When you become a parent, the rationale behind your financial decisions will likely change, as you will now need to plan for the financial future of your child instead in addition to your own. This becomes even more apparent when it is time to save for their education and your retirement. It might seem like you have to choose one or the other, however, it is very possible save for both by implementing effective money management and cost-cutting strategies.

Work on Cutting College CostsThe studies show that the cost of attending college increases each year. However, the cost can be reduced with educational scholarships, athletic scholarships and community service scholarships. If your child has a school that he or she wants to attend, check with the school to find out about the scholarships that are available. You can work with your child to help ensure that he or she is eligible for one or more of those scholarships. Alternatively, your child can attend a college with lower tuition costs for the first two years and complete his or her college education at his or her preferred college later. Your child may also be eligible for grants, which the college would determine based on the information provided in its Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA).

Choose Student LoansAccording to the College Board Advocacy and Policy Center, tuition and fees at private nonprofit four-year colleges averaged $28,500 for the 2011-2012 academic year. This is a 4.5% increase from the previous year. Take this into consideration unless you can comfortably afford to finance your child's education and have enough left to finance your retirement. It may make better financial sense to have your children use student loans to finance the cost of education that is not covered by grants and scholarships. If you choose to do so, you can help your child repay the loans if you can afford to.

Saving for Both at the Same Time Saving for your child's education while saving for your retirement can be an ideal solution if you can afford to do both. Under this option, the majority of your savings can be allocated towards your retirement nest egg . Consider that if you only put $200 a month towards your child's education, and assuming a rate of return of 2.5%, you would have saved about $54,400 after 18 years. This amount can be added to a 529 Plan, where earnings grow tax-deferred and are tax-free if distributions are used for qualified education expenses . If your child does not use the amount that you save in an education savings account or 529 Plan, the balance can be rolled over to another eligible child's account.

Save in a Retirement Account You can add money to a traditional IRA and/or a Roth IRA, where earnings grow tax-deferred. If you are eligible, you can even claim a deduction for the contributions made to your traditional IRA and receive a nonrefundable savers tax credit. These are retirement savings account, which means that amounts are intended to finance your retirement. However, if you find that you have no option but to make withdrawals from these accounts to cover educational expenses for your child, the amount that you withdraw would be exempted from the 10% early distribution penalty even if you withdraw the amount before you reach age 59.5.

The Bottom Line The main thing that you should remember is that, financially speaking, you come first. Your children have more options to finance their education, including loans, grants and scholarships. On the other hand, your only option for financing your retirement is your retirement savings and Social Security income if it is still available at that time. Therefore, if it ever gets to the point where you have to make the choice between your retirement and your child's college education, you should choose your retirement. A financial planner can help you to decide the best financial path you should take towards both options.

More From Investopedia

View original post here:
How To Balance Retirement Savings With Your Child's Tuition Costs

LAS VEGAS -- Boxer Antonio Margarito, whose career was stained by the 2009 confiscation of plaster inserts inside his hand wraps, announced his retirement Thursday.

"After twenty-two years of full dedication to the profession I love, I have decided to announce my retirement from boxing, Margaritosaid on his Facebook page. After thinking broadly and in detail with my family and my team, we have come to the conclusion that its time to hang my gloves and start a new chapter in my life. Im leave boxing but I will continue within the sport.

Margarito (38-8, 27 knockouts) was working to fight on a card in Tucson, Ariz., in July, but an Achilles' tendon injury was slow to heal, and he was also nagged by questions about his surgically repaired eye, which was originally damaged by Manny Pacquiao and subjected to a harsh review before the New York Athletic Commission cleared him in December.

Margarito lost that fight when the referee stopped the bout before the 10th round because of swelling around the eye.

It was clear that the eye would have to be reexamined, especially if he aimed to fight at a higher weight against someone such as world middleweight champion Julio Cesar Chavez Jr.

A former world welterweight champion, Margarito lost the belt to Paul Williams in 2007 at Home Depot Center, then rallied to upset the previously unbeaten Miguel Cotto by an 11th-round technical knockout in 2008.

Cotto questioned Margarito's performance in that boutafter the California State Athletic Commission confiscatedplaster inserts from inside Margarito's hand wraps just before his next fight -- a knockout loss to Shane Mosley at Staples Center in January 2009.

