Retirement Planning

[bver_hunter]

In a decade and a half from now, I would like to hang up my boots. Not figured out how much I really should have in various types of accounts including RRSPs, Stocks and Shares, Savings Accounts, TFSA. etc.
If you have to retire tomorrow, what is the minimum amount of assets (excluding the property that you own and live in, and the huge lotto winnings off course ), do you think will be sufficient to see you retiring comfortably.
As I am divorced, with no children, let's talk about a realistic sum, such as $ 250,000 or $500,000, or one million if and when you hit 60 or 65 or whenever??
Some of my buddies are even prepared to do so with with $100,000 and a house that is paid for, because they say if push comes to shove they will then sell their properties and then start renting.

 

[Serpent]

For my retirement target at age of 60-62, I would want at least $1.5M (ideally $2M) in my bank account, a paid off primary residence with access to healthcare in a low crime area and a getaway property of some type.

Assuming a life span of 25 years, 1.5M is $60k annualized income before tax which is where you'll pay all your living expense from in retirement years.

 

[bver_hunter]

For my retirement target at age of 60-62, I would want at least $1.5M (ideally $2M) in my bank account, a paid off primary residence with access to healthcare in a low crime area and a getaway property of some type.

Assuming a life span of 25 years, 1.5M is $60k annualized income before tax which is where you'll pay all your living expense from in retirement years.

Barely have ten grand in my account and just a few thousands in RRSPs. The lovely ladies on this board were responsible for my irrationality in that department.

 

[3wire]

The Government of Canada website has a pretty good retirement planning tool. You could start there.

 

[bver_hunter]

The Government of Canada website has a pretty good retirement planning tool. You could start there.

I am aware of all the websites, but I just wanted the members views of their retirement plans.

 

[Indiana]

18 months ago I was looking well on track.
Now..... damn it!

 

[bver_hunter]

18 months ago I was looking well on track.
Now..... damn it!

So how much would be considered to be on track?

 

[Indiana]

So how much would be considered to be on track?

$1.6 mil.

 

[realthing69]

I think you'll need pretty close to a million retiring at 65...depends on your lifestyle.

I think I'll be working for as long as I can...part-time when I hit my mid-sixties.

 

[marcohughes918]

Have only less than a decade for my retirement, debt and cash and investment balanced out. No more dependents, they are on their own feet. Why waiting retirement age when at that time health might be an issue to enjoy. I start enjoying life by going more frequent travelling. Will work as long as I can. Will sell and buy a smaller house if necessary when running low in cash or the property is good. Not prepare to rent, it will drain the asset faster. A property, even smaller, is an investment and an accommodation you can depend on.

 

[GPIDEAL]

In a decade and a half from now, I would like to hang up my boots. Not figured out how much I really should have in various types of accounts including RRSPs, Stocks and Shares, Savings Accounts, TFSA. etc.
If you have to retire tomorrow, what is the minimum amount of assets (excluding the property that you own and live in, and the huge lotto winnings off course ), do you think will be sufficient to see you retiring comfortably.
As I am divorced, with no children, let's talk about a realistic sum, such as $ 250,000 or $500,000, or one million if and when you hit 60 or 65 or whenever??
Some of my buddies are even prepared to do so with with $100,000 and a house that is paid for, because they say if push comes to shove they will then sell their properties and then start renting.

I recommend this for information and tools:

http://trahair.com/

 

[Lawler]

I would want 1 million in RRSP and TFSA before I retire. I own my house.

 

[lucky_blue]

I recommend this for information and tools:

http://trahair.com/

http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/revisiting-david-trahairs-recommendations/

Back in 2009, Mr. Trahair published a book with the title Enough Bull (reviewed here). In it Mr. Trahair counselled investors to dump their stock holdings and stick the proceeds in ultra-safe GICs. The message found enormous resonance with investors whose portfolios were battered and bruised by a brutal bear market that cut the value of their portfolios in half in a matter of mere months. Doubtless, many investors took Mr. Trahair’s message to heart and dumped their stock holdings and moved to safe investments. Let’s see how it would have worked out.

