3. You've researched your healthcare costs

Healthcare is the one expense that tends to catch seniors off-guard. Though it's impossible to predict exactly what healthcare will amount to for you, Fidelity estimates that the average 65-year-old woman retiring today can expect to spend $155,000 on it throughout retirement, while the average 65-year-old male can expect to spend $140,000. If your health is terrific, you may find that healthcare costs you a bit less. If your health is poor, you might spend more. But either way, it pays to do your research so you understand how much money to allocate to taking care of your health.

It used to be the case that setting aside 10% of your income in an IRA or 401(k) would be enough to buy you a secure retirement. Not anyone. These days, you're better off socking away 15% to 20% of your earnings (or more) to help ensure that you're able to keep up with inflation and cover all of your eventual needs. If you're currently saving a smaller amount, percentage wise, then it may be time to look at your expenses and find ways to free up more cash for your nest egg.

The knowledge that you're on track for retirement could buy you the peace of mind so many older workers crave. If you don't think you're on track for retirement, take steps to change that so you don't want up disappointed once your time in the workforce eventually comes to a close.

Here is the original post:
Are You on Track for Retirement? Here's How to Know - Statesville Record & Landmark

The Trump administration is pushing dramatic changes to the American retirement system that will benefit Wall Street but push average citizens into plans that are riskier, less profitable, and loaded with high and hidden fees.

In the past two months, the Trumps Labor Department has introduced two pending changes to deregulate vulturous private equity firms and multi-trillion dollar retirement managers like Vanguard, Fidelity, and BlackRock. A third proposed change would restrict retirement investments with an underlying environmental, social, or governance mission mainly to boost the struggling fossil-fuel industry.

If finalized, the result will be death by a thousand cuts to Americans diminished retirement nest egg, amounting to an all-out Wall Street looting of American retirement.

Pushing this through is Secretary of Labor Eugene Scalia son of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia who for many years was one of Wall Streets most prominent litigators, representing corporations like Chevron, Walmart, and Facebook, as well as over a dozen banks and financial firms during his tenure at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, a law firm with a robust corporate lobbying wing.

Secretary Scalia is still working for his former clients, said Barbara Roper, director of Investor Protection at the Consumer Federation of America. This is a multipronged attack on Americans retirement security.

How Wall Street Works Over Workers

For the millennials and zoomers in the crowd, perhaps a quick review of the basics of retirement is helpful. Retirement refers to a period toward the end of a human life during which ordinary people could use money theyd saved and invested combined with Social Security payments to stop working but still live comfortably.

This used to be considered a core part of the American dream. But for reasons having very much to do with the growth of the financial sector, austerity budgets eroding the welfare state, and the decline of union membership (and having absolutely nothing to do with avocado toast), retirement as a concept has become more of a goal than a guarantee.

There are a few things still working in our favor, however, including federal rules aimed at making sure we get the most out of the money we save for retirement. The 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) gives the Labor Department control over all areas of retirement investing including defined contribution plans like 401(k)s and defined benefit plans like union pensions.

Pensions are a retirement fund where employers guarantee a certain level of payout (a defined benefit) and agree to be on the hook for covering that payout, even if the pension funds investment returns cant cover it. Also, financial professionals manage pensions, thus reducing the likelihood of retirees being confused or swindled by complex financial arrangements. This even allows pensions to take on higher-risk products like private equity funds. But today, only 27.3 percentof retirees, shrinking with nationwide unionization rates, have a pension.

For everyone else, there is a 401(k), where workers and retirees pay in their defined contribution and then get payouts from it based on how well the investments perform. An employers human resources department usually provides the retiree with a menu of 401(k) investment options, but few HR managers are financial professionals so their menu is rarely curated to the workers wants or needs. Originally, 401(k)s were meant to supplement pensions, but today, only 6.8 percent of retirees have both types of plans, and Social Security, as intended.

The federal government, and the Labor Department in particular, have a big role making sure these plans work the way theyre intended, and in (at least in theory) preventing people from getting swindled by investment managers. One of the main guardrails aspiring retirees have is whats known as fiduciary duty, a rule that requires managers of both pensions and 401(k)s to provide the best possible service here, meaning the best quality investments for the lowest possible cost or face liability.

The fiduciary duty combined with workers being on the hook make the 401(k) sector a fertile breeding ground for high-stakes, multiparty lawsuits, where employers fight off accusations by workers and retirees of selecting low-performing and/or high-fee funds for their 401(k)s. An employer may negligently choose a retirement investment manager because they were the most readily available, or they didnt have the resources to find an optimal plan, or they were mistaken of a funds potential. Other times as was alleged against the Massachusetts Institute of Technologys retirement plan last year when the school received a $5 million donation from Fidelity Investments the employer might have an incentive for choosing a certain fund.

For many years, one of the most prominent employer-side litigators was Eugene Scalia himself. None of the prior secretaries of labor, either Democratic or Republican, have been people who have been on the firing line against workers and retirees, said plaintiffs attorney Jerome Schlichter, whose law firm pioneered retirement excessive-fee litigation. Schlichter directly butted heads with Scalia in an ongoing retirement fund suit right up until his secretarial appointment.

Andy Behar, CEO of As You Sow, a nonprofit that rates the financial sector for its ethical standards, said that Scalias three most recent DOL rulemakings suggest a personal vendetta. Hes couldnt win as an attorney, so hes changing the rules, Behar said.

The Private-Equity Exposure

One of the Trump administrations planned changes to retirement rules will open up 401(k) investments to high-risk, high-fee private equity funds. Its a major break with past practices, but it wasnt done through a formal rule process that would allow for scrutiny and public input.

Instead, in early June, the DOL sent a high-profile information letter to Pantheon Ventures, a private equity firm, codifying conditions, such as a 15 percent cap, for a 401(k) to invest in private equity. The letter formalized private equitys entry into the 401(k) marketplace, creating a blueprint for copycats and sending shockwaves throughout both sectors.

Private equity is a type of hedge fund comprising private investors who buy privately held, struggling companies in order to rehabilitate or liquidate them, collecting extremely high fees and enriching shareholders either way. Direct investments in private equity and other types of hedge funds are typically restricted to high-net-worth individuals or institutions. This is because high-net-worth individuals and large institutional investors have extra, discretionary money to handle private equitys huge risks, long-term illiquidity, astronomical fees, and capital calls, investor fundraisers demanded at the drop of a hat. In other words, high-net-worth individuals and huge institutional investors can afford to burn that money if the investment goes south.

