Most retired couples rely heavily on Social Security benefits. When one spouse dies, there's often a major loss of their benefits.

The surviving spouse will get either their own benefit or the survivor benefit (the deceased spouse's benefit), whichever is higher. If one spouse's benefits are low, the impact on income will be small.

But when both spouses are collecting substantial benefits, as is often the case, there will be a significant reduction that could last for many years.

That can cause a shortfall because living expenses may not decline very much. If the survivor stays in the same home, property taxes or rent, utilities, insurance and some other monthly expenses remain about the same.

For example, Jim Jones collects $2,500 a month, and June Jones gets $2,000. If one of them dies, the survivor will receive $2,500 a month — a 44.4% drop in total benefits. If both are getting $2,500, the drop would be 50%.

One way to offset a decline in future Social Security benefits is to buy a joint lifetime income annuity. It provides a stream of guaranteed income that continues after the death of a spouse. You must choose when your payments will start when you sign up. Some products, however, may allow you to change the start date.

A fixed indexed annuity with an income rider, a more complex product, also provides guaranteed lifetime income. The big advantage is flexibility: The starting date for income is not set when you buy the annuity. You can begin when you want.

A traditional lifetime annuity produces generous income "forever"

An income annuity can cover one person or both spouses. A joint income annuity pays the survivor the same income stream after one spouse has died. It can help fill the income gap that is created when Social Security benefits plummet after a spouse's death.

You can choose an immediate or a deferred annuity. With a deferred income annuity, the longer you defer payments, the greater they'll be.

How much income can you get?

For example, the Joneses are 67 years old and healthy. They deposit $200,000 in a joint deferred lifetime income annuity. They decide to start receiving payments at 80. With one of the highest-paying products on the market (as of August 2026), they will receive $3,758.07 a month for as long as either is living.

Of that amount, only $2,454.02 will be taxable, as the remainder is considered a non-taxable return of principal. If at least one of them lives long enough for the entire principal to be repaid, the income will continue but become fully taxable. This is where the insurance aspect kicks in and why an income annuity serves as longevity insurance.

Here's a different scenario. Jim is in bad health and doesn't expect to live more than a year or two. He wouldn't be eligible to buy more life insurance, but annuity companies don't care about a buyer's health.

The couple decides to purchase an immediate income annuity. If they buy a joint lifetime immediate annuity with a $200,000 deposit, they'll soon start receiving $1,237.65 a month (only $519.81 taxable) from one top insurer.

If Jim lives longer than expected, that's fine. If he doesn't, June will have a cushion to make up for reduced Social Security benefits.

Alternatively, Jim and June could put part of their money in an immediate annuity and part in a deferred income annuity, or they could purchase an income annuity payable only on June's life, which would provide a higher guaranteed income.

The traditional income annuity typically has no cash surrender value. You've traded your money for a stream of income — your own private pension.

Indexed annuity: Cash value plus guarantee gives flexibility

A fixed indexed annuity offers a different, more flexible path to guaranteed lifetime income.

These products guarantee a portion of the stock market's gains during up years while offering complete protection from loss during down years. They credit interest based on the growth of a market index, such as the Dow Jones Industrial Average or S&P 500. So while you typically don't get all of the return when the market is booming, in return, you lose nothing in down years.

By adding a guaranteed lifetime-income rider, you can assure future income. Since the starting date for income is not set when you buy the annuity, you can start getting payments whenever you want to. This is a great feature because even a retiree in great health can die unexpectedly.

Have cake and eat it, too, but no free lunch

Normally, when you convert an annuity into an income stream ("annuitization"), its cash surrender value becomes zero. That's not the case if you add an income rider. You still own the full unused value of your annuity: You can "have your cake and eat it too."

But there's no such thing as a free lunch. Most insurers charge around 1% annually of the assets in the annuity to add an income rider. That's significant: Your money will grow more slowly than without the rider.

The lifetime income payment amount is determined by the income account value and your gender and age at the time you start receiving payments. The income account value typically grows at a guaranteed annual compounded rate of 4% to 8%, so the longer you wait, the greater the income.

The income account value and cash value of your contract are separate. The income account value is used only to calculate your guaranteed income payments. It has no cash value and cannot be withdrawn.

In contrast, the contract value can be withdrawn or passed to your heirs. After many years of guaranteed income payments/withdrawals, the contract value may fall to zero, but you'll still get the same income for life.

Another downside is fluctuating interest rates. If the market goes through a long bear cycle, you may earn nothing on your contract value for several years.

Nevertheless, having cash value and flexibility are powerful advantages that make indexed annuities worth considering for generating a strong stream of income.

There's no one approach that's best for everyone. The traditional income annuity and the indexed annuity plus income rider each have their pros and cons. For some couples, the former will fit the bill; for others, the latter will.

This article covered a basic scenario where each spouse is collecting Social Security. If one spouse is significantly younger, planning can be a bit more complex. Nevertheless, the same general principles hold.

Ken Nuss is the founder and CEO of AnnuityAdvantage, a leading online provider of fixed-rate, fixed-indexed, and lifetime income annuities. Ken is a nationally recognized annuity expert and widely published author. A free rate comparison service with interest rates from dozens of insurers is available at www.annuityadvantage.com or by calling (800) 239-0356. The firm also offers an income-annuity quoting service. There are no fees or charges for the firm's services; 100% of the client's money goes to work for them in their annuity.

Related Content

• What are Annuities? The Different Types and How They Work
• Five Annuity Mistakes to Avoid
• The Truth About Annuities: The Question Isn't 'Are They Good or Bad?' It's 'Are They Appropriate for You?'
• Income and Life Expectancy Not Adding Up? An Annuity Could Solve the Equation
• Why Annuities Sometimes Sound Too Good to Be True

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

I've lived in Florida for more than 30 years. In that time, I've watched thousands of people move here to retire — and I've seen a smaller but steady number of them get surprised by tax rules and costs they didn't know existed.

Most of these surprises are avoidable. You just need to know where to look before you need the answer, not after

As a wealth adviser, here's what I tell people at Evolution Retirement Services' seminars on retiring in Florida, boiled down to the basics.

'Snowbird' isn't a tax status

Spending winters in Florida and summers up north feels like the best of both worlds. But if you still own a home, register to vote or hold a driver's license in your old state, you may still owe that state income tax — even while soaking up the Florida sun six months a year.

Florida has no state income tax. That's a big reason people move here. But "no state income tax" only applies to Florida residents. If your old state still considers you a resident, too, you can end up filing (and owing) in both places.

The fix isn't complicated, but it does require some legwork:

• Spend more than half the year here. Most states use a 183-day rule. Keep a simple calendar or travel log — it matters more than people expect if you're ever questioned.
• Move your legal documents. Your driver's license, voter registration and vehicle registration should all point to Florida.
• File a declaration of domicile. This is a short form at your local county clerk's office that formally states that Florida is your permanent home. It costs very little and takes only a few minutes.
• Update your estate documents. Your will, power of attorney and healthcare directive should be reviewed by a Florida attorney, since some states have different requirements.
• Cut the cord, don't just add a state. If your old state's tax authority sees you keeping a home, a library card, a doctor and a bank account there, they may argue you never really left. Some states are aggressive about this; it's worth taking seriously.

Homestead exemption: Don't leave this money on the table

If Florida is your permanent residence and you own your home, you likely qualify for the homestead exemption. It reduces the taxable value of your home for property tax purposes — often by $50,000 or more.

It also caps how much your assessed value can increase each year (called the Save Our Homes assessment limitation), even if your home's market value jumps.

A few things people miss:

• You have to apply — it's not automatic. The deadline is typically March 1 of the year you want the homestead exemption applied.
• The exemption only applies to your primary residence. A vacation condo or rental property doesn't qualify.
• The exemption is tied to you, not the house. If you move, you'll need to reapply at the new home. (Florida does allow you to carry over some of the Save Our Homes benefit, however. This is called "portability.")
• Other exemptions. Widows, widowers, veterans and people with disabilities may qualify for additional exemptions on top of the standard homestead benefit.

Other traps we often see

Estate and inheritance tax exposure from your old state. Florida has no estate or inheritance tax. But if you still own property, a business interest or certain accounts tied to a state that does, that exposure may not disappear just because you moved.

Insurance costs catching people off guard. Florida's homeowner's insurance market has gotten more expensive and, in some areas, it's harder to find coverage at all. This isn't a tax, but it's a real cost of living here that surprises transplants used to lower premiums up north.

Flood insurance is a separate policy and separate cost — don't assume it's included.

Assuming "no income tax" means "no taxes." Florida makes up revenue through other channels — property taxes, sales tax and insurance costs among them.

For most retirees, the math still favors Florida, but it's worth looking at your full picture rather than assuming income tax is the only line that matters.