Mr. Trahair cites the example of the TSX Composite, which declined from its closing value of 15,073 on 6/18/2008 to 8,155 on 11/17/2008. It was a stunning decline and one we would probably be telling our grandchildren about. But, let’s see what happened since then. A little over 2 years later, the TSX Composite closed at 13,443 on 12/31/2010. In other words, the index dropped 46 percent over a six month period and gained 64 percent over the next two years. If you include dividends or better yet, reinvested dividends, investors in the Canadian stock market would have gained more than just the increase in the price levels suggest. Investors who followed Mr. Trahair’s advice would have locked in their losses and missed the ensuing recovery entirely.

Another example cited in Enough Bull to warn investors of the perils of the stock market is the decline in the price of Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) from US$199.83 on 12/28/2007 to US$90.58 on 01/09/2009. No doubt that period would have been trying for Apple stock holders. But considering that Apple was recently trading at US$342, I doubt long-term stock holders are complaining about the blip in Apple’s stock price.

The moral of the story here is not that investors should be piling into stocks at all times ignoring the nay-sayers. Rather it is that investors in equity markets must be prepared to withstand sudden and significant erosion in the value of their stock holdings. They should not be surprised when stocks do just that and then react with extreme and drastic portfolio changes.

 

[GPIDEAL]

http://www.canadiancapitalist.com/revisiting-david-trahairs-recommendations/

Back in 2009, Mr. Trahair published a book with the title Enough Bull (reviewed here). In it Mr. Trahair counselled investors to dump their stock holdings and stick the proceeds in ultra-safe GICs. The message found enormous resonance with investors whose portfolios were battered and bruised by a brutal bear market that cut the value of their portfolios in half in a matter of mere months. Doubtless, many investors took Mr. Trahair’s message to heart and dumped their stock holdings and moved to safe investments. Let’s see how it would have worked out.

Mr. Trahair cites the example of the TSX Composite, which declined from its closing value of 15,073 on 6/18/2008 to 8,155 on 11/17/2008. It was a stunning decline and one we would probably be telling our grandchildren about. But, let’s see what happened since then. A little over 2 years later, the TSX Composite closed at 13,443 on 12/31/2010. In other words, the index dropped 46 percent over a six month period and gained 64 percent over the next two years. If you include dividends or better yet, reinvested dividends, investors in the Canadian stock market would have gained more than just the increase in the price levels suggest. Investors who followed Mr. Trahair’s advice would have locked in their losses and missed the ensuing recovery entirely.

Another example cited in Enough Bull to warn investors of the perils of the stock market is the decline in the price of Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) from US$199.83 on 12/28/2007 to US$90.58 on 01/09/2009. No doubt that period would have been trying for Apple stock holders. But considering that Apple was recently trading at US$342, I doubt long-term stock holders are complaining about the blip in Apple’s stock price.

The moral of the story here is not that investors should be piling into stocks at all times ignoring the nay-sayers. Rather it is that investors in equity markets must be prepared to withstand sudden and significant erosion in the value of their stock holdings. They should not be surprised when stocks do just that and then react with extreme and drastic portfolio changes.

Are you a broker by any chance?

I think his message was that senior citizens should not risk their life long earnings by investing all in the markets during turbulent times.

Seniors or retirees have less time to weather such financial storms or be exposed to them. The vagaries of the market should be considered in their portfolio as well as tolerable risk.

His latest book, The Procrastinator's Guide To Retirement: How YOU can retire in 10 years or less, though is good if you're talking about retiring in 10 years.

 

[mynameisearl11]

Pay off your debts as quickly as you can while you are still making money. Then, make sure you're healthy! Rob Ford died at 46 today so he didn't live to see his retirement age. Personally, I am in my mid 50's and I don't see myself stop working till I'm in my 80's. Because I don't work for anybody else I enjoy working every day. Retirement is not something I think about at this stage in my life. My children will be well off when I die though.

