Seniors are now twice as likely to rely on their home equity to fund their retirement than before the financial crisis, says a Fidelity retirement survey. They’re also more likely to work in retirement, provided they can find employment.
Since 2005, the number of Canadian retirees relying on home equity to fund retirement has more than doubled from 14% to 36%, says the survey, commissioned by Fidelity Investments Canada ULC.
Conducted by The Strategic Counsel, the 10th Fidelity Canadian Retirement Survey of retirees or workers 45 or older also finds:
• Since the financial crisis, the number of retirees saying it has been more difficult than expected to retire has dropped from 28% in 2009 to 20% in 2014
• More pre-retirees expect to work full or part-time in retirement (62% in 2014 compared with 55% in 2005)
• An increase in reliance on savings held inside a RRSP or RRIF (58% in 2014 compared with 53% in 2005)
• Despite changing trends over the past decade, the vast majority (85%) of Canadian retirees have a positive outlook on life in retirement
Half retired earlier than planned
Fidelity says 48% of retirees polled had retired earlier than planned, often for involuntary reasons. Of this group, 19% had to retire early because of health problems. Another 9% attribute early retirement to work stress and another 9% said “work stoppage” was the reason for early retirement.
Of those retirees not working, one in five would like to work if they could. The main reasons for retirees not being able to work are heath (38%), feeling employers are not interested in employing retirees (23%) and not being able to find a job (15%).
Planning to work is not a retirement plan
“Planning to work in retirement is not a retirement plan,” says Peter Drake, vice president of retirement for Fidelity Canada. “Having a viable plan in place to generate sustainable income in retirement is arguably the most important aspect of retirement planning. Working with a financial advisor and setting goals for retirement is the best way to ease uncertainty and reduce stress around how to create the retirement paycheque. A good retirement plan should have flexibility in case circumstances change, as they often do.”
The survey of 1,390 adult Canadians was conducted online between October 22 and November 3, 2014.
Here’s my latest MoneySense blog, entitled Why you should re-think Early Retirement. This is a topic I’ve been researching for several months, going back to some blogs I wrote on Mark Venning’s ChangeRangers.com, which challenges readers to “envision the promise of longevity.” He also sensibly counsels that we should “plan for Longevity, not for Retirement.”
As you can see by clicking through to the blog (also reproduced below), some of this message was articulated in a speech delivered Wednesday evening at the Financial Show, and which I also gave Monday night at the Port Credit chapter of Toastmasters.
By Jonathan Chevreau
I recently delivered a talk about how longevity changes everything. I began by showing the front cover of the latest Bloomberg Business magazine, which shows a woman celebrating her 173rd birthday. Read more
Earlier this week there was extensive mass media coverage of the latest Sun Life “Unretirement” survey, which found more Canadians now expect to work full-time at age 66 than the number who are retired.
Given that the traditional retirement age has been 65, and remains the age many older investors think of collecting Old Age Security and the Canada Pension Plan, the general tone of this coverage was that the idea of working to such an “advanced” age is in itself scandalous.
Regular readers will know what I’m about to say, and did say Wednesday night on a CTV item on the survey. With rising trends to longevity, more and more people are choosing to work longer or feel financially compelled to do so. Indeed, governments around the world generally would love to see us all work longer and pay taxes longer, which is why the age of OAS onset is being bumped up to 67 for younger Canadians.
Plan for Longevity, not Retirement
As I look around this room, I see a mix of people: everyone from students and those just embarking on the workforce to people who are already retired.
I’ve worked as a financial journalist for more than 20 years and can tell you the word Retirement is a favorite word of both the financial industry and the media. It’s a handy way to depict a far-in-the future “dream” that conveniently helps banks, mutual fund companies, insurance companies and others sell various financial products, from funds to annuities. And we in the media are almost as fond of the term Retirement: I’ve seldom witnessed a newspaper, magazine or web site that turned away financial advertising!
I’m 61 and you could call me semi-retired. But my message to the younger people in the audience, and even some of the middle-aged ones who fear they’ve not saved enough, is FORGET RETIREMENT!
Is this heresy? Not at all. Because there is a better term: Financial Independence. As some of you may know, a month ago I launched a new web site called the Financial Independence Hub and everything I’m saying here can be found at the site.
In fact, it includes a guest blog by Alan Moore of XY Planning Network in the US who posted a blog on exactly this topic. The X and Y refers to Generations X and Y, so he is providing financial planning advice to millennials and young people. And he too is telling them to forget about retirement but instead to seek Financial Independence.
