A Completely Different Perspective on Reverse Mortgages

A Completely Different Perspective on Reverse Mortgages

My discussion today is not about the ins and outs of a reverse mortgage, but rather a review of the rationale behind them. The federal government defines a reverse mortgage as “a product that allows you to convert part of the equity in your home into cash without having to sell your home…” Just about every time I watch TV, I see advertisements that pitch them as “the smartest thing you could do if you’re 62 or older.” But I see things differently: I completely disagree from a realistic, common-sense, and above all financial standpoint.

We have (so-called) experts encouraging Americans to make the largest down payments possible when they purchase their houses – so they can have smaller mortgages. Then, they are encouraged to do everything possible to pay off and eliminate those “interest-sucking” mortgages as quickly as possible!

And then, at age 62 or older, when these very same homeowners are financially broke (but living in homes they’ve paid off), they’re told the smartest thing they can do is to get a reverse mortgage, which literally means re-mortgaging those very same houses they worked so aggressively to pay off? If you think about it for just a moment, you’ll see that it’s rather backwards, and not at all smart. Really, how many financially wealthy individuals do you know who have reverse mortgages? The answer is NONE! And I’ll explain why in just a moment.

But before that, as I always echo, we need to avoid making financial decisions based on our emotions – yet again and again, it seems that the majority of folks allow themselves to be controlled by what I term extreme emotional nonsense.

It sounds pretty good – trendy, even – to hurry up, pay down your mortgage, and avoid those “money-sucking” interest payments. But in the end, will a reverse mortgage be interest-free? Of course, not! Those lenders have one goal: to make money. And guess how they make it – through the interest that is factored into each transaction.

So instead of making mortgage decisions based simply on the emotions surrounding costs, it behooves investors (and advisors, alike) to consider PROFIT. You see, in the world of savvy financial planning, there is one universal law, just like the law of gravity – because it works 100 percent of the time, whether you believe it or not, like it or not, or even know about it or not. And that law simply states that there is always an opportunity cost (otherwise known as the alternative forgone) for every dollar spent.

So instead of aggressively paying down/off your house, could you put those dollars somewhere else, where they could earn over and above the net cost of your mortgage? If the answer to that question is yes – and in most cases I have analyzed, that happens to be the case – you’d be making an unwise financial move if you used those valuable dollars otherwise. The interesting thing, though, is that if you really think about it, that’s why reverse mortgages are so popular these days – because some seniors have cash flow issues.

In the Baltimore-Washington DC corridor where I live (and I love it here), seniors lose their homes every year, in spite of the fact that they owe no mortgages. They learn the hard way that things like property taxes, which you owe for the life of your house, trump every mortgage loan. The thing is, what really matters at the end of the day for any homeowner (whether they agree about this fact or not) is a constant available stream of cash flow. So racing to eliminate your mortgage at the expense of a consistent cash flow becomes, quite frankly, pretty stupid – financially speaking.

For instance, given today’s mortgage rates of about 4.5 percent (and assuming that interest payments are tax deductible, given what we’ve been hearing on the news lately), we’re looking at a net cost of 3.4 percent (given a 25 percent marginal tax bracket). I know of several safe, secure, tax-advantaged savings programs that are paying 5 to 5.5 percent fixed interest. If you do the math, there’s a clear arbitrage PROFIT of about 2.1 percent – that would not be sacrificed by eliminating the mortgage payments.

You must also keep in mind that equity in a house is very volatile and risky because no one can control its movements, regardless of whether they might think or wish they can. So to bet your retirement on plans to get a reverse mortgage later might just reveal a nasty surprise – remember less equity in your home will mean little to no money flowing.

Please do not infer that I am opposed to reverse mortgages across the board, because I would recommend a reverse mortgage for someone who has been the victim of bad financial advice and is already left with no option but to REVERSE the very mortgage they just paid off. If you’re not there yet, however, you may want to think twice.
___________________
For a complimentary consultation to discuss YOUR best options, please phone Laser Financial Group at 301.949.4449 or visit us on the Web.

Too Good to Be True ... or Too Bad to Be False?

Too Good to Be True ... or Too Bad to Be False?

I recently met with a gentleman who’s been a client of ours for quite a long time and, in his own words, “has been happily retired for the past four years, thanks to your guidance” (meaning yours truly). He was telling me how amazed he was about the fact that pretty much everything we’ve ever told him in reference to his investment portfolio turned out to be right on point, to the most minute detail. He’d seen how the huge stock market downturn had negatively affected some of his friends, to the extent that they had to cut back and make huge sacrifices at a time when they could least afford to do so. Yet his portfolio, under our direction, kept growing, and his retirement income didn’t experience any dips – just as we advised that it would.

