Have you ever seen an investment firm message that our retirements are on track and we should just head to the beach? Me neither. Up to a point, a certain amount of "sky is falling" rhetoric is not surprising. However, one critic of standard investment advice thinks there is more going on here.

[In Pictures: The Best Places to Retire in 2012.]

Austin Nichols is a senior research associate at the Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C., think tank that does a lot of research on economic issues. In a recent paper, Nichols takes aim at the notion that people should try to achieve retirement incomes that are roughly 80 percent of their pre-retirement incomes.

This is a common goal in retirement planning, and it makes a lot of sense at first. The thinking is that people have developed some balance in their income-spending needs through the years, and that their incomes near retirement are thus sufficient to meet their needs. After they stop working, their income needs will decline. They will need to set aside less money for retirement savings, for one. Also, their tax rates are likely to fall, and so will their work-related expenses.

That, at least, is the common wisdom. But Nichols says it's just flat wrong. To achieve a retirement income goal of 80 percent of pre-retirement income would require a large amount of savings, he says, even for people who begin when they're young. And if people wait until their 40s, say, to get serious about funding their retirement needs, there is no way they can achieve an 80 percent target.

[See How to Calculate Your Retirement Number.]

"To hit a target of 80 percent of pre-retirement income," his paper says, "workers retiring at 62 ... who began to save in 2010 at age 45 might need to save 65 percent of their income." Besides being impossible on a practical basis, saving that much money would mean that a person was spending only 35 percent of their income. When they retire, by contrast, they would find themselves with 80 percent of their income to spend--an enormous and probably unneeded boost in their living standard.

"They should be saving less today and consuming less when they retire," Nichols says. "But one cannot optimize by targeting a percentage of gross pre-retirement income. Instead, one must target spending."

Looking at spending capabilities, a lot of the fear about retirement readiness disappears. Yes, some people will have tough retirements. But the odds are that they have had a tough time making ends meet all their lives. Being retired won't magically change their financial situation. The story for most people, however, is different and more positive.

Research by University of Wisconsin economist John Karl Scholz, among others, finds that roughly 75 percent of Americans were adequately prepared for retirement several years ago. In other words, they had accumulated enough assets to maintain their pre-retirement living standards after they retired.

Originally posted here:
Is Retirement Advice Biased Against You?

COLUMBUS, Ohio--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

Nationwide Retirement Solutions announced today that it has redesigned and enhanced its website to better serve public sector plan sponsors and participants, and make planning for retirement easier.

We strive to deliver a truly exceptional customer experience to our plan sponsors and participants through our comprehensive service model, and the web is a key component of that, said Anne Arvia, president of Nationwide Retirement Solutions. "Weve reworked every page of the website and the content to ensure were providing our clients with the information they need.

The newly redesigned and updated site is a result of extensive research and testing with both plan sponsors and participants. From that research Nationwide identified what plan participants value most with their web experience: that they want to be able to quickly determine if they are on track for retirement, what they can do to help improve their situation and the flexibility to engage with the site based on their personal preference. Plan sponsors, on the other hand, are looking for ways to help their employees prepare for retirement, to understand how their plan is performing and a way to easily report plan performance to key stakeholders.

Enhancements to the participant site include:

The new plan sponsor site:

Our research-based approach gives us confidence that were delivering a user-centric site thats more intuitive, easier to navigate, and packed with helpful tools and information presented in a clear, concise manner, added Arvia. Our goal is to help our plan sponsor clients complete many of their day-to-day tasks more efficiently, and to help simplify retirement planning for our participants.

The sites also include the Nationwide On Your Side Interactive Retirement PlannerSM. The Planner was launched in 2010 and can help users set retirement goals, track progress, and find suggestions to improve their unique retirement outlook all in about 10 minutes.

For more information about the new website for public-sector retirement plans, plan sponsors should visit http://www.nrsforu.com or contact a Nationwide representative at 877-496-1630.