The average retirement investor, however, has always been considered uniquely reliant on their savings, which is why ERISAs fiduciary duty requires a very conservative investment strategy. Considering private equitys many risks and costs, the government, until now, and 401(k) plaintiffs attorneys have largely opposed it in retirement plans.

According to Wally Okby, a senior analyst at Aite Group, the pool of available capital from high-net-worth investors for private equity has recently dried up. And considering the shrinking state of pensions, private equity is chomping at the bit to enter the $8.9 trillion 401(k) marketplace. Theyre looking for cash anywhere they can get it, Okby said. Therefore, they go to 401(k)s, where investors typically dont understand what theyre investing into.

In an ensuing press release, Secretary Scalia said the Pantheon letter helps level the playing field for ordinary investors. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton also praised the letter as improving investor choice.

Investor advocates disagreed. The use of private equity in retirement plans is fraught with peril. It was a vehicle that was created for wealthy, sophisticated investors, not for average people, Schlichter said.

The letter is part of a broader private-equity lobbying, pressure campaign, and creation of complicated fund structures designed to prey on more of Americans hard-earned savings. Clayton and other lawmakers have made several moves to lower barriers for private fund access to Main Street investors. On July 28th, one senior SEC director at a conference openly solicited the financial-industry attendants on what SEC rules should be changed to open up working peoples money to hedge funds and private equity.

The letter also comes in light of a recent SEC warning that some retail fund managers have been receiving undisclosed kickbacks from private-equity investments.

The industry has supported the letter on the disputed belief that private-equity investments outperform the stock market at large. George Gerstein, an attorney for the financial industry and co-chief of fiduciary governance at Stradley Ronon, believes that increased private-equity exposure will increase performance of retirement plans, especially as a counterweight to other economic headwinds. But a recent study at Oxford University found that, after fees, top private-equity funds have performed no better for pension funds over 15 years than if the money were passively indexed to the stock market.

Further, private-equity disclosures lack any standard date or metrics, so its disclosed performance data is inherently misleading, Roper argued.

A 401(k) was designed to allow a worker to select different investments in the employer-provided menu to suite their wants and needs: shorter-term or longer-term growth funds, high or lower risk, smaller- or larger-sized company exposure. But in reality, workers overwhelmingly do not make any changes to their 401(k) investment lineup, Roper said. That means that even if private equity did disclose its risks, most people probably wouldnt change anything. Plus, any disclosure could be found on the 40th page of dense legalese. Maybe because the typical worker isnt a financial analyst, Roper understated.

Undoing the Fiduciary Duty

On June 29th, 2020, the Department of Labor unveiled its second major shift, a proposed update to the breadth and depth of the retirement professionals fiduciary duty money managers requirement to provide the best possible service or face liability.

The proposed rule would reduce the fiduciary duty to cover fewer transactions and parties, opening up enormous loopholes wherein a retirement professional has to uphold their fiduciary duty.

Shockingly, it would also allow any retirement professional to receive third-party payments for their recommendations, so long as they adhered to an undefined best interest standard and didnt materially mislead investors. This part of the rule is perhaps akin to a doctor being allowed to take kickbacks in exchange for prescribing certain pharmaceuticals. Scalia said his rule expanded investor choice.

Once again, investor advocates disagreed. [T]he proposal is designed to preserve financial firms ability to place their own interests ahead of their customers interests and profit unfairly at their expense, argued a public letter co-signed by several investor advocate groups.

That Scalia is the one proposing the rule is, to many, an inverted justice. When Scalia was a Wall Street attorney, in one of his most notorious cases, he led litigation for Wall Street groups in successfully overturning an Obama DOL rule that enhanced the scope of a financial professionals fiduciary duty to retirees.

Given Scalias role in the prior rulemaking, both Schlichter and Roper believe Scalias role in its replacement was conflicted, and that many believe he should have recused himself from fiduciary rulemaking. Gerstein disagreed with both assertions.

A spokesperson for the Department of Labor noted that Scalia sought advice from the DOLs career ethics attorneys, who also consulted the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, and they determined that neither relevant ethics rules nor the Trump administrations Ethics Pledge required his recusal from the rulemaking.

A Fossil-Fueled 401(k)

The investment world has recently been choosing to invest heavily in renewable energy, diverse workplaces, and companies with fair-labor practices. So-called environmental social governance (ESG) investing has become incredibly popular, with US SIF estimating that today one-quarter of all U.S. dollars invested have some form of an ESG mandate, an 18-fold increase between 1995 and 2018. Financial firms have been working doggedly to create new funds and products that meet customers growing demand.

And its popular not just because of some charitable spirit. Performance data shows that not only does ESG investing outperform traditional investments in a good economy, but it also loses less in a downturn, though there is some disagreement. Most ESG-sector growth has remained outside of retirement due to retirements need for perceived low-risk investments, but given ESGs growth, it was inevitable that it would eventually enter retirement investing.

Or at least, it was inevitable, until mid-June, when the DOL unveiled its third monumental retirement rule proposal, this time from authority from a Trump executive order promoting fossil fuels. The Labor Departments slash-and-burn rule will subject all ESG in retirement plans to the stigma of heightened scrutiny. While on its face, the rule clarifies what is already the law that retirement investments must meet fiduciary-level scrutiny it also forbids retirement plans from having investments that promote some non-pecuniary purpose, such as not destroying the planet, no matter retirees wishes.

Private employer-sponsored retirement plans are not vehicles for furthering social goals or policy objectives that are not in the financial interest of the plan, Scalia said in a press release.

The consensus in the financial sector is that this rule will have a chilling effect on ESG and benefit the Trump-allied fossil-fuel sector.

Basically the rule that they proposed is deeply internally conflicted. On the one hand, you have to make decisions on financial returns, and yet if you did that, youd have to exclude fossil fuels, Behar from As You Sow said. Why is the DOL saying that fiduciaries should steer clear of less risk, steer clear of outperformance?

Like the other regulatory shifts, the DOL is not acting alone. The SEC has scrutinized and criticized ESG, alongside the New York branch of the DOL and the White House itself. Despite this antagonism to ESG, European regulators, Democratic lawmakers, investor advocates, and even the investment industry itself support expanding and standardizing the ESG sector.

The ESG rule is just straight political, Roper said.

