This month's enactment of the retirement plan fee disclosure law brings to mind the definition of a true professional -- someone who gives others the same advice they would follow for themselves knowing what they know about their vocation. So a whistle-blower would be someone who steps forward to point out that their fellow associates are not acting professionally. Their collective behavior is self-serving, but nobody wants to mess up a good thing.

Considering the legions of MBAs and Ph.D.s that populate the nation's financial services industry -- and purporting to help people prepare for an adequate retirement -- I find it a little strange that few had thought to calculate the true opportunity cost of retirement plan fees.

All it takes is some punching up of some compound interest figures on a calculator. What it ultimately took was the action of a few whistle-blowers throughout the industry -- starting with John Bogle at Vanguard.

For the past 20 years, the 401(k) industry and the retirement advisory community were charging participants an unconscionable amount and they were accessing their fees from retirement accounts -- the most expensive money anyone could use to pay a bill. The mutual fund industry is arguably the world's most profitable industry because buyers are not price-sensitive. When you are charged a fee but never receive an invoice, or have to write a check, it's the silent spring of stealth billing.

Moreover,

The average equity mutual fund during that 20-year period was earning about 15 percent per year. Money compounding in a retirement plan at that rate doubles every five years. But fees can take a big chunk from the fund; $100 charged in fees in the single year of 1980, for instance, would otherwise have compounded to $1,600 by early 2000 if it had been left in the fund at the beginning of that 20-year stretch.

And remember, fees taken out of your fund also reduce your return. So, for instance, a fund earning 15 percent a year actually gives you a return of 14 percent a year if the fee is 1 percent. When you calculate that missing 1 percent over long periods of time, the opportunity cost goes off the charts: $1.3 million in 30 years on a $10,000 per year annual 401(k) contribution.

Even with more normal 10 percent returns, the cost of the missing 1 percent is $355,000 in 30 years on the same $10,000 annual contribution.

The earliest published attempt to compare the cost to employees among the major retirement plan vendors occurred in 1998. A cost index was the subject of articles in the New York Times followed by Money magazine with its eight-page cover article "Beware Retirement Plan Rip-off." The Labor Department held televised hearings in Washington and then published a pamphlet that warned company decision makers to avoid high fees -- and that was it.

Finally in 2009, some 10 years after initial calls for disclosure, Rep. George Miller took action as head of the Committee on Education and Labor. His efforts resulted in what is now the new fee disclosure legislation that just went into effect this month. Your plan committee now knows what all your costs are, and you will be told along with your September quarter-end statement -- by law. I could argue that this legislation has the potential to add a trillion dollars to retirement accounts over the next 30 years -- at no cost to anyone but the financial services industry.

Continue reading here:
Retirement Planner: Counting the positives of new fee disclosure law

It seems the new mantra is that you need 100% or more of your pre-retirement income to live comfortably in retirement. But shouldn't you be able to get by with much less considering you no longer need to save for retirement and you may no longer have a mortgage? -- David Kolkebeck, Readsboro, Vt.

I agree that the "replacement ratio," or percentage of pre-retirement income advisers claim one needs to live well in retirement, seems to have crept up over the years.

When I started writing for MONEY magazine in the 1980s, people routinely referred to the "70% rule" when discussing the percentage of pre-retirement income one ought to shoot for.

Soon 70% expanded to 80% or 90%, and before long, some people began suggesting that 100% was a more realistic benchmark. A few years ago, one retirement research firm even came up with a figure of 126%.

Related: Can you trust your financial adviser?

Conspiracy theorists see something sinister in this retirement income inflation: Ah, those sly investment firms are pushing the replacement ratio higher, so we have to invest more money in mutual funds and the like, which allows them to collect bigger fees. But I think something less ominous is at work: uncertainty.

The simple fact is that it's tough to know exactly how much income you'll actually need in retirement. A recent study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that household expenditures decline later in life, dropping roughly by a third between ages 65 and 85.

But that doesn't mean your spending will follow that trajectory. Your outlays in retirement can vary widely depending on a number of factors, including: how closely you want your retirement lifestyle to mirror the way you lived during your career; how much you've saved for retirement and your kids' college expenses; whether you retire with a mortgage or other debt; whether you have retiree medical coverage from your company or will rely solely on Medicare; and how much you earned during your career.

