Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • Who is mess'in with your bond funds and why?
    Reply to @hank: Well put. I think you're seeing institutional investors look for other sources of income beyond fixed income, as well - infrastructure continues to seem as if it's getting increasing interest, and at least that's a combination of cash flow and real assets. Take a look at Brookfield Infrastructure (BIP), which was discussed in a thread a couple of weeks ago.
    Brookfield thread:
    http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discussions-3/#/discussion/comment/13384
    Two year chart of BIP:
    http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=BIP+Interactive#symbol=BIP;range=2y
    I do continue to think that there should be some attention paid to inflation protection, even for those who are more conservative and closer to retirement age. I do think money will continue chasing yield in fixed income for longer than anyone could expect, and that that will probably not end well.
  • "What to do when your fund manager quits"
    Dear friends,
    I fielded a call from an editor at U.S. News while I was on vacation. We had a long talk about recent manager resignations and whether that should trigger a "sell". The resulting article is here: http://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2012/08/06/what-to-do-when-your-fund-manager-quits . Here's the short version of my grouchy outburst: most fund companies are driven by the need to gather and hold assets, primarily in retirement accounts. They don't want flash, they don't want big bets, they don't want to stand out from the herd and they certainly don't want to be in the headlines. They discovered that large, plodding, mediocre funds are about the best vehicle for doing that. For those funds, the managers are largely interchangeable drones. (The article singles out Oppenheimer and Putnam but I harshed on Fidelity for a while.)
    There are funds, often small and from boutiques, where performance matters and where the manager matters. In those cases, a manager change is a cause for re-evaluation but in a lumbering behemoth, not so much. The advice "if you've got a plodder and can do so, switch to Vanguard" didn't survive.
    For what it's worth,
    David
  • What would you do with a large inheritance?
    Regarding debt - generally a good priority, for financial reasons (reasonable certain rate of return), psychological reasons, and planning reasons. But if that debt is a mortgage, these days, it's hard to make a financial case for paying that off. A mortgage is effectively a way to leverage investments - you borrow at a low rate (the rate of your mortgage) and invest for a (hopefully) higher rate of return. Both the mortgage and the investments are long term, so they're well-matched. If we were not in such a low interest rate environment, I'd say one should pay off mortgages, but right now, it depends on your comfort level.
    Regarding annuities - these are effectively equivalent to nondeductible IRAs. You put in post tax money, and what you pull out is taxed as ordinary income, except for the amount you put in. (Because of a quirk in the tax laws, the first money you pull out of annuities, unlike IRAs, is fully taxable; it's only when you draw down to the initial investment that you get the post tax money out without more taxes. Unless you annuitize, and almost nobody does that.)
    I write all of this because nondeductible IRAs (unless you convert them to Roths) and annuities generally don't make sense (run the numbers) unless you have the money invested in them for decades. I think I'm one of the relatively few people here who will speak positively about deferred annuities, but only where there make sense.
    Regarding the ones Catch named - Fidelity's VIP Contra fund (3*) is managed by the same team that manages Fidelity All-Sector Equity (FSAEX), which I view as a clone. It is not managed by Danoff. Regarding Growth Co. (a retail fund FDGRX, managed by Steve Wymer since 2007), the annuity offers VIP Growth Opportunities, managed by Wymer since 2009. It is this fund that's the clone (or near clone) of Growth Co;, not VIP Growth, or VIP Growth Stock, two other funds offered in the annuity.
    Also to consider in the annuity space (if you're still so inclined) is TIAA-CREF. Their Intelligent Variable Annuity charges 35 baiss points in a $100K annuity (25 basis points over $500K), and this drops to 10 basis points after a decade. They offer a similar number of funds to Fidelity, and the funds in their annuity are usually institution class shares (cheaper). A wider variety of fund companies and managers, and generally better performance.
    Regarding muni bonds - despite all the horror stories, they're still some of the safest investments. The general rule of thumb is that individual bonds make sense only if you have a min of $100K to invest (taxable), or $50K (muni). With the slight increase in muni bonds these days, maybe $100K+ in munis might also be advisable. The problem with munis (as with all bonds) these days is that the rates are so ridiculously low, that it's hard to justify the risk. You're looking at 10 years just to get 2%. Remember that you're effectively locked in - individual bonds are expensive to trade, and if rates drop, you won't get 100c on the dollar for your bond (i.e. you'll only break even by swapping bonds, even if you ignore trading costs). I really like munis as a class - unlike taxables, you are more likely to get what you pay for (out to 20 years, yield seems fairly proportional to maturity), relatively low risk (still), and about a decade ago, they got more transparent and easier to buy. Still, I'm not sure what strategy to apply to them in this market. (See last paragraph below for short term muni fund.)