Foxes Guarding the Retirement Coop

Together, the Trump administrations plans contribute to a remaking of a retirement system that gives financial firms new opportunities to cash in at the expense of greater risk to workers, while making it harder for us to use our money to build the kind of world wed like to retire into.

The most perplexing aspect of these rules is their open contradictions. The Labor Departments justifications for the private equity letter and the standard of conduct rule were to expand investor choice. While the rule on environmentally and socially conscious investing effectively shuts out investor choice. The rules allow a retiree to choose a high-risk, high-fee investment, or to choose a retirement adviser who gets a kickback for their imprudent recommendations. But retirees may not choose an investment that promotes the idea that cutting carbon emissions or increasing diversity are in and of themselves good investments.

You could understand if they took alaissez faire approach to both. or if they took a restrictive approach to both, Roper said. This is about picking winners and losers. And the losers are going to be retirement savers.

They just dont like transparency; they want to put us in the most risky, nontransparent vehicles they can find, Behar said. I guess that kind of squares with this administration.

Discouragingly, the rules seem likely to go forward. The private-equity letter effectively lets the horse out of the barn. And while the two formal rules havent been finalized, theres little to stand in their way, as legal challenges seem unlikely after a related SEC decision was upheld in June.

In theory, individuals could sue their retirement-investment managers on a case-by-case basis if they felt the money was being mismanaged, but thats no substitute for a system that works to protect them in the first place something Scalia seems hell-bent on trying to dismantle.

Then again, Scalias only calling the shots so long as Trump is in the White House.

Read more:
Wall Street Is Looting the American Retirement System. The Trump Administration Is Helping - Rolling Stone

Retiring is a huge life event, and it isnt one that comes with many do-overs. You have to get it ... [+] right the first time.

Retiring is a huge life event, and it isnt one that comes with many do-overs. You have to get it right the first time.

Luckily, there are ways to prepare for retirementand even practice itto help ensure youre ready when the day comes.

What to do first

A few years before you plan to retire, have a practice run. If you have a retirement plan that gives you a clear picture of how much money youll have to live on annually, spend a full year to two years living only on that amount. If you dont, your first step is to meet with a financial advisor to get sense of your retirement income estimate.

If you can live comfortably on the decided amount, thats great. If not, its better to know that now rather than later, and its time to devise a plan to increase your future income.

Have a timeline for your decisions

Do you know when you must make certain retirement-related decisions? Do you even know what decisions youll need to make? Having a clear idea of these decisions and a timeline to make them will reduce your stress and make retirement a smoother event.

Pre-retirement decisions

Before you retire, youll need to determine if you have any debts that need to be refinanced. Its hard to refinance mortgages or other loans when you dont have demonstrable income, so do this long before you give notice at work.

Youll also need to decide how youll handle long-term care expenses and if you want to use long term care insurance for some of those potential costs. Applying for this insurance should ideally be done ten years prior to retiring, and three to five years before is basically the last chance for it to be affordable.

Retirement day decisions

Retiring likely means losing your employer-sponsored benefits, so youll need to make decisions about health insurance. If youre retiring at or after age 65, then you can seamlessly transition into Medicare. Make sure you remember to enroll in Medicare Part A 60 to 90 days before your 65th birthday whether youre planning to retire or not. For Part B, you can wait to enroll until after your retirement as long as youre at least 65 years old. You can learn more about Medicare in this episode of my podcast.

If youre retiring after age 63 , you can use COBRA provisions to continue your employer health plan for up to 18 months until youre eligible for Medicare. However, if youre retiring earlier than that, youll either need to join your spouses health plan or to use the health insurance exchange in your home state.

If youre one of the fortunate few people who will still be receiving a pension, youll need to decide how youd like to receive your benefit. You will likely be given the option to maximize your benefit as a single personmeaning it expires after your deathor a few options on how youd like a spouse to receive income from your pension should he or she outlive you.

Post-retirement decisions

Social Security is a very complex benefit, and timing your benefit claim is an important decision youll need to make. You and your spouse must determine whether to claim immediately at age 62 or to wait until full retirement age or even age 70 to begin receiving benefits. The decisions you and your spouse make can greatly impact how much money youre eligible to receive during your lifetimes and during a period of widowhood for either of you. While I could go on and on about this, Ill let those interested read more in this article I published on the topic.

Youll also want to review your current insurance coverages to see where you can save money. Since youre no longer commuting to work, you may be able to lower your car insurance premium. If youre paying for disability insurance, youll no longer need it and can let it expire. Lastly, if you have term life insurance, you may no longer need the extra death benefits and can consider discontinuing the coverage after claiming your Social Security and pension income.

The most important step

The most important thing to do before you retire is make sure you have a substantial nest egg youve built up over the years.

You dont know what the future will hold, and having access to capitalespecially funds not subject to market volatilityis vital to a successful retirement.

The lesson

Theres a lot to consider when youre thinking about retiring. Starting to make decisions and prepare for the life change early will help you be successful in your retirement.

Retirement is the one thing you cannot borrow money to accomplish, so make sure youre able to live off the income youll have. Returning to work out of necessity after youve started your retirement is not only the opposite of what youll want to do, but it can also be incredibly difficult to do so.

The rest is here:
How To Know If Youre Ready To Retire - Forbes

Pinned as the Dean of SEC Coaches for 43 years as the leader of LSU Gymnastics, D-D Breaux announced her retirement earlier this month amid the uncertainty of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Many words can be used to describe Breaux and her impact on LSU through four-plus decades of service in Baton Rouge, but one feels mostappropriate: legend.

Widely-known as one of the most decorated coaches in collegiate gymnastics, recording more than 800 wins, producing 15 individual national titles and 44 SEC titles under her tutelage, her impact was felt far beyond the gym. Thats what made her a Louisiana icon, and much more than just a coach. She was an ambassador for LSU, and that role will remain firm post-retirement.

Her energy is contagious. Her smile is infectious. And that wont change a bit by stepping away. In fact, she has agreed to remain a key part of the LSU athletic department as a fund raiser and speaker.

Breauxs announcement does mean that co-head coach Jay Clark will take over as just the third head gymnastics coach in program history. For her, passing the torch to Clark is a decision she feels more than at peace with for the future of the nationally-recognized program she leaves behind.

Before our 2019 season, I asked that Jay Clark be named co-head coach in anticipation of this moment, Breaux said in a farewell letter. Jay is a great recruiter and his coaching philosophy is demanding and produces excellence. I have confidence in my decision because the torch is being passed on to Jay.