As you might expect, up until this point I was having a ball, because nothing makes me happier than hearing our clients say they understand that they don’t have to suffer when the stock market tanks or tax rates rise, if they follow the strategies we carefully craft for them.

This all ended when he looked me straight in the eye and said, “Sam, you know I have to confess that had I not actually owned these strategies/products for a while now and witnessed firsthand that they truly work, I’d honestly think, ‘It sounds too good to be true.’”

My response was, “Wow, that’s a very interesting thought.” Because that’s exactly what he was looking for when we met several years ago. You see, this retiree (and virtually all investors I’ve ever met) wasn’t looking to implement any strategies or put his hard-earned nest egg into anything he did not believe to be equally “too good” and “true.”

Are there folks who actually validate retirement strategies they are considering based on that saying/principle? That would be unbelievably naïve, don’t you think? That is to say, a proposal has to sound less true to be worthy of consideration? Of course, no one should jump on board some crazy, illegitimate, or lousy proposal. But legitimate strategies that will truly help investors solve their retirement dilemmas MUST be very good and, in fact, true as well.

This phrase, “too good to be true,” originated all the way back in 1580, but it is not a credible test when it comes to dealing with serious financial planning. I’d run as far as I could from anyone who judges a proposal to be bad solely because they are unfamiliar with it or it sounds too good. For instance, this client in question would have completely missed out on his peace of mind during these trying times if he had followed the “too good to be true” principle back then, wouldn’t he?

You may recall, not long ago a young lady claimed she was attacked by a woman who threw acid on her face. Everyone seemed to believe her instantly, to the extent that her story was picked up on every website, TV, and radio program, and she was even scheduled to appear on Oprah. Soon after the dust settled, however, it was discovered that she’d staged the whole fiasco just to get attention – and boy did she get some attention! People were eager to believe something that sounded too awful to be false, which makes me wonder what would have happened if she had staged a plan that sounded too good?

If “too good to be true” makes something invalid, then by implication does “too bad to be false” make it valid? Here at Laser Financial, everything we ever recommend to our clients has to be good and true – there’s just no question about that.
_____________________
Call us at 301.949.4449 or visit us on the Web to schedule your complimentary strategy session today!

Do You Know if YOUR Favorite Financial Guru Is Offering Accurate Advice?

Do You Know if YOUR Favorite Financial Guru Is Offering Accurate Advice?

Just about anyone who knows me by any measure would wholeheartedly agree that I am a huge proponent of educating oneself, especially when it comes to planning your retirement income. In fact, that is my passion! But there’s a caveat: I am extremely cautious – and you should be, too – about determining the FACTUAL basis of the information you act upon.


Realize I did not say the source of the information, but rather the factual basis, because there is a huge difference. In the world of personal financial planning, unfortunately and sadly, most of what you read and/or listen to may indeed be nonfactual. Wait a minute! Am I saying that financial advisors, personal finance books, websites, TV programs, and radio gurus do not provide factual information? Yes, that’s exactly what I am saying – although, of course, it’s not all of them. What makes it even worse is that some of those sources aren’t even aware that they are making bogus claims – now that’s scary! I know this because, day in and day out, I disprove these bogus claims to clients and prospective clients. That’s actually what motivated my book, 5 Mistakes Your Financial Advisor Is Making. How often have you heard stories about credible sources disseminating totally bogus and inaccurate information? You may have experienced many instances of this in your own life.

Last Tuesday, October 26th, Kathy Kristof wrote a column on the CBS MoneyWatch website titled “5 Tax Moves You Must Make Now,” in which she wrote in support of smart investors saving more in their 401(k) plans now:

"...That’s partly thanks to a tax break that allows contributions to come out of pay before income taxes are computed, so each $100 in savings only costs you about $75, after you take into account the $25 in federal income tax savings. (This assumes a 25% federal bracket, which applies to singles with up to about $83,000 in taxable income and married couples with up to $138,000 in income. Higher income filers get a bigger break."