Timing the move around tax season. If you move midyear, you may owe part-year taxes in your old state. Working with your tax preparer to time the transition — and to gather the paperwork trail (utility bills, mail forwarding, that declaration of domicile) — can save real headaches if your prior state asks questions.

The bottom line

Florida can be a genuinely smart move for retirees, both financially and for quality of life. I've watched it work out well for most people who plan for it properly.

The retirees who run into trouble are almost never the ones who moved here for the wrong reasons; they're the ones who assumed the paperwork would take care of itself.

If you're planning a move to Florida or you moved here and aren't sure you've closed the loop on residency, it's worth a conversation with both a tax professional and a Florida estate attorney before your first tax season here.

Related Content

• Thinking of Retiring to Florida? These Hidden Costs Could Drain Your Budget
• The Rise of the 'Half-Back' Retiree: Why a Perfect Florida Condo Isn't Enough
• Are No Income Tax States Better to Live In?
• I'm a Financial Adviser: This Is the Real Secret to Retirement Success
• Is It Time for Retirees to Break Up With Bonds?

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

For decades, Social Security has served as a foundational piece of retirement income. But for younger generations, the program's outlook is changing, and those changes have significant implications for long-term financial planning.

With Social Security reserves expected to be depleted by 2033, millennials, Gen Z and subsequent generations will likely need to approach Social Security as an additional source of income rather than the cornerstone of a retirement strategy.

This article outlines practical strategies you can implement to help save enough for retirement, independent of Social Security.

Lifetime contributions may increase

To resolve funding shortfalls, policymakers may consider increasing payroll taxes or taxable wage bases. You may end up contributing more over your lifetime while receiving proportionally fewer benefits.

This is why effective tax-efficient planning is increasingly important. Focus on diversifying your retirement accounts, such as Roth, traditional pretax and taxable brokerage accounts, to help maintain flexibility under shifting policies.

Retirement timelines are becoming more dynamic

Another proposed solution is increasing the full retirement age, which could require younger workers to remain in the workforce longer before accessing full benefits.

Meanwhile, the costs associated with buying a home, paying off student loan debt and rising inflation are making it increasingly difficult to save for retirement.

You're facing a more complex financial background than previous generations and you should plan for a longer investment horizon. By staying invested for a longer period, you can help offset both delayed benefits and longer life expectancy.

Personal capital can help drive retirement success

For older generations, Social Security often covered a significant portion of retirement expenses. For younger generations, that dynamic is changing dramatically. Retirement outcomes are likely to rely heavily on consistent saving, disciplined investing and long-term portfolio growth.

Apart from getting started early, one of the best ways to help secure a comfortable retirement is to optimize your saving, investing and financial habits.

Maximizing the use of tax-advantaged accounts in the right order is one of the most efficient things you can do. The first step, if applicable, is to contribute enough to your workplace retirement plans to receive the full employer match.

From there, you should consider contributing to Roth IRAs and Roth 401(k)s, which can be beneficial during lower-income earning years, potentially allowing for long-term tax-free compounding. Health savings accounts (HSAs) can also offer additional tax-efficient advantages.

As income rises, increasing pretax contributions can help reduce taxable income while accelerating retirement savings. Combining these two strategies can help you work towards improving long-term outcomes and becoming financially independent.

Equally important is how you structure your investments. A high overall asset allocation in equities typically allows younger investors to leverage their time horizon to their advantage.

Behavioral discipline is also a key factor. If you can stay consistent, avoid emotional short-term market timing and maintain steady contributions, you will hopefully perform better over the long term compared to those who react to short-term volatility.

The bottom line

Social Security should still be part of your retirement picture — but not the foundation.

For younger investors, there is a clear shift from dependence on public benefits to ownership of private outcomes.

Those who recognize this early and invest accordingly may be better positioned to maintain control over their financial future, regardless of how the Social Security system ultimately evolves.

Ultimately, successful retirement planning is less about predicting changes and more about optimizing what you can control: Savings behavior, tax efficiency, investment structure and long-term discipline.

Related Content

• When Will Social Security Run Out of Money? And Medicare?
• I'm a Financial Adviser: This Is How You Can Adapt to Social Security Uncertainty
• Beyond 401(k)s: How Millennials Are Ditching Gen X Retirement Strategies. Will It Pay Off?
• Five Retirement Planning Traps You Can't Afford to Fall Into, From a Wealth Adviser
• I'm a Financial Planner: Here Are Five Smart Moves for DIY Investors

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Retirement often requires adopting a new mindset.

When you were saving for retirement, you were in the accumulation phase as you built wealth. Once you reach retirement, you move into the distribution phase where you begin spending those savings. This warrants a different approach to your financial decisions — and possibly a different adviser.

Just as doctors have specialties, so do many financial professionals. Those who concentrate on the accumulation phase are adept at helping you grow your money during your working years and finding ways to make the market work for you. Their view is long term — as it should be — because they are looking at your retirement from a distance.

Other financial professionals specialize in the distribution phase of retirement. They understand the strategies that can help you maximize your retirement income, improve tax efficiency and make your savings last. Their primary objective is to help you avoid the costly mistakes that can derail an otherwise well-planned retirement.

1. How much income will you really need?

As someone who works in the distribution phase, one of the first things I discuss with clients is what type of lifestyle they want in retirement.

Do they expect to be on the go, traveling to bucket-list locales or buying that boat they fantasized about for years? Or do they envision being a homebody, reading books, chatting with friends and babysitting the grandchildren?

Their answer helps determine how much income they will need, and income is the heartbeat of retirement. Without a sustainable income strategy, retirement plans can go awry.

That's why it's important to make sure your income aligns with your spending goals. Your sources of income may include Social Security, a pension, IRA withdrawals, dividends and interest, cash and rental property.

For example, if someone expects to spend $10,000 monthly in retirement, their withdrawal strategy should be tailored to that need. I always plan for the worst-case scenario and recommend budgeting for more than you will actually spend.

2. When will you claim Social Security?

One significant decision that affects retirement income is when you claim Social Security benefits. The federal government offers plenty of options but not a lot of guidance on this, so Social Security is another area where a conversation with an adviser who specializes in the distribution phase is helpful.

You can begin drawing Social Security as early as age 62 but at a reduced amount that remains reduced for life. There are also income limits if you plan to keep working.

If you wait until your full retirement age (67 for most people these days), you receive more money and there are no income limits. Finally, you can postpone Social Security up until age 70 and receive a larger monthly benefit.

Each claiming strategy has its own advantages and trade-offs, which is why there is no one-size-fits-all answer. The right decision depends on factors such as your health, life expectancy, income needs, tax situation and whether maximizing survivor benefits for a spouse is an important consideration.

3. Can you lower your tax burden?

Taxes may not have been a concern during your accumulation phase, but they could become one during the distribution phase. There are ways to reduce your tax burden in retirement, but if you're not careful, you could unintentionally increase it.

Roth conversions, for example, allow you to move money from taxable retirement accounts, such as traditional IRAs and 401(k)s, to a Roth account that isn't taxed.

It's better to start using them when you are still a few years away from your required minimum distribution age. You pay taxes when you make the conversion, but then your money grows tax-free and isn't taxed when you withdraw it in retirement.

Be careful about transferring too much money into a Roth in the same year, though. You could bump yourself into a higher tax bracket or even cause an increase in your Medicare premiums if your taxable income grows too high.

With the right planning, you can reduce your taxes, keeping more of your money to pay for your retirement needs and wants.

4. Have you thought about sequence of returns risk?

Sequence of returns risk is a potential shadow looming over many retirements — and it may be one of the most significant differences between the accumulation and distribution phases.

It's also another reason retirees need a financial professional who has distribution-phase experience.

Sequence of returns risk can be summed up this way: Before you enter retirement, the order in which your investment returns happen generally makes no difference.

For example, in a 20-year stretch, you can have weak years followed by strong years, or strong years followed by weak years, and at the end the total in your portfolio will be substantially the same.

This is not the case when you retire and are making withdrawals. If the market performs poorly in the first five to 10 years, that combination of market losses with withdrawals can severely drain your portfolio. By the time a recovery happens, you may not have enough in your accounts to capitalize on it.

On the other hand, if the market is strong in your first years of retirement and you are seeing growth even as you make withdrawals, you will be better poised to withstand a down market later on.

Sequence of returns risk is one reason people might want to revisit their investments as they approach retirement. One strategy is to reduce the level of volatility your portfolio faces.

5. And finally: Will you let yourself have some fun?

Many people are hesitant to spend money in retirement, watching pennies carefully and avoiding luxuries or anything even vaguely ostentatious. Remember what I said about retirement requiring a new mindset? That applies here as well.

