It may be true that money can’t buy you love, but can it buy happiness in retirement? Most people would say it can, but financial planner Wes Moss wanted the details: Just how much money does it take to retire happily - and is there a point of diminishing happiness return on the size of a nest egg?
Moss surveyed 1,350 retirees about net worth and income, assets and home equity. But he wasn’t hunting for the number of dollars it takes to live -- rather, he wanted to understand how money correlates to retirees’ levels of happiness. To that end, he posed a series of detailed questions about their lives: where they shop, what kinds of cars they drive, how many vacations they take annually, their family lives and the activities they pursue. Then he associated their levels of reported happiness with their financial condition.
Here’s what he found: Most people can be happy in retirement with savings of about $500,000. A higher number can buy more happiness, but only to a point.
“There is a plateau-ing effect above that number, and the higher you get the rate of increase gets smaller," Moss says. "I call it diminishing marginal happiness.”
Moss, managing partner and chief investment strategist at Capital Investment Advisors in Atlanta, explores the correlation of wealth and retirement happiness in his new book, You Can Retire Sooner Than You Think: The 5 Money Secrets of the Happiest Retirees (McGraw-Hill, June 2014). Moss is a registered investment adviser who previously worked for a big Wall street firm.
His five secrets include a careful determination of what you actually want to spend money on in retirement and how you’ll save to meet your goals; paying off your mortgage early; developing diverse sources of income in retirement; and learning how to invest for income.
Here’s an edited transcript of five questions I asked Moss about his findings in a recent interview.
Q. Who are the happy retirees, and what makes them happy?
It’s not how much you save but how much you save in relation to what you need. When I worked on Wall Street, what we always were trying to breed is an expectation with clients that they need to spend more and more - you need an infinite amount because you will need to spend just as much or more in retirement. That’s what the mutual fund industry and Wall Street preach.
But we found that for most people, the amount of happiness correlates to median savings around $500,000. There are some increases above that number, but it’s a slower rate of incremental gains. So think of $500,000 as a financial bare minimum.
Q. Are the happy retirees making adjustments to their spending in order to be comfortable?
The survey data doesn’t tell me that, but my real-life experiences with clients suggest that people take a realistic look at how much income they’ll have - perhaps they have two or three thousand in Social Security income, and they can take another $3,000 monthly from their investments. They look at that and decide that they can live a good life on $6,000 a month.
Q. What makes retirees unhappy - and how can people avoid winding up there?
Many of the unhappy retirees are still paying mortgages, with no light at the end of the tunnel. Another thing I see a lot is people who don’t take care of big expenses before they retire - they wait to redo the kitchen until they retire because they think they’ll have time to deal with it then. But it’s much better to do these things while you’re working and still have cash flow.
Another mistake is people who don’t have enough core pursuits in retirement. They were too myopic and entrenched in making money and working before, and now they’re not as busy as they need to be. They are blindsided by free time.
Q. I’ve heard both sides of the mortgage-in-retirement argument - some argue it’s better to invest that money rather than use it to pay off a mortgage. Sounds like you’re a firm believer in getting rid of them.
If you have resources in a taxable account, I’d rather see a client use that to pay off the mortgage in one fell swoop - or, just accelerate your monthly payments by $200 to $400, which can shave a full decade off of a mortgage. I know people will argue that they can get a higher return putting that money in stocks, but I’ve seen a lot of periods in my career where all the market did was crash and then recover. Most Americans don’t get that average 9 percent stock market return over time, so a safer bet is to save that guaranteed 4 or 5 percent that a mortgage costs. Also, with older clients, what I see is an enormous level of contentment among people who have figured out how to get rid of their mortgages.
Q. Your book lays out a model for retiring early - or earlier than you think you could. That runs counter to much of the talk we hear today about longevity and the need for everyone to work longer. Why do you think people can retire earlier than planned - and how do you define the word “early”?
