[Boomer]

Originally Posted by Tmarkwald

I understand what you mean, but that should not deter a move to TV. In the unlikely event that even happens it will affect so few people here as to be a non-issue.... And, as a word of advice, don't post any of the news articles referencing this as the moderator will ping you for it as being political.

Thank you, Tmarkwald, for trying to fend off the political bent that tries to infiltrate TOTV wherever an opportunity is perceived for veiled, albeit transparent, messaging.

I am enjoying this discussion and was just thinking about adding to it again, but I do not want to waste my time if the thread comes under siege and ends up getting shut down.

Anyway, thanks for trying.

Boomer

[Gulfcoast]

The economic uncertainty these days actually tends to bolster the idea of getting yourself as best situated as possible to weather any coming storm. A paid off house in TV with lots of friendly people nearby sounds like a pretty good bet to me.

[Luv2Bretired]

n

Originally Posted by Gulfcoast

The economic uncertainty these days actually tends to bolster the idea of getting yourself as best situated as possible to weather any coming storm. A paid off house in TV with lots of friendly people nearby sounds like a pretty good bet to me.

Yes. Inflation is again upon us going by substantial increases in the cost of gasoline, lumber and beef.

[JerryLBell]

My wife and I had separate finance guys and both strongly recommended the "paychecks and play checks" approach to retiring. That means having enough fixed income each month to cover all your basic bills, with fixed income meaning pensions (and who offers those anymore), Social Security and annuities (which some folks love and some folks loathe). Leave your remaining investments for the "fun" stuff like travel, hobbies, entertainment, etc. We retired at 62 and our pensions and Medicare wouldn't kick in until we hit 65 and our Social Security wouldn't kick in until we hit 66 so we had 3-5 years of living off savings and investments and we found that pretty uncomfortable. Now that we're on the other side of that, we feel extremely comfortable.

Other folks have mentioned the cost of health insurance and they are absolutely right. That stuff is expensive and you cannot live without it. Individual plans can run a thousand or more per person per month pretty easily. That alone will keep many folks working and getting employer-provided insurance.

Ideally, you should be able to buy your retirement house with cash and not have a mortgage. Having to pay a mortgage for a bunch more years while having a fixed and somewhat more limited income can be a real pain. If you haven't paid off your current house (assuming you own one), try paying that off before you retire even if it means working a couple more years and doubling or tripling your mortgage payments.

Other than finances, think about what you want out of retirement. Is it hanging with friends with similar interests? Being a decade younger than most folks here can make you somewhat socially isolated. My niece retired quite early and managed to make new friends through her many, many sports activities but I've heard of some folks who felt very disconnected from other retirees. And even if you live fairly locally already, you won't be hanging with your current friends who are still working. They just won't have the time you do. And, to be honest, some folks simply do not have interests outside of work and are bored to death in retirement (my brother was one). Most of us here in The Villages just love to play all the time, so moving to this Disneyland for Senior Citizens is the coolest thing ever.

Good luck with your decision! It's one of the biggest ones you'll ever make!

[Luv2Bretired]

Originally Posted by Tmarkwald

I understand what you mean, but that should not deter a move to TV. In the unlikely event that even happens it will affect so few people here as to be a non-issue.... And, as a word of advice, don't post any of the news articles referencing this as the moderator will ping you for it as being political.

Thank you for the advice.


My prior post was not directed to what some financially well off current villagers may face tax-wise from assets sold at seven figure gains on an ongoing basis. My post was directed at prospective retirees, likely small business people who have planned to sell their businesses valued say from one to five million dollars and after paying 20% federal capital gains tax plus whatever state income tax might be applicable retire and live off the proceeds until age 94 or 100. It would be a once in a lifetime sale situation. They shall now need to recalculate their plans if LTCG taxes are grossly increased. My post was a heads up to these people and based on their need to face a new reality.

[lindaelane]

As a mathematics professional I can tell you that what your financial advisor did - what a certified FINRA advisor would do - is something called a "Monte Carlo simulation" in which thousands of scenarios and predictions based on past performance are played out. He/she then let you know that "there is 95 percent probability that your savings will last until you are 94 years old".

This is based on how the market has behaved in the past.

What you need to beware of is something called "sequence of return risks". If the market takes a big downturn early in your retirement, then you will very likely be in the "5 percent chance of failure" I believe your advisor will have mentioned at some point

Financial advisors who do Monte Carlo simulations are those who stress "equities and bonds". But I believe you need a more balanced portfolio than the equities and bonds your advisor wants to put you into. There are annuities - - Yes, there are definitely good ones despite fees - they are difficult to find but will worth it when found. There is real estate which will almost surely keep up with inflation in the long run (even group real estate investing if you fear to be a landlord). Precious metals could be a hedge.

So one bottom line is I believe it is very, very important to diversify beyond equities (stocks/ETFs/mutual funds) and bonds if you want a financially secure retirement for the next 40 years or so, no matter what this advisor said. He gets a commission for what you put in stocks and bonds, not for what you put in real estate, annuities, etc.

I have a financial advisor at Wells Fargo who takes a different point of view from "balanced portfolio of bonds and equities" - He has me in funds that use covered call hedging strategies. Only 10 percent of my portfolio is with him but it has been a great investment. (30% portfolio in my home, 30% in an index annuity and I personally invest the rest of my portfolio.)

Lots of financial professionals - certainly not all - believe we are in for another 'lost decade" (like the 2000s) where you have little more at the end of the decade than you did at the beginning. If your advisor is assuming you can withdraw four percent each year, think what that could do to your portfolio and your future returns. (Only about once every 20 years or less, i.e., about five percent of the time, are we on the verge of a lost decade, but this could be it.)

So...I think this "95% chance of success" might hold true at an "average time" but we are in a "risky time". Just my opinions. Google "sequence of return risk" to learn more.

Then...there is inflation. Your financial advisors software did not have the possibility of strong inflation built into the prediction (the software that made the prediction is not set up for that) and it is possible (not certain) your retirement could be spoiled by inflation, depending on how your investments perform if we get a high inflation scenario.

Last, these Monte Carlo simulations are based on the idea you eventually withdraw all funds and "go broke" at the end - so they are saying there is a 95 percent chance you do not go broke until age 94 when you are likely going to be broke if you live that long. If you live to 94, do you really want to be broke? Do you know how horrible Medicaid nursing homes are and how expensive non-Medicaid nursing homes are?

As for retiring at 55, I did at 60 and I'm very happy. But my hobby of traveling beings me great joy. If you have nothing to bring you a lot of joy for 39 years (until 94), maybe you should stay with your career longer, and earn finances for an even more secure retirement.

PS - Do not let a financial advisor talk you into taking out a mortgage because "you will earn more than the 3 percent your mortgage charges by putting it in investments" (They want you to forget that did not happen in the 2000s). You need an investment that is secure from the possibility of extreme market fluctuation, and essentially, the money in your home "earns" the 3 percent annually you do not pay to a mortgage company. Some of your portfolio must be "low risk/low return" to have a good chance of a financially secure retirement. (And...bonds have been terrible for something like 20 years now. I cannot understand why financial advisors use them but that's just me. There are other "lower risk/lower return" investments that don't require you do invest in bonds....though you should probably have some in bonds just for the sake of diversity...but I do not think it should be a lot.)