About Nationwide

Go here to see the original:
Nationwide Retirement Solutions Redesigns Website

I'm 28 and on track to save 40% of my salary in retirement and other accounts this year. I wonder, though, whether I'm focusing too much on stashing away money rather than enjoying it more at my age. Am I overdoing it? -- Adam, Minneapolis

There's no question that you're socking away money at a much higher rate than most people are able to manage financially or would chose to do.

A 2010 Aon Hewitt survey of contribution rates to 401(k) plans shows participants in their 20s contribute 5% of salary on a pre-tax basis compared to a rate of about 7% for participants of all ages.

Clearly, you're a champion saver. Does the fact that you're saving so much more than your peers mean you're overdoing it?

If overdoing it means saving more than is necessary to fund a comfortable retirement, then sure, it's possible you're going overboard in that sense.

Say you want to retire at age 65 on 80% of your pre-retirement salary. If you go to our What You Need to Save calculator and plug in your age and an annual salary of, say, $40,000, you'll see that the recommended savings rate is just over 9% -- and that's if we assume you haven't saved a dime to date.

Of course, you'll have to save considerably more if you want to retire early or live large after you call it a career. You can try different retirement ages and target retirement incomes using T. Rowe Price's calculator. But it's hard to imagine you'll fall short of a secure retirement at any reasonable age if you consistently save 40% of your salary a year.

Investing for retirement when you're just starting out

Ah, but is it really likely you'll be able to continue this pace throughout your career? My guess is that as you get older and take on more financial obligations like maintaining a house and raising kids, you'll find that it gets tougher to save.

There may also be periods where saving is a challenge. At some point over the next few decades, you could find yourself out of work due to a layoff or health issues or some other reason, for example.

Read the original post:
Retirement Savings: Is It Possible to Save Too Much?

At age 60, Kathy Frederick routinely put in 50 hours a week as a hospital administrator for Scripps Health Systems in San Diego. She managed a 15-person staff, and regularly took work home on week-ends -- until one day five years ago she decided enough was enough. "I wasn't ready to retire," says Frederick, "but after 18 years at that pace, I wanted a different challenge and more time for myself."

So Frederick worked with her boss to create a new role for herself at Scripps as a special-projects manager, which allowed her to gradually downshift her hours to her current two-day-a-week schedule. Frederick is thrilled with the change, which she's found reenergizing. "I'm still valued," she says, "but I get to work on my own terms."

Frederick is one of a growing number of fifty- and sixtysomethings who aren't ready to quit work but would like to cut back -- in fact, four out of 10 people 50 and older say they'd like to gradually reduce their work hours as they age, according to an AARP survey.

Some love what they do but are tired of the hectic pace and long hours. Others would be happy to bid the job adios but can't afford to give up a regular salary, benefits, or the chance to build a bigger nest egg. Employers are warming to the idea of workers phasing in retirement, too, since it allows them to save money on some of their longest-tenure (read: most expensive) staffers without losing that expertise entirely.

Sound appealing? Whether easing up at work makes sense for you depends on your finances -- Can you afford to live on less now? Will it hurt your retirement lifestyle later? -- and also on the nature of your work.

To decide, start with a clear-eyed assessment of your prospects. The challenge, if you opt to move ahead, will be to craft a new role that lightens your load without damaging your long-term security.

Know what works

Is your current job doable on a reduced schedule, or can you reinvent your role in a way that will allow you to work at a less pressured pace? And do you work for the kind of employer that will be receptive to the idea?

Those are the first questions to ask yourself. The answers will depend in part on your company's culture and on your standing within the organization -- as well as on your ability to think critically and creatively about your role.

Build on precedent. Your employer probably doesn't have a formal phased-retirement program; few do. But if the company already has other kinds of flexible work options in place -- part-time schedules, say, or telecommuting arrangements -- you can model your proposal on them. A variation on a working arrangement that managers are familiar with and know can succeed will get a better reception than a concept they've never heard of.

Originally posted here:
Retirement plan - Retire on your terms

In the midst of an economic recession, Boeing stands out as an anomaly. The aerospace giant has added more than 10,000 jobs in recent years, set several new records for airline sales to both domestic and international carriers, and this year could reclaim the title of largest commercial airplane manufacturer in the world.

