You have options. Retirement planning at every stage of life comes with choices. How you approach those decisions depends on who you are. If Marcel Proust is right in his assertion that “All of our final decisions are made in a state of mind that isn’t going to last”, those choices we make will evolve almost as soon as we make them. This applies to your retirement decisions, the ones you make that seem to be set in stone, the ones that seem right at the time you made them, will also change.
If you are still a great distance from retirement, the choices seem simple. Invest as much as you possibly can based on the theory that the longer you invest, the better the chances are you will achieve your retirement goals. But even this simple approach involves deciding “how much is enough” and “what are those goals”. Five percent might seem manageable in your youth based on the idea that this percentage will not impact your take-home pay, allowing you some wiggle room to get your young self launched, pay for any collegiate bills you may have accumulated and still be young enough to spend. Yet, 5% isn’t enough to insure you will have enough to meet those far-off goals.
If you are approaching the middle of your working career, a time when life becomes much more complicated, the choices of “how much do I need to save” and “are my retirement goals realistic” weigh heavily on the ability of you to foresee a future. Family obligations, which include for most of us our kids, our homes and our parents, take a financial toll on those efforts. If you are still investing only five percent of your income at this stage in life, you will come up short of what even the most conservative projections of life-after-work suggest. Ten percent would be better but with the shorter time horizon, you would still fall short.
But if you are closing in on retirement, the choices become more complicated. Do you work longer because you have fallen short of your goal or do you fall prey to some suggestion, such as the one recently circulated by Christine Fahlund, the financial planning director at mutual fund company T. Rowe Price? She recently suggested that you use your late-in-life work years spending some of the money you have set aside. Her thinking is flawed but appealing.
Ms Fahlund believes that working longer is the key. Her thoughts involve doing retirement like activities while you are still working and still healthy enough to enjoy them is worth committing to a retirement age of 70 years old. Her thinking revolves around the years of extra investment dollars you might capture with those extra years of work. She has based her assumptions on the fact that most people retire or attempt to do so at age 62 – so eight more years is worth the time – and the fact that the returns you might get during those extra years will net you 7% per year.
One, working longer may be an option for those that have failed to invest adequately throughout their working career. But who really wants to? And two, your conservative investments will net you a seven percent return. I say conservative based on the popular (and wise) decision to stop chasing growth and instead, preserve capital.
By the time you realize that starting early was the best option to reach your retirement goal, the time has passed. By the time you realize that you should have invested more throughout your whole working career, you have missed the window of investment opportunity. Spending what you have accumulated as you close in on retirement is not a plan you want to embrace.