≡ Menu

How much do I need to live on when I retire?

How on Earth can you fathom how much income you will need when you retire? A good first step when retirement planning is to know how much you need to live on now.

For a realistic answer, you can use a budget-planning tool like Money Saving Expert’s Budget Brain to capture your current spending.

I like this tool because it’s like holding your finances up to the Snow Queen’s mirror. It will give you the true picture of your outgoings – warts and all – by speaking plainly about areas that might otherwise be overlooked, such as dental expenses or beauty therapies. (I spend a lot on virgin’s blood, myself).

Will I really need so much income when I retire?

It’s commonly held that we spend less in retirement than in the buccaneering days of youth, so you can probably strip out:

  • Mortgage payments (assuming you have paid it off by retirement age)
  • Work related expenses
  • Child related expenses

But retirement isn’t all about sitting atop a hoard of your treasure, saving pennies with coupons / cruising the Caribbean, and writing letters to Radio 4.

For instance, you might consider upping your allowance for:

  • Travel costs
  • Health
  • Heating
  • Werther’s Originals

Once you’ve done all that, you should have a reasonable base figure for the annual income you’ll need to hit on the retirement calculator.

A few wrinkles

If you’re having trouble picturing your retirement, try this gimmicky but fun retirement income calculator that can help you visualise a life of permanent leisure luxury.

Meanwhile, this retirement calculator lets you pick your desired monthly income, then crank the handle to see how fortune plays out.

Remember that the higher your target income:

  • The longer you will need to save,
  • Or the more you will need to save,
  • Or the higher your growth rate will need to be (which implies a riskier asset allocation),
  • Or some combination of all the above.

Working out how much you will need when you retire is just one part of creating your retirement plan, so do subscribe to Monevator for more pointers.

{ 3 comments }

How to create a simple retirement plan

There was a period in my life when I couldn’t bear to think about retirement planning. I didn’t know how to do it. I didn’t think I could afford it. I only knew the problem grew worse with every day I ignored it.

So I blanked it out. It was a big, self-inflating ball of worry but it was invisible. Like a personal climate change problem, I pretended everything was hunky-dory by shutting off the voices of doom in a soundproof part of my brain.

If only I knew how easy creating a workable retirement plan could be!

First things first: It’s vitally important to define your investment goals. Without knowing your destination, you can’t work out how to get there.

A large-scale, life-altering project like investing for retirement may seem too abstract, distant, and difficult to deal with. Yet it can be done quite quickly by stringing together a few logical steps and employing a retirement calculator to crunch the numbers.1

Creating your retirement plan

Before the calculators can whir, we need to sketch out our retirement vision and the key factors that will make it happen.

  • My vision – To build an annual income that will sustain me and my nearest and dearest once we can no longer work.
  • Target – The annual income I need to live on in retirement. Another way of approaching this is in terms of total pension pot.
  • Time horizon – e.g. I want to retire no later than age 65.
  • Contribution level – Most calculators ask for the percentage of income that will be fed into your pension funds, but ultimately this comes down to how much cash you can save.
  • Expected rate of return – What growth rate might we get from the mix of assets we choose for our portfolio?

To make my retirement plan a little more tangible, I’ve taken to thinking of it as my very own financial farm:

Grow your own retirement.
  • My target income is the crop that I’ll be harvesting in the years to come.
  • My contribution level is the seed that I sow.
  • The time horizon is the length of the growing season.
  • The expected rate of return is the effect of the financial sun, rain, and soil upon my crop.
  • I can even throw on fertilizer to increase the expected rate of return by choosing a riskier asset allocation.

Over the rest of this Special Retirement Week On Monevator! I’ll look at how to turn the factors above into raw numbers that you can feed into a retirement calculator.

As we go, we’ll look at each issue in turn (and magically the four bullet points below will be updated with links, too):

Subscribe now to get each new part emailed to you every morning.

Creating a retirement plan is worth the effort

Your investment goals face no bigger threat than the prospect of you giving up part way through.

By investing some time in your plan, before you invest any money, you will make your goals more tangible. You get a sense of what mission accomplished will look like, and can then draw a deep breath and take on the challenge.

After a while, you will savour your progress, relish defeating your demons, and turn a mental block into an empowering positive in your life. (Honestly!)

Take it steady,

The Accumulator

  1. Beware that results can differ depending on which calculator you use. Use them as a guide to planning only, always check the assumptions used by the calculator, and appreciate that reality could turn out very differently. []
{ 35 comments }
Weekend reading

Good reads from around the Web.