So rather than viewing a replacement percentage as something you can pinpoint precisely, think about it as a very general guideline that can help you estimate how much you ought to be saving during your career and to gauge whether you're making progress on the retirement planning front.

As a baseline, I'd start with a replacement ratio of 70% or 75%. That should reflect the fact that many of the expenditures you face during your career -- saving for retirement, work-related expenses, the cost of raising kids -- won't be around after you retire.

Original post:
Pre-retirement income: How much you'll need in retirement

Do you feel ready for retirement? How's your 401(k) and/or individual retirement account doing? Has it recovered completely from the 2008 meltdown -- or are you still playing catch-up?

Yesterday, Alicia Munnell, director of Boston College's Center for Retirement Research, examined a recently released government study of household finances and concluded that as of 2010, the retirement account recovery had stalled. She pointed out that since 2007, the number of employees participating in contributory retirement plans has declined. Meanwhile, the number of cash outs, loans and hardship withdrawals has risen.

According to her calculations, the typical household -- husband and wife together -- approaching retirement had only $120,000 in 401(k) and/or IRA holdings in 2010, about the same as in 2007. If they were to take that money and purchase an immediate annuity with it, they'd get only $575 in monthly income at today's interest rates , she says.

Social Security provides an average of 70 percent of income for people 65 and older, according to Munnell's calculations, which are based on the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey. The Social Security Administration reports that as of January 2012, the average Social Security payment for a retired worker was $1,230 per month. If we multiply that by two -- assuming among people retiring today, both halves of most couples qualify for Social Security on their own -- the total household income from Social Security is $2,460 in this mythical family.

If you subtract the 12.2 percent that Social Security holds back to pay for Medicare parts B and D, this couple will be left with $2,165 plus $575 from the annuity for a total of $2,740 to pay the bills each month. Of course, that's before any defined benefit pension payments, savings outside of retirement accounts and part-time work.

Can two people live on $2,740 a month or $32,880 a year? Or is this -- as Munnell implies -- a retirement planning disaster waiting to happen?

It depends on where this couple lives. Here in small-town Michigan, especially if this couple owns their own home free and clear -- they'll be OK. Their tax bills -- property, federal and state -- will be minimal -- no tax on Social Security. As long as they don't own the Taj Mahal or a brand new Cadillac, insurance should be within their budget. And the rest of the costs are controllable. My garden already has a bumper crop of squash and tomatoes.

In other parts of the country, where taxes and the cost of housing are much higher, surviving on this much income could be trickier.

Anyway, I get tired of reading studies like this one, which is focused on an average that is almost meaningless. The only way retirement planning works is if you analyze your own situation and go from there. Get out your calculator and figure it out. Don't be discouraged by somebody else's bad news.

Read more:
Retirement planning is personal

WEST POINT, Pa., July 12, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --There are many choices to consider when it comes to retirement living. Those contemplating a move to a retirement community will find more options available than ever before. Whether researching a retirement community for yourself or a loved one, it's important to ask the right questions, keeping in mind factors such as present and future needs, community location, and financial situation, among other considerations.

Following these tips from ACTS Retirement-Life Communities will put you on the right path toward finding a retirement community that will best meet your needs now and for the long-term.

1. Check the background of the community: Find out who owns and manages the community, as well as the track record of management. Determine whether the community is accredited for meeting high standards in services, operations and finances. Visit http://www.carf.org for a list of accredited communities by state. Review the financial performance of the organization, including any credit ratings the company has received from agencies like Standard & Poor's or Fitch.

2. Consider future health needs: Retirement communities today offer many amenities and services but not all provide medical care, making another move a possibility should health needs change. Continuing care retirement communities are the only type of senior community that offers independent living, assisted living and skilled nursing care on a single campus. Some CCRCs even offer specialized programs such as memory care, home health care, and adult day programs as part of their services.

3. Get detailed information about fees: Learn what all fees do and do not include, when fees are subject to increase and under what conditions. Ask about the average fee increase over the past five years. Consider the financial advantages and disadvantages of the contract options the community offers.

4. Meet with residents and tour the community: Arrange an appointment to tour the community, meet with residents and staff, and to sample the food and the service. Notice if the community is clean, well maintained and secure.

5. Use a services and amenities checklist: Get a complete information packet that includes application for admission, fee schedules, floor plans and the resident contract. Compare each community's pricing to amenities, programs and services that are important to you.

