% commission on the annuty vs. lifetime 1% on retained assets?) before I'd take his advice.
However the Newsweek article uses a lousy statistic - households aged 55-64 vs. households aged 65-74. The first group has more people per household, more workers, more cars, more mortgages, and higher SS taxes. Those differences have nothing to do with four phases of "moving through retirement" in the article.
Similarly, I looked at the 18 planning shortfalls listed in the referenced Society of Actuaries study and didn't notice "declining spending during retirement" on the list.
I do agree that good planning involves identifying types of spending (basic vs. fun, recurring vs. one-time) and planning income to match the spending.
I'm not surprised that a financial adviser wouldn't be a big fan of longevity insurance. But, I'd like to understand the adviser's financial incentives (one time 2% commission on the annuty vs. lifetime 1% on retained assets?) before I'd take his advice.