This week saw the well-respected bond titan Bill Gross predict the death of equities:

The cult of equity is dying. Like a once bright green aspen turning to subtle shades of yellow then red in the Colorado fall, investors’ impressions of “stocks for the long run” or any run have mellowed as well.

The key thrust of Gross’ argument is that:

[Equities’] 6.6% real return belied a commonsensical flaw much like that of a chain letter or yes – a Ponzi scheme. If wealth or real GDP was only being created at an annual rate of 3.5% over the same period of time, then somehow stockholders must be skimming 3% off the top each and every year.

Unfortunately, Gross appears to have made a (wait for it) gross error. As the likes of Jeremy Siegel and Henry Blodget have pointed out, he has forgotten that a large part of that 6.6% real return consists of dividend payouts:

Stocks have not, in fact, “appreciated” at ~7% per year for the past couple hundred years. Stocks have only “appreciated” about 2% per year.

That is to say, the prices of stocks, after adjusting for inflation, have only risen about 2% per year for the past couple of centuries.

So where has the rest of the return come from?

Dividends.

Over the past century, about 4 points of the ~7% annual return of stocks has come from dividends.

This would seem to be an inordinately huge error, but Gross has yet to address it. Instead he and Siegel have traded insults across the financial media:

“I like Bill Gross a lot, but he’s got the economics wrong,” Siegel said on Bloomberg Television’s “In the Loop” with Betty Liu. Siegel is “obviously pushing at windmills,” Gross said today in an interview with Liu. “He belongs back in his ivory tower,” Gross said.

Miaow!

A load of crystal balls

Other critics have noted that plenty of US companies get much of their earnings from overseas. Thus their business value would be geared to global GDP, not to US GDP alone.

But the main thing I takeaway from this spat is that fun as it is to read the word of gurus and pundits, an investor shouldn’t regard any of it too seriously. (That includes any forecasts that stray onto Monevator, for that matter).

If a multi-millionaire bond king with billions under management like Bill Gross can make such a simple slip, do you really think an economist has a clue when he says Russian GDP will pick up in 2014, or that the FTSE will fall below 4,000 before rebounding to 10,000, or any other comically precise forecasts?

[continue reading…]

{ 10 comments }
Rising income inequality suggests Karl Marx had a point

I tend to ignore most of the doom and gloom you read on the Internet.

Peak oil? Piffle.

China crisis? Chortle.

The only catastrophic fear that reliably gets me going is environmental degradation, because there are so many ways for us to screw up.

We could avoid planetary collapse, say, but still see the Earth turned into a giant pig farm. Perhaps the planet will ‘support’ 10 billion human beings, but only a few hundred thousand wild animals.

That would be failure to me – but our descendants might watch old David Attenborough TV clips while eating Quorn burgers and think life is not so bad.

Capitalism: endangered

In recent years however I’ve been vexed by another popular apocalyptic grievance.

That’s the so-called crisis in capitalism.

Just like the daily damage we’re doing to the environment, it’s hard to deny Western economies have taken a turn for the worst.

And what makes this brew especially potent is that not everyone is suffering equally.

Given how the wealth of the richest has risen ever higher above the rest of us in the past two decades – and how we now seem to lurch from one systemic crisis to another, which I suspect is related – I wonder what capitalists from the 1950s and ’60s would think, could they see us today?

Would they reach the same gloomy verdict as a biologist might on visiting a pitiful 5,000-acre ‘Real Amazon Rainforest Experience’ in Brazil come the 22nd Century?

Would they find capitalism just a shadow of its former self?

Free markets rule, okay?

The reason I’m not worried about most of the ‘big’ problems is because I think human beings are ingenious creatures who haven’t begun to fully harness the resources around us.

This is why I am also a capitalist, despite its recent traumas.

I believe that free markets with transparent pricing, private property rights, and the profit motive of ambitious individuals are together pretty good at allocating resources and eventually solving problems.

This doesn’t mean I think we should give into winner-takes-all ideologies, or that all taxation and redistribution is wrong. Capitalism without checks and balances is feudalism with price tags.

But I do believe the evidence is capitalism is more effective at improving the lives of more people than the alternatives.

And yes, I believe it’s better for me, too.

I also think well-functioning capitalist societies are freer societies – because they need to be to work. Not perfect by any means, but demonstrably fairer and freer than the Soviet and Chinese experiments in communism were.

Some on the left dismiss those repressive regimes as hijacked by dictators. But I suspect the low value put on an individual freedoms in those economic regimes was no accident, given their over-arching credo.

Coffee chain socialists

Given my beliefs, then, I’m dismayed to hear well-educated friends increasingly writing off capitalism as broken and corrupt.