Aren’t the two terms the same thing? Not really. To me, Retirement is the full-stop retirement our parents or grandparents enjoyed if they were lucky. They got a job out of college, enrolled in a Defined Benefit pension that guaranteed a certain steady future stream of income, hung in for the gold watch for 30 or 35 years, then retired at the traditional retirement age of 65. They could now watch day-time TV, golf, nap, play bridge or putter in the garden to their heart’s content for a decade or three. This is what I call the “full-stop” sudden retirement.
Perhaps some of you here are now enjoying such a retirement. Like Mark over there.
Show of hands: how many of you younger people here think they’ll be able to rely on a DB pension when they’re as old as Mark or me? And how many think they’ll stay with a single employer long enough to collect a big enough pension that they’ll never have to work again?
To the young, Retirement is a remote unattainable concept
The problem with the term Retirement is that it seems so terribly far away for young people. The official retirement age keeps rising: it’s now 67 for younger folk instead of 65, if you’re talking about the eligibility age for Old Age Security, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it reached 70 at some point. So telling a 20-year old they should cancel their SmartPhone service in order to save money for a retirement half a century away is hardly an inspiring message, is it?
But that’s what all the retirement peddlers want you to do: put away 10% or preferably 20% of your income by practicing delayed gratification. They may tell you that you’ll need a million dollars or more in order to retire one day. Too often, sadly, young people hear that and figure it’s so impossible they may as well give up and spend it while they have it.
In other words, they are telling young people that in order to enjoy a decade or two of leisure when you’re old and grey, that you need to deny yourself pleasures like travel or eating out while you’re enjoying your youth.
Let me tell you, any of the grey hairs here would probably love to take their retirement savings and use it to book passage on a time machine that would let them relive the Swinging Sixties. If you’re 20 today, I imagine that your 70-year old future self would feel the same way about your life right now.
A more attainable goal
So what do I suggest as a substitute for the word Retirement? I call it Findependence, which is just a contraction of Financial Independence. I’ve written a book, Findependence Day, which is just the day you’ve reached Financial Independence. The ebook I talked about in my third speech here is a sort of “Coles Notes” summary of that book.
But what do I mean by Financial Independence?
I like to refer people to the definition in Wikipedia:
Financial independence is generally used to describe the state of having sufficient personal wealth to live, without having to work actively for basic necessities. For financially independent people, their assets generate income that is greater than their expenses.
In practice, I think this means being able to survive without the single stream of income most call a full-time job.
Leaving the nest at 27 is NOT Financial Independence!
Defined this way, Findependence can occur decades before the traditional Retirement, so it’s a goal that young people may find is more worth shooting for. Interestingly, last week I blogged at MoneySense about a study about young people and their financial readiness to leave home. They used what I consider an incorrect definition of financial independence: that if they left the nest and stopped depending on the Bank of Mum and Dad, that they were therefore financially independent. If they could get a job and pay their rent, that was the definition, which resulted in the absurd headline that most millennials hope to be financially independent by age 27.
I don’t think so. Even with DB pensions, the earliest most people aspired to Financial Independence was 55, which is the earliest some pensions permit early retirement. Anyone hear of Freedom 55? That London life campaign was one of the most successful sales pitches for Early Retirement. Yet only a few government workers or business executives who strike it rich ever retire that early.
Why do billionaires keep working?
Why is that billionaires like Warren Buffett continue to work? Or young tech entrepreneurs like Mark Zuckerburg? Don’t you think Zuckerburg, who’s all of age 31 or so, couldn’t be findependent by now? Obviously, they have passion and are driven by purpose.
What does that tell you? Age 55 is way too young to “retire’ in the classic sense of doing nothing: playing golf, watching daytime TV, reading all day. Yes, many people THINK they’ll travel all the time once they retire but as I wrote on another blog last week, travel is overrated and expensive, and is really something you would only want to do some of the time, not ALL of the time.
Integrating the Three Boxes of Life
Findependence is about integrating education, work and play. On my sister site, Findependence.TV, I’m interviewed about a concept called The Three Boxes of Life, which is the title of a classic book by Richard Bolles. In the old days, we started life in the first box, Education, spent 15 or so years there, then graduated to the second box, Work. We stayed there for 35 to 50 years, and then came traditional Retirement, the third box of total play and leisure.
On the video, I talk about there being really only a single day: you work a bit each day and make money, you learn a bit each day and at the end of the day, you may “play” by getting some exercise, reading, watching TV or whatever.
On the site, there are blogs on concepts like mini-retirements and the four-hour workweek. Wouldn’t it make more sense to take the occasional mid-career sabattical or series of three-month vacations earlier in life, rather than saving it all for ten or 20 years of doing nothing when you’re too feeble to appreciate it? That’s why the subtitle of Findependence Day as well as The Financial Independence Hub is “While you’re still young enough to enjoy it.”