Granted, this is a hugely credible website – I mean we’re talking CBS Money Watch here – and Kathy is esteemed in many respects. Her published bio reads, “Kathy Kristof is a syndicated personal finance columnist, speaker and author of three books, including the recently updated Investing 101 (Bloomberg, 2008).” She sure sounds like someone who knows what she’s talking about, right? BUT – and this is a huge BUT – the writer’s above statement about 401K contributions is NOT so factual. It may sound eloquent, but it is NOT factual.

Dear reader, let me make this crystal clear. What I just said is NOT my opinion on that statement. The big kahuna/syndicated columnist/speaker/author has made a nonfactual statement. Scary isn’t it? We all have the right to free speech, but wouldn’t you agree that when someone is in a position of offering – or purports to offer – advice for others to act on (and we’re talking serious retirement advice), they have a duty to be 100 percent factual?

It’s no secret that the overwhelming majority of Americans enter retirement financially perplexed, after years of hard work. Why should that come as a surprise? Because if you follow nonfactual information, no matter how good the intention of the information provider, you can expect only one result: CONFUSION. I could write at great length on this topic because, as I indicated earlier, this issue gets me very fired up. But here are the bare FACTS on the author’s above statement:

1. According to the law that regulates ALL 401(k)s in this nation (and the very one the column is referencing), you get to make pretax contributions and defer (in other words, postpone) taxes on the growth, insofar as you abide by certain rules.
2. Once you draw out those funds, you must pay all the taxes you have been postponing (the ones still unpaid) – please read the FACT that follows slowly – at the tax rates in effect whenever you make those withdrawals.
3. So on that $100 savings Kathy refers to, you are effectively choosing not to pay the $25 tax today because you are betting that when you withdraw this money later, the tax rates – over which you have absolutely no control – will be lower, and you’ll therefore end up paying less than $25.

So let’s make this plain and simple. Deferring the $25 tax IS NOT a savings – it’s merely a postponement. If you have to pay it later, you would not consider that a savings, would you? Yet you can see how, as an investor, you might be inclined to believe the accuracy of that statement and therefore act on it – but, in fact, the complete opposite is true.

One final thought. Now that you know the FACT around this specific issue, do you think postponing paying your taxes at this point in America’s fiscal history, when tax rates have nowhere to go but up, is really a smart move? Then again, if you look closely, the column’s title simply says “Tax Moves,” so maybe it’s not necessarily intended to discuss “smart moves.” Armed with factual knowledge, it sure seems that way.
__________
Contact Laser Financial Group today to schedule your complimentary session to get the FACTS around planning your retirement income. Call us at 301.949.4449 or visit us on the web.

How Important Are Your Financial Advisor's Certifications – the Alphabet Soup After Their Name?

How Important Are Your Financial Advisor's Certifications – the Alphabet Soup After Their Name?

Does a financial professional with a certification know more or have better strategies than one without a certification? By certifications, I mean the ABCs you often see after a professional’s name when it’s written. In personal finance, for example, you may see things like CFP (Certified Financial Planner), CRPC (Chartered Retirement Planning Counselor), CLU (Chartered Life Underwriter), and a slew of others.

But how many investors really understand the nature of these certifications? For instance, how many understand that by law a financial professional CANNOT offer them any financial products – or even advice – simply because they have a certification. That’s right – they cannot! Instead, the law requires that they have the appropriate jurisdictional license. This means, for instance, that a CFP or CRPC cannot offer folks, say, mutual funds, annuities, or individual stocks. You see, it’s the specific license that allows a professional to offer financial products. On the other hand, this also means that someone could have the legally required license to offer those very same products without having any certification.

So in effect, one doesn’t need a license to obtain a certification – and vice versa. Insofar as I know, in my specific field, you, dear reader, could go out and get certified right now, if you wanted to, by taking the course and associated exam – but it would be illegal for you to practice without a license. Interesting, huh?

Does that mean we can safely say that these certifications are luxuries, and not basic requirements? Exactly! In the interest of full disclosure, though, I must let you know that I have a few certifications of my own. While I personally believe that a certification may indicate a professional’s commitment to excellence and a keen interest in their profession, I must also point out that no certification, in of itself, should be the sole basis on which you – or any investor – should choose a financial advisor.

In fact, it might be wiser for investors to base their choices and/or decisions squarely on the actual meat of the proposal/plan, provided that the professional offering it is legally licensed to do so. When it comes down to the wire, what is most important? Those certifications that are not required by law and, let’s face it, do not literally benefit you as an investor? OR an honest, straightforward, thoughtful, respectful professional who actually cares about the wellbeing and success of your financial goals and shows you a realistic, workable, step-by-step plan?