Deciding to retire during an unprecedented time in sports is no coincidence, either. While its true Breaux has thought about this day more frequently in recent years, the unpredictability that COVID-19 brings made it easier for her to ultimately pull the trigger. It just felt like the right time.

This silent but deadly pandemic we are facing will necessitate change in how we do everything, at least this next season, so I believe it is the best time to make a personal life decision, Breaux said. I have never walked away from a challenge; and not doing so now, I am moving forward with this one, just in a different role.

The interest in LSU Gymnastics as a whole has skyrocketed under Breaux. The environment inside the Pete Maravich Assembly Center for a gym meet is as lively and electric as any athletic event on campus, but that took time and effort to build. Low attendance and free tickets transformed into standing room only and sold-out crowds, all thanks to the unparalleled commitment and passion that Breaux brought every day.

You have filled the PMAC on many occasions and you helped us grow from double-digit season ticket holders to nearly 7,000 because of your love for LSU Gymnastics, Breaux said, speaking directly to LSU fans. Your faithfulness to our program and our amazing, young student-athletes will never go unnoticed.

While she never won that national championship most hoped she would, her rsum and list of accolades is as impressive as any in history. Named SEC Coach of the Year on nine separate occasions, Breauxs Tigers have finished in the top-10 nationally 31 of her 43 seasons. She was also inducted into the Louisiana Sports Hall of Fame in 2017.

LSU athletic director Scott Woodward, Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards and SEC commissioner Greg Sankey were just a handful of many public figures to come out and recognize Breaux on social media for her legendary career and the icon shes become.

"Coach D-D Breaux set a standard of excellence for her athletes on and off of the mat and her 43-year career with LSU is unparalleled, Edwards said. On behalf of the state and of all of us who had the pleasure of witnessing her talented teams take to the floor on Friday nights in a packed PMAC, I thank her for her tenacity, for her commitment to her gymnasts and the University and for her leadership in prioritizing academics and community service alongside athletic achievement. Coach Breaux is truly a legend, and we wish her well in the future."

Throughout her illustrious tenure as head coach of the Fighting Tigers, Breaux drilled three words into her players heads: Purpose, pride and passion. She personified all three.

Shes as passionate about her job as anyone on campus. She has incredible pride about how hard her team works. And, most importantly, her team comes into the gym with purpose every day.

We have mantras that [the team] says everyday, Breaux said. "The last one that we say is Win Today. Its just such an important part of the team culture. Theres a lot of emotions.

Read the original here:
D-D Breaux to remain active at LSU following retirement, legendary coaching career - The Reveille, LSU's student newspaper

Americans have traditionally saved for retirement through their employers, whether it was via traditional defined benefit pensions or todays more common 401(k) retirement accounts. But how is Americas employer-based retirement savings system faring? Some have grave doubts, but the data show clearly that, via employer-sponsored retirement plans, more Americans are saving more for retirement than ever before.

My friend and fellow Forbes contributor Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School for Social Research in New York City, argues in a recent Forbes article that this relationship was always miscast. Prof. Ghilarducci writes that Retirement plan coverage situation has been falling for 20 years, even before the COVID 19 recession. Even when the economy was doing well at the end of 2019; only 36% of workers age 25-64 had a retirement plan at work (a fall in coverage rates from 41% in 2015.

Ghilarducci seemingly has the data to back up her claims: figures from the federal governments Current Population Survey indeed indicate that declining shares of U.S. workers are saving for retirement at work. According to CPS data, the share of U.S. workers participating in a retirement plan has dropped by nearly one-third since 1999.

But heres something that ordinary readers wouldnt consider but which retirement policy analysts are familiar with: the Current Population Survey data Prof. Ghilarducci relies on are almost certainly wrong. More reliable data sources tell a very different story on Americans retirement savings.

There are three basic ways to figure out how many Americans participate in a workplace retirement plan. We can simply ask people, as the Current Population Survey does. Or we can ask employers whether they offer their employees a retirement plan. The Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey does that. Or, we can use tax data which indicate whether a given taxpayer participates in a retirement plan. The IRSs Statistics of Income data take this approach.

In theory, all these approaches should yield the same answer. But they dont. A 2011 Social Security Administration study compared how Americans answered a survey question asking about retirement plan participation versus what their tax returns showed. The SSA researchers concluded that the participation rate in [defined contribution] plans is about 11 percentage-points higher when using W-2 tax records rather than survey reports. The best explanation is simply that, when asked, people sometimes get the answer wrong.

And we dont need to look far for proof. Consider full-time state and local government employees, where the BLSs National Compensation Survey finds 99 percent retirement plan coverage and 90 percent participation. (Or, if you dont believe the NCS survey, see if you can find a state or local government that doesnt offer full-time employees a retirement plan.)

But only 71 percent of full-time state and local government employees tell the CPS theyre offered a retirement plan at work. And only 64 percent said they actually participate. The same holds for federal employees, 100 percent of whom are automatically enrolled in both a defined benefit and a defined contribution retirement plan. But only 63 percent of full-time federal workers tell the CPS theyre participating in a retirement plan. The Current Population Survey data simply arent credible on this front.

Retirement coverage and participation among full-time state and local government employees, 2019.

On top of these basic reporting errors, in 2014 the federal government redesigned the CPSs retirement plan questions. That survey redesign reduced reported retirement plan participation by about six percentage points in a single year, and since then the CPSs participation rate has fallen even further. The Employee Benefit Research Institute has repeatedly drawn attention to this issue, warning that relying on [the CPS] to understand trends in [retirement plan] coverage is dangerous and misleading at best.

So what do these other data sources show regarding retirement plan participation in the U.S.? Pretty much the opposite of what Prof. Ghilarducci claims. The chart below denotes Ghilarduccis Current Population Survey-based figures in blue, showing, as she notes, a decline in retirement plan participation among workers aged 25 to 64. The rapid decline beginning in 2014, which no one has explained other than by reference to the CPS survey redesign, is evident.

Percent of employees participating in employer-sponsored retirement plan.

The orange line running from 1999 through 2019 shows the employer-based National Compensation Surveys figures for all private sector employees (not, as in Ghilarduccis CPS-based figures, both public and private sector workers aged 25 to 64). The NCS data show a distinctly different pattern from Ghilarduccis figures: rather than a decline in participation from 2014 onward, retirement plan participation actually increases to the highest level on record!