Without a generation of skilled appropriators from Washington State looking out for Boeing and helping win military and government contracts, it might not have been that way: The state and the Puget Sound region might have entered the current economic downturn much earlier, in the way Michigan experienced its own single-state recession.

Now, the last member that generation of Boeing-backers, Washington Rep. Norm Dicks, is leaving the stage. After 18 terms in Congress and years before that as a top Congressional aide, Dicks said Friday he would not seek another term later this year.

"He's kind of the last of a great generation to leave," said Denny Heck, a long-time Evergreen State expert who founded TVW, the state's version of C-SPAN after serving as a top aide to Gov. Booth Gardner in the early 1990s. "We jokingly referred to him as our third U.S. Senator for decades. But it's not a joke, it was real."

Dicks began his career on Capitol Hill learning from the masters of a past appropriations era. He served as administrative assistant -- Senate-speak for chief of staff -- to Sen. Warren Magnuson in the early 1970s, at a time when Magnuson chaired the powerful Commerce Committee. Dicks left Magnuson's office to run for Congress on his own, winning a seat in 1977.

Dicks's career as a member began at the height of Washington State's power; that year, Magnuson took over the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Henry M. "Scoop" Jackson chaired the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and then-Rep. Tom Foley, later the first House Speaker from a state west of the Rockies, chaired the House Agriculture Committee. Together, they steered billions in earmarks to Washington State, while helping Boeing secure billions more in government contracts.

After Magnuson lost in the 1980 Republican wave, Jackson died in 1983 and Foley lost his seat in the 1994 GOP landslide, Dicks was the last great Washington State appropriator. He rose to become chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee, a post from which he could further aid Boeing. After Rep. David Obey retired and two more senior Democrats left, Dicks became the top-ranking Democrat on the panel. As the second-ranking Democrat on the defense subcommittee when Rep. John Murtha was still alive, Dicks helped Boeing win a U.S. Air Force tanker contract that had originally been awarded to a European aerospace conglomerate.

(Had Dicks run for re-election and Democrats retaken the House, he might have been in a position to recreate Washington State's influence inside the Beltway; Rep. Adam Smith, who, like Dicks, lives in Tacoma, is the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.)

"There were countless regional issues that united the Washington State congressional delegation over the years, and in those instances his clout was immensely helpful to the residents of Washington State," said Rob Nichols, a former communications director to the late Rep. Jennifer Dunn, R-Wash., and ex-Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., and now CEO of the Financial Services Forum.

Dicks has other legacies, most notably the money he secured to help rebuild and revitalize downtown Tacoma and to clean up Puget Sound and the Hood Canal, projects nearly as big in scope as the cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. On Capitol Hill, he may best be remembered for acting like the staffer he used to be -- Dicks had a reputation for calling staffers in other offices directly and either urging them to push their bosses in his direction or yelling into the phone when he didn't get his way.

Go here to read the rest:
Dicks Retirement Ends Boeing Generation

UpdatedMar 5, 2012 4:11 PM ET

Connecticut coach Jim Calhoun hasn't made any plans to retire just yet.

The 69-year-old Hall-of-Famer, a self-described gym rat, is back from a monthlong medical leave that had many questioning whether he would ever coach again.

''We started this thing, I started it, 26 years ago and I haven't made any plans to do anything else except come back,'' Calhoun said Friday. ''A few other things along the way have gotten in my way.''

And so he was at Gampel Pavilion on Saturday, less than a week after having a disk fragment removed from his spine, leading the Huskies to a 74-65 win over Pittsburgh. And on Monday, he was leading practice and getting ready to head out to Madison Square Garden for Tuesday's start to the Big East tournament, hoping to lead the Huskies on a run similar to the 11-game streak that brought them a third national title a year ago.

''Somebody said to me, `Jeez it will be great to have you there,''' Calhoun said Monday. ''I said, actually, you'd be better off having (former UConn guard) Kemba (Walker) here. ''

What happens after this season is anyone's guess, and pundits, friends, even former players and assistant coaches are doing just that.