6. Ask about recreational and social activities: Find out what kind of social, cultural, educational, spiritual and wellness activities are available. Is there an activities director on staff to plan entertainment, events, and trips? Is transportation available?

7. Consider location and find out if there is a waiting list: Is the community located near family, friends, doctor's office, place of worship, and shopping? Find out if there is a waiting list to move into the community and how it works.

For more tips visit http://www.actsretirement.org/guide to download a free booklet called A Consumer's Guide to Retirement Living. This informative resource explains the range of senior living options that are available, and includes checklists, worksheets and important questions to help you confidently research, evaluate, and compare retirement communities.

Read more here:
7 Tips for Choosing a Retirement Community

A top Virginia lawmaker is challenging the U.S. Navy over its refusal to delay the layoff date for some 172 sailors so that they could meet their 15-year service mark, making them eligible for retirement pay.

Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., sent a letter last month to the chief of naval personnel, asking that the Sept. 1, 2012, layoff date be extended another year so that sailors close to meeting the 15-year mark could receive the maximum retirement benefits allowed to them under the law.

The Navy announced in 2011 that it was establishing "enlisted retention boards" to determine which sailors could stay and which sailors must be "involuntarily separated" -- or laid off. The Navy had determined that it was overmanned in about 31 of its 84 "ratings," or jobs, and that 2,947 sailors would need to be let go in order to allow others to be promoted. Of that number, 172 sailors would have made 15 years of service if the Sept. 1, 2012, date were extended another year, a Navy source confirmed to FoxNews.com.

The Navy then reviewed the records of sailors who had served between seven and 15 years -- ranging in rank from first class petty officers to senior chief petty officers -- and made their selection. The Navy claims that during this time, it offered affected sailors the opportunity to convert to another rating in an attempt to keep them from getting laid off. It also says it offered comprehensive assistance to those selected for termination, like contracting with an outside firm to help them find civilian jobs.

But the Navy's handling of the matter did not sit well with Rigell, whose district includes Virginia's Hampton Roads area and who serves on the House Armed Services Committee.

Rigell penned a letter June 11 to Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Adm. Scott Van Buskirk, requesting that the Navy extend Temporary Early Retirement Authority, or TERA, to sailors who make the 15-year mark by Sept. 30, 2013.

"These sailors and their families endure unique and extraordinary demands and make significant sacrifices over the course of their careers," Rigell wrote. "They are vital to our military readiness and should be given the opportunity to reach 15 years of service before being involuntary separated."

Buskirk rejected Rigell's request, saying in a June 27 reply that, "We evaluated whether individual exceptions should be granted, but determined that permitting sailors to remain beyond the cutoff date would adversely impact ongoing efforts to properly balance the Navys force profile, stabilize enlisted advancement opportunity, and improve overall fleet readiness."

"Additionally, granting exception for those who have not yet separated would create an inequity for those who have already separated," Buskirk wrote.

The law has long required sailors to serve 20 years before they could receive retirement benefits amounting to 50 percent of their base pay. In December 2011, however, Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act, which gave the Department of Defense the power to reinstate TERA, which is a "temporary, voluntary program that offers voluntary early retirement at a reduced monthly retirement pay to eligible members with 15 to 20 years of active service," according to the Navy's website. Under TERA, members of the Navy, Air Force and Army who have served between 15 and 20 years can receive retirement pay that is calculated using a multi-step formula.

Read the original post:
Lawmaker Fights Navy to Get Sailors Retirement Pay

Lionel WIJESIRI

Human Resources Senior Minister, D. E. W. Gunasekera, recently spoke about the social security system in Sri Lanka. He said that the National Human Resources and Employment policy is now under submission at the Cabinet of Ministers and many issues on social protection and labour strategies have been addressed. Speaking on the retirement benefit schemes, he said, We must reconsider the feasibility of establishing a pension scheme for the workers in the formal private sector. The abortive private sector pension fund needed a much more critical study, analysis and assessment by professional actuaries. He also highlighted the need for a security scheme for informal sector.

Senior Minister D.E.W. Gunasekera

Fund management has become a controversial issue today, he continued, "We have to consider seriously whether we have reached the point of diminishing returns in so far as the management of EPF and ETF is concerned. While we should appreciate the concerns of the workers and their sensitiveness to changes, it is equally important to consider the long term sustainability of these funds," he said.

