Like Rodney Dangerfield, a million bucks just doesn’t get much respect these days in retirement circles. Earlier this week, I noticed two separate stories on the web that questioned the likelihood a million dollars would be enough to retire on—or as this blog would argue, establish a modicum of financial independence.
In this Canadian Press piece that ran in the Globe & Mail, it was asserted that it now takes $1 million in investments to generate the same retirement income as a mere $500,000 would have yielded five years ago. We all know why: stock returns are volatile and too often negative since the financial crisis hit in 2008. And those who try to find a safe harbour in fixed income have been crucified with miniscule interest rates, which are the result of central bank actions around the world responding to that same seemingly chronic crisis.
Whether or not we’re actually in a depression (as Paul Krugman asserts, recapped in my last blog) or merely the “Great Recession” posited by the optimists, it’s certainly depressing to think a million dollars isn’t enough to retire on. When I tweeted the above story on Tuesday, more than one retweet found this a depressing conclusion.
Certainly as I comb through back issues of MoneySense, a million dollars has usually been considered more than enough capital to generate a livable sum in retirement. See for example the newly updated edition of the MoneySense Guide to Retiring Wealthy. Chapter Six is entitled “Sweet Freedom,” (a phrase that may ring a bell for subscribers as of the current Freedom Now! issue of the magazine). One article in that guide is titled “How we retired in luxury on $2,000 a month.”
Certainly, anyone with a half-decent employer pension will have that much, or will if they reach their 60s and qualify for some combination of the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security. It’s those who lack any sort of employer pension who tend to worry about whether a million dollars is enough to last into advanced old age.
Retiring on Business Income
But this is where the other web story this week provides some useful insights into the true nature of financial independence. The article, “Retiring on Business Income,” also invokes the magic “million” figure, albeit in an American context. “A million dollars is a LOT of money!,” the author helpfully reminds us. In fact, more than that may be necessary:
“Let’s cut to the chase—in order to fully retire, and have enough income to pay your living expenses, and have enough money to cover contingencies, and have some left over to continue to grow your investments so they don’t get wiped out by inflation—you’d have to have at least a million dollars saved up at retirement. More probably two or three million, given inflation.”
The writer says it’s possible to save a million over 30 or 40 years but the sad fact is many people will never even accumulate that much. And even if they do earn a lot and are able to save, poor investment returns, bad luck, poor judgement, ultra-low interest rates and job loss could all conspire against them.
Now here’s where the writer gets into the realm of financial independence, which I cover in my book, Findependence Day (appropriate given the similar-sounding American holiday today!) By establishing your own business, even a part-time one, you may be able to provide a critical auxiliary stream of income that will supplement employer or government pensions and whatever investment income your nest egg is capable of generating. And while it may take a million in capital to generate $40,000 a year in passive investment income, a “retirement business” can generate that much income with much less capital: the difference being of course your own ongoing sweat equity.
Self-employed fret less about retirement
As another Tweeter observed, while salaried employees tend to obsess over retirement, the self-employed are more receptive to the idea of continuing to work during what used to be the retirement years. Business owners or freelance writers or consultants have more autonomy, can set their own hours and enjoy the kind of flexibility and mobility that those tied down to 9-to-5 salaried gigs do not have. Little wonder then that while government employees can’t wait to knock off by their late 50s, many self-employed people are quite happy working into their late 60s.
The Retiring Wealthy guide mentioned above also features an article by MoneySense‘s lead retirement writer, David Aston, on this very subject: it’s entitled Sixty and Clout and notes that working in retirement can boost your finances and lift your mood. And as the linked article observes, by the time you do hit the advanced old age where you really can no longer do work of any kind, the business owner can sell the business and add the proceeds to a nest egg that’s now fully capable of sustaining full retirement.
To me, this is another form of “Freedom Now!” Find a part-time retirement business that keeps you engaged and interacting socially and that also provides a prudent alternative income source to pensions and investments.
A 5-year vacation
Oh, one more thing. When I first read this piece—a 5-year Vacation—I couldn’t help but observe on Twitter “Now that’s what I call Freedom Now!” It’s about a couple similar to the “yacht” couple profiled in our magazine. ……………………
Rather than amass multi-millions for a traditional full-stop retirement, they save enough money for a five-year global odyssey. This turns out to be an experience that so changes their lives that they discovered new ways to generate income that precluded the need to do it all on passive investments. It may not be the “permanent vacation” I mention in the editor’s note in the current edition, but it’s an excellent start, especially if you’re worried a million won’t last a lifetime.
As the article noted and as I retweeted, “True wealth is control over your time and how you spend it.”
P.S. After this blog was published, USA Today had an article touching on this topic of boomers toiling into their 70s. You can read it here.