California suspended Margarito and his trainer Javier Capetillo, but Texas gave the "Tijuana Tornado" a license to fight Pacquiao at Cowboys Stadium in November 2010.

"I was grateful we were able to do what we could for him," Margarito promoter Bob Arum said Thursday. "We came through for him and made him financially secure by getting him the Pacquiao fight and the Cottofight."

Arum said he still believes "if anyone was to blame"for the plaster scandal, "it's Capetillo. Antonio had no opportunity to test out those wraps. I just was never going to throw him under the bus on that."

Link:
Antonio Margarito announces his retirement from boxing

Video Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylQE4olvgk

05-06-2012 12:01 After Shawn Johnson announced her retirement and that she would not be competing at the London 2012 Olympics, Dan Rubenstein looked back at his interview with her last month and noticed some subtle clues to indicate that she might not compete. The results are eye popping. Oh yeah and they're completely fake. Subscribe to our channel for more sports videos! Click here: Check us out on Facebook and follow us on Twitter (@SBNStudios)! SB Nation: Pro Quality, Fan Perspective

Read the rest here:
Shawn Johnson Retirement Exclusive Interview - Video

THE HAGUE, The Netherlands, June 7, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --

The first AEGON Retirement Readiness Survey of 9000 respondents provides key findings:

Despite the fundamentally positive aspects of living longer, longevity increases have brought greater costs and potential reductions in retirement systems, including government and private pensions. The global economic crisis of recent years and ongoing economic uncertainty and austerity measures have put even greater pressure on these retirement systems and shifted more of the responsibility to individuals to save for their own retirement.

An international survey initiated by AEGON, one of the world's leading providers of retirement security, indicates that there is widespread pessimism about the future state of retirement. Seventy-one percent of respondents still working believe that future generations will be worse-off in retirement than current retirees - reversing the long-established notion that each generation helps pave the way for subsequent generations to enjoy a higher standard of living.

More than two-thirds of the 9000 people surveyed in eight European countries and the United States accept that they bear principal responsibility for their retirement security. However, only 15% are confident that they are on course to achieve the retirement income they need. This is also reflected in the AEGON Retirement Readiness Index that has been developed to measure how prepared people feel about their own retirement in the various countries represented in the report.

Most respondents support increased taxes, reduced benefits (or both) to ensure the viability of government sponsored pension systems. At the same time, nearly half of the respondents do not support raising the age of retirement, even as people are living longer, healthier lives. However, a clear majority of respondents expect to continue working in some form past traditional retirement age.

AEGON CEO Alex Wynaendts said: "People in general are enjoying longer, healthier lives, and yet their readiness for a longer retirement is considerably less than that of previous generations of retirees. A concerted effort is needed to reconsider traditional retirement models and provide greater flexibility for phased retirement. If current pension systems are not adapted to the new realities of longer life spans and declining government and employer funding, the burdens placed on society will be a source of even greater economic and societal turmoil in the future. The good news is that people in general accept their responsibility in creating the conditions that will provide for a secure and satisfying retirement."

The AEGON survey also showed that the traditional "retirement cliff" is disappearing, referring to people going straight from working life into full retirement. Consequently, phased retirement is set to become the norm as more people expect to continue some kind of work activity past traditional retirement age. Fifty-four percent of the current generation of retirees went straight from work into full retirement, but only 30% of the current working generation expects a similar path. The findings further indicate that "silver entrepreneurs" could become more common as many in this current generation plan to combine activities such as starting their own businesses with leisure pursuits in their advanced years.

Alex Wynaendts: "Advances in longevity and health, combined with a modern approach to retirement, can make this life stage a period of productivity and personal fulfillment. It is in the interests of public policy makers, employers and the financial services industry - working together - to provide the incentives and opportunity for people to achieve the level of financial security that will be required for a longer period than at any time in history."

The AEGON survey, developed in collaboration with the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies - a non-profit, private foundation in the United States dedicated to conducting research and educating the public on retirement security trends - and Cicero Consulting, a leading public policy and communications consulting firm providing independent market research to the financial services sector, was conducted with the aim of understanding prevailing attitudes about retirement in the future and to determine the levels of financial readiness that currently exist among today's working generation.