    Regarding insurance - Life insurance has two uses I'm aware of. One is for estate planning - a way to transfer assets and avoid estate taxes. Depending on your assets and plans (e.g. not needed for bequests to charities), this might make sense. A second is to replace income that others rely upon if you pass away while you're still bringing in income. If you're close to retirement, this might not make sense for you.
    What Consumer Reports says about long term care insurance is that it makes sense primarily for people with assets between $200K and $2M. So this is something that you may or may not want, depending on age and assets. If you are considering this, I suggest you look into policies that participate in Partnership for Long Term Care. This is a way of getting Medicaid to take over (wtihout spending down all assets) if the long term care policy runs out.
    I'm sorry that most of the comments above seem to be of the nature "don't do this, don't do that". It's relatively easy to point out the limitations of various products and services. It's much harder, especially with the limited information here (and you don't want to disclose more in a public forum), to say what would fit your particular needs. A good financial planner (possibly working in conjunction with a lawyer and/or accountant) , on a fee basis (not commission), who will look at your whole picture (not just investments), would seem like money well spent. You could drop the cash into something like Vanguard Limited Term Tax-Exempt Bond Fund (VMLUX), while figuring out what to do. Something like this doesn't seem to fluctuate by more than a percent over months, and pays about 2% federally tax-free. So at least you get something for your troubles.
  • What would you do with a large inheritance?
    Howdy Dian,
    First, I salute your compassion and endurance for your longtime efforts with your family members. Second, you mentioned Will from a few years ago; and I have have wondered how his plan has worked with the monies. Thirdly, your note indicates a very good program in place for teaching the young'ins, that your house has maintained a working and productive budget over the years, which now finds you and yours in a very nice monetary position. Hats off to your house for this effort.
    Okay.....you mentioned being able to visit a Fidelity office; and this is my one and only notation regarding an annuity (any annuity), although a tax attorney and one's special circumstances could offer other thoughts regarding other types of annuities, too.
    Fidelity has a plain annuity, without any frills, and the primary function is to tax shelter current earnings, but gains will be subject to ordinary tax with withdrawals, as normal. No insurance benefits, etc. with this plan. This annuity could be for a circumstance such as you have encountered; being a spot to grow monies and defer current taxes. I too, as has been mentioned, will agree about possible muni bond funds. Fidelity has a few that have performed well, with multi-state exposure to lessen local impacts from a default; although you would not receive a full tax edge with such funds.
    Fido Muni Funds
    The goods:
    --- Fido Personal Retirement Annuity, Main page
    --- 55 Funds, Avg. Annual Returns, Quarterly Numbers
    --- Funds, short term performance, 1 year-YTD
    Before I forget, there is a limit as to how many times one may transfer (I recall 4) monies among the fund choices with this annuity and this would be a question for the Fido office; although I know the info is plugged somewhere into the web links above.
    Briefly, this annuity cost = the expense ratio of the underlying fund and a .25% annual fee on invested monies. My quick and dirty view indicates an average total of about 1% expense.
    One has 55 fund choices, including long time well managed funds as Growth Co. and Contra, as well as funds from Blackrock, Franklin-Templeton, Invesco, Lazard, Morgan Stanley and Pimco. There are 12 target date/retirement funds (Freedom and Funds Manager) that I personally would not use, so one has 43 remaining choices. If you chose such an investment, it is possible that some fund style overlap would exist for this measured against your other tax sheltered accts.
    The combined YTD return (if one had placed equal monies into all 55) is 10.3%.
    If our house came into a large sum of inherited monies, and we needed more time to consider other investment areas (rental house, etc) or a place for some of the money; I would not hesitate to place monies here for parking. Yes, when we developed a plan for some of the money, we would be taxed upon withdrawals; but I/we would rather pay tax on a gain, versus parking the money in CD's at the credit union during this low rate period.