The yellow line beginning in 2010 is NCS data on both public and private sector workers. Even in 2010 the NCS shows a participation rate of 55 percent, eight percentage points higher than Ghilarduccis figures. By 2019 the NCS data again shows record high retirement plan participation, with the NCSs 56 percent participation rate a full 20 percentage points higher than the CPS figures that Ghilarducci touts.

And then theres IRS data, shown in grey, which cover all taxpayers with wage income aged 25 to 64. The IRS data show that in 2017, 58 percent of workers aged 25 to 64 participated in a retirement plan, versus Ghilarduccis claimed rate of only 38 percent.

Even the CPS itself now contradicts Prof. Ghilarduccis argument: the CPS also asks individuals whether they received any income from a retirement account, such as interest on savings. As EBRIs Craig Copeland put it, if workers earned income in a retirement account, it is safe to assume that they had a retirement account, meaning they were participating in a retirement plan. By this approach, Copeland finds that 62 percent of full-time employees in 2018 participated in a retirement plan, a massive increase compared to the levels Ghilarducci reports.

Moreover, the 401(k) contribution limits are high enough that most married couples could save adequately even if only one spouse had access to a workplace plan. IRS data show that in 2017, 81.4 percent of two-earner households had at least one spouse contributing to a workplace retirement plan. If we assume that 90 percent of married couples with access to a plan had one or both spouses participate, this implies that 91 percent of married couples were offered at retirement plan at work. This isnt a massive coverage problem.

None of this is a trade secret. Researchers are well aware of how the CPSs figure are inconsistent with other data sources. Why would a researcher ignore what seems to be better data pointing to better outcomes?

Im not a mind-reader, but a comment in Prof. Ghilarduccis article may provide insights: We should have never expected dynamic, mostly nonunion, American employers to be reliable sponsors of what workers need. Regardless of whether this perspective is correct overall, in a specific case it can lead a person to believe data that supports their prior views and reject data that contradict it.

With open minds we can see a very different retirement landscape. Even as labor unions and traditional defined benefit pensions have declined, Americans are saving more than ever for retirement. Department of Labor data shows that contributions to private sector retirement plans rose from 5.8 percent of employee wages in 1975 when traditional pensions, usually in unionized industries, were at their peak to 9.6 percent of wages in 2017, a two-thirds increase in the amounts Americans are saving for retirement. Retirement savings rose both because 401(k)s are more widespread than traditional pensions ever were and because 401(k)s have two contributors both employer and employee while only employers contributed to defined benefit pensions.

Employer and Employee Contributions to Private Sector Retirement Plans, as Percent of Private ... [+] Industry Wages and Salaries.

Prof. Ghilarducci laments that employers arent contributing enough to their employees retirements: If every worker had an employer that contributed 3% of their salary in a retirement plan at work it would cost employers $192 billion a year. Right now employers spend only $73 billion per year for retirement contributions. In fact, data from the National Income and Product Account figures show that in 2019 private sector employers contributed $291 billion to retirement plans, equal to 3.1 percent of private sector wages and salaries.

The data are clear: Americans are saving more than ever before for retirement, and it came not from government edicts or labor union pressures, but by making retirement plans more readily available, less burdensome on employers and funded by both employers and employees. Americas private sector retirement system has never been stronger than it is today. We should be willing to follow the facts rather than our preconceptions.

The rest is here:
Follow The Facts: Employer-Based Retirement Savings Are Stronger Than Ever - Forbes

Michael B. Sauter, 24/7 Wall Street Published 7:00 a.m. ET Aug. 17, 2020

Its a great time to check up on your retirement plan. This is how you do it. Buzz60

One of the reasons that many Americans get up and go to work every day is to put some money away for retirement. While Social Security payments can be a helpful financial foundation in retirement, it is often not enough to cover anything but the most basic expenditures, especially in the uncertain financial times wrought by the coronavirus pandemic.

Based on average annual spending for American seniors and the national average life expectancy at age 65 of 19.4 years, the average American will spend about $987,000 from retirement age on. And those hoping for a more comfortable and financially secure retirement should plan on saving a little more.

Of course, both cost of living and life expectancy vary considerably by state and so, too, does the cost of retirement. Using the average annual spending of Americans 65 and older adjusted at the state level for cost of living and life expectancy 24/7 Wall St. calculated what it will cost to retire comfortably in each state. All data used in the ranking came from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, an independent global health research center at the University of Washington.

Investing for retirement?: From a diverse portfolio to automating investments, here are 5 tips to prepare

Retirement savers: Worried about stock market bubble? You might not have to do anything

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

One of the best ways to prepare financially is through retirement-specific accounts, such as IRAs or 401(k)s. These types of funds offer special tax benefits and often come with employer matches. Those who fail to save enough and take advantage of options like these or draw from them before they hit retirement age may have to work past age 65 in order to pay the bills. Here is what you can do if COVID-19 is threatening your retirement.

Just how much one needs to save to comfortably meet expected spending from age 65 on depends on a number of factors. Many who work in the public sector, for example, may benefit in retirement from regular pension payments, in addition to Social Security. The amount of these pension payments vary by state and employer. Even in some of the most expensive places to retire, state subsidies can help finance the cost of retirement. These are the states spending the most to fund their residents' retirement.

Alabama.(Photo: Sean Pavone / Getty Images)

1. Alabama

Est. total retirement spending: $894,461 (3rd least)

Avg. cost of living: 13.6% less than avg. (3rd lowest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $357 (6th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 17.0% (18th highest)

In Alabama, residents need an average of about $894,000 to live out their retirement years in relative comfort below the national average of about $1.1 million. Retirees in Alabama need less retirement savings because of both lower average life expectancy and lower cost of living.

Life expectancy at age 65 in the state is 17.7 years, nearly two years below the national average. Additionally, goods and services are about 14% less expensive on average in Alabama than they are nationwide.

2. Alaska

Est. total retirement spending: $1,170,763 (13th most)

Avg. cost of living: +4.8% more than avg. (10th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $504 (19th highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 11.9% (2nd lowest)

Retirees need to save an estimated average of nearly $1.2 million to live out their years in comfort in Alaska. The estimated need for retirement savings in the state is higher than in most states due in large part to the high cost of living in the state. Goods and services are 4.8% more expensive across Alaska on average than they are nationwide. Even without a mortgage, home ownership costs an average of $504 a month among the retirement age population, more than in all but a handful of states.