See the article here:
AEGON Retirement Readiness Survey Finds Global Outlook for Future Retirement Bleak Without Immediate Action

I recently asked Morningstar.com readers whether their retirement-plan withdrawals were fixed or variable. A lively thread on our Discuss forum boards ensued, with retirees and pre-retirees sharing lots of sensible advice.

As I read through the comments, however, I realized that there's still a lot of confusion about this topic, and I inadvertently stoked it with the terms I referenced in my question. For starters, whether a payout is fixed and variable is really in the eye of the beholder: Taking out a fixed percentage of a portfolio per year results in varying amounts of dollars coming in the door, while taking out fixed dollar amounts will mean that a retiree's withdrawals will vary on a percentage-of-portfolio basis.

Moreover, even though "safe withdrawal rate" has become a nearly ubiquitous term in retirement-planning circles, the "withdrawal" part of the phrase is something of a misnomer. As such, it tends to stir up unnecessary acrimony or, at the very least, confusion. Some income-oriented investors assume, not unreasonably, that "withdrawal" means that retirees steadily invade their capital until it's all gone, ignoring income-producing securities altogether. But the "withdrawal" in "safe withdrawal rate" generally assumes that retirees can be free-ranging in terms of where they go for cash, such asdrawing income for living expenses from bonds or dividends, rebalancing proceeds, required minimum distributions, tax-loss sales, and yes, the outright selling of securities. In a similar vein, the term "income" also fans the flames of confusion (and stirs investing passions). Are we talking about actual interest and dividend income, or income for living expenses from wherever we can scare it up? The term "distribution" is more encompassing than "withdrawal" or "income," but you don't see it used as much.

Given all of the question marks flying around about the topic of--ahem--retirement distributions, as well as the importance of arriving at a sensible and sustainable strategy, I thought it would be useful to provide an overview on some of the key approaches: how they work as well as their pros and cons.

Income OnlyThe granddaddy of all retirement strategies, the income-only approach means that the retiree subsists on whatever dividend and interest income distributions his or her holdings kick off. Someone earning 5% in dividend and interest income on a $1 million portfolio can spend $50,000 that year.

Pros: It's no wonder so many retirees anchor on this strategy. In addition to being easy-to-understand, there are few more comforting notions than knowing that your portfolio can create all the income you need. Because you're not touching your principal, you can pass it to your heirs or use it for periodic splurges.

Cons: The obvious drawback with income-centric approaches, as yields have slunk lower during the past few decades, is that it has gotten tough to generate a livable income stream from an income-only portfolio without an awful lot of wealth or without taking substantial risk. Because yields on safe securities like cash and high-quality bonds have dropped so low, many income-hungry retirees have found themselves venturing into increasingly arcane and volatile asset types in order to generate the income they need. Moreover, those using the income-only approach may give short shrift to their own quality of life in retirement while passing on outsized sums to their heirs; that may or may not have been their plan.

Percentage of Starting Balance With Annual Inflation AdjustmentThis is the strategy that underpins the so-called 4% rule for retirement distributions. The 4% rule doesn't mean the retiree withdraws 4% of her portfolio's value throughout her retirement years. Rather, under this method, retirees calculate 4% of their starting balance when embarking upon retirement, and use that as their distribution amount in year 1. (Again, that distribution can come from any combination of dividend and interest income, rebalancing and tax-loss sale proceeds, and portfolio withdrawals.) The retiree then inflation-adjusts that dollar amount annually throughout her retirement, as discussed in this article (http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=388066).

Pros: The big benefit of this approach is that the retiree's real payout remains fixed throughout his or her life, allowing for an even-keeled and predictable standard of living--something most retirees want. And assuming the starting withdrawal amount is reasonable given the retiree's time horizon and the investment portfolio's asset allocation, the retiree will have a good chance of not outliving his or her nest egg, according to a fairly broad body of investment research.