Human Resources Senior Minister is in the right track. Time has come to recognize that our present social security retirement policy needs to adjust to the changing economic, demographic and social environments. It is also a good idea that the government has begun to make extensive policy analysis and is planning to set up major policy reforms geared towards finding a new balance for social security retirement schemes.

Sri Lanka is currently fortunate to have an extensive social security retirement benefit system with a conceptually modern social assistance scheme. In addition to the universal health care system covering 100 percent of the population extending from birth to death, the country has comprehensive scheme of pensions for public servants, farmers, fisheries and self-employed, and the EPF, ETF and payment of gratuity for private sector workers. The writer believes that, recognizing the changing conditions, improvements are necessary with respect to the targeting and the adequacy of retirement benefits levels, quality and cost effectiveness of the public health care for the old, the personnel coverage of the income security schemes and the adequacy of benefits provided by the provident funds.

As the experience of the developed countries has shown, the presence of a reasonable social safety net for all individuals and households enlarges and strengthens the labour force of a country, adds to its capacity to promote growth and to accept change, and underpins a greater degree of political and social stability. Furthermore, entitlement to adequate levels of social protection is recognized explicitly in the several international declarations dealing with the matter and in the various international labour standards on social security and related issues.

For the world as a whole, three types of countries can be distinguished. In most developed countries and some countries in central and Eastern Europe, full personal coverage has been reached for some benefits, but not for others. In these countries, the extension of coverage can probably be achieved within existing structures. Most of these countries are contemplating new architecture for the financing of pension outlays. They are presently giving careful thought for the development of a new consensus. However, the overwhelming majority of the worlds population, belonging to lower-income developing countries, is without some form of income security in old age or disability.

In many middle-income developing countries, where retirement benefit coverage does not exceed 50 percent, extension of social security coverage will have to be achieved by a combination of adapting existing social security structures and experimenting with new schemes. Sri Lanka belongs to the third category.

Two main problems are at the heart of the issues facing social security retirement schemes in almost all countries of the world. These are questions of coverage and governance.

Read the original:
‘Retirement is the beginning of a journey, not an end’

RADNOR, Pa., July 11, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- There is new hope that Americans will be better prepared for retirement, thanks to automatic features offered through employer-sponsored retirement plans, according to a study just released from Lincoln Financial Group and Retirement Made Simpler. Part of the Lincoln Retirement Power research series, the survey explored plan sponsors' perspective on the value of automatic retirement plan features including automatic enrollment, automatic escalation and qualified default investment alternatives (QDIAs). The study found that 94% of plan sponsors recognize the success of automatic enrollment features in helping them address their plan-related goals and that these features drive higher participation and deferral rates along with better investment performance.

Other key findings include:

"Our Lincoln Retirement Power survey confirms what we intuitively believe. Automatic features are highly effective," said Chuck Cornelio, President, Retirement Plan Services, Lincoln Financial Group. "Employers who offer these features in their plans will help Americans take charge of their retirement. But just like any other plan design innovation, auto solutions do not mean you can simply set it and forget it. Employees need personalized and outcomes-based communication and education to meet their goals and boost their retirement readiness."

Despite these impressive results, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of America,[2] less than half of plan sponsors have adopted auto escalation and enrollment to date. The Lincoln Retirement Power study uncovered that while new communication channels have emerged since the advent of auto features, they have not kept pace with cultural and generational shifts or the evolution of plan design. Only 51% of sponsors say they offer customized communication and only half (50%) have revamped communication materials since the introduction of auto features.

Plan sponsors agree that employee communication must shift significantly when automatic features are adopted. That means moving away from education that is technical in nature - such as how to enroll or the investments offered - to engaging participants in a more meaningful discussion about their individual savings behaviors and strategies such as their future monthly retirement income, spending power and projected retirement lifestyle.

"Conversations need to be more personalized and address each employee's specific needs, goals and lifestyles," said Cornelio. "It's time to take a more proactive approach to how we plan for retirement, with more focus on the connection between our future goals and what it will take to get there."

The good news is that automated models are helping more people take steps to save for retirement. The strong combination of auto solutions plus outcomes-focused communication has the power to motivate people, in a positive way, to take an active role in their retirement readiness."