3. Arizona

Est. total retirement spending: $1,134,482 (18th most)

Avg. cost of living: 3.5% less than avg. (25th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $410 (15th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 17.6% (11th highest)

With a warm climate and a relatively low cost of living, Arizona is an ideal state for many Americans to retire. Of the state's population, 17.6% of residents are 65 or older, compared to 16.0% of the total U.S. population.

The estimated average savings necessary for a comfortable retirement in Arizona is $1.1 million, more than in most states. This is due in large part to the high life expectancy in the state. Those who are 65 years old in Arizona are expected to live an additional 20 years on average, almost a year longer than the national average.

4. Arkansas

Est. total retirement spending: $893,051 (2nd least)

Avg. cost of living: 14.7% less than avg. (the lowest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $355 (4th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 16.8% (22nd highest)

Arkansas is one of only 13 states where residents can retire and live comfortably while spending less than $1 million. This is due to the state's low cost of living and low life expectancy. Goods and services in Arkansas are 14.7% less expensive than they are nationwide, on average, and those who are 65 can expect to live to 82.9, on average, below the 84.4 year national average life expectancy at 65.

5. California

Est. total retirement spending: $1,397,174 (3rd most)

Avg. cost of living: +15.4% more than avg. (3rd highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $567 (11th highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 14.3% (6th lowest)

California has one of the highest costs of living of any state in the country as well as one of the highest life expectancies. Goods and services are 15.4% more expensive in California on average than they are nationwide, and average life expectancy at age 65 in the state is 85.7 years, nearly a year and a half longer than national average.

As a result, for a comfortable retirement in the state, residents would need an average of about $1.4 million in savings, more than in every other state apart from Hawaii and New York.

6. Colorado

Est. total retirement spending: $1,192,006 (11th most)

Avg. cost of living: +1.9% more than avg. (13th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $459 (23rd lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 14.2% (5th lowest)

The average Colorado retiree would need about $1.2 million in savings to live comfortably, which is higher than in 39 states. The relatively high cost of living in the state may help explain why so many Colorado senior citizens continue to work after the traditional retirement age. Among the state's senior households, 41.5% have wage earnings, compared to the national share of 38.0% of senior households.

7. Connecticut

Est. total retirement spending: $1,265,959 (6th most)

Avg. cost of living: +6.1% more than avg. (8th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $870 (2nd highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 17.2% (15th highest)

Housing costs are high for senior citizens living in Connecticut. The average monthly cost of homeownership among the 65 and older population is $870 without a mortgage and $1,481 with the second and 13th highest costs, respectively, among states.

Partially as a result, retirement is more expensive in Connecticut than in most other states. Living comfortably for the 20.4 years Connecticut residents live, on average, after age 65, costs an estimated $1.3 million average, more than in all but five other states.

8. Delaware

Est. total retirement spending: $1,121,070 (19th most)

Avg. cost of living: 1.2% less than avg. (18th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $451 (20th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 18.7% (6th highest)

For those who reach age 65 in Delaware, the average life expectancy is 84.4 years. Living out those years in relative comfort will cost an estimated $1.1 million on average roughly in line with the national average cost of retirement.

9. Florida

Est. total retirement spending: $1,194,451 (9th most)

Avg. cost of living: +0.6% more than avg. (15th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $494 (21st highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 20.5% (2nd highest)

Florida's warm climate makes it an ideal location for many Americans to retire. In fact, more than one in every five residents of the Sunshine State are 65 or older, the second largest share of any state in the country. Residents who are 65 in the state are expected to live to an average of just over 85, about a year longer than the national average.

Due in part to the higher life expectancy, the estimated retirement costs in Florida are $1,194,451, greater than the $1,134,687 national average.

Coronavirus pandemic peak: Most states haven't hit the peak. Here's projected dates for every state

States reopening: Face masks, social distancing are among the rules as businesses reopen

Georgia.(Photo: SeanPavonePhoto / Getty Images)

10. Georgia

Est. total retirement spending: $1,006,303 (15th least)

Avg. cost of living: 7.0% less than avg. (24th lowest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $400 (12th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 13.8% (4th lowest)

The average life expectancy for Georgia residents at age 65 is 83.5 years, about a year shy of the national average. Additionally, goods and services are 7.0% less expensive in Georgia than they are nationwide. As a result, the average estimated cost of a comfortable retirement in the state is just over $1 million slightly below the $1.1 million average nationwide.

11. Hawaii

Est. total retirement spending: $1,485,123 (the most)

Avg. cost of living: +18.1% more than avg. (the highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $518 (16th highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 18.4% (7th highest)

While Hawaii's warm climate may make it an ideal state for many Americans to retire in, it is also the most expensive state in the country in which to retire. Goods and services in Hawaii are 18.1% more expensive than they are nationwide, on average. Life expectancy at 65 is also longer than average in Hawaii. As a result, retirees in the state can expect to need about $1.5 million to live out their golden years in comfort, well above the $1.1 million national average.

12. Idaho

Est. total retirement spending: $1,049,585 (23rd least)

Avg. cost of living: 7.5% less than avg. (22nd lowest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $364 (7th lowest)

Pop. 65 and older: 15.9% (20th lowest)

Those who retire in Idaho can expect to spend less to live comfortably than those who retire in most other states. Due in part to Idaho's lower than average cost of living particularly the state's low housing costs retirees will spend an estimated average of $1,049,585 to live comfortably. That is about $85,000 less than the national average, even though life expectancy at age 65 in Idaho is the same as it is nationwide.

13. Illinois

Est. total retirement spending: $1,118,865 (20th most)

Avg. cost of living: 1.9% less than avg. (19th highest)

Avg. monthly homeownership cost for senior citizens: $609 (9th highest)

Pop. 65 and older: 15.6% (12th lowest)

Retiring comfortably in Illinois today would require an estimated $1.1 million, in line with the national average. Though the overall cost of living across the state is less than average, housing costs are relatively high. The average monthly cost of homeownership for state residents of retirement age is $609 without a mortgage and $1,458 with a mortgage, ninth highest and 14th highest among states, respectively.

14. Indiana

Read the rest here:
Retirement living: Here's what it costs to retire comfortably in every state - USA TODAY

Although millions of Americans have been severely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, the vast majority of retirement savers have refrained from dipping into their 401(k)s to cover their expenses.