Cons: The big disadvantage of distribution approaches that use a fixed real dollar payout is that they're not sensitive to market performance. In very strong and sustained up markets, for example, sticking with the predetermined withdrawal amount might lead the retiree to live more modestly than necessary. Perhaps more worrisome is what can happen if a retiree doesn't adjust his or her withdrawal rate in a prolonged down market: What started out as a 4% rate of withdrawal can readily morph into a much higher percentage in an unforgiving market. Although a fixed real dollar payout is appealing on many levels, real-life income needs might be lumpy: higher in some years, lower in others.

Originally posted here:
In-Retirement Distributions: There's More Than One Way to Get It Done

(MoneyWatch) Americans now view age 67 as the age at which they expect to retire, according to a recent poll by Gallup. This is up from age 66 a year ago, age 63 a decade ago, and age 60 in the mid-1990s.

There are various reasons respondents gave for this increase, including insufficient savings, crashes in the stock and housing markets, a weak economy and job market, and uncertainty about Social Security and Medicare. Given these trends, the increase in the expected retirement age is certainly understandable, and may even reflect a permanent change in Americans' expectations.

But are these expectations realistic? The Gallup poll reported that the average age at which people actually retired increased from age 57 in 1991 to only age 60 today. Other polls, such as the Employee Benefit Research Institute 2012 Retirement Confidence survey, also reported that many Americans are often forced to leave the workforce before they planned.

Add to these challenges the pervasive dissatisfaction that many people report with their work lives, and you've got a group of people who may be in a bind. For example, according to Mercer's recent What's Working survey, only 60 percent of workers age 55 to 64 are satisfied with their employer, a rating lower than that of all younger age groups. But this group is also the least likely to quit; only 24 percent of this older age group report they are seriously considering leaving their current employer -- again the lowest rating of all age groups.

This puts in numerical terms that sad refrain, "Work sucks, but I need the bucks." Fortunately, there's an answer to that dilemma that, while obviously challenging in practical terms, is simple in principle:

1. Don't do work that sucks 2. Need fewer bucks

While that's easier said than done, of course, it vividly tells you what to focus on. So let's see how you might actually make this two-step strategy work.

Don't do work that sucks

Numerous articles focus on the mechanics of job-hunting for older workers, and that is indeed a valuable exercise. But before running off to find a job, take the time to ask yourself exactly what you should be hunting for. How can you find work that gives you satisfaction instead of frustration? I asked this question of John Nelson, author of "What Color Is Your Parachute - for Retirement?" and he had some interesting advice to offer.

John's next suggestion was to start fresh or lower on the totem pole in a new area. Like people in their 20s, who have few monetary commitments and are just starting out, people in their 60s might also be able to afford to take some risks. They may have fewer monetary commitments such as dependent children, they may also have a savings cushion on hand, and they have a lifetime of experience to draw upon to help them find a new career. John suggests that you assess your interests and discover the skills that you most like to use, then look for an organization that supports your values and find a group of people whom you actually want to spend time with.

Read this article:
Delaying retirement? Here's how to make it work

DENVER, June 6, 2012 /PRNewswire/ --Retirement Planning Resources expert Chris Ravsten is offering a continuing education lunch and learn to teach Denver CPAs about two of the most underutilized and misunderstood tax reduction concepts concerning sections 412i and 412eIII of the IRS code.

Attendees will enjoy lunch at the Cool River Cafe on Monday, June 11th, 2012 from 11am to 1pm while learning how to help clients who are paying taxes on 1099 capital gain income from investment portfolios and those who are paying more than $100,000 a year in income taxes.

Along with these IRS codes, attendees will also learn about tax-loss harvesting and individual security sales within an investment portfolio. These concepts help clients retain earnings and reduce income taxes.

CPAs attending the event will also get the chance to discuss how to use a captive insurance company to deduct up to $1.2 million in profits, tax-deductible, to self-insure liabilities.

Speakers will include

Attendees will earn 10 hours of CPE upon the completion of this course.

The tax information event of the year, interested CPAs can RSVP or get more information by calling 303- 749-5842 or emailing Roni@RetirePR.com.

Retirement Planning Resources is Denver's source for information on tax-free retirement preparation. Helping clients across Colorado prepare for their futures, Melinda Ravsten and the Retirement Planning Resources team works diligently to help pre-retirees and retirees prepare for retirement and save their hard-earned money from taxes and the volatility of the unsteady stock market.