For more information on the Retirement Power study, visit http://www.lfg.com/retirementpower.

Survey Methodology The Lincoln Retirement Power Automatic Features Study is based on research conducted by Brightwork Partners, LLC for Lincoln Financial and Retirement Made Simpler. Researchers administered the survey by phone from February 8, 2012 to March 8, 2012. The research explored automatic retirement plan features from the perspective of 201 executives responsible for managing 401(k) and 403(b) retirement plans with assets of $10 million or more. Respondents had to have implemented at least one automatic feature, including: qualified default investment alternatives (QDIAs), automatic enrollment and/or automatic escalation. The survey sample is nationally representative of all 401(k) and 403(b) retirement plans with assets of $10 million or more offering at least one automatic feature (approximately 12,000 plans). To learn more about the Automatic Features Study, visit http://www.lfg.com/retirementpower.

About Retirement Made SimplerRetirement Made Simpler is a coalition formed by AARP, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Retirement Security Project (RSP). The coalition was created specifically to inspire and support employers who want to help their employees save more for retirement. By providing companies with the tools and information they need to automate their retirement plans, more Americans will achieve a safe and secure retirement. For more information, visit http://www.RetirementMadeSimpler.org.

View post:
New Study Affirms Auto Solutions Boost Retirement Readiness

DES MOINES, Iowa--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

When it comes to boosting retirement savingsand ultimately retirement incomegood old fashioned face-to-face education is proving to make a significant difference.

According to a new analysis from the Principal Financial Group, employees who attend personalized, one-on-one sessions at the worksite take more positive actions including participating more and saving more.

Analysis shows that, over time, the higher deferral rate combined with the commitment to increase savings among those who attended one-on-one meetings could mean an additional $242,000 at retirementbased solely on employee deferrals. That could translate into an extra $905 more a month in retirement income1, which is 69 percent higher than participants who didnt have one-on-one education.

We know from face-to-face educational meetings that retirement savers benefit from hearing a person explain how the retirement plan works rather than having to shuffle through documents by themselves, said Barrie Christman, vice president, individual investor services at The Principal. Take it a step further with personalized one-on-one meetings on company time and significantly higher numbers of participants are taking actions that can help get them to the 11-15 percent contribution rangeincluding employer matchthat we believe is needed over the course of a career to have sufficient retirement income.

One-on-one adds up to greater savings

The analysis of participants covered by retirement plans2 through The Principal, who attended a one-on-one meeting in 2011, found that 92 percent agreed to take a positive action and 80 percent completed the action. The top actions were to increase savings rates now and commit to continue to increase them in the future:

Even a small increase in savings can make a big difference in retirement security over time, especially when there is a commitment to keep increasing contributions, said Christman. While plan designautomatic savings features, higher default rates and employer match plays a critical role in empowering participants to save effectively, face-to-face education is a key tool in the retirement readiness toolbox.

The Principal rolled out its unique program of one-on-one meetings at the worksite in 2006. The salaried professionals have conducted more than 340,000 individual meetings since then.

The personalized meetings identify gaps in retirement planning, show how employer-sponsored benefits fit with personal financial needs and help individuals develop a personalized action plan.

Visit link:
Face-to-Face Education Drives Better Retirement Savings Behavior

updated 9:10 AM EDT, Tue July 10, 2012

Wicketkeeper Mark Boucher is struck in the eye by a flying bail during South Africa's game with Somerset

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

(CNN) -- South Africa wicketkeeper Mark Boucher has announced his retirement from international cricket after a freak accident during a tour match forced him to undergo surgery on a lacerated eye.

Boucher was taken to hospital for an operation after spinner Imran Tahir's dismissal of Somerset's Gemaal Hussain caused a bail to flick up into his eye when he was standing up to the wicket.

The 35-year-old, who has played in 147 Test matches for his country, will return to South Africa for further treatment as soon as he is able to travel.

Boucher spoke of an "uncertain recovery" with the wicketkeeper understood to be battling to save the sight in his left eye.

South African captain Graeme Smith confirmed Boucher's retirement from the international team and read out a statement made by the wicketkeeper to reporters at Somerset's ground in Taunton.

"It is with sadness, and in some pain, that I make this announcement," it read. "Due to the severity of my eye injury, I will not be able to play international cricket again.