Where Did the Certifications Originate?

These certifications are created by private organizations that exist to turn a profit, just like all businesses. For that to happen, though, they’ll have to solicit interested professionals, right? But how do you get those professionals to pay the fees for the required courses – and keep paying renewal and membership fees – without indicating that there’s some value in differentiating themselves from those who do not have the certifications? And what better way of achieving all of this than by encouraging the consuming public to think incredibly highly of these folks? So one can say it’s a win-win for the professional and the organizations offering the certifications. I must remind you, again, that I have couple of certifications myself.

Let me conclude by reechoing the point I made earlier: Do not do business with any financial professional – including myself – simply because of a certification he/she holds. Do it based on their track record and the practicality of the solutions they offer, because trust me – you won’t remember the certifications if your nest egg isn’t right there with you.
__________________
To schedule your complimentary session with a skilled financial professional who has your best financial interests at heart, call Laser Financial Group at 301.949.4449 or visit us on the Web.

Is Gold a Smart Retirement Investment?

Is Gold a Smart Retirement Investment?


As one might expect, I frequently hear random financial questions from folks who “just want to know” what I think. Lately a very popular question involves wanting to get “my take” on whether they should invest in some of those shiny yellowish bars rather than focusing on the green bucks. Those of you who have been reading my posts for a while may remember that I discussed gold on March 29 of this year. I strongly recommend you read/reread that post for some further perspectives, because today’s discussion will spotlight an entirely different aspect of that conversation.

As I always say, the only smart thing to do in terms of your retirement strategy is to consider the facts and the facts only. Where am I going with this? I want to examine some events on this subject that have transpired during our lifetime.

You know how most financial professionals – and even amateur investors – agree that it is always a good idea to have a long-range perspective in retirement planning? To borrow one of my sixth-grade daughter’s favorite phrases, in this specific situation, I totally buy that. I researched the performance of gold vs. the S&P 500 Index over 30 years, in relation to inflation. For those not quite familiar with the term, inflation is the change in the prices of items. So in this instance, it is a measure of how much the price of items increased over the period we are considering. This factor will help us gauge the worthiness of these two investment candidates. Wouldn’t you agree that 30 years is a fairly good and realistic measure?

What do the numbers show for an investment of $100,000 on December 31, 1979 through December 31, 2009?

First, over the last 30 years, inflation averaged about 3 percent a year, which is to say that what you could have purchased in 1979 with $100,000 would require $242,726 to obtain in December of 2009. So in terms of making a financially savvy decision, we’d need that initial 1979 investment of $100,000 to be worth at least $242, 726 by December 2009. Now, I have yet to meet anyone in their right mind who would settle for an investment that would NOT improve their financial situation. Would you purchase an investment if you knew it would not increase your wealth? Of course not! People invest, expecting those investments to grow at a healthy rate.

Second, over those same 30 years, gold has averaged 1.05 percent annual growth, meaning that a $100,000 investment in gold in 1979 would have been worth $137,000 at the end of 2009. Specifically, the price of an ounce of gold was $850 in 1979 and increased to $1,150 as of the end of 2009 (and $1,360, as of last Friday). Therefore, if you had invested in gold over the past 30 years, your investment would not have kept up with inflation. You would have lagged by about 1.95 percent annually – and at the end of the 30 years, would have been short by about $105,726.

Third, if you had placed the same $100,000 in the S&P 500 Index over those exact same 30 years – December 1979 through December 2009 – you’d have seen a yield of $1,155,825. Yes – more than a million bucks! The index was 107.94 in December of 1979 and closed at 1,115.10 on December 31, 2009. That annual growth rate was more than 5 percentage points better than inflation, which means you would actually have gotten wealthier. Sounds more like what most investors are after, right?

Many of you may think I am an advocate against the stock market, but that’s not quite accurate. Actually, I quite like the stock market – but only when it’s up. But as we all know, that is not reality, so I use a methodology that allows my clients to enjoy the appreciation of the market without enduring losses in the negative years. So they don’t lose anything when the market plunges.

Now Let’s Put Things Into Perspective

Notice that we used the same 30-year period for both investments. We did not choose good years for one and bad years for the other. And over those 30 years, both the US and world economies experienced some really positive situations, as well as terribly negative ones, too. Both gold and the S&P 500 were on the very same playing field.