 

[Barca]

To the OP, I don't really think any contribution on this thread will be useful to you because all situations are unique to themselves and your original post is missing a lot of key information.

How much net worth you should retire with largely depends on the standard of living you wish to maintain in your retirement as well as the various sources of revenue (savings, private pension, public pension etc) you have access to. Without that information, it's difficult for anyone to give you even an approximate number for you to consider.

You really need to talk to a (competent) financial planner. I say competent because trust me, 90% of "financial planners" out there shouldn't be called as such.

 

[lucky_blue]

Are you a broker by any chance?

I think his message was that senior citizens should not risk their life long earnings by investing all in the markets during turbulent times.

Seniors or retirees have less time to weather such financial storms or be exposed to them. The vagaries of the market should be considered in their portfolio as well as tolerable risk.

His latest book, The Procrastinator's Guide To Retirement: How YOU can retire in 10 years or less, though is good if you're talking about retiring in 10 years.

I actually disintermediate brokers.

He did not limit that advice to seniors or those in retirement from what I read. In any case he told investors to sell equities at exactly the wrong time - the bottom of a bear market. Terrible advice. I have not seen his recent book.

I agree investors should not take more risk than they have the ability, willingness or need to take.

 

[Barca]

Are you a broker by any chance?

I think his message was that senior citizens should not risk their life long earnings by investing all in the markets during turbulent times.

Seniors or retirees have less time to weather such financial storms or be exposed to them. The vagaries of the market should be considered in their portfolio as well as tolerable risk.

His latest book, The Procrastinator's Guide To Retirement: How YOU can retire in 10 years or less, though is good if you're talking about retiring in 10 years.

I haven't read this particular book so I don't know the context. What I do know hoever is that a client that should be in GICs should be in GICs regardless of the market conditions, turbulent or not.

If the client was in a stock portfolio before a correction, they should be in one after a correction. I'm not saying adjustments shouldn't be made, I'm talking about the philosophy of the portfolio's management.

The argument should never be that a client should be in stocks prior to a correction but move into GICs after a correction after their portfolio has taken a beating. The argument there should be whether the client should have been in stocks at all at any point. Investment suitability is not a discussion that takes into account current market conditions. It's one that takes into account all possible market conditions.

 

[Smallcock]

I've never understood retirement planning that relies on trying to live in retirement on a finite sum of money. Yet the same busted logic is used every day in books and by retirement planning gurus.

In short, you don't know when you will die, so how can you possibly budget appropriately using a finite retirement sum of money?

The best planning involves having residual/passive income sources throughout retirement. If you have a pension, you're very fortunate. That is your passive income source. If you don't have one, you need to try and create one. Instead of selling your mortgage-free house in retirement, rent it out. Now you have an indefinite income stream for the rest of your life, no matter how long or short you live thereafter. Better yet, have 2 or more properties so you can stay in your home and live exactly as you did when you were employed.

 

[Barca]

I've never understood retirement planning that relies on trying to live in retirement on a finite sum of money. Yet the same busted logic is used every day in books and by retirement planning gurus.

In short, you don't know when you will die, so how can you possibly budget appropriately using a finite retirement sum of money?

The best planning involves having residual/passive income sources throughout retirement. If you have a pension, you're very fortunate. That is your passive income source. If you don't have one, you need to try and create one. Instead of selling your mortgage-free house in retirement, rent it out. Now you have an indefinite income stream for the rest of your life, no matter how long or short you live thereafter. Better yet, have 2 or more properties so you can stay in your home and live exactly as you did when you were employed.

Hence the need to analyze what income (passive or otherwise) there is in order to determine what is needed.

Not much different from your rental income idea is an annuity. The point is if he doesn't know what his lifestyle will be like and what income needs he requires to maintain it, a discussion about assets is pretty irrelevant.