During the first half of 2020, 2.8% of retirement savers made withdrawals from their defined contribution retirement plans, the most popular of which are 401(k)s and 403(b)s, according to recent data from the Investment Company Institute. This does not include individual retirement accounts and the percentage of savers making withdrawals is separate from those taking out 401(k) loans.ICI's data is based on information straight from plan providers and covers more than 30 million DC plan accounts, which is generally a type of tax-advantaged retirement account where typically both savers and employers contribute.

The level of withdrawals during the first half of the year is up only slightly from the 2.5% of retirement savers who took money out of their 401(k)s during the same period last year. About 2.2% of savers took a withdrawal during the first half of 2018, according to ICI.

Of the money withdrawn this year, about 1.1% of savers took the money as a hardship withdrawal, ICI reports. Those seeking this type of withdrawal must demonstrate financial hardship, such as the potential for eviction from your home or overwhelming medical debt, and generally many plan providers will still impose a 10% penalty on the funds taken out.

It's worth noting that the number of accounts taking withdrawals reported by ICI is far less than the roughly 14% of survey respondents with retirement savings who said in May that they had taken money from accounts such as 401(k)s and individual retirement accounts. That survey data was based on a much smaller pool of retirement savers and included all of types of retirement accounts, whereas ICI's data focused only on defined contribution plans such as 401(k)s and had a much larger data set.

Separate from withdrawals, ICI found that 2.9% of participants took the newly created coronavirus-related distribution during the first half of the year. In response to the sudden economic downturn, Congress passed provisions in the CARES Act that allow Americans to take a withdrawal of up to $100,000 from their retirement savings, including 401(k)s or individual retirement accounts, without the typical 10% early withdrawal penalty.

Referred to as "coronavirus-related distributions," they are available only in 2020 and can be repaid within three years to avoid any income taxes on the funds taken. When plan providers identify these new CRD options (some do not), they categorize them separately from straight withdrawals, says Sarah Holden, ICI senior director of retirement and investor research.

When it comes to 401(k) loans, 15.6% of plan providers reported they had outstanding loans at the end of June, according to ICI, which tracks loan data quarterly. That was down slightly from the 16.3% of plan providers who had outstanding loans at the end of March and the 16.1% reported at the end of 2019.

The introduction of the pentalty free conronavirus-related distributions may be contributing to the lower 401(k) loan activity, ICI reports. "Because policymakers have made these [CRD] withdrawals repayable, they've kind of made them a bit more like a loan," Holden says. Instead of taking out a loan, some savers may be opting for the new CRD option instead.

"We see a slight increase in withdrawal activity following the onset of economic volatility and hardship, but the increase is much smaller than you might expect, given the severity of the Covid-19 economic downturn," says Holden.

The low loan activity may also be due to Americans not hitting the point yet where they need to tap their retirement accounts. "We do see that more people have [401(k)] loans in the wake of financially stressful times, but not immediately," Holden says. Historically, people usually drain other accounts, such as emergency savings, before dipping into their retirement funds, she says.

In fact, many Americans have not even had to halt their savings levels amid the pandemic. Only 2% of plan participants stopped contributing to their plans in the first half of 2020, ICI's data shows. That's higher than the 1.3% of savers who stopped putting money away during the first half of 2019, but less than the 4.6% who ceased to contribute in the first half of 2009, during the Great Recession.

"These data reflect the long-term mindset of retirement savers," Holden says. "These assets represent a pot of money that savers have earmarked for retirement and they have consistently demonstrated that they generally stay the course to reach that financial goal, even during challenging economic situations."

Check out:Americans spend over $5,000 a year on groceriessave hundreds at supermarkets with these cards

Don't miss:Heres why you probably dont need to panic about the effect of coronavirus on your retirement savings

See the article here:
Only 2.8% of retirement savers made a withdrawal from their 401(k) so far this year - CNBC

Morgan Stanley private wealth adviser Mary Deatherage joins Barron's Roundtable to discuss what retirement savings options will help generate income in a low-yield environment.

Saving for retirement is a monumental task, requiring several decades of diligent effort. Some people hope to circumvent that by playing the lottery or trying to bet on the right investments, but these get-rich-quick schemes rarely pan out. That doesn't mean there aren't secrets to growing your wealth, though.

GERRI WILLIS: NUMBER OF AMERICANS BEING OFFERED EARLY RETIREMENT IS 'SKY HIGH'

Below, I outline three tricks to help reach retirement faster and hold on to more cash. To be clear, these "secrets" still require effort on your part, but they can help make the task a little less arduous.

The only good reasons to put off saving for retirement are if you need all your income to cover your living expenses or if you're using your extra cash to pay down high-interest debt or build anemergency fund. Once those are out of the way, retirement should be your top priority. Why? Because every month you delay, you're costing yourself money.

HERE'S HOW MUCH MONEY AMERICANS THINK THEY NEED TO RETIRE COMFORTABLY

Consider this: Your goal is to save $1.5 million for retirement and you hope to retire at 65. If you began saving once you turned 25, you'd only need to save about $627 per month, assuming a 7% annual rate of return. But if you waited just six months to start saving, you'd now have to set aside $674 per month, assuming the same annual rate of return, to hit your goal. That's an extra $47 per month.

Over the course of your working life, you'd end up contributing about $300,960 of your own money if you began saving at 25. But if you waited until 25 1/2, you'd have to contribute $319,476 of your own funds, all because you decided to put off saving for retirement for six months. And you could cost yourself a lot more than $19,000 if you waited even longer.

You might not be able to afford to make large contributions, especially right now, but even small contributions can grow into significant amounts over time. Set aside what you can for retirement each month, even if it's only a few dollars. This will get you into the habit, and then as you're able to free up more cash for retirement, you can increase your contributions.

Retirement accounts are treated differently, depending on whether they're tax-deferred or Roth accounts. Tax-deferred contributions, including contributions to most401(k)s, reduce your taxable income this year, but then you owe taxes on your distributions in retirement. This is the smarter way to go if you think you're in a higher tax bracket today than you will be once you retire. By delaying taxes until you're in a lower tax bracket, you'll owe a smaller percentage of your savings to the government.

RETIREMENT OPTIMISM HAS HIT A 7-YEAR LOW, SURVEY SAYS

Roth accounts work the opposite way. You pay taxes on your initial contributions, but then you don't owe taxes on your distributions in retirement. These accounts make more sense if you believe you're in the same or a lower tax bracket today than you will be once you retire. By paying taxes now, you'll lose a smaller percentage on a smaller amount of money, and then you'll get to avoid taxes on earnings.