    I recall Vanguard, and Jefferson Pilot Ins. Co having a similar annuity type, but I do not have any details.
    Lastly, a consideration of 529 accts or state pre-paid tuition programs, if not already in place; or that anyone may add monies to a 529 acct. for the grandchildren. We live in MI, but have our daughters 529 acct. with Utah. 529's may be opened and maintained with very low annual amounts; but the one snag is some lack of control of what funds the monies are invested, as only one transfer/shift of monies per calendar year is allowed from and into any investment style/funds.
    I will also agree with other's notations here, based upon most of your monetary bases having been covered; is for you and yours to treat yourself and indulge a bit.
    Okay, winding down a vacation and time for the head to hit the pillow.
    Take care,
    Catch
  • What would you do with a large inheritance?
    Yup, Bull, hear you. In '87 after selling a rental property, a phone call comes from a 'financial advisor'. Obviously a public document showed this sale, and that is how he found us. We agreed to meet - very foolish of me - but then again, the positive out of the negative eventually arrived - I learned to be my own advisor. He had placed us in load funds - sorry but my ignorance didn't even allow me to ask what that meant - one was 8% and one was 5% - I'm embarrassed to admit. Yikes - shutter when I think of it. Of course, within a month the crash/correction of '87 came, and, of course, he sells us out at the bottom and just leaves us there. No attempt to get us back in while the slow climb upwards begins. He even had the nerve several years later to call us and ask us to do retirement planning with him - a new area he was entering into. Didn't happen. We all have our stories. I try to protect my adult children from this thru my experiences. Hope I'm making a difference. "Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me," Leaving now for that Friday night fish fry - will return later.
  • What would you do with a large inheritance?
    Hello Max, and thank you - Been following your postings for quite some time. The $ amount is just over 1m; small to many - large to many. No debt here, preservation is the key. I do see muni-bonds as part of the package, and receiving dividends would be fine. This 'taxable investments' area is new to me. I do have DODIX, PRSVX, BERIX as part of IRA retirement $'s - very happy with them.
  • What would you do with a large inheritance?
    So happy to be of help! :-)
    A few minor notes/clarifications:
    The adviser's fee is partially performance based and partially a standard fee (it's definitely not "hedge-fund style" 2% and 20%, but it is similar in that there is a standard management fee and a very small % of performance fee)
    I forget the exact % of the fee, but it seemed reasonable. Given that the adviser has what I would call an "absolute return" approach (long/short flexibility, use of a fairly wide array of various funds), I thought the fee seemed reasonable. However, I think the performance fee works because the adviser is dealing almost entirely with people at or near retirement. So, while the adviser is very active in terms of moving and monitoring, the risk level is acceptable and the ability for them to go short is a nice added touch - in other words, just because there is a performance fee has not meant taking on oversized risk in order to try to boost fees.
    These family members had been previously working with someone who was sort of a broker and sort of a financial adviser, but it became very clear that the funds used were funds that were told to be used "from higher up" in the company and that this broker/adviser wasn't really paying much attention - it was get into some of the funds the company wanted to sell (although some of them weren't the worst funds ever), and then largely autopilot.
    Having some fee based on performance as well as a sort of "absolute return" approach with the new adviser almost seems to make the fees more reasonable because of the amount of work and monitoring the new adviser is doing, whereas the fees for the prior adviser/broker didn't seem to be really going towards much of anything. You had a broker whose view of a 2008-style situation was "it's a bad year, it'll come back" and the adviser who actively worked in 2008 to protect against downside significantly, then was able to find opportunities when things started to come back.
    I think it's tough to find someone good, but from my viewpoint (and not just the above scenario, but watching other family near retirement age), you definitely want a financial planner and not a broker. I think it's also good to get a sense of the client base - that's not a must, but I think getting someone geared towards people near retirement age and understanding of risk tolerance is not a bad idea.
    You may want to devote some money to an adviser and handle some money on your own.
    Poster Bob C is an adviser and can probably offer some great advice about how to best research an adviser/what questions to ask/etc.
  • What would you do with a large inheritance?
    Thank you, Scott. You were there for me back on FA, and I still hold some of your recommendations in an IRA. My posted was getting long; I should have included no debt, LTC purchased long ago (excellent policy), have a second home - mostly escape for Midwestern winters.