In my view, most of our progress in the past few hundred years was facilitated by free markets – and capitalism is the only hope I see for tackling the big problems of the future.

I listen in disbelief as intelligent friends report back from a community farm in Hackney to tell me that one day all our food will be grown on shared allotments in Acton and Ealing. What did they smoke there?

Another friend regularly lambasts the post-War medical system, saying it’s “never done anything for patients, just profits for companies”, ignoring the multiple successes against everything from heart disease to AIDS, and the enormous R&D advances in Europe and the US (research which incidentally the rest of the world, including the poorest, effectively gets a big subsidy on).

Other frightening things overheard at recent dinner parties:

  • “Western economies are the reason people are starving in this world.”
  • “You’re delusional if you believe money has any real value anymore.”
  • “Who cares about greedy shareholders?”
  • “You should be ashamed of yourself for reading the FT.

These comments might have been standard fair in a 1970’s university common room for students still a few years away from having to test their principles in the real world.

But that they are being made by intelligent grown-ups with houses, pensions, jobs, and holiday plans to far-flung locales – everything that capitalism can buy – is to me deeply worrying.

These friends of mine see no connection between their everyday well-being and the economic system that supports them. It’s as if the demise of communism has left them free not to believe in capitalism, but to indulge in dangerous fairy tales.

And their complaints are getting louder. I’d say the majority of my University-educated liberal friends will ‘Like’ anything on Facebook that includes a rant about the evils of the market system or of trying to balance the nation’s books.

Sometimes I wonder if I’m living in a Truman Show designed to rile me. Perhaps these friends really do spend their days sabotaging the best efforts of their capitalistic employers, and maybe their conspicuous consumption is some sort of ironic political statement.

Or perhaps they’ve just been infantilised into hypocritical posturing.

The new Marx brothers

How have we got to this miserable state of affairs, where smart individuals raised and doing well in capitalist societies are apparently calling for its downfall?

Do my friends have some great solidarity and empathy with, say, the vast swathe of young Spanish people jobless in the wake of the financial crisis?

I don’t think so. Besides, if you want to find real injustice in the world you need to go a lot further than Spain, which is the architect of much of its own misfortune.

A lot of the world’s population never had the luxury of a functioning capitalist economy to screw up. Many Africans and Indians live in near post-apocalyptic conditions, for example – exactly the sort of dire scenario painted by comfortable Westerners who cheerfully muse about imminent economic collapse and growing their own carrots in a bucket.

Clearly it is partly a knee-jerk reaction to the last few years of economic tumult. I think people are also looking to the endlessly infuriating bankers, the Flash crash in the stock market, riots in Greece and Italy and even the UK, and are scared by a system that has at times seemed out of control (as it always was, of course. Which is, incidentally, why it works).

But I think the most important factor for my friends’ incoherent ranting is that in the post-Soviet era, a well-articulated counter to rampant capitalism has been conspicuously absent. The sort of crisis predicted by communists has come and gone, but there are no communists left to – ahem – capitalise on it.

The centre cannot hold

Without the checks that the fear of ‘the Reds’ put on Western capitalism, unions have collapsed, left-wing politics has morphed from productive redistribution to doling out windfall taxes to buy votes, and a centrist politician in the US like President Obama is derided as a ‘socialist’.

Few young people seem to know much about economics and politics anymore. You might say I’m an old (30-something) fogey ranting, but the benefit of growing up with Thatcher versus Kinnock and Reagan versus Soviet Russia was that almost everyone took some sort of political stand, prompted by real conflict.

Today, my friends happily claim “the Tory’s have slashed NHS funding and are sacking 50,000 doctors and nurses”, when the tedious reality is real terms NHS spending fell by 0.02% (by accident) and Labour would have had to take the axe to spending, too. The distinction between the UK parties is more rhetoric and rounding errors than real policy differences, yet the charges of “wrecking the NHS” or “bankrupting the nation” from either side remain as loud as ever.

The trouble with this phoney debate is that nature abhors a vacuum, and my well-educated middle-class chums effectively calling for some sort of Mad Max collectivism – with hot showers and foreign holidays – demonstrate it’s not just in Greece that people will believe almost any nonsense in the face of tough decisions.

Meanwhile, back in the boardroom…

In the absence of alternatives, like a bell, today’s Western discontents have nothing to hit out against except themselves.

The irony is that there is a political spectrum worth debating, but it’s been crowded out by right-wing ranting in the US and left-wing, well, lying, here in the UK. Rather than invigorating politics, these radicals render it impotent, stretching the fringes even as the centre becomes crowded with focus groups, working parties, and career politicians.