Plan for Longevity, not Retirement
Life expectancies are on the rise because of advances in medical science and more of us are practicing better health habits, with a focus on proper diet and exercise.
We can all expect to live a lot longer than we once thought, which is why the “Hub” ends with a section on Aging and Longevity. There you’ll find some blogs by Mark Venning of ChangeRangers.com, who coined the phrase “Plan for Longevity, Not Retirement.” I think it’s a great concept.
And it isn’t just a theoretical concept. On Sunday, we had a dinner party for a female friend of ours who celebrated her 98th birthday. She showed us a custom-printed card from – get this – her co-workers. You see, Meta still works two half-days a week at a local printing company. So she still spends a little time in the Work box. She also reads a lot, swapping books with my wife (Ruth, above), so part of her days are in the Education box. And she still travels and parties, so that’s the Leisure box.
Sounds like Findependence in action!
Here’s my latest MoneySense blog, based on a Fidelity media briefing on Monday. Click on the blue type to go directly to the piece at MoneySense.
For one-stop shopping and archival purposes, here it is again below, with different photos and subheads.
By Jonathan Chevreau
You’re probably going to live longer than you think but it if you’re worried about outliving your money, planning to work in retirement is not a panacea, warns Toronto-based Fidelity Investments Canada ULC.
At a media briefing on Monday, Fidelity Canada’s Peter Drake, vice president, Retirement & Economics Research urged those still saving for retirement that they have to take more individual responsibility for their future after work. “You’re going to live longer than you think,” he said, citing steadily rising Life Expectancy statistics going back to 1921. Someone born in 1921 would have a Life Expectancy of about 58, a figure that passed 70 for someone born in the mid 1950s and which passed 80 shortly after the new millennium.
Can an “Encore Career” bridge the gap?
Certainly, the latest data from the 2014 Fidelity Retirement Survey released at the event suggests those falling short of their retirement savings goals are counting on some kind of paying “encore career” to make up the difference. While only 20% of those already retired plan to rely on income from a full-time or part-time job, fully 47% of those still in the workforce expect to have some form of a paying “encore career,” said Drake.
Many will rely on Savings and Housing
Non-retirees also put their hopes into Savings and Housing as a way to make ends meet in Retirement. While only 58% of current retirees say they will rely on income generated from savings in an RRSP or RRIF, fully two thirds of non-retirees (66%) plan to do so. Similarly, while only 36% of retirees believe their home equity will help boost their retirement income, half of non-retirees are counting on it.
Clearly, something has to give and that something appears to be the fond notion that people can just keep working past the traditional retirement age of 65. “Planning to work in retirement is not a retirement plan,” Drake cautioned.
Saying you’ll “just keep working” is of course easily said. Indeed, I’ve given that advice to anyone who’s not quite sure whether they have enough money to retire or not. As I quipped on the radio the other day, it’s better to arrive at the train station five minutes early than five minutes late: similarly, when it comes to saving for retirement, it’s better to oversave than undersave. Your children and the government will thank you for over-saving.
“Just Keep Working” not always possible
Unfortunately, Fidelity’s research shows you can’t count on working in retirement. The poll of some 1,400 Canadians found that of those not working, fully one in five retirees would like to work if they could. However, 15% can’t find a job and 23% say employers aren’t interested in employing retirees.
Then there are health and health care issues. Drake says 38% of retirees not working have health issues that prevent them from doing so. And even for those who are themselves healthy, 12% have to care for another family member. Out-of-pocket health care costs are an important consideration for retirees, Drake said. Even though this is Canada, 30% of health costs are not funded publicly, putting more pressure on finances the older you get. Citing per capital public health care expenditures, the big blips are right after birth and then after 65. The per capita annual expenditure is well under $5,000 from age one to age 64 but hits $5,828 between 65 and 69, passes $10,000 between 75 and 79 and really starts to spike after age 85 – past $20,000 –hitting a peak of more than $24,000 after age 90.
Drake noted that generally speaking, women can expect to outlive men, but the longer they do, the more the problems of dementia – especially Alzheimer’s – can arise.
Challenges of Longevity
Another byproduct of extended longevity is that inflation really starts to bite into the purchasing power of a typical retirement nest egg. While inflation has been low and consistent since the early 1990s, it could rise in the future, Drake warned. And even low inflation can reduce purchasing power. A nest egg of $50,000 today would have the purchasing power of just $30,479 25 years from now even with relatively benign inflation of 2%. If inflation were 3%, the purchasing power of that $50,000 would fall to less than half 25 years later: $23,882. And at 4% inflation, it would have the spending punch of just $18,757.
Jonathan Chevreau is Chief Findependence Officer for www.financialindependencehub.com.