    Yes, I have been doing my best to educate our two children and now our two grandchildren. I totally agree that education is lacking in this very important area. And, then, when so much time is spent with one's career and children, finances can take the back burner. I am doing my best educating our grandchildren. Lesson one was many years ago when in a restaurent I gave them the choice of a beverage - or water and money that the beverage would have cost. You know what they chose. LOL Last night my 8 year old asked me how much a stock costs as he's interested in buying stocks. We started talking Disney, Harley Davidson, McDonald's, etc. My g'kids finish the phrase when I begin it - "If you spend it - you can't save it." Doing my best!
    And, yes, Rono many years back also told me when I was saving toward retirement to be sure I thought of myself and used retirement funds on myself. Fortunately, even though I have been caring for relatives for more than 25 years, I am in excellent health. My goal now is to take care of myself and learn how to focus on myself.
    I have put 'fee based - based on performance' on the top of my priority list. Thank you for your efforts in assisting me - very much appreciated.
  • Artio Funds struggling mightily, ending domestic equity efforts
    Reply to @BobC:
    BobC, thanks for the information!
    This particular retirement account that holds BJBIX is at Schwab, so I will look to see if the funds you mention are on the Schwab platform. If you (or anyone else) thinks of a replacement fund for BJBIX on the Schwab platform, I would appreciate your mentioning it.
    msf, thanks for your detailed insight and I look forward to your further comments.
    Mona
  • Artio Funds struggling mightily, ending domestic equity efforts
    BobC,
    Thanks for the information.
    I have been in BJBIX for many years now and about once a month when I review my asset allocation, ponder if I should sell. I have not, for four primary reasons:
    1. I need large cap blend/growth international allocation.
    2. I hold the fund in a retirement fund, thus I can't do anything with the loss (as you wrote BJBIX never recovered from 2008 plus its relative performance was horrible in 2011). It appears BJBIX's more recent problems are attributable to that it has triple the foreign large-blend category's emerging markets weighting (per M*).
    3. Besides your quote by Gregg Wolper at Morningstar, he also said in 2011 "There's reason to think the fund will regain its form. It had an outstanding run from 1995 through 2007 with the same managers and strategy in place now. And taking a thoughtful long-term approach even at the risk of short-term pain is often a recipe for investment success".
    4. I can't find out when Richard Pell and Rudolph Younes started taking "stupid pills" (possibly that was post 2008...or maybe I took them instead!). If any two fund managers had good results and a good reputation in this space, it was Pell and Younes.
    As mentioned, I am now following BJBIX (should have been doing so before and while no excuse, I was taking care of my mother full time from 2009-2011 who had AML), but it seems the damage has already been done. Yes, it is under performing in 2012, but at least it is showing positive numbers. I gather I am thinking that every cloud has a silver lining or I am still hiding my head in the sand.
    You correctly noted that BJBIX has been "bleeding assets", from around $11 billion in 2007 to $1.1 billion today (as of 6-30-12). However, through this massive decline in assets, the fund has remained closed to new investors. I find this odd and would appreciate your thoughts as to why the fund never re-opened.
    Moving forward, what impact do you (and others) feel the notice you received will have on BJBIX specifically? It is conceivable that it can allow Pell and Younes to revert back to doing what they DID best; concentrating on international equities? Or am I hiding my head deeper in the sand?
    Mona
  • Is Working Past Age 65 a Realistic Option?
    Reply to @MJG:
    MJG said: "Even in the best of times, many folks are procrastinators; others are lazy; still others just want the good times to roll."
    I am an BS/MSEE working as Software Engineer in a major multi-national technology company. I am in my 40s and right now we do not have anyone as far as I can see older than 55 still doing real engineering work and believe me 50+ is rare. Last year, the older ones were offered early retirement packages and many took as if they did not, they were likely to be laid off. I spend a lot of time trying to keep up to date in technology in my field which is very rapidly changing and increasingly outsourced to overseas but I am afraid time will catch up some time.
    Hopefully, by that time I have either had enough saved/invested or at least have transformed into some other post that the company still needs but I do not see a lot of 60+ in other business units in this company or similar companies that I have worked. It is probably the curse of being involved in such a dynamic field. I cannot blame the company much on that either. I do not have the energy of 20-30 year olds anymore. I used to sit down one night and finish major projects. Not any more. If you consider that laziness, I guess I am becoming lazier as I get older.