People who lived frugally as they saved for retirement sometimes struggle to turn off that economical mental attitude when they reach the distribution phase.

They worry so much about running out of money that they risk missing out on the enjoyment these years they saved for can bring. I encourage them to spend that money, to reap the benefits of those years of frugality and to remember the adage they have heard their entire lives, "You can't take it with you."

Of course, they need clarity, structure and some level of comfort to make such a mindset adjustment. That's where the right financial professional comes into play, helping them achieve that comfort by discussing income plans, expenses and any legacy they want to leave behind for children, grandchildren or favorite causes.

The distribution phase can and should be the fun phase — if you let it.

Ronnie Blair contributed to this article.

The appearances in Kiplinger were obtained through a PR program. The columnist received assistance from a public relations firm in preparing this piece for submission to Kiplinger.com. Kiplinger was not compensated in any way.

Related Content

• How to Calm Your Retirement Nerves When It's Time to Shift from Savings Mode to Spending Mode
• The Retirement Bucket Rule: Your Guide to Fear-Free Spending
• Four Keys to Planning Your Retirement Income Distributions
• Retirement Can Scare You No Matter How Confident You Are: This Is How to Tame the Beast
• A Retirement Income Distribution Plan Is as Critical as Saving

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Your 70th birthday is a major milestone in your life. From a financial perspective, you now qualify for the highest Social Security benefits (if you waited to claim Social Security at 70) thanks to delayed retirement benefits and, if you worked until this age, potentially more higher-earning years, which can also translate to a higher Social Security check.

But it can also be a rough transition for retirees, who've spent decades saving up for this moment and now find it surprisingly difficult to watch their retirement savings go down — even if you've done all the planning and triple-checking to make sure your withdrawal amount is sustainable.

Whether you're worried about running out of money in retirement, overwhelmed by estate planning, or just generally unsure of how you should be approaching retirement planning when you're already retired, here's a financial checklist for your 70s to help you stay on track and feel more confident about enjoying your money.

1. Create a realistic spending plan and then spend your money

When you're still working, retirement planning is about identifying a healthy target number to save that will give you the lifestyle you want. By your 70s, "Retirement planning should be less about putting life on hold in the name of preservation and more about funding the experiences, and legacy that matter most," Nancy Anderson, Director of wealth planning programs at Key Private Bank, told Kiplinger.

While coming up with an annual spending amount on paper is fairly straightforward, shifting from a saving mindset to a spending mindset is much harder. To help make that behavioral shift, Anderson recommends:

• Create separate accounts for separate expense categories. As cash comes in from Social Security, distributions, and other income sources, fund your household expenses account first. Then, put the amount you've allocated for travel and hobbies in a separate account. That way, you can be confident that your essential costs are covered and you can see at a glance exactly how much you can afford to spend on travel and hobbies. "Knowing that money has been earmarked for a specific purpose can make spending feel more comfortable and intentional," Anderson explained.
• Claim Social Security now if you haven't already. While delaying Social Security can increase your benefits by up to 24%, "waiting beyond age 70 does not create additional value," she said. This guaranteed income isn't vulnerable to market volatility and can give you a spending floor — the minimum you'll be able to spend each month even if all of your other assets disappeared.
• Make a plan for required minimum distributions (RMDs). These kick in in your mid-70s and often catch retirees by surprise, warned Anderson. This can throw off your tax planning by increasing taxable income if you don't plan ahead for it. But there are strategies you can use to mitigate that if you get a plan in place before they kick in.
• Review your withdrawal amount annually. Your annual withdrawal amount isn't a "set it and forget it" number. Anderson recommends reviewing your spending amount annually to make sure it's still sustainable. "An annual review provides an opportunity to adjust spending based on market performance, inflation, and personal circumstances," she said.

2. Stress-test your finances annually

In addition to reviewing your withdrawal amount annually based on current market conditions and personal needs, Anderson recommends stress-testing your finances against possible future risks.

"Running stress tests that account for market volatility, inflation, healthcare costs, and longevity can help identify potential shortfalls before they become serious problems," she noted.

By examining all the "what if" scenarios you can think of, you'll see exactly how long your savings would last in each one. More importantly, you'll be able to come up with contingency plans and adjusted spending limits that account for those various risks.

"In many cases, relatively small changes can significantly improve long-term outcomes," Anderson said.

By running these stress tests annually, you can anticipate problems before they become serious and, in many cases, avoid needing to make drastic changes to your spending. "The sooner adjustments are made; the more options are available and the less dramatic the changes typically need to be," she noted.

This habit will replace those vague fears of running out of money with a concrete picture of how your savings would actually hold up under different scenarios and what adjustments you can make to address specific threats.

3. Plan your retirement in five-year chapters

The biggest risk in retirement isn't necessarily running out of money, according to Anderson. "Sometimes, it's about reaching a point where you no longer have the health, energy, or opportunity to do the things you want to do."

That's why she advises clients not to assume spending will remain constant from age 70 to 100. Instead, she recommends planning in five year chapters. Start by funding the experiences and bucket list adventures you know you'll regret postponing if health or other circumstances prevent you from being able to enjoy them later.

"Many retirees spend more in the initial phase because they have greater flexibility and often want to travel, pursue hobbies, or enjoy experiences they postponed while working," she said.

That higher spending up front might make you anxious if you're stuck in that saving mindset. But when you factor that into the plan by planning in five-year chapters and back it up with those annual reviews and stress tests, you can be confident that your overall spending plan is sustainable.

4. Put fraud protections in place before you're targeted

That generous nest egg you worked so hard to build makes you an attractive target to scammers and fraudsters. It also puts you at heightened risk of financial abuse — especially as you get older and start relying more on family to make financial decisions for you.

"Cognitive decline does not need to be severe before financial judgment begins deteriorating," warned Evan Farr, Certified Elder Law Attorney and retirement planner practicing in Virginia, Maryland, and DC.

Even before cognitive decline hits, modern technology is making scams harder to spot. So, taking proactive steps now can go a long way toward protecting yourself in the future. Some of the most effective strategies to do that, according to Farr, include:

• Enable transaction alerts on your bank and brokerage accounts so you can catch suspicious activity promptly.
• Set up multi-factor authentication on all of your financial accounts.
• Learn how to freeze your credit now so you can do it quickly when necessary.
• Make a rule that you'll discuss all major transfers or investment decisions with a designated trusted person, such as your financial planner or attorney, before taking action.
• Designate a trusted contact to be notified of suspicious transactions. Most major financial institutions will allow you to note this on your account so that if a bank representative notices signs of a scam, exploitation, or fraud, they can reach out to this trusted contact.
• Sign strong power of attorney paperwork now and make sure the person you name has the integrity and capacity to take on that responsibility.
• Be cautious about adding family members as joints on your accounts. Even if you trust the person fully, doing so can create conflicts later around ownership and inheritance that you never intended.

5. Reduce unnecessary financial complexity for your heirs

"Many people by age 70 have accumulated numerous bank accounts, brokerage accounts, retirement accounts, insurance policies, real property holdings, past beneficiary designations, passwords, and/or decades of documentation," Farr told Kiplinger.

While this might not be a problem for you, it can be a confusing maze of accounts and records to sift through for your heirs.

Farr recommends clients simplify their financial affairs as much as possible and leave a roadmap to make it easier for heirs to know what's what and where to look. That includes consolidating unnecessary accounts and maintaining an up-to-date account of assets and passwords. It can be helpful to do this with a financial planner so you can spot any old 401k or other accounts you might have forgotten about.

Lastly, Farr said to make sure you "inform those who will act on behalf of your client during incapacitation that the documentation exists and how they can obtain access to it."

6. Get more specific with your estate planning

In the past, it may have been enough to simply name a beneficiary or have a general plan for how your assets would be split up among heirs. As you get older, it's time to get more specific with your estate planning to prevent unnecessary conflict or obstacles when carrying out your final wishes.

According to Farr, "While it was previously sufficient to ask who would receive the decedent's assets upon death, today the decedents' estates must address how the assets will pass, who will administer matters should the decedent become incapacitated, whether probate may be avoided, whether an inheritance should pass directly to beneficiaries or remain protected within a trust arrangement(s), and whether the estate plan will lead to conflict amongst the beneficiaries."

You deserve to enjoy the retirement you saved up for

If you've been feeling too nervous to actually splurge on vacations or start embracing all of the hobbies and experiences you promised yourself you would enjoy once you retired, know that a lot of retirees struggle with that same anxiety.

But, by following the steps in this checklist every few years, you can ensure that the "permission to spend" amount you're working with truly is sustainable and that you'll be able to catch any shortfalls or issues early to adjust your spending long before you run any real risk of outliving your savings.