''It's like, `OK, Jim you're 70 years old, what more do you want to prove?'' said Digger Phelps, a former coach at Notre Dame, and now an analyst at ESPN. ''He's a survivor and he's a survivor as a coach. He's at the point now where he's won three national titles. He knows what's at stake. He's gotta make that decision.''

Calhoun is a three-time cancer survivor, overcoming prostate cancer in 2003 and skin cancer twice, most recently in 2008. He has missed 29 games over his 40-year career because of various medical conditions and had to leave another 11 games for medical reasons.

See more here:
Calhoun retirement talk rekindled

CLEARWATER - Alexander Kasheta says he can't imagine living in a better place than Bayview Gardens in Clearwater.

"Living here was perfect. It was the ideal situation for living independent," Kasheta said.

Soon he and all his neighbors will have to try to find another "perfect" place to live. For most Americans, April 15 will be tax day. For the seniors living at Bayview Gardens, it will be moving day.

"I think it's a disaster," Kasheta said.

March 1, the company that runs the senior living facility announced they would be closing for good.

"We've not been able to rise to the levels of occupancy required to keep the community operating," said Bayview Gardens President Troy Hart.

They blame the closure on a bad housing market and a struggling economy.

Bayview is a community made up of clusters of independent living apartments and a tower for those who need assistance.

Come April 15, every single resident will have to go.

"Forty-five days is a very short timeline, especially when you're dealing with frail seniors, and we gave a lot of thought to that," said Hart.

See the article here:
Retirement community to shut down

TULSA, Okla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

BOK Financial has announced it ranked among top retirement plan providers in the country, according to the highly-regarded PLANSPONSOR Defined Contribution (DC) Survey. The annual survey asks employers about their retirement plan and then compares retirement plan providers on a number of categories. BOK Financial ranked in the Top 10 in a number of categories and received numerous Best in Class awards.

Choosing a retirement plan provider for your business is a very important decision every employer has to make, said JoAnn Schaub, senior vice president for Institutional Wealth Management. PLANSPONSOR is an impartial and reliable resource employers utilize to get information about providers, so to receive such high marks in the survey is quite an achievement.

Schaub said the survey results validate the commitment BOK Financial has made to providing the highest level of service and results to employers and their employees. In fact, the survey results show 100 percent of BOK Financial clients are likely to recommend BOK Financial to others, with more than 88 percent saying they are extremely likely.

Retirement plans do more than provide financial security to retiring employees. They help an organization set themselves apart from their competition in recruiting talent, said Ken Etheredge, senior vice president, manager of retirement plan services. Providing the best plans with the best service helps our customers attract the best talent and do the best work.

BOK Financial ranked in the top 10 for average client participation rate, a measure of how many eligible employees are participating in their companys retirement plan.

Our strong participation numbers demonstrate were achieving our goals of communicating with and educating employees so they will make the decision to participate in the retirement plan, and feel confident in their choices, said Etheredge. We offer tailored solutions to our clients, including on-site meetings, one-on-one meetings, webinars and targeted communications. We want to prepare employees now to live comfortably in retirement.

Etheredge says BOK Financials excellent customer service means employers can focus on what they do best running their business instead of administrative or educational concerns related to their retirement plan.

BOK Financial received Best in Class awards in numerous categories. For participant services, the company was recognized for its participant call center, website functionality, online tools/services, participant statements, enrollment assistance, onsite meetings, range of investments and participant fee disclosure. For plan sponsor services, BOK Financial was recognized for its Form 5500 processing, compliance support/testing, legislative/regulatory updates, account team knowledge, staff consistency, plan design flexibility, fee cost-to-value and service responsiveness.

Schaub credits the many employees at BOK Financial who are involved in servicing and supporting retirement plans for the companys high rankings.

More here:
BOK Financial Ranks Among Top Retirement Plan Providers

Nick Sanderson of Audley Retirement Villages urges pensioners to think about different options to long-term care.