    I understand you are retired now. From earlier posts, I understand you have spent some time in government/military related posts where job security is/was higher. The times and corporate culture has changed. There is no loyalty from employers towards employees anymore and we do not have any pensions and the only thing that is pension like, Social Security, may or may not survive my retirement. Tell me about stress and stress related illnesses which can potentially be another reason why I might not be able to work. Aging related disability is real.
    In short, just because human life is extended by the use of modern medicine does not mean everything is OK now. I might be living longer but unable to do meaningful gainful work. Perhaps lifespan extension made things worse because the working life might not have extended enough to compensate for the financial implications of longer life span. Then there is the problem of finding jobs for younger generations. If the older generations somehow could stick around, then as a nation we would have to address the problem of unemployment for newer college graduates etc.
    In short, I am a bit disturbed with your categorization of many folks as procrastinators and lazy or just wishing for good times to roll. At some point, it is the reality of life and being alive that kicks in even if we are not procrastinators, lazy or day dreaming.
  • Is Working Past Age 65 a Realistic Option?
    Mark,
    I don't think "MJB" has it all wrong -or- all correct. In my opinion, many people are products of their environment. If you're raised saving for retirement ( my grandmother always told us kids to save 10% ) then that saving bug becomes firmly planted. However, if you're raised thinking the lotto is a retirement plan - need i say more? This is not always the case.
    Case in point - My employer matches are 401k 100% up to 5%. Then they add another 5% of our gross income every year for profit sharing. Very good deal. You would be shocked by how many don't take advantage of this. One day this fella told me that he buys gold because he believes that 401k's will crash. Not that the mutual funds would crash - but the 401k plan. L.O.L I'll keep on saving
  • Is Working Past Age 65 a Realistic Option?
    Mark,
    I don't think "MJB" has it all wrong -or- all correct. In my opinion, many people are products of their environment. If you're raised saving for retirement ( my grandmother always told us kids to save 10% ) then that saving bug becomes firmly planted. However, if you're raised thinking the lotto is a retirement plan - need i say more? This is not always the case.
    Case in point - My employer matches are 401k 100% up to 5%. Then they add another 5% of our gross income every year for profit sharing. Very good deal. You would be shocked by how many don't take advantage of this. One day this fella told me that he buys gold because he believes that 401k's will crash. Not that the mutual funds would crash - but the 401k plan. L.O.L I'll keep on saving
  • Dynamic Canadian Equity Income Fund DWGIX
    At fidelity if you are doing retirement accounts the min is only $500.
  • Is Working Past Age 65 a Realistic Option?
    I think in this day and age you might not even be able to count on your company pension plans. Like Delphi, Delta, World Com, Enron Guberment Motors, and many others. Also good pension plans are being changed as I write, along with what pension plan raiders have also done in the past on company buy outs and mergers. Companys have always preached "all is well - dont worry be happy" we'll take care of you - when you retire. We'll promise you something in the future that way we dont have to give it to you now. Too many chislers trying get in between you and your retirement as they have done with health insurance.
    The goverment pension plan that has been set up for bankrupt corperations is a farce at best!!!
    It will behove all of us that are able to remain working as long as we can. I have always tried to save as much as I can even to the extent of teaching financial management lessons to my childrin......... (You're much younger - get a Job).
    Will turn 65 soon you should see all of the mail I get on medicaid!!!!!!!! Funny thing they all want MONEY!!!
    End of My rant!!!!!!
    Gary
  • Is Working Past Age 65 a Realistic Option?
    Hi Guys,
    Experience is never out of style.
    I was somewhat taken aback by the many replies that emphasized the difficulties of securing gainful employment for older workers. Note that I included the qualifier term “gainful”. I certainly concur that being a greeter at WalMart is less than a gainful and meaningful job. Of course, I recognize and respect those at the lowest end of the wealth distribution curve who must do this task for basic survival necessities.
    Life is not necessarily fair, but surely some suffer this dire predicament because of their own life’s choices.
    Catch22 opined that “ For several decades, from the very large and well paid middle class in MI; this state was far ahead of any other states for the number of registered motorcycles, boats, snowmobiles, travel trailers/campers….”. Further, he observed that “The big money was coming into these households and headed right back out the door via a payment book.”