"I had prepared for this UK tour as well, if not better than I have prepared for any tour in my career. I had never anticipated announcing my retirement now, but circumstances have dictated differently.

Here is the original post:
Boucher announces retirement from international cricket after eye surgery

For the third straight year, the economic recovery has stalled in the spring after showing promise early in the year. Job creation is anemic. The stock market seems poised to do nothing--at least nothing good. Interest rates are still so low that lots of so-called "safe" investments are losing money. Whatever you call it, it's bad news for retirees and would-be retirees concerned about living on a fixed income. As economists restart their advisory machines, so are we. Here are the major realities of the new retirement, updated to reflect stronger doses of conservatism and defensive postures.

[See Top-Rated Mutual Funds by Category Ranked by U.S. News Mutual Fund Score.]

Continue employment. Continuing to work is the most recommended strategy of the new retirement. Lots of experts say 70 is the new 65. It keeps a paycheck coming, and if you're lucky, employer-provided health insurance, retirement-account contributions, and other benefits. And for each year you work, you cut a year off the time your retirement nest egg must last. Finally, continuing to work may also provide you the ability to delay claiming your Social Security benefits. Each year you can put off taking Social Security, your benefits will rise by about 8 percent. Benefits do not increase once you've turned 70.

Go back to school. Even if you leave the workforce, it may not be a permanent decision. Many people get bored in retirement and also miss the discretionary spending that a paycheck can provide. Or, you may simply want to embark on a new career. Whatever the reason, your enjoyment and workplace choices can be enhanced by going back to school. Community colleges have been a great bargain but many of them have been hit by budget cutbacks, so shop carefully when considering classes.

Social Security claiming strategy. As noted, each year you wait--from the earliest eligibility at age 62 until you turn 70--your Social Security benefits rise by about 8 percent. For most people, this means the benefits they would receive at age 62 would be only 75 percent of what they're entitled to if they wait until age 66, which is considered "full retirement age" for most baby boomers. And if you wait until age 70, that amount goes up to 132 percent of your age 66 benefits. These are real annual gains, because overall benefits are also adjusted each year to account for inflation. Of course, your health and family situation may argue for an early claiming age. Another key aspect of claiming strategy involves couples. It may be possible for one spouse to begin drawing half of the other spouse's Social Security benefits while still delaying his or her own claiming date (and thus enjoying those 8 percent annual benefit increases). Check out the Social Security Claiming Guide at Boston College's Center for Retirement Research.

[See Balancing the Retirement Equation.]

Taxes. The economic and political weight of enormous budget deficits makes it all but certain that your taxes will rise. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, it's looking more likely that two new related tax hikes for affluent taxpayers will occur next year: a 3.8 percent investment tax and an 0.9 percentage-point increase in the Medicare payroll tax. Both levies will apply to joint filers with adjusted gross incomes exceeding $250,000 a year ($200,000 for single filers). The 2-percentage point cut in Social Security payroll taxes will expire at the end of this year. And so will the biggest tax item, the Bush-era tax cuts. It is unlikely that all these tax changes will happen in their current form. But as you think about your future after-tax income needs, you should create some alternative budgets that feature 5-percent and even 10-percent cuts in your spending money. What would those trims do to you?

Health insurance. Medicare beneficiaries have been clear winners--to date--from health reform. While there are concerns about long-term cuts in some Medicare spending, the nearer-term impacts have been very positive for seniors. Prescription drug prices have been sharply cut for Medicare users. And a raft of free preventive health services was mandated by the law as well. Take advantage of these features.

Reverse mortgages. Reverse mortgages are worth a look, but it should be a very careful and deliberate one. These loans permit homeowners who are at least 62 to get out from under mortgage payments and remain in their homes. They do so by effectively using the owner's remaining equity in the home to make loan payments to a reverse mortgage lender. Reverse mortgages have been controversial and have carried high fees. Many experts see their growth as a sure thing, driven by rising numbers of seniors and studies showing big shortfalls in retirement nest eggs. And there is a federally insured program that has provided stability and credibility to the product. But these loans have not taken off and several lenders have left the business. The new federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau recently issued a cautionary report on reverse mortgages.

[See Beware Playing 401(k) Catch-Up Close to Retirement.]

More:
8 Retirement Realities in a Stumbling Economy