Archive for Retirement Planning

A financial plan for more travel

 

fast payday loans for every one

Airplane Flight Wing flying to Travel on Vacation

Airplane Flight Wing flying to Travel on Vacation (Photo credit: epSos.de)

What would you do with more money? What do you most want to do when you retire? For a huge number of us, that answer would be, Travel! Even for those of us with a lot of mileage already on us, the lure of faraway places remains strong.So what’s stopping us? The usual suspects—time and money. Employees in the U.S. get the lowest amount of vacation days in the western world. Even if you run a small business and could theoretically set your own hours, well, we know how that goes. But I think that even that time issue is a function of the money travel costs—if it costs a small fortune when you’re paying for it yourself, we tend to think it has to be a major trip, maybe several weeks, and we never go. But what if money were no object?—long weekend getaways would seem easier to fit in. As with all luxuries, we need a surplus in order to really relax.

Similarly, frequent flyer programs haven’t worked that well for me. For example, my kid is flying back and forth Philadelphia/Chicago five times this year. On US Airways flights (which we can’t always get) she might rack up enough frequent flyer miles to get one free ticket during her college career. But using it at a time when she actually has to fly given her breaks and vacations, well, I’m not booking it just yet.

It’s seemed to me that I’m going to get that fabulous tour to India (fill in your own bucket list destination) just about the time I win the lottery, or start collecting on that long-term care insurance. Yet I do hear rumors from time to time about adventurous types who traipse all over the globe for cents on the dollar. How?

Like Archimedes, my Eureka moment hit me in the bathtub (actually, the shower). I’ve been getting a blog feed from Chris Guillebeau, who writes The Art of Non-conformity, for years. I originally subscribed because I liked his free e-books and he is embarked upon a quest to visit every country in the world. It was great armchair travel fantasy. But suddenly it hit me that I should actually pay attention to some of this stuff—not just the travelogue, but the tips.

Chris has an e-book, Frequent Flyer Master, which pretty much lays out the techniques for you. The book is somewhat outdated (this field changes FAST), but Chris promises two things—that you’ll find a way to get at least 25,000 more miles (a free domestic ticket or thereabouts) and that he’ll send you the new copy when it comes out (in the next few months, apparently). The principles are available if you do enough web searching, but Chris puts them together in a succinct 101 course. It’s pretty complex, and he lays it out well. So, how do people do it?

  1. Sign up all over the place for frequent flier airline programs—some of these can be transferred to partner airlines, so if you fly on airlines in the same “alliance”, you can consolidate.
  2. Apply for a bunch of credit cards. Sign up bonuses can offer startling amounts of miles (like 50,000)—your credit has to be superior and there’s generally a required spending in a specific time period.  Also, these points can sometimes be transferred to other programs, consolidated, or used as cash to pay for non-covered portions of your travels. Some of these are airlines cards, some hotels, some just with big guys like American Express, Chase, and Capital One;
  3. Never buy anything, especially on-line, without checking through the card and airline programs—many of them will give you double or triple points (on some things, 5x) for anything you buy, from flowers to electronics to duck boots.
  4. Keep watch for specific promotions that offer multiple points—like 5x on office supplies, or restaurants, or companion tickets.
  5. Use credit cards strategically depending on multiple points offers.

Obviously, this is a game of big and little wins adding up to serious travel awards. Chris advises that the way to get there is to figure out your goals (just as in the rest of life!) If you know you want to go to India or Rome, you can organize your acquisition strategy for the best deal to that place. There are even software programs (some free on-line) to help you keep track of what you’ve amassed.

Is it worth it? Well, just like other effective financial strategies, if it were easy everyone would be doing it. It does require some research time and a fair head for sorting details. You’ll probably stick with it if you enjoy it as a hobby, feel you’re getting something significant for free, or really want to do more traveling. For me, I figure it’s worth a moderate investment of time considering the available rewards—much more worthwhile than clipping coupons out of the paper (and then forgetting them when going to the grocery store).