    This is a recipe for disaster in any state, especially in my high cost state of California. But this is a financial sin of the first magnitude that is not restricted to middle aged or senior citizens. It is pervasive throughout society, in particular a defect that government promulgates and practices.
    As a little aside, this reminds me of a description of California that I received recently from an East Coast friend. On July 4th 1850 California became a state. People had no electricity; the state had no money. Almost everyone spoke Spanish. Gunfights erupted in the streets. Not much has changed in the last 161 years.
    Even in the best of times, many folks are procrastinators; others are lazy; still others just want the good times to roll. These folks will likely, unless they win the lottery gamble which they frequently play to excess, never approach the magic Number that permits a safe and worry-free retirement. They are typically debt gluttons.
    I have very little empathy for such misguided souls. Some folks make poor decisions their entire life. You and I are not responsible for these decisions. They were always free to choose. Of course, I exclude from this grouping the truly unfortunate folks who suffered tragic, personal Black Swan events none of which were their design or doing. Bad stuff happens. I have great empathy for this unlucky cohort.
    I strongly believe that experience matters a lot in the business world. Not only does experience matter for the elite worker classes (doctors, scientists, engineers), but also for the more mundane, but essential, groupings (bakers, electricians, lumberjacks, plumbers, gardeners). The list whereby experience contributes to superior performance and outcomes is endless. I’m prepared to challenge you naysayers to identify a legitimate business endeavor where experience is not crucial to success.
    Daniel Kahneman acknowledged the experience factor in his book “Thinking, Fast and Slow”. He gave numerous illustrations of how experience permits a worker to develop recognition skills and solution approaches. He used chess masters as one of his examples. In summary, he concluded that at last 10,000 hours of practical experience is needed to gain proficiency in many working assignments. Malcolm Gladwell also highlighted the 10,000 hour rule in his writings.
    Growing old is neither apocalyptic nor is it a Golden Age. Education, experience, prudent savings, and wise investing enhance the odds towards Golden and away from apocalyptic. Successful seniors adjust, adapt, and survive. Sometimes events force the retiree to reenter the employment marketplace. I agree that it is not an easy task, but it is doable and the national statistics support that assertion.
    Here is a Link to a government study that was completed in 2010:
    http://www.bls.gov/opub/ils/summary_10_04/older_workers.htm
    The reference report shows employment data dating from 1948 to 2008.
    Yes, the over-55 unemployment rate has recently escalated, but it’s at a relatively low, single digit level (see figure 2). Yes, it does take an older worker a longer time to find a new position. But he does. Figure 3 demonstrates that the senior workforce participation rate has been increasing recently while the participation rate for the youngest cohort has been decreasing. Note the trendlines. I’m sure a part of that trendline is caused by poor investment decisions and a shrinking retirement nest-egg. Too bad.
    Please visit the reference and form your own interpretations of the data sets.
    There is little doubt that aging erodes most skill sets. Youngsters work faster; seniors work smarter. Youngsters work creatively; seniors work with consistency. Tradeoffs are plentiful that naturally include wage and benefits considerations. Some firms now seek senior employees. It is a shifting marketplace. When Bell telephone initially hired an operator staff it was all male. They soon learned that females were better and more reliable at that job and adapted accordingly.
    I have sympathy for those individuals who lost positions that reflected both economic realities and age discrimination. It is equally hard on the ego and hard on the pocketbook. I appreciate that it does happen. I never faced that stressful circumstance. I like to think that I avoided that forlorn scenario by planning ahead. I did work for outfits that suffered layoffs. I escaped by working harder, by working cheaper, by changing positions, by moving to other locations, and by continuing my education. I survived by being proactive, by being flexible, and, admittedly, by being a little lucky.
    Persistence can and often does win the day. There is some truth to the observation that “Those who know better don’t always do better”. Like Woody Allen remarked: “Eighty percent of success is showing up”. Just don’t abandon the hunt.
    Loads of great discussion and diverse viewpoints. I enjoyed all of them. Thank you.
    Best Wishes.
  • Is Working Past Age 65 a Realistic Option?