Doing the above steps with the help of a financial planner can help ease those fears even more as you'll know that an outside expert helped you come up with that realistic, sustainable spending amount.

Use the tool below to connect with a vetted financial professional who can help you stay on track and make the most of the retirement you planned for:

Related content

• A Financial Checklist for Your 50s
• An Essential Money Checklist For Your 40s
• A 5-Part Financial Checklist for Your 30s
• An Expert Guide to Your Financial Priorities Decade-by-Decade

For many successful executives, retirement looks nearly perfect on paper. The financial plan works. The calendar is open. There is time to travel, exercise and see family.

Then Monday morning arrives.

There is no leadership meeting, no urgent decision and no team waiting for direction. The title that once opened doors is now part of a biography. The daily signals of importance — calls, invitations and requests for judgment — begin to fade.

The traditional corporate career is also less predictable than it once was. Reorganizations, mergers, buyouts and layoffs can push executives toward the exit before they have given much thought to who they will become afterward.

Three traps often follow: holding too tightly to a former professional identity, assuming freedom from work will produce purpose, and filling the calendar with consulting, board work or another demanding role to recreate the old job.

This transition can also involve grief. A career provided meaning, recognition and a familiar measure of personal value. Losing that role can leave even a confident executive wondering: Who am I now?

When the title becomes part of you

In 2016, Carolina Migliaccio, 63, stepped away after more than 30 years in Fortune 500 brand strategy, innovation and design, including work with Kraft Foods and ConAgra Brands.

She began consulting. Two years later, she received an attractive offer for a senior corporate role. She turned it down.

"After three decades, my title and self-worth had quietly fused," she says. "When the title was gone, I had no language for what I was feeling."

She wanted work with meaning, even if it carried less corporate cachet. Yet she kept asking herself, "What would they think?"

The "they" were former colleagues who probably were not thinking much about her next move at all. "The identity free-fall definitely caught me off guard," she says.

It took about five years for her to feel grounded again.

"It perplexed me that a smart, successful executive like myself had no idea who I was," Migliaccio says. "I even questioned what I believed. Were my beliefs really mine, or had I become so indoctrinated by everything and everyone around me that I had lost my own sense of self?"

Migliaccio eventually built Soulful Moxie, an advisory practice focused on identity and leadership transitions. Her advice to people still deep in their careers is to begin loosening the bond between employer and identity before retirement arrives.

"Your job is just a part of what you do," she says.

Today, she is increasingly drawn to experiences and friendships. When a close friend turned 65, Migliaccio hosted a celebration at her home instead of simply arranging another dinner at a restaurant. It was a small example of a larger shift: She was making choices based on what felt meaningful to her, rather than what might impress someone else.

Beware the rush to stay important

Cohen Taylor has seen how quickly the retirement honeymoon can wear off. As a behavioral wealth specialist at Mission Wealth, she helps clients and advisers address the emotional side of money and major life transitions.

She shared two recent client stories. One East Coast couple in their late 50s left careers in finance and celebrated with an extended trip around the world. Coming home was harder. Everyday routines and family dynamics returned, but the structure of work did not.

A West Coast biotech executive reacted differently. After retiring around age 60, the executive quickly pursued another role because life without clear direction felt uncomfortable.

But don’t jump too fast. Consulting, board service, or a new job can be rewarding. The trap is making the decision primarily to quiet the discomfort of no longer being needed.

"If you’re pursuing a new role later in your career, remember that the compensation may not outweigh the constant travel and stress the new job might require," Taylor says. "Money is not everything."

She encourages clients to think about their values, relationships and preferred daily life before committing. A phased retirement can help. Reducing workdays, taking an extended vacation or testing a lighter schedule gives people a preview of life when work occupies less space.

Retirement also requires a shift in your financial mindset. People who spent decades accumulating wealth may start checking their account balances repeatedly once the paychecks stop.

"A number of mindset shifts will occur," Taylor says. "That’s normal."

The goal is to trust a sound financial plan while recognizing that some anxiety is human. Feeling uncertain does not mean the retirement decision was wrong.

Turn experience outward

Perry Solomon, 82, took a different path.

After running a high-end electronics business, he created the eco-friendly consumer-products brand ProSumer’s Choice and sold it in 2021. Today, he advises younger entrepreneurs through Solomon Growth Advisors in Santa Monica, CA.

His two daughters were not interested in joining his businesses, but they helped him broaden his view of legacy. Passing something on did not have to mean handing down a company; it could mean sharing judgment, family values, stories and focused time with his seven grandchildren.

His book, Grandpa Day, reflects more than 20 years of intentional time with them.

"I’m an advocate for retired executives to give back to the business community," Solomon says. "Share your wisdom and experience with younger generations through blogs, articles or books. You can still influence a lot of people in very positive ways."

Solomon remains active, but the purpose has changed. The work is less about proving his own success and more about helping other people build theirs.

A painful transition becomes a new mission

Atlanta resident Nancy Treaster’s reinvention began with caregiving.

Treaster was a senior software executive who managed a large support organization. As her husband’s frontotemporal dementia progressed, she reduced her travel and work responsibilities. She also helped care for in-laws with Alzheimer’s disease.

Eventually, the demands became too great, and she retired in August 2023.

Both her husband and father-in-law died in 2024. After years of work and caregiving, Treaster needed time to decompress. She also discovered that she still needed a mental challenge.

"I left Corporate America for good, but I still needed a project," she says.

That project became The Caregiver’s Journey, a nonprofit and "how to" podcast she co-founded with Sue Ryan.

Treaster had no clinical health care background. She did have years of experience solving problems, leading teams and navigating a fragmented care system. She completed a Certified Caregiving Consultant program and began turning her hard-won lessons into practical guidance for families.

The shift required her to let go of the compensation and status attached to her former role. Over time, the nonprofit stopped feeling like a bridge to something else. It became the work she wanted to do.

Treaster now points families toward hopeful brain-health research while avoiding false promises. The 2024 Lancet Commission estimated that about 45% of dementia cases worldwide are potentially attributable to 14 modifiable risk factors. That does not mean every case can be prevented, but it suggests that some risk may be reduced or the onset delayed.

Her larger message is practical: Get an accurate diagnosis, understand the type of dementia involved and give caregivers information they can use today.

Expect an emotional adjustment

As a retirement coach, I often see retirement unfold in stages:

The honeymoon: Relief and freedom.

Disenchantment: Boredom, restlessness, or feeling lost.

Reorientation: Testing new routines and forms of contribution.

Stability: Developing a life that feels natural rather than improvised.

There is no standard timetable. Some people adjust quickly. Others need several years. Both are normal.

Before accepting the first consulting offer or filling every empty day, create enough space to notice what you actually miss.

Is it the work? The people? The intellectual challenge? The authority? The income? The recognition?

Those answers lead to very different next steps.

Try a short purpose exercise

Try a little "values archaeology."

Think back to the person you were before the executive title. What originally attracted you to your field? Which problems energized you? Did you enjoy building teams, teaching, negotiating, inventing or helping people make difficult decisions?

Then look outside work. When no one was evaluating your performance, where did your attention go?

Your next purpose may grow from an old interest, a transferable strength or a problem you now feel ready to solve. Test it through a class, a volunteer role, a short project or a limited consulting assignment before making a large commitment.

Find your zone of genius

Chicago-based Migliaccio tells clients leaving corporate life to find their "zone of genius" and choose work that reflects their values rather than outside expectations.

"It’s your time to tap into who you really are and let the world know it," she says.

You are never too old to start something. You are never too young to think about what comes after the current career.

Be curious. Leave room to experiment. Retirement does not require you to abandon ambition. It gives you the chance to decide what your ambition is now.

"There is always another way — and often a better way," Migliaccio says. "But you need the time, space and support to discover it."

Related Content

• I’m Retiring in 2026, but I'm Losing Sleep Over These 5 Fears. How can I Regain My Peace of Mind?
• I'm a Retirement Expert Who Just Turned 65: Here's the Advice I'm Actually Following
• 8 Signs You’ll Thrive in Retirement (Even If You're Afraid to Make the Leap)

"Should we move to Florida to save on taxes?"

As a CFP® and wealth adviser with more than 20 years of investment experience, I hear some version of that question from nearly every client approaching retirement in a high-tax state, and it's a fair one.

If you've spent decades building your savings, of course you want to keep more of it. States like Florida, Texas, Tennessee and Nevada have long attracted retirees because they skip state income tax entirely. Next to a high-tax state like Connecticut, New Jersey or California, the choice can look obvious.

After helping hundreds of families work through this decision, I've learned it rarely is. The tax savings are usually smaller than people expect, and the true cost of relocating is almost always bigger.

Recent changes in federal tax law have shifted the math even further. Before you list your house, it's worth running the numbers.