The tricky thing about all this is that there's no way to predict how your income or the tax brackets might change between now and your retirement. All you can do is make an educated guess. Some people choose to hedge their bets by having some of each type of savings. If you do this, favor one or the other based on which you think will offer you the best tax benefits.

Most people don't think ofhealth savings accounts (HSAs)as retirement savings vehicles, but they're actually one of the best. Money you contribute to an HSA reduces your taxable income for the year, like contributions to tax-deferred retirement accounts, and if you use the money for medical expenses at any age, you won't owe taxes on it at all. Once you reach 65, you can use the money for nonmedical expenses, too, but you'll owe income tax if you do this. You can actually withdraw money for nonmedical expenses before 65, but you'll pay a 20% penalty.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

HSAs are not subject torequired minimum distributions (RMDs)like tax-deferred retirement savings andRoth 401(k)sare, so it's also a smart spot to park your cash if you want to be able to withdraw the money at your own pace. RMDs can force some retirees to withdraw more money from their retirement accounts than they want to, and this can raise their tax bill. You won't have to worry about this quite as much if you stash some of your savings in an HSA.

Not everyone can contribute to one, though. You must have a high-deductible health insurance plan, which is defined as one with a deductible of at least $1,400 for an individual in 2020 and $2,800 for a family. Individuals may contribute up to $3,550 to an HSA in 2020 and families may contribute up to $7,100.

No matter your age or retirement goals, you will have to save a lot of money if you ever hope to leave the workforce. But there's a difference between just saving and saving smart. Use the above tips to ensure that your dollars stretch as far as possible in retirement.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

See the original post here:
3 well-kept retirement planning secrets you need to know - Fox Business

Retirement should be an enjoyable time in your life, but it won't be if you aren't financially prepared for it. Unfortunately, a substantial number of Americans are likely going to be in for a huge financial shock when they leave the working world -- and the surprise they're facing could leave them struggling to make ends meet in their later years.

For most retirees, there are two huge expenses that aren't optional and that can drain their nest egg. And, according to disturbing new research from Edward Jones, an estimated two-thirds of Americans planning to retire within the next decade have "no idea" what they are. Those two big expenses: Healthcare costs and long-term care costs in retirement.

Image source: Getty Images.

It's a major problem that these expenses are going to come as a huge surprise for most Americans, because it's all but inevitable that you'll be paying thousands (or even hundreds of thousands) of dollars for them.

After all, while most retirees can get insurance coverage through Medicare at age 65, it's common to retire before these benefits become available -- which means you could owe thousands of dollars in insurance premiums early in retirement. Medicare also doesn't cover everything you might need, and there are premiums and coinsurance costs to think about. The price tag for out-of-pocket care can be so high that seniors who claimed Social Security at 62 often end up spending as much as 60% of their monthly benefit checks on medical services. These bills are shocking if you aren't prepared for them.

It's also more likely you'll end up needing long-term care than many people realize, with around 70% of people who reach the age of 65 ultimately requiring some kind of nursing home or home healthcare services. Unfortunately, Medicare won't pay for any portion of this care in most circumstances. And while Medicaid covers nursing care, it does so only after you spend down a substantial percentage of your assets. If the high probability you'll need nursing home care, along with the price tag and lack of coverage for it, come as a surprise, this can lead to serious financial pain. That's especially true for those who are forced to drain their joint nest egg to provide care for a spouse, and who are then left with little to live on for the rest of their own retirement.

Covering both medical and long-term care costs can be difficult under the best of circumstances, but it can be devastating if the costs come as a shock, since only those who prepare in advance are likely to have the financial resources they need.

For those who are eligible, preparing could involve maxing out annual contributions to a health savings account, while for others it could mean investing more in a 401(k) or IRA after factoring in the costs when setting retirement goals. For still others, buying comprehensive insurance, including long-term care insurance and Medigap or Medicare Advantage plans, could make sense -- although premiums will need to be budgeted for.

The important thing is, you can't afford to be caught off guard -- so if you're one of the two-thirds of Americans with no clue what these expenses might cost, it's time to change that.

No retiree deserves to leave work and see the nest egg they've spent their whole life building disappear within months or years because of medical needs or long-term care costs.

You owe it to yourself to prepare for these expenses by making sure you have money earmarked to cover them and the right insurance to mitigate them. Now that you won't be surprised by them, you can start making your plans today so these huge costs won't derail your entire retirement and leave you struggling.

Go here to see the original:
Two-Thirds of Americans Are in for a Huge Financial Shock in Retirement - The Motley Fool

BULLHEAD CITY There have been drive-through testing initiatives, food distributions and graduation ceremonies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Bullhead City is adding a retirement ceremony for Police Chief Brian Williamson to the list of creative, social-distanced celebrations.

The city is conducting a drive-through retirement celebration for Williamson at 10 a.m. Wednesday in the Bullhead City Administration Complex off Marina Boulevard. It will be preceded by a private, formal retirement presentation at 9 a.m. with the event broadcast live on TV4, online at http://www.bullheadcity.com/tv4live and streamed on the Bullhead City Police Departments Facebook page.

The public is invited to join the farewell retirement drive-through celebration on Wednesday, said a news release issued by the police department. Vehicles may begin lining up at 9:30 a.m. on Hoppas Drive/Gary Keith Park (between Mohave High School and Public Works). The police departments traffic personnel will lead the vehicle procession through the drive-through route, which will head south on Alonas Way to the parking lot of the Bullhead City Justice Complex (the building that includes the police department). The chief will be located by the flag poles outisde the Bullhead City Council chamber.

We encourage people to decorate their vehicles for the celebration. After greeting Chief Williamson from their vehicles, the procession will exit the parking lot on Alonas Way toward Trane Road. The event will be limited to approximately one hour due to the extreme heat.

Participants must remain in their vehicles.

Williamson is retiring, effecting Sept. 1, after a 32-year career in law enforcement that began as a military policeman in the U.S. Army. After a stint with the Mohave County Sheriffs Office, he joined the Bullead City Police Department in 1998. He became acting chief Dec. 6, 2013, following the retirement of Rodney Head. The appointment was made permanent the following May.

Excerpt from:
Drive-through ceremony planned to honor retiring police chief - Mohave Valley News