One investment truism that works 100 percent of the time: You can make money only when you buy low and sell high. So make sure that the price of the gold (or whatever investment product you decide to buy) will be higher when you are ready to sell it. Otherwise, you’ll be in very hot water. Also make sure that your investment product will allow you access to the cash you need when you need it – I’m talking about liquidity and cash flow here, because no one should find themselves at retirement in the position of being asset rich but cash poor.

Whose Advice Should You Follow?

Do you need to purchase something just because you’re hearing a lot about it on the radio, read about it online, in newspapers and magazines, or saw a slew of personality newscasters touting it in TV ads? Maybe, but maybe not. As always, I am not going to tell you what to do because I don’t know your specific situation. But please get this. You need to know where you are headed financially with crystal clarity! The only possible means by which you can make that happen is with a real plan that is crafted for you after a specific discussion with a real, down-to-earth, honest professional who knows what he/she is talking about. The alternative is to be in a state of confusion, vulnerability, and panic that makes you an easy target to be blown in whichever direction the financial press wind takes you.
---------------------------
Call my office today at 301.949.4449 or contact us electronically here to request a personal meeting with me and get your questions answered.

Can You Live Comfortably in Retirement on 80 Percent of What You Earn Now?

Can You Live Comfortably in Retirement on 80 Percent of What You Earn Now?

I don’t know who determined this, why it is so, or how it even came to be, but there appears to be a widespread agreement of sorts that in retirement, folks need to replace somewhere between 70 and 75 percent of their pre-retirement incomes in order to maintain the same standard of living. I’ve seen 401(k) brochures and even some so-called retirement advice books that use this – in my opinion – completely crazy idea.

According to the 2008 Replacement Ratio Study, conducted by Aon Consulting and Georgia State University, the “new and latest” replacement income ratio is between 81 and 88 percent. It’s pretty much saying that going forward, you should use this range for your planning.

But Should You Even Bother?

Sure, there’s some value in these kinds of studies/reports – otherwise, they wouldn’t be conducted and published, right? However, I happen to be one of those guys who wouldn’t waste valuable time and effort to consider theories like this. And here’s my reasoning:

Is it that easy to plan for replacement income percentage? As in, just take the widely agreed upon number and follow it to be okay? How many REAL-LIFE retirees can attest to the validity of any of these theories? I have been helping REAL folks with their retirements for a number of years now. And for some reason, they seem to need to replace much, much higher percentages of their pre-retirement incomes – we’re talking somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 percent to even more than that. Sure, there are some who need much less, but I haven’t seen very many in that category. But I’m sure they are coming soon – in theory.

Even if you’re not yet retired, you probably at least know a couple of retired folks, so I encourage you to perform a quick real-life study of your own, just like the ones we perform here at CSU (Common Sense University) on an almost daily basis. Just ask a retiree and listen closely to their response – it’s that simple! And by the way, CSU is the school from which every Laser Financial Group strategist must graduate.

In Real Life…

Every day, I meet with folks just like you who tell me they would like to maintain at least their pre-retirement standard of living. And as you’d expect, pretty much everyone would like to kick it up a notch and enjoy an even higher standard of living – if they can afford to. I can relate to that!

Just the other day, I met with a client who currently earns about $52,000 a year and is looking to retire in the next couple of years. He desires to travel and see the world as much as he can, after working all his life. Should I have told him that based on the most updated Replacement Ratio numbers, he should expect to do just fine and maintain his standard of living with an income of about $42,000 per year (which is 81 percent, as the study recommends), and send him on his way? And remember, this is a much higher percentage than all the previous ratios. But seriously, does this make any sense whatsoever to you?

Following the Common-Sense Approach, we priced out what he does today and what he intends to do during retirement, using realistic estimates, and came up with a pretty good number. In his case, it was pretty clear to him, with my guidance, that the only real change will be that he will no longer be working at his job. His rent, gasoline costs, grocery bill, phone and cable bills, etc. will be EXACTLY the same. He will not automatically receive a 20 percent break from all those service providers, simply because he will be retired. That would be nice, but for now it’s merely a wish.

Sure, there are discounts on things like movie tickets and certain restaurants like IHOP, but how much do those really add up to? Also, recall that this gentleman intends to travel, as most folks do, but the last time we checked, we did not find any 20 percent discounts on travel prices for retirees. You may be beginning to get my drift here. It does not have to be that complex – just look at real life!