More here:
Colorado Retirement Expert Offers 10-Hour Continuing Education Opportunity for Local CPAs

I'm 55 years old and feel I can't afford to lose my savings if the market tumbles. What should someone 10 years from retirement do to protect her nest egg from the next downturn? -- Vicky I., Wheaton, Ill.

Given the recent lousy jobs report for the U.S., Europe's ongoing debt woes and the stock market's roughly 10% decline since the beginning of April, I can understand why you're anxious about market losses decimating your retirement stash.

But while protecting your savings from Armageddon in the markets is certainly one goal as you head into the home stretch to retirement, it's not your only aim. If it were, I'd tell you to just invest your nest egg in Treasury bills or FDIC-insured savings accounts and stop worrying. You wouldn't earn much -- maybe 0.5% or so -- but your dough would be safe.

Problem is, that with at least 10 more years of investing before you retire and maybe another 25 to 30 years after retiring, you can't afford just to huddle in the most secure accounts.

If you want your nest egg to support you over the course of a long retirement, during which inflation could conceivably double your living expenses, you're going to need at least a little bit of capital growth from your retirement investments.

So the question for you is this: How do you balance your goal of safety with the need for some growth?

The answer lies in assembling a mix of stocks and bonds that can prevent a market selloff from vaporizing your savings while simultaneously giving you a shot at returns high enough to maintain your purchasing power in retirement.

Danger zones: Common threats to your home

Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to I can't give you the stocks-bonds blend that's right for you. The mix that's appropriate will depend on such factors as how large a nest egg you have (the more money you have, the more you can likely afford to invest in stocks), how much risk you're willing to take (the more anxious you get when your savings balance falls, the less you'll want to put in stocks) and what other resources you have to fall back on (if you have a pension or lots of home equity you can tap, you can devote more to stocks).

But I can suggest two ways you can get a decent sense of how to divvy up your savings. The first is to check out a target-date retirement fund. For example, Vanguard's Target Retirement 2020 fund -- which is designed for people in their mid-to-late 50s planning to retire in 2020 or thereabouts -- has about 65% of its assets in stocks and 35% in bonds. You don't have to adopt that mix exactly. But you can use it as a starting point and then raise or lower the stock percentage depending on your tastes.

See the rest here:
Retirement savings: How do I protect my nest egg?

If, like me, you spent most of the past weekend working in the yard, pulling weeds, cutting grass, and clipping bushes, then maybe you've started to fantasize about the ideal place to live in retirement. Where would it be? What would it look like?

A few intrepid souls may want to move to the country. I know one woman who left Washington, DC, to go live in the outback of New Mexico. But she's an exception. The reality is most of us currently living in the suburbs will probably stay in the suburbs. Certainly, plenty of retirement homes, independent living facilities, and age-restricted developments (sometimes disguised as gated communities) have cropped up in the past decade to cater to aging baby boomers. Most of us are ready to give up the basement, big garage, tool shed, and all the paraphernalia that goes with them.

My own fantasy is to downscale to a little patch of lawnabout as big as an average-size bedroomwhere I can grow a few flowers and a tomato plant to two and not cut any grass at all. I'd like to live in a small town that is not too big or bustling, but with sidewalks and a coffee shop down at the corner where I could walk in the morning. I worry about the noise. I've had problems with noisy neighbors in the past. But the older we get, the less we're able to hear, so maybe the ambient noise from cars and kids and dogs won't bother us.

My friend moved to the New Mexico mountains, but many more people are drawn to the sea. Most of us cannot afford waterfront property in Cape Cod, Myrtle Beach, Sarasota, or San Diego. But as long as we're fantasizing, we can dream of retiring near the seashore. My brother-in-law was able to do it. But he had to trade in a four-bedroom house with an acre of yard for a two-bedroom bungalow with less than a quarter acre, but its also about 200 yards from the Atlantic Ocean.

A lot of us like to play golf. There are certainly plenty of golf communities to fulfill those dreams. But golf as a sport peaked about ten years ago, when everyone thought they could be the next Tiger Woods. Now people don't want to be the next Tiger Woods, and the allure of the golf community has perhaps dimmed a little. Nevertheless, most retired people want a social life. So if you're going to move away from your old hometown, then you want a place where there are other newly retired people who are open to new friendshipsnot a town where everyone has been friends since 4th grade and aren't interested in meeting new people.