Here's what I walk clients through before they make the call.

The tax gap has narrowed

New federal legislation has changed how I evaluate a move for clients. A higher cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, a new bonus deduction for eligible older taxpayers and a permanent federal estate tax exemption of roughly $15 million per individual all reduce the federal tax burden for many retired households.

None of that eliminates state income tax. But it does mean the gap between staying in a high-tax state and relocating to a no-tax one is often smaller than it looked just a few years ago, especially for clients who assumed the old rules still applied.

I've started running this comparison earlier in the planning process for exactly that reason: The answer clients got two or three years ago may not hold up today.

Consider a hypothetical couple pulling $90,000 from IRAs, $45,000 in Social Security and $20,000 in investment income. Depending on their deductions and how that income is structured, moving to a no-tax state might save them several thousand dollars a year, which is real money but rarely the whole story.

The moving costs add up fast

Clients focus on the annual savings and forget the one-time bill: Real estate commissions, closing costs, movers, repairs before listing, furnishing a new home, temporary housing and the cost of rebuilding a healthcare and professional network from scratch.

I've seen these add up to tens of thousands of dollars before anyone accounts for the stress of starting over.

If a move saves $6,000 a year but costs $60,000 to pull off, that's a decade just to break even. I want clients to see that number before they call a Realtor, not after.

You're not just leaving a state

The cost that's hardest to put on a spreadsheet, and the one I push clients hardest on, is distance from family. I've watched clients move south for the weather, then start flying back for birthdays, grandchildren's games and Sunday dinners they didn't expect to miss. The airfare and hotel bills climb, and some eventually move back entirely.

There's also the team you leave behind: Your financial adviser, tax preparer, estate attorney, insurance agent, doctors. You can rebuild that team, but it takes time, and a physician who knows your history or an adviser who's worked with your family for years provides continuity you can't buy on day one in a new state.

I've had clients spend the better part of a year finding a new cardiologist or estate attorney they trusted as much as the one they left, and that search has a cost even if it never shows up on a spreadsheet.

Moving isn't the only lever

Relocating is one way to lower your lifetime tax bill. It's far from the only one.

I regularly help clients cut their tax burden through Roth conversions timed to lower-income years, coordinating retirement account withdrawals, managing required minimum distributions (RMDs), tax-efficient investing, charitable giving and smarter timing of Social Security.

Done well, these strategies can produce meaningful savings while letting clients stay exactly where they are.

When a move actually makes sense

None of this means relocating is a mistake. I have plenty of clients for whom it was the right call: Their family had already scattered, healthcare needs were easy to meet elsewhere, housing costs fit their goals better, or the long-term tax savings genuinely outweighed the cost of getting there.

The difference is that those clients ran the numbers first. Before you decide, ask yourself what you'd actually save after every tax year, what the total moving cost would be, how long it would take to break even, how often you'd travel back for family and whether better tax planning could get you a similar result without packing a single box.

Sometimes those questions confirm that moving is the right move. Just as often, they reveal that staying put is the smarter financial decision — you just hadn't run the full comparison yet.

Retirement isn't about finding the state with the lowest taxes. It's about building a life you won't spend the next decade second-guessing.

When I walk clients through taxes, income, healthcare, housing, estate planning and family togetherness, the answer usually gets a lot clearer, and it isn't always the one they expected when they first asked about moving to Florida.

Related Content

• Millions of People Are Leaving High-Tax States: Here's Where They're Moving and How Much They're Saving in 2026
• Bye-Bye, Snowbirds: Wealthy Americans Are Relocating Permanently for Retirement
• Should You Relocate to a New State for Retirement? The Ultimate Checklist for Those With a Pension and $1 Million-Plus
• Should You Rent or Sell Your Home When You Relocate? How to Decide
• Why Moving Near the Grandchildren Might Be Your Biggest Retirement Mistake

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

When most people hire a financial advisor, they think they are receiving comprehensive financial advice. Unfortunately, that assumption is not always correct.

Many financial advisors focus primarily on investments. Others specialize in insurance, taxes, retirement planning or estate planning. While expertise in any one area can be valuable, consumers often discover that financial decisions rarely occur in isolation.

A decision about investments affects taxes. A decision about taxes affects retirement planning. A decision about retirement planning affects estate planning. Every financial decision is connected to several others.

That reality helps explain why comprehensive financial planning has long been considered the highest standard of financial advice.

Gary Schatsky, founder of Independent Financial Counselors in New York City and former chairman of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA), has spent more than four decades advocating for comprehensive, fee-only financial planning.

According to Schatsky, the fundamental challenge is that consumers often receive advice focused on a single area of their finances while the real opportunities and risks may exist elsewhere.

"You can't have someone who's closing one eye and focusing on one issue when investment allocation is no more important than tax planning, which is no more important than debt planning," he says. "They're all completely integrated."

That simple observation highlights one of the most important realities in personal finance: Financial success rarely depends on one decision. Instead, it depends on how all the pieces fit together.

What is comprehensive financial planning?

In my book AdvisorSmart for the Individual Investor, I describe comprehensive financial planning as a process that examines a client's entire financial life rather than focusing on a single product, account or investment decision.

A comprehensive approach considers goals, investments, taxes, retirement plans, insurance needs, estate planning, employee benefits, debt management, cash flow and other financial factors.

CFP Board, which sets and enforces the requirements for the CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER® certification, identifies several major planning disciplines, including:

• Financial statement analysis
• Insurance and risk management
• Employee benefits planning
• Investment planning
• Income tax planning
• Retirement planning
• Estate planning

A comprehensive financial planner evaluates how these areas interact and affect one another rather than treating each as a separate assignment.

Schatsky believes this holistic perspective is what separates professional financial planning from narrower forms of financial advice. "The goal is to know 360 degrees of someone's world," he says.

In his view, advisors should understand far more than a client's investment portfolio. They should understand family circumstances, tax situations, debt obligations, retirement goals, estate planning concerns, charitable objectives and other factors that influence financial outcomes.

Any advice they provide is cheapened if they don't know "100% of a client's financial world" and haven't considered it fully, he warns.

Why comprehensive advice produces better outcomes

Imagine two investors with identical investment portfolios:

• The first investor has no debt, lives below their means, maintains appropriate insurance coverage and has a well-designed estate plan
• The second investor carries high-interest credit card debt, lacks adequate insurance, has no estate plan and has significant tax inefficiencies

Although their investment accounts look identical, their financial situations are dramatically different.

A comprehensive financial planner would recognize those differences immediately. For the second investor, debt management advice may be more valuable than selecting a different mutual fund or making a minor portfolio adjustment. As Schatsky says, "I'd be happy to take money earning 3% and pay off a credit card [charging] 10%."

Similarly, effective tax planning can sometimes generate greater financial benefits than investment selection alone. Strategic Roth conversions, charitable giving strategies, tax-loss harvesting opportunities and proper asset-location decisions can create substantial value for investors over time.

The common thread is that these opportunities often fall outside traditional investment management.

The importance of asking better questions

Comprehensive financial planning begins with information gathering.

In my experience, a competent financial planner may ask dozens — or even hundreds — of questions before making major recommendations. The purpose is not to create paperwork. The purpose is to understand the client's complete financial picture.

Schatsky compares the process to solving a complex puzzle: "You need to have all of the skills. I need to see your tax return. I need to understand your debt. I need to know your family's situation. I need to understand all the factors."

Consumers should be cautious when advisors ask very few questions before making recommendations.

A financial plan built on incomplete information is likely to produce incomplete results.

If an advisor spends most of the meeting discussing investment products without thoroughly exploring goals, taxes, debt, insurance, retirement planning and estate issues, investors should consider whether the advice is truly comprehensive.

Why fee-only matters

Comprehensive planning becomes even more powerful when combined with a fee-only compensation model.

Fee-only financial planners are compensated directly by clients rather than through commissions generated from the sale of financial products.

The significance is straightforward.

When advisors are not paid to sell products, they are often in a better position to evaluate alternatives objectively.

For example, a fee-only advisor may recommend paying down debt instead of investing additional assets. They may recommend delaying the purchase of a financial product. They may even recommend retaining an existing investment rather than replacing it.

The focus shifts from product implementation to problem solving.

Schatsky believes this objectivity is essential: "The public needs impartial advisors."

The combination of comprehensive planning and fee-only compensation creates an environment where advisors can focus on identifying the best solution rather than the most profitable solution.

What consumers should look for

Investors searching for a financial advisor should ask potential candidates several important questions:

• Will you review my entire financial situation?
• Will you examine my tax returns?
• Will you evaluate my debt structure?
• Will you review my insurance coverage?
• Will you discuss estate planning issues?
• How are you compensated?
• Are there any financial products for which you receive commissions or incentives?