One caution—you must have a great credit score. Do not attempt this if you have debt or trouble controlling spending. And, your credit score will take a hit initially, so don’t start numerous credit applications if you’re going to buy a house (or maybe an auto) in the next six months. However, having a lot of credit power that mostly you don’t use can actually help your credit score over time—it’s the ratio of use:availability that matters. One number that floats around is that the amount you use each month should be less than 7% of your total available credit—so if you have $20,000 as a credit limit, you shouldn’t charge much more than $1,400/month, which you pay off each month. Other advice I’ve come across: apply for the cards all at once, double dip by using airline mileage cards and charging on credit cards that offer points, and keep on top of your credit score. (I’ve used Quizzle.com for a free score, but there are many others).

As with income tax and college financial aid strategies, you can go broke “saving” money, so be careful to confine this travel hacking of amassing points to money you would be spending anyway. Once you dip a toe into this you’re going to feel really stupid for all the points you’ve missed (ugh, money wasted). It’s complicated—if I still had a teenager at home, I’d put her onboard to keep track of this and figure it out—they’re always on the internet anyway, right? If you have one, you might ask a grandkid to do this as a gift to you—and make ‘em a deal on sharing the benefits.

My personal goals? India within two years, mostly paid for by benefits, London, and either a warm long weekend in the winter or a great city visit. I’ve scored 135,000 miles/points so far. I’ll update this from time to time to illustrate how I’m actually doing, what benefits I’ve landed, and how I used them. We’ll see if it’s worth it. And I can’t resist: warning, your mileage may vary.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Getting things straight: about Bill Clinton and asset allocation

One of the principles of a blog is that it’s supposed to be regular and I mostly get that, but phew! the last few weeks. First, there was the college drop off of my dearest beloved child (and the shoveling out of the remains of her room), the usual medical and veterinary crises, and a conference or two, mixed in with just about everyone in Northern Illinois deciding to finally get their financial life in order and call me (which I am definitely NOT complaining about). It’s been a busy few weeks. But in between time I watched the political conventions and now I, like everyone else, think I could do better on policy. At least in one area.

To be honest, I didn’t watch the one (very much) that featured Scarecrow and the Tin Man, but I had to tune in to watch Bill Clinton work that old black magic. He’s getting pretty grey now, but honestly he’s the only man who has ever held the job that I can actually imagine anyone ever wanting to date. Barack looks like excellent husband material, but if you really want to get in trouble on a Saturday night, Bill was certainly the go-to guy. But I digress. What this post is actually about is asset allocation. Lost you right there? Wait!

Because it’s now or not-until-next year for their 401ks, most people who have called me lately want to talk about what investments they actually should have selected instead of that target fund they picked when they couldn’t decipher the other offerings. If all you have is the 401k, the target fund may not be such a bad choice. But no, 99.99% of people I work with have a bigger coin collection.

You’ve probably got a 401k (or two, or three, depending on how many jobs you’ve held). Maybe you taught or worked for a non-profit, so a 403b is lurking around somewhere. In a burst of frugality, I’ll bet you opened (and maybe continued to add to) an IRA, maybe a Roth, and if you had a side gig or self-employment, you probably collected money in a SEP-IRA. If your income increased over the years, you’re probably not allowed to add to some of these any more, and you might also have a plain old mutual fund account or brokerage that our beloved IRS is happy to collect taxes on.  So when I see all the internet advice on “proper asset allocation” and “tax-smart investing”, I realize it’s just about as much a fantasy for most of us as keeping our houses clean, our dresser drawers neat, and our dogs brushed.

I spent about 7.5 hours yesterday trying to sort out a client’s accounts and move around the large collection of investments to a coherent plan they could manage, understand, and withdraw from. If I’d have actually billed them for the amount of time it took, at least one of them would have croaked and I’d be talking to the remaining one about settling the estate. And when I present these things, the client’s eyes just glaze over. Sure you can simplify, dear client, but that probably means cutting down your 15 or 16 accounts to 8. One solution, of course, is that they sign up for professional ongoing management, but they’re trying to be frugal and handle it, and I support that and really want to help. Truth is, it’s hard and it took me a good long time to learn to do asset allocation properly—and I began investing 30 years ago and the books I’ve studied on the topic are bending several shelves in my bookcase.