You might want your new home to have access to parks and other recreational venues. If you dont play golf, then perhaps youd be interested in a marina, bike trail, or shuffleboard court. Even when you're retired, you should remain active and involved. Your new town might offer a vibrant local library. Maybe there's a book club you could join. Many people dream of retiring to a university town, from Newark, Del., to Athens, Ga., to Tempe, Ariz.

You might be tempted to buy an older home with lots of charm. But be careful. Older homes require more repairs. You don't need anything too big. Two or three bedrooms might be enough. Thats probably enough room for the kids to visit, but not so spacious that they'd want to stay for too long. You might want to choose a one-story house. You likely will not want to have to climb stairs when you get older and your knees start to go. Maybe you could compromise on a place with the master bedroom on the first floor, and a guest room or two on a smaller second floor. Its also prudent to have a good medical facility nearby.

You probably want your new place to be accessible so the kids will visit now and then. So consider places that arent too far from an interstate or major airport. If you're going to get the kids to visit, there have to be some attractions that would appeal to them, such as the beach, some nightlife, a multiplex theater, and some live music. A mild climate thats not too hot in summer or cold in winter could help ensure year-round comfort.

Is this retirement vision completely unrealistic? Maybe. But it's an ideal, a prototype to get you started. It's still in the planning stages. First, we've got to get through next weekend, and another afternoon of cutting grass.

Tom Sightings is a former publishing executive who was eased into early retirement in his mid-50s. He lives in the New York area and blogs at Sightings at 60, where he covers health, finance, retirement, and other concerns of baby boomers who realize that somehow they have grown up.

See the rest here:
Dreams of the Ideal Retirement Home

NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)--

As attention to the importance of creating retirement income grows, a new MetLife study finds that plan sponsors of the largest workplace retirement plans and their recordkeepers have taken the first steps to help participants secure retirement income but a lot more work needs to be done to pave the way for participants to begin to take action.

MetLifes Retirement Income Practices Study: Perspectives of Plan Sponsors and Recordkeepers for Qualified Plans, released today, examines the dynamics of the plan sponsor-recordkeeper relationship with regard to the provision of lifetime income options in qualified plans. The study assesses whether, and to what extent, plan sponsors of defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) plans, and recordkeepers are communicating about and closely coordinating their efforts to offer retirement income education, strategies and solutions for their participants. A full copy of the study, which includes considerations for plan sponsors, recordkeepers and policy makers, can be found at http://www.metlife.com/retirementincomestudy.

Retirement Income Will Emerge As Biggest Retirement Practice Trend

Both plan sponsors and recordkeepers agree that a focus on retirement income will be one of the biggest retirement practice trends to emerge in the near future. Ten of the 12 recordkeepers surveyed said an increasing focus on retirement income is among their top predictions for the next three-to-five years and one-third of plan sponsors agree it was the most frequently cited prediction among this group.

While recent actions by the U.S. Treasury Department are expected to pave the way for millions of Americans to have better and more accessible retirement income options, plan sponsors and recordkeepers need to work together to facilitate participants ability to understand their retirement income needs and use their plan(s) to generate a paycheck for life, said Cynthia Mallett, vice president, Product & Market Strategies, Corporate Benefit Funding, MetLife.

Plan Sponsors Favor Self-Service Approach for Projecting Retirement Income but Few Participants Interact With the Tools Provided

While many tools have been developed that will show the amount of monthly income a participant might receive during retirement, the research found that such projections are not automatically shown to participants when they view their account balances online, nor are they routinely provided to plan participants on statements summarizing their total and vested account balances. Instead, plan sponsors appear to favor a self-service approach to modeling retirement income projections for their plan participants.

Plan sponsors and recordkeepers recognize that this do-it-yourself model is not taking hold among participants. The majority of recordkeepers surveyed estimated that 25% of plan participants or fewer have made the effort to project their retirement income.

Plan Sponsors Say Participants Want Guarantees

Read the original post:
Plan Sponsors and Recordkeepers Agree That Retirement Income Will Be “The Biggest Trend” Over Next Five Years