The answers can reveal whether an advisor is providing comprehensive financial planning or a more limited service.

According to Schatsky, consumers should seek financial advisors who embrace the responsibility of understanding every relevant aspect of their financial lives.

"If you're not getting skilled advice and comprehensive advice and impartial advice simultaneously," he says, "you're not getting what you need."

The future of financial planning

As technology continues to automate many investment functions, the value of comprehensive financial planning may become even more apparent.

Portfolio management is increasingly commoditized. Asset allocation models can be automated. Rebalancing can be automated.

What cannot easily be automated is the thoughtful integration of taxes, retirement planning, estate planning, insurance decisions, debt management, family dynamics and life goals into a coherent financial strategy.

That is where comprehensive financial planning continues to demonstrate its value.

More than 40 years after the modern fee-only movement began, the central idea remains remarkably simple: Investors deserve advice that considers their entire financial life.

As Schatsky puts it: "The public needs comprehensive advice."

For consumers seeking objective guidance and better financial outcomes, that principle remains as relevant today as ever.

Related Content

• Revenue Sharing Is Great for Financial Pros — For You, Not So Much. How Can You Avoid This Sneaky Sales Incentive?
• 'Trust Me. I Am a Fiduciary': But That Does Not Always Mean What You Think It Means
• The Truth About 'Top Producers': What You Should Know Before You Choose a Financial Professional
• I Asked Investors to Share the Frustrations They Have With Financial Professionals, and These Are Their Top 10
• Will a Financial Professional Always Act in Your Best Interests? 1 Question Will Tell You — and It's Not 'Are You a Fiduciary?'

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Editor's note: This is the third article in a series in which Peter Newman, CFA®, of Peak Wealth Planning, shows you how to make the most of Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs). The first and second articles are Why High-Net-Worth Families Need a Financial Quarterback to Protect Their Wealth and Concentrated Company Stock in Your ESOP? Waiting to Diversify Could Tank Your Retirement.

Sally retired at 62 with $890,000 in her Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) and another $420,000 in her 401(k). The numbers looked solid. She'd done the math a hundred times. It was enough to cover expenses, maybe some travel, definitely that kitchen remodel.

Then reality hit. Health insurance before Medicare? $1,800 a month. Property taxes she'd overlooked? Another $6,500 annually. And because she'd claimed Social Security at 62, her monthly benefit was permanently reduced by roughly $750 every month for life.

The ESOP money was there. The 401(k) was there. But the plan wasn't. That gap turned what should have been a comfortable retirement into constant calculations of what she could and couldn't afford.

Here's what I've noticed: The difference between people who retire confidently and people who retire anxiously isn't about how much they've saved. It's about what they did — or didn't do — in the decade before retirement.

Your 50s are a critical window where you either build the foundation for sustainable retirement income or realize too late that your assumptions don't match reality.

Age 50-54: The foundation you can't skip

At 50, you're probably earning peak income, kids might be finishing college, and retirement feels distant.

But this is actually the most important time to create your first real retirement income forecast. Not a napkin calculation or a vague sense that things will work out. An actual projection accounting for your ESOP balance, your 401(k), maybe your spouse's retirement accounts, and what those numbers translate to in monthly income.

Why now? You might discover you're on track to retire at 61. Or you might find out that you need to work until 68. Both answers are valuable, but one of them requires a significant adjustment to your timeline. It's better to know that at 50 than 59.

This is also when you need to look at your debt and what financial obligations are competing for your money. I've seen too many people prioritize funding kids' college education while assuming their own retirement will take care of itself. Sometimes that works out. Often it doesn't.

The questions you should be asking:

• What's my realistic retirement budget, including health care costs?
• Am I on pace to replace my current income, or do I need to adjust expectations?
• What debts should I eliminate before retirement?
• Am I prioritizing retirement savings, or are other goals consuming resources I'll need later?

Getting clear answers at 50 gives you five years before diversification eligibility at 55 to course-correct if needed.

Ages 55-59: Strategic decisions that compound

At 55, you hit your first ESOP diversification eligibility. If you've been with your company for at least 10 years, you can now sell back up to 25% of your accumulated shares.

Say you've accumulated $800,000 in company stock. At 55, you could diversify $200,000, rolling it into an IRA where you can invest in something other than your employer's stock. You can take the cash directly, but there are significant tax consequences and potential penalties that make that option less attractive for most people.

This is also when major life events can change everything. A grandchild is born and you want to help with their education. You buy a second home. Someone gets a difficult medical diagnosis. These things are common, and they should trigger an update to your financial plan.

Between 55 and 60, you'll continue accumulating shares if you're still working, and you may have options to diversify small amounts annually. Whether that moves the needle enough to be worthwhile depends on your specific situation.

Ages 60-65: The pre-retirement pressure test

At 60, you can diversify up to 50% of your total ESOP account. This is your chance to shift half of your concentrated company stock into a more balanced portfolio before retirement.

Here's where planning becomes critical. Retiring before 65? You need a rock-solid plan for healthcare costs until Medicare kicks in. Those costs can easily run $18,000 to $24,000 annually for a couple.

Planning to retire before the full Social Security retirement age of 67? Understand what that costs. Claiming at 62 reduces your benefit by roughly 30% for life. Waiting until 70 increases it by about 24% compared to 67. That difference can mean tens of thousands of dollars annually when you might need it most.

This is also when your liquidity strategy becomes crucial. You need your expenses for the first one to three years of retirement covered by stable sources, such as money market funds, savings accounts or low-risk bond funds. Not your ESOP. Not aggressive stock funds that could crater 40% right when you retire.

Post-retirement: The plan continues

Retirement is when the ongoing management gets more complex. You've got multiple income sources that need coordination: ESOP distributions that might be delayed up to 24 months, Social Security, possibly a spouse's pension or 401(k), maybe an annuity.

And then there are taxes. What federal bracket will you be in? Will a large ESOP distribution push you into Medicare surcharges? Are you approaching 73, when required minimum distributions kick in and potentially force you into higher tax brackets than you'd planned for?

There's no one-size-fits-all answer. Every situation requires mapping out each income source, projecting taxes not just this year but for the next decade, and making strategic decisions about which accounts to spend from when.

The timeline nobody follows (but everyone should)

I get it. Planning across a decade feels overwhelming, especially when you're busy working, managing family obligations and living your life. But the cost of not planning systematically is usually much higher than the effort of doing it.

The people who retire confidently didn't necessarily save more than everyone else. They just understood the timeline and made strategic decisions at each phase instead of letting things happen by default.

If you're anywhere in your 50s with significant ESOP wealth, the question isn't whether you should be planning, it's whether you're going to start now or wish you had five years from now.

For readers looking to better understand how these strategies apply to their own situation, Peter Newman created My ESOP Planner — a resource focused on helping employee-owners plan for diversification, retirement income and legacy decisions. Learn more at www.myesopplanner.com.

Related Content

• Have $1M+ Saved? Consider a Financial Planning One-Stop Shop
• Estate Planning for Millionaires
• Three Pros (and Four Cons) of Hiring Multiple Financial Advisers: The View From a Financial Adviser
• Taxes in Retirement: What ESOP Participants Need to Know
• How Much Retirement Income Could Your ESOP Generate?

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

While Roth conversions are often talked about in retirement planning, they aren't the right strategy for everyone.

For retirees with modest savings and no pension, leaving traditional accounts untouched until it's time to start RMDs can work well. But retirees with pensions face an entirely different tax reality.

In a recent article, Joe F. Schmitz, a CFP® and CEO of Peak Retirement Planning, explains why Roth conversions are so important for retirees with pensions. Schmitz is a regular contributor to Kiplinger's Adviser Intel program, a curated network of trusted financial professionals who share expert insights on wealth building and preservation.

Check out these five questions to test your knowledge about Roth conversions, pensions and taxes.

Good luck! (Don't worry if you miss an answer: You can follow the links below the quiz to brush up on your knowledge.)

Related Content From Adviser Intel

• Why a Roth Conversion Is Wrong for Most People But Often Right for Pension Holders
• When Is a Roth Conversion a Bad Idea? 6 Situations Retirees Should Consider Carefully
• If You're Converting to a Roth IRA, Don't Do It Like This
• 5 Reasons Roth Conversions and Pensions Work Well Together
• 7 Times to Dip Into Your Roth IRA if You Have a Pension (and When to Leave It Alone)

The ultra-wealthy don't just have more money than 62% of Americans. They have a handful of estate-planning secrets to help protect and pass on their wealth. From revocable trusts and Roth conversions to tax-efficient investments, these high-level tactics are designed to minimize taxes, shield assets, and create a lasting legacy.