There seems to be this dilemma where on the one hand, folks are hearing that one size does not fit all. Yet on the other hand, the very same people are being told to plan their lives around some magic number that has absolutely nothing to do with their individual lives. I’m sure there are folks out there somewhere for whom these kinds of theories work perfectly – I just haven’t met any yet.

Here’s the bottom line. You can always make a good financial decision with lots of common sense. The great news is that you have it, so please use it!
________________
For your complimentary consultation wtih a Common Sense U grad from Laser Financial Group, please call us today at 301.949.4449 or visit us on the Web. We'll help you make real, practical plans so that you can eliminate the guesswork and count on a comfortable retirement.

Why You Should STOP Planning For Retirement Today!

Why You Should STOP Planning For Retirement Today!

Let me begin by explaining my definition of “planning for retirement” as making contributions into any sort of plan for the sole purpose of accumulating savings. You may be wondering what I mean by that. I understand, because isn’t this action precisely what almost everybody seems to be doing? Once again, I am here to tell you that this is the entirely wrong approach. Yep – I just said the wrong approach!

Let’s do one of my favorite things together right now – think about it for just a moment. Should you (or anyone serious about their financial future) be focusing on how large the balance of your nest egg is, or instead on how much of that balance actually belongs to you? You know, the portion of that nest egg that you’ll really get to spend when the time comes and/or how much your heirs will actually end up receiving when it’s all said and done? The answer is pretty obvious.

It is imperative that you separate yourself from the crowd that simply signs up for a retirement plan, whether at work, that they saw on TV, or that was recommended by a trusted friend or a really smart and cool financial guru, because any plan that focuses solely on accumulation (planning for retirement) absolutely will not cut it when you need it most – and believe me, that time will come sooner than later.

What Should You Be Planning For?

Having spent more than a decade helping real-life retirees successfully plan for their golden years, I can confidently tell you that the only correct approach I know of is to plan for “retirement INCOME.” So many investors overlook the two most crucial benchmarks that every serious, real retiree must consider – Tax Efficiency and Vulnerability to Market Risk. Accumulation programs tend not to pay much attention to these benchmarks, if any at all. Case in point: Remember what just happened to those “planning for their retirements” when the stock market tanked in 2008? Had those investors focused on income, rather than the size of their nest eggs, it would have been obvious to them that their incomes could easily be diminished or completely wiped out if the market were to crash. Yet they missed that hugely important piece of information. My point is that simple accumulation skips right over the real deal.

After all, what is the ultimate goal of every single accumulation plan? To provide what? INCOME! Folks, you must be extremely careful, because not all financial professionals are equal, and it seems to me that the real ones are very, very few.

Let’s do a quick exercise. Assume you are deciding between two programs: A, which would potentially accumulate $1 million or B, with a potential to earn $900,000. I’m guessing most people would jump to select A, with the $1 million payout. No doubt, there are tons of (clueless) financial advisors who’d do the same. Here’s the thing, though. Those balances are just “accumulation.” Now let’s make “income” the focus and see if things change.

Question 1 would be: Are these balances taxable? In our example, A is taxable, while B is tax-free. If we assume just a 25 percent tax, investment A will net $750,000, versus B’s $900,000. Are you beginning to see how income planning makes so much difference? And why so many folks are working so hard, yet end up struggling financially in their retirement?

Question 2 has to do with vulnerability to market risk. Let’s say Investment A is vulnerable to market risk, so it could experiences catastrophic losses at any time – you may even have your own story to tell in this regard. Investment B, on the other hand, will not lose anything when the market dips. Now who wants the vulnerable $1 million (reduced to $750,000 after taxes) versus income-tax free Investment B’s $900,000 that will NOT be affected by any market risk? It’s a no brainer, right? But you’ve got to realize how we got here.

When Was the Last Time You (and Your Advisor) Discussed Income – REALLY?

Has spendable income ever even come up in your discussions? Don’t you think it’s time? Please do yourself a big favor and avoid signing up for any plan – regardless of who tells you to do so – if you do not know how much income it provides for AND for how long you can/will be able to access it. By income, I mean what you actually get to spend, not Uncle Sam’s portion. For goodness’ sake, isn’t that the reason you are saving in the first place? There seem to be lots of retirement planners, but the great majority are really just helping folks plan for Uncle Sam’s retirement. It will definitely serve you well to speak with an income planner and save yourself from potential shock down the road.
________________________
For your complimentary consultation about planning for YOUR retirement income, please call Laser Financial Group today at 301.949.4449 or visit us on the Web.