    Reply to @Mark: Didn't mean to dismiss the suffering of those who got blindsided at just the wrong time - like your sister and others who bought homes in 2007. The housing wreck is having repercussions way beyond that even today. I was reacting more to the low 401k balances cited by Fidelity. As for having 100% in equities at retirement, guess that's what I meant by "not getting greedy" - way too aggressive for somebody whose left their job. And yep - do recognize that we're "preachin to the choir" here at MFO.
  • Is Working Past Age 65 a Realistic Option?
    Option to work past 65? I'm seven years from that number, already pushed into retirement. Glad for the monthly checks, not so glad that the checks don't amount to doodly-squat. Work past 65? Hmmmmmm....... Employers are looking for a Purple Squirrel. That is to say, they want the one in a million who can be hired, sit right down, and already know which button to push. Being intelligent and capable counts for nothing anymore. Work? Laugh. With my background, I'm like a rotted onion in a watermelon patch. Is working past 65 an option? Hypothetically, yes.
  • Is Working Past Age 65 a Realistic Option?
    Howdy Mark,
    I have read several articles during the past few years; and although I don't disagree with what MJG noted about some being able to be consultants after retirement in some areas; I am of the opinion that the vast majority of boomers without much saved in any type of account do or will find themselves between the rock and a hard place.
    When MI was in the boom days of auto production, there were many cases of both wage earners working for any of the big three and during several periods of time also working 6 or 7 days a week, or 5 days with overtime. These couples had very large combined gross and net incomes. The problem with many was that the good times were here and wouldn't disappear. We also know that the percent of folks who were good with household budgets, any understanding of investing and future planning is not a very high number. I recall two real estate folks I knew who noted on too many occassions about the high debt/equity ratio of many of the big three auto employees. When the numbers were crunched to attempt to obtain a home loan, the realtors would find a high gross income, but a poor net ration of monies available. The potential home buyers would have a stack of payment books for every type of toy and didn't always have much left for a larger mortgage payment.
    For several decades, from the very large and well paid middle class in MI; this state was far ahead of any other states for the number of registered motorcyles, boats, snowmobiles, travel trailers/campers.....etc, etc. The big money was coming into these households and headed right back out the door via a payment book.
    As to consulting after retirement, I know of a few businesses in our area who do offer this from time to time for some professional areas. The businesses find the value of the retired employee, and will ask to work periodically on a per diem basis.
    Chatting witj various folks in the area; as should be expected in many places, niether the young ones seeking employment, nor the older ones may anticipate a high wage and worse yet, no full time employment which would usually bring along a benefit package for limited healthcare and a few other goodies. One should not be surprised to find enough job listings that fall a few hours short of a full time position. Of course, this is no accident, eh?
    'Course, the recent jobs report from Friday had some jumping for joy; but there remains many uncurrents that are not favorable. Tis all well and good about new job formations; but there have also been many recent downsizings of jobs that had a much higher pay level; and so the balance of "pure body counts" is not always meaningful. A couple today who may both have full time employment at $9/hr. finds about $37k/year gross income, and of course, much less after state taxes, Medicar, SS and perhaps some Fed. taxes. As you noted.........not a lot of cash for today's needs.
    I surely wish all of this were otherwise; but it is part of what may be "normal" for many years going forward.
    The current condition of the country is part of what tempers where our houses's investment find a nest.
    Take care,
    Catch/Mark in Michigan
  • Is Working Past Age 65 a Realistic Option?
    Reply to @hank: and again, the big "IF" Hank. In my initial post I noted that the folks who frequent MFO and similar are at least aware and interested enough to know that they must be doing something to prepare for the days ahead. But I don't think we are over-stating the effects of the market crash & housing bust.
    There are rumors out there that those who retired in the year 2000 with a one million dollar, all equity portfolio might become the first to find out that the 4% withdrawal rate isn't going to cut it. The short version - that portfolio is only worth $418K today. The housing situation, while appearing stabilized, is still throwing out some nasty, nasty side effects. For example, my sister who bought into a townhome complex just before the big oops, has seen neighboring units selling for less than half of what she paid after going through foreclosure. I'm pretty sure that she would love a do-over on her purchase. People who may have been counting on their home equity to fund their retirement are having to severly dial back those expectations assuming there's any meaningful possibility of actually using them.
    These are just the highlights and it will be interesting to see how history unfolds. best of luck to you.