And what a legacy. Baby boomers are expected to pass down $84.4 trillion to their heirs by 2045 as part of the "Great Wealth Transfer." Roughly half of that amount will come from high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth households. The good news? Many of the proven strategies used by these households can be adapted by retirees with modest incomes, without breaking the bank.

Matt Odgers, co-founder of Opelon LLP, says one of the biggest misconceptions is that estate planning is a tax strategy used only by the wealthy. "For most retirees, it has nothing to do with tax. What wealthy families are really buying is control and privacy; it's a clean handoff, and those things cost the same for everyone."

Here are 8 powerful estate planning secrets the rich actually use that you can realistically "steal."

1. The revocable living trust

The ultra-wealthy rarely let their assets go through probate. Instead, they place most of their major assets, including homes, investment accounts and other property, into a revocable living trust, Odgers says.

“The wealthy aren't leaning on a will. A will does not avoid probate, and probate is generally slow, public, and costly. A revocable living trust does the quiet work instead.”

How you steal it: Place major assets in a revocable living trust to avoid probate and allow a seamless transfer to your heirs. A living trust is flexible and can be set up easily with an attorney for about $400–$4,000. Then, “fund” the trust by transferring your house, bank accounts, and other assets into the trust’s name. Don't worry. The trust can be changed or revoked anytime during your lifetime, giving you full control while also protecting your family from the hassle of court delays and probate (and high fees) later.

2. The gift tax exclusion

The ultra-rich understand that making a gift or leaving their estate to their heirs doesn’t ordinarily affect their federal income tax, according to the IRS(pdf). With a bit of strategic planning, they avoid tax implications by using both the annual gift tax exclusion and the lifetime exemption, while shielding their wealth from future tax increases.

How you steal it: You don’t need to be rich to benefit from the annual gift tax exclusion. In 2026, you can gift up to $19,000 per recipient (child, grandchild or anyone else) completely tax-free. A retired couple can gift $38,000 per person annually. Over 10–15 years, this can move significant money out of your estate while helping your loved ones when they need it most.

3. Spousal Lifetime Access Trusts (SLATs)

A SLAT is an irrevocable trust that one spouse creates for the primary benefit of the other spouse. Ultra-wealthy couples use SLATs to remove assets from their estate while still allowing their spouse to receive income or even principal from the trust if needed during their lifetime.

How you steal it: Create an irrevocable trust for your spouse by transferring assets, such as cash, investments, or property, into the trust. That removes the assets from your taxable estate immediately. Your spouse can serve as a beneficiary and can access the funds if needed during their lifetime. This is particularly useful for retirees who want to shield their assets from the high costs of long-term care or future changes in tax law.

4. Life insurance

Permanent life insurance — either whole or universal life — is a favorite strategy among the wealthy because it passes money to heirs completely income tax-free. To maximize this benefit, high-net-worth families often avoid owning policies directly. Instead, they place them inside an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT). When structured properly, an ILIT keeps the death benefit out of the taxable estate, giving heirs tax-free cash to cover estate duties, debts or living expenses without forcing a fire sale of the family home or core assets.

How to steal it: Use permanent life insurance placed in an Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust (ILIT) to leave tax-free money to heirs while keeping it out of your taxable estate. You can often cover the premiums using your annual gift tax exclusion. In the end, you get to leave behind tax-free money for your family while protecting the assets you've worked so hard to build.

5. Family LLCs

By bundling assets — such as real estate or a family business — into a Family Limited Liability Company (Family LLC), the ultra-rich can transfer non-controlling shares to their heirs over time at a discounted valuation. This strategy lowers the gift's taxable value, preserving more of the owner's lifetime exemption and reducing future estate taxes.

How to steal it: Even with more modest assets, you can set up a Family LLC with the help of an estate planning attorney. But the main point is that anyone can benefit from holding assets in entities like trusts or family LLCs. “Heirs can secure access, enjoyment, and management without direct ownership,” says estate planning attorney Kevin Quinn, President at Legacy Counsellors, PC. “This structure shields wealth from creditors, divorces and lawsuits, while ensuring a structured legacy for future heirs.”

6. TOD and POD designations

Transfer-on-Death (TOD) and Payable-on-Death (POD) designations on brokerage accounts, bank accounts, certificates of deposit (CDs), and even some vehicles allow funds to be transferred directly to a beneficiary upon the account holder's death, bypassing probate. Many people overlook TOD and POD designations in estate planning — but not the wealthy.

How to steal it: Setting up TOD and POD designations on your accounts allows assets to transfer directly to beneficiaries upon your death, bypassing probate. Through your financial institution, you choose your assets, fill out a form and name your intended recipients.

However, because TOD and POD designations supersede instructions in a living trust, they must be carefully coordinated. For the best protection, complex assets like real estate are placed in the trust, while simpler accounts — such as checking, savings or CDs — can name the revocable trust as the TOD or POD beneficiary. This keeps your cash out of probate while ensuring every dollar is distributed according to your estate plan.

7. Roth IRA conversions

It's no surprise that the ultra-wealthy are obsessed with managing future taxes and carefully time their Roth conversions to pay taxes when the rate is lowest, giving their heirs tax-free money down the road.

How to steal it: Ryan Maynard, Managing Partner at Vaquero Private Wealth, offers this advice. “Convert traditional retirement money to a Roth during your low-income years — often the stretch after you stop working but before Social Security and required minimum distributions (RMDs) begin. In those years your taxable income can be unusually low, so you convert at a very low ordinary rate and move that money into a Roth, where it grows and comes out tax-free for the rest of your life and for your heirs.” This strategy works especially well for retirees with smaller nest eggs.

8. Long-term capital gains

The ultra-wealthy value long-term capital gains because they are taxed at much lower rates than ordinary income. By holding investments for more than one year, they can pay significantly less tax on their profits. Besides that, they can afford to hold assets for years or even decades because they don't have to rely on selling them to cover daily living expenses.

How to steal it: Try to hang onto your investments for at least a year before you sell them. You’ll often qualify for the lower long-term capital gains rates, which are usually 0%, 15%, or 20%, instead of getting hit with regular income tax rates. You don't need to be ultra-wealthy to take advantage of this. “It is one of the most valuable breaks in the tax code,” Odgers adds, “and it is not based on your estate size.”

Use the best strategies for you

You don't have to copy the ultra-wealthy exactly. Mixing and matching just a couple of these ideas can make a real difference and protect your savings, cut taxes, and leave more for the people you love.

Trent Von Ahsen, CFP®, and Managing Partner at Cedar Point Capital Partners, offers a final word. “There are clearly some differences, but I do think the biggest misconception about estate planning is that it's only for the ultra-wealthy. Affluent families may use some sophistication. But overall, I'd say the same underlying principles are available to basically anybody."

Related content

• 10 Things You Should Know About Estate Planning
• How to Save Money on Estate Planning
• What Does It Really Take to Retire Rich?
• The 13 Best Things Rich Retirees Do

Roth conversions have become one of the hottest topics in retirement planning. Browse financial headlines long enough, and you'll likely encounter conflicting advice.

Some experts argue that everyone should convert their traditional IRA to a Roth. Others insist it's a costly mistake. The truth is far more nuanced.

As a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER® and CEO of Peak Retirement Planning, I can tell you that for most Americans, a Roth conversion probably isn't necessary. However, retirees with pensions often live by a different set of tax rules (I wrote a book for those with pensions, The 2% Club, that you can request for free here.)

Their guaranteed income can create tax challenges that don't apply to the average retiree, making Roth conversions worth a much closer look.

Before deciding whether a Roth conversion belongs in your retirement strategy, it's important to understand the factors that actually determine whether the math makes sense. You can learn more about this in my YouTube video:

The only question that really matters

Many investors focus on whether they can afford to pay the taxes on a Roth conversion today. While that's certainly part of the equation, it isn't the deciding factor. The more important question is this: Will your total tax rate be lower today than it will be later?

That "total tax rate" extends beyond your federal income tax bracket. A Roth conversion can also influence:

• State income taxes
• Medicare IRMAA surcharges
• Social Security taxation
• Capital gains taxes
• Estate planning outcomes

When viewed together, your true tax cost could look very different than your federal bracket alone suggests.

Why most people don't need a Roth conversion

For many retirees, taxable income will naturally decline when they stop working. Someone who retires with modest retirement savings, no pension and Social Security as their primary income source usually remains in relatively low tax brackets throughout retirement.

In those situations, paying taxes today through a Roth conversion could result in paying more tax than necessary.

Roth conversions are frequently overpromoted, as they can be powerful, but they aren't universally beneficial.