With increasing life expectancy, those over 60 can look forward to spending longer in retirement than any generation preceding them. This is cause for celebration, but as the recent intense debate on long term care has shown, it poses many difficult questions for society. While this community is healthier and wealthier than ever before, for many there is real uncertainty around how to provide for their future, specifically related to different health needs and increased risk of dependency.

The Dilnot Commission on Funding of Care and Support attracted much needed attention to the way in which long term care is provided with it clear that in the future responsibility for funding later life care will fall on the individual.

Notwithstanding the lack of policy response, the Commissions recommendations were vital for the attention focussed on issues relating to ageing. However, the debate it generated was flawed because it considered only how we fund the existing model of care. This is an entirely broken model because it positions institutional care as the only way of providing for later life health needs. No one, whatever their age, wants to live in institutional care.

Instead of making recommendations on how to pay for the existing model of later life care, it is time both the government and the industry invested in improving the housing and care options available. These options need to reflect the lifestyles that older people want to have, and above all keep them independent and in control of their future. It requires innovation in the housing options available so for example, people could stay in control of their front door, while having the additional care needed come to them, as and when they need it.

At the same time, we have to raise awareness of the options available and improve how we provide support and education. This will ensure older people, just as at every other stage of their life, can make the informed decisions they need. Effectively, we will support older people to take control of their future rather than waiting for a crisis when the decisions about how their care needs are met, and hard-won financial assets used, will be taken by others.

The opportunity to achieve significant change in how we provide for later life relies on empowering those over 60 to take action about their future and how they want to live in later life. In part the solution rests on how this group use their largest asset, their home. They are the generation to be majority homeowners, estimated collectively to hold over one trillion pounds in equity yet too many live in relative poverty with their assets frozen within property.

If we improve the housing options available, more older people would consider living in housing designed specifically for their future needs rather than staying in properties that become only increasingly expensive and difficult to maintain. High-quality housing set in beautiful settings are just as much a right for older people as younger people. The difference is that if we support more older people to downsize, it would not only enable them to live a happier, healthier later life but also free up valuable housing stock and inject finance into the stagnating housing sector.

The government has to work with the financial services, housing and social care industries to transform how we consider later life. It requires a new way of thinking about the future that encourages candid, open conversations on peoples ambitions for retirement and how we best meet them. The answer relies on a step change in approach. If we get it right, it will mean a happier, more fulfilling older age not just for this current generation of over 60s but for us all.

By Nick Sanderson, chairman of the Association of Retirement Villages and chief executive of Audley Retirement Villages

View original post here:
Retirement must be about independence

Sen. Snowe explains why leaving Congress

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

CNN LIVE: Go to CNNPolitics.com and CNN Mobile for the CNN Election Roundtable, a live video chat hosted by Wolf Blitzer and the CNN political team, Tuesday at 12 p.m. ET. Then tune in this week for live coverage of the Super Tuesday primaries and follow real-time results on CNNPolitics.com, on the CNN apps and on the CNN mobile web site. Follow CNN Politics on Facebook and on Twitter at #cnnelections.

Washington (CNN) -- When Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine rocked the political world with her announcement that she would not seek a fourth term in the Senate, she was forthright in expressing her frustration with "an atmosphere of polarization" in politics.

But for all her transparency, it was one of Snowe's Senate colleagues who perhaps best summed up her motivation for deciding to end her decades-long tenure on Capitol Hill.

"I think she lost hope," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, told CNN.

Graham, who like Snowe had participated in bipartisan efforts to find compromise on hot-button issues, added, "You know, all of us need to believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel. If you lose that belief, why do you spend seven years of your life -- which in her case would have been her commitment -- to do something that there seems no hope."

Citing partisanship, Snowe makes surprising exit

Snowe is the latest in a string of centrist senators to announce that they will not seek re-election in the fall.

Late last year, Sen. Ben Nelson, a conservative Democrat from Nebraska, announced that he would not seek re-election in 2012. In a statement announcing his decision, Nelson called for "those who will follow in my footsteps to look for common ground and to work together in bipartisan ways to do what's best for the country, not just one political party."

Go here to read the rest:
Snowe retirement blow to 'sensible center'