I have another solution, and it’s political. Why can’t we just have national retirement accounts? You get one—if you have a generous employer, they can match your contribution. If you make under $X, your contributions are deductible, otherwise, no. If you’re self employed, maybe you get to contribute a little more. You choose the investments and where to house the account. There’s a default option (maybe a target fund) and a default deduction (if employed). All these different programs, deductible, non-deductible, different income thresholds, different contribution limits, rollovers—well, it’s just plain crazy. Maybe accountants and financial planners get plenty of business out of this, but it’s crazy making for the investor.

With my idea (which admittedly needs flesh on the bones) many middle to moderately affluent citizens (maybe even the rich guys, though Mitt would find a way to beat it) would end up with one, maybe two accounts: retirement and maybe regular investing/savings/brokerage. So much easier to get reasonable diversity without trying to spread out choices among seven or eight accounts. You might actually be able to see what you have. You wouldn’t lose track of it when you changed jobs, or be tempted to cash in the seemingly small sum (no. no. no.) And when retirement comes, you could have a rational withdrawal plan that would be manageable as you age.

Now, I’m not trying to privatize social security (omigod people can’t even invest decently under the system we have. What a nightmare.) or advocating a flat tax because then I’d probably have gone over to the dark side, er, become a Republican. But isn’t there anyone in at least one of the parties that could think a little bit about coming up with a streamlined way for most of us who want to save for retirement to actually do that without using up most of our precious remaining grey cells?

Until that happens, I’m here to help. It ain’t easy and you’re not dumb if it isn’t crystal clear on the first run-through. Maybe after the dust settles, retirement savings could get some attention? After we get done worrying about where Barack was born.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Social Security—Take the money and run?

 

English: A bag of money, US dollars, spinning ...

(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If I had a euro for every time I’ve heard Social Security is going broke, I’d have decamped to Paris by now and wouldn’t be dispensing all this sage financial advice. C’mon guys and gals, if you’re old enough to even think about collecting Social Security (exception being my 18 year old who worries about this stuff), it’s going to be around for you. So then it comes down to—when to collect. Lately several people have posed the idea that they will collect it at 62 or 66 and invest the money instead of spending it. Aside from the fact that I’ll believe it when I see it, here’s a look at whether you’d actually be ahead. Sure, my example is filled with assumptions that you can disagree with, but play along here for a moment.

So let’s say you’re single, 60 years old, have an average annual salary of $100,000, and your full retirement age is 66. (It’s way more complicated for couples, so I’m not even going to get into that here. Call your friendly local financial planner—me!) Using the nifty little free estimator at AARP, your benefit would be $1,911/month at 62 ($22,932/year); $2,548 at 66 ($30,576/year); and $3,363 at 70 ($40,356/year). Okay, we agreed you’re not going to spend one penny of that money you start collecting at age 62, but are going to invest it in a half-way decent portfolio of no-load mutual funds that averages, let’s be generous in today’s market, 8% return. So on the face of it, you’ll have $255,822 more at 70, right? Nice chunk of change, no? Not so fast…

At a safe withdrawal rate from your savings of, oh, 4% a year from 70 onwards, your added portfolio will give you an extra $10,232.88 per year, or about $853 per month. So instead of collecting $3,363 from Social Security at 70, you’ll have an income of $2,764 per month—you’ve cost yourself $599 per month. That buys a lot of cat food.

Let’s say you collect Social Security at 66 instead—four years of saving and the same 8% return. Now your extra cache is $107,685. At that same 4% withdrawal rate, you’ve got $4,307.38 per year, or about $359/month, giving you a total of $2,270 per month, instead of the $2,548 you would have had. Maybe $278 isn’t that much, but multiply it over a 30 year retirement–better die quick.

But wait, it’s even worse. Social Security is adjusted for inflation. Your investments aren’t. So your actual Social Security payment is likely to be more, and the spending power of your savings is  less ($101,014 at 66, $223,629 at 70, assuming 3% inflation). And oh-oh, you have to pay taxes on that Social Security if you’re still working. And taxes on your investment returns, unless they’re in a tax sheltered account. Another big hit. .I don’t think I need to run through any more numbers for you to see why not only do financial planners beg you not to take benefits at 62, but we really like to see you wait until 70, unless you have some serious medical problem that makes a different strategy compelling.

Just. Don’t. Do. It.

Enhanced by Zemanta