The lack of proper political debate – and I’d count the mainstream media as part of the problem – means the average person today seems to have no idea that you can have more ‘humane’ versions of capitalism, such as that historically practiced in Scandinavia, or the cultural traditions in places like Germany and Japan where bosses are rewarded far more handsomely than their workers – except it’s arithmetically more (10-20 times as much, say) rather than geometrically more like in the US (200-400 times more) and increasingly in the UK.

That alone is one massive choice about what sort of system we want to live in – and yet it stops far short of deriding profit as evil, or similar counter-productive dinner party nonsense.

Indeed, perhaps it’s the most important choice: I think the growing chasm between the very richest and everyone else is a big part of what ails Anglo-Saxon capitalism.

Income inequality is getting more extreme, with the US leading the way as this graph from The Economist reveals:

The rise of the infamous 1%

Anecdotal asides are even more shocking.

An article entitled America’s dream unravels in the FT reveals:

[Among America’s hyper-rich] there are the retail kings, such as the Walton family, owners of Walmart, whose combined assets equal that of America’s bottom 150 million people.

When I read statistics like that, I’m not quite so surprised that I’m regularly defending capitalism in the pub, or that half my conversations now involve persuading old friends I’m not a robber baron for buying shares.

My friends aren’t on the lunatic fringe. They are (mainly) serious people with proper, well-paid jobs, who have come to believe the entire financial system is a rigged game run for the benefit of insiders, and I think the distortions at the top of the income and wealth scale are a big part of the reason why.

Will capitalism eat itself?

Much of this post has been sitting in my draft folder for a year. I’m not happy with it even now; I feel inarticulate. I am sure something big is happening, and that people’s lack of faith in the economic system is more dangerous than just sour grapes in a downturn, but I struggle to say why.

Meanwhile, in the time I’ve been avoiding writing about it (as hinted at in my post-Libor scandal banker post) the Occupy / 99% movements have bubbled up and income inequality has moved to the mainstream.

Yet even now, business people and private investors – the very people who should be figuring out what’s gone wrong and selling the benefits of what’s more often gone right with our system – seldom seem to have anything to add. They leave the airwaves to the extremists.

As I discovered in my banker bashing days, if ordinarily successful private investors comment at all, it tends to be to stand up for the grossly-inflated salaries of the ultra-rich elite, the bankers and the directors of big companies – an income skew that I think may eventually be too much for our system to bear.

True, we’ve had the so-called Shareholder Spring. But as the BBC’s Robert Peston recently wrote, it’s a myth that this has restrained executive pay:

The disclosure that FTSE100 chief executives were last year awarded average total remuneration of £4.8m, a rise of 12%, will be seen by many as shocking.

It comes at a time when earnings for the vast majority of people are stagnating and represents a record of just over 200 times average total pay in the private sector of just under £24,000 (on latest figures from the Office for National Statistics).

[…]

[Yet] there have been just four defeats so far of companies in votes on their so-called “remuneration reports”, and only one of these companies has been in the FTSE100 list of biggest businesses. That does not represent an exponential increase in shareholder rebellions.

Personally, I think a world where top CEOs earned say 30- to 50-times the average income is still plenty aspirational. In fact it’s the 1950s and ’60s – what many would regard as the golden era of Western capitalism.

Suggest it though, and you’ll hear you’re a communist who wants to reward people for sleeping in bed and to punish the successful.

Investors of the world, unite!

There could scarcely be a more important topic than the growing distortions that threaten capitalism, but whenever I discuss it with my financially-savvy friends they lecture me about football stars and Simon Cowell.

I suppose it’s like the omertà code of the mafia: The fear is that if you engage with the argument at all, it will lead to some re-energised union leader or lefty politician taking your own toys away. (I also suspect people think they themselves are knocking on the door of the rich club, when most are not.)

Yet to say nothing is to let the hysteria grow.

If for no other reason, debate it for naked self-interest! Western economies cannot grow without consumers, and polarising inequality means ever more money is compounding at the top. There’s only so many private jets and country mansions the super-rich can buy.

I also think there’s a strong argument that it was stagnant wage growth for the masses in the US that set the scene for its borrowing binge and sub-prime mortgage bubble. People attempted to keep up with the aspirations of their parents, but without the growing pay packets to do it.

Now I don’t deny there are structural issues at play, too, such as globalisation (which I favour) and growing network effects.

But whatever the ultimate answer, I believe it’s a responsibility of all of us who support free markets – let alone those of us who hope to profit from them via investing – to stand up and be counted, and to be sure we can justify any aspect of the system that we defend, rather than indulging in fantasy politics of any persuasion.

I hope we do not come to regret not doing more to defend capitalism – including from itself.

{ 40 comments }