I define it as being in a position retire at 60 or 62. And there is a group of people where it’s obvious they have the financial means to retire - but the concept is foreign and they don’t have a handle on their finances. I’ve had many client meetings with couples where one spouse thinks they can retire, and the other doesn’t - but when you add up all their different accounts, you see that they have $750,000, along with pensions and Social Security. These are people who definitely could retire if they choose.
Retire On Savings Of $500,000? This Advisor Thinks Clients Can
August 6, 2014
« Previous Article
| Next Article »
Login in order to post a comment
Comments
-
Most of the comments reflect a lack of knowledge about how retirees live and what they need. I suspect there isn't a retiree or a person that is close to retiring in the lot. Of course one cannot draw from a retirement account at 7.2% annually and we all should know that. But one could realistically withdraw $20-$25,000 a year with careful management and re-balancing. Couple that to a $3000 a month Social Security benefit (primary plus spousal) and one is in the $60,000 range. With no mortgage one can live rather decently in most places except in the most high cost areas and in the central cities there. I practice in MA and have clients in Greater Boston living quite nicely at that level. Others in other places do the same, in some cases really well. It is true that one must plan and can't spend "willy-nilly". But then that is the key to financial success over a lifetime, not just in retirement.
-
Clearly some of you are not capable of understanding it. He said he asked retirees about being "happy" and those that are happy had only about half a million in assets and most of them had no mortgage. If you think that retirees are going to be more happy just because they have a lot of money then you missed what he said altogether. It is possible and it only proves what the age old adage that "money can NOT buy happiness". He also provided you with some of his criteria for being happy so yes people it is possible to be happy without a lot of money.
-
Most of the comments here are spot on with how unrealistic this is. As for the mortgage... in this scenario you wind up with 100% equity in an illiquid asset. Good luck getting a HELOC when you have little income. The main point that is missed here is health costs. Never mind long-term care. Just paying for your Medicare! That money is deducted from Social Security. You can see what I'm talking about here: www.yourretirementcosts.org
-
Unrealistic and irresponsible to propose that this is possible. Perhaps it creates an enticement for people to buy the book. This type of one-sized approach to retirement planning is misleading and downright dishonest.
-
"OtherOne" provides an answer which defies the premise of the author. 1) You say, "Retire at 70." 2) Author says it can be done at 62 or younger. FAIL. You say that the investor must die at age 76. Note my comment that the funds will vanish in 24 years. Do the math: If someone retires at age 60, and dies in 24 years, then he/she is 84 at death. If you're going to respond to context, it has to be congruent. If we make age of death a prerequisite piece of planning, then we need to get the client to agree to die at the stipulated point of "departure." So, try your series of ideas with the entering argument posited by the author: 62 or younger retirement $500,000 to invest This is going to be interesting.
-
It works if returns are 2% above inflation and a 16-year lifespan, 4% above inflation and 24-year lifespan or 6% above inflation and 36-year lifespan. Retire at 70 with $0.5m, draw SS max and meet the mortality tables and you've made it. Plenty of places in U.S. where $6,000/month is doable. Some acceptable sites outside the U.S. (Quito, Ecuador; Costa Rica; Lake Grenada, Nicaragua come to mind.) I say, "Go for it."
-
This is terribly facile. If someone can live on $6,000 a month in retirement, then he/she/they has/have developed sufficient discipline as to not need much in the way of professional retirement guidance. As Ray points out, below, the 7.2% withdrawal rate is about twice the practical amount. If there is no inflation and If the client can earn a net return of 5% and If the client spends the money at 7.2% then The client(s) must die 24 years after retiring........... ..........because, at that point, the investment capital will be gone..... This plan scarcely rises to the level of sufficiency.
-
That is a 7.2% withdrawal rate--hardly likely to be a source of happiness later on.
-
I'm sorry I disagree completely. First off there will be a revolution in life expectancy over the next decade and $500,000 average savings will never cover that! As for the present, maybe $6000 a month makes it in sqeedunk, but not where I live!!!