Pension holders face a different tax reality

Rather than seeing their income in retirement decline, retirees with pensions often have multiple sources of guaranteed retirement income arriving simultaneously:

• Pension payments
• Social Security benefits
• Required minimum distributions (RMDs) from traditional retirement accounts

Each source adds taxable income, and together they can keep retirees in higher tax brackets for decades.

For households that have accumulated substantial balances in tax-deferred accounts, such as 401(k)s, IRAs, TSPs or 403(b)s, RMDs can make the situation even more challenging as they grow over time.

That's why many pension recipients find themselves paying as much, if not more, in taxes during retirement than they did while working.

Today's tax environment creates planning opportunities

Another consideration is today's tax landscape: Current tax laws provide relatively favorable tax rates and expanded standard deductions compared with historical norms.

While no one can predict future legislation, many economists expect government revenue needs to increase over time because of rising national debt and the long-term funding challenges facing programs such as Medicare and Social Security.

If future tax rates eventually rise, converting portions of traditional retirement accounts while rates remain relatively low could produce meaningful lifetime tax savings. The objective isn't simply to pay taxes sooner, but to pay them when they're expected to be lower than they otherwise would be.

Don't look only at your tax bracket

One of the biggest mistakes retirees make is evaluating Roth conversions using only the federal tax tables. Your retirement tax picture is much more interconnected.

Increasing taxable income through a Roth conversion could:

• Cause more of your Social Security benefits to become taxable
• Push you into a higher Medicare IRMAA bracket, increasing Medicare Part B and Part D premiums
• Raise your capital gains tax rate
• Increase state income taxes

This is why comprehensive tax planning frequently produces better results than simply converting up to the top of a particular tax bracket.

The widow's penalty can create future tax problems

Married couples regularly overlook one significant future risk: When one spouse dies, the surviving spouse generally transitions from married filing jointly to single tax status. At that time:

• Tax brackets and IRMAA thresholds shrink
• The standard deduction lowers
• One Social Security benefit typically disappears
• The surviving spouse often continues receiving pension income and RMDs

The result can be substantially higher taxes for the surviving spouse. Completing Roth conversions while both spouses are alive allows couples to take advantage of the wider married tax brackets before this transition occurs.

Your children's tax situations matter, too

If leaving money to your children is one of your goals, their future tax bracket deserves consideration as well.

Under current law, most non-spouse beneficiaries must empty inherited retirement accounts within 10 years. A child inheriting a large traditional IRA might be required to recognize hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxable income during that period, potentially pushing them into significantly higher tax brackets.

On the other hand, if your children are likely to remain in relatively low tax brackets, leaving them traditional retirement assets instead of paying higher taxes through Roth conversions today could prove more efficient.

Estate planning isn't one-size-fits-all, and understanding your heirs' financial circumstances is an important part of the analysis.

Tax diversification provides flexibility

Many retirees have accumulated the vast majority of their wealth inside tax-deferred retirement accounts, and that creates a challenge. Every dollar withdrawn becomes taxable income, leaving retirees with limited flexibility when tax laws or personal circumstances change.

Building assets across multiple account types — including traditional retirement accounts, Roth accounts and taxable brokerage accounts — creates what many planners call tax diversification.

Having multiple "tax buckets" allows retirees to decide where retirement income comes from each year, making it easier to adapt to changing tax laws, Medicare thresholds or unexpected expenses.

Where you live can affect the timing

State taxes can also influence whether a Roth conversion makes sense. Someone planning to relocate from a high-income-tax state to one with no state income tax could benefit from delaying Roth conversions until after the move.

Conversely, someone expecting to move into a higher-tax state might decide to accelerate conversions before relocating.

State taxes generally receive less attention in planning than federal taxes, but they can meaningfully affect lifetime tax costs.

A common Roth conversion myth

One objection frequently raised against Roth conversions is that paying taxes today means losing years of investment growth. That argument overlooks an important concept: Taxes on a traditional IRA already represent a future liability.

Paying that liability earlier doesn't necessarily reduce long-term wealth if tax rates remain unchanged — it simply satisfies the government's share sooner.

Where Roth conversions can create additional value is by reducing future RMDs, potentially lowering Medicare premiums, limiting Social Security taxation, providing greater withdrawal flexibility and protecting against higher future tax rates.

The comparison isn't simply about investment growth — it's about maximizing what you keep after taxes over the course of retirement.

The bottom line

Roth conversions aren't appropriate for everyone. In fact, many retirees with modest savings and no pensions might be better off leaving their traditional retirement accounts untouched.

Pension holders, however, ordinarily face a different reality. Guaranteed income, RMDs and long retirement horizons can create tax burdens that make proactive planning far more valuable.

Rather than asking whether Roth conversions are "good" or "bad," ask a better question: Will paying taxes today likely cost less than paying them later?

For retirees with pensions and substantial retirement savings, the answer is often worth exploring through a comprehensive, long-term tax strategy that considers not only income taxes but also Medicare premiums, Social Security taxation, estate planning and future tax flexibility.

Because when it comes to retirement, it's not just about how much you've saved — it's about how much you'll ultimately keep.

Related Content

• Do You Know Why a Roth Conversion Isn't Right for Everybody? Test Your Knowledge With This Quiz
• 13 Things to Know About How Your Pension Affects Your Taxes in Retirement
• Many Retirees With a Pension and $1 Million-Plus Do These 7 Things (and Regret It Later)
• 10 Retirement Fixes You Can Implement Today to Strengthen Your Financial Plan
• When Is a Roth Conversion a Bad Idea? 6 Situations Retirees Should Consider Carefully

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Annette Kruzynski, a 79-year-old retiree from West Hempstead, N.Y., used to think her 401(k) survived the dot-com bust, the Great Recession and the COVID pandemic because she moved all her money to cash. She proudly told anyone that being in CDs, bonds and money market accounts saved her from the massive sell-offs in the stock market.

But in hindsight, she knows she was wrong. "I wish I didn't keep everything safe," says the retiree and grandmother of five. "I think if I had invested, I would have had much more money saved."

Kruzynski can't change the past, but she and other retirees can help future generations avoid similar mistakes, particularly their millennial children, the oldest of whom are turning 45 this year.

It's a prime age to take your finances seriously and, more importantly, hear some sage advice. At this point, you're typically in the peak earning years (or about to enter them) and still have time to build a nest egg. You're also likely juggling multiple expenses, making it difficult to save.

"In your 40s is where everything starts to become a priority, and those priorities for spending are competing with each other," says Pam Krueger, founder and CEO of Wealthramp, a free service that matches consumers with fee-only fiduciary financial advisers. "This is where money decisions start to have bigger consequences."

Today’s 45-year-olds may think they have it all figured out, but the retirees who have come before them know better. Having learned the hard way, these older adults want to spare the younger generation the pain, knowing that preserving family wealth starts with avoiding costly mistakes. Whether it's investing, saving, or spending, here are the crucial, hard-earned lessons retirees and financial professionals say 45-year-olds need to know.

Investing: Siloed accounts and too much risk

Even if 45-year-olds have figured it out by now and are contributing to their 401(k)s and IRAs, financial pros say some common mistakes still linger, including these:

Viewing your retirement accounts in silos. Treating your and your spouse's different retirement accounts as separate, standalone investments rather than a unified portfolio could result in additional fees or overexposure to a single market segment. "You might not have diversification, you might pay three times in fees or your returns may be beaten down because you didn't coordinate," says Krueger. "It's important to clean up, organize and have a clear view of the accounts consolidated in one place."

Taking on too much risk or being too conservative. This might be the age of the buy-and-hold Millennial, but there are plenty of 45-year-olds investing in crypto, meme stocks or other speculative investments. "People buying the next hot, shiny thing and taking unnecessary risk is the worst action I see, especially with retirement money," says Derrick Longo, a financial adviser at Savant Wealth Management in Huntersville, N.C. "A lot of people will hear something on social media or from a friend, and they let that influence their investment strategy. They might get a short bump, but in the long term, it doesn't keep up with market returns."

If you want to make speculative investments, Longo says, do it with money you can afford to lose. On the flip side, taking too little risk can also be detrimental to a 45-year-old's investment portfolio. With 20-plus years left in the workforce, a 45-year-old can afford to have more growth — and more risk — in their 401(k) than a 55- or 60-year-old.

Having been a little too conservative is one thing Sharon and Roger Gibbs wish they could change. The married retirees worked for the state of California for over 30 years and retired in their mid-50s. "Thinking back to age 45, we probably should have been more of a risk taker, but we’re pretty conservative. We regret not renting out a cabin vs selling it at one point," says Sharon, 73, who lives with Roger in Watersound, Fla. "But, for us, our jobs were our investment for our future. We were told by so many people, ‘If you can retire early, do it; you never know what tomorrow brings.’ "

Saving: Standing still on contributions and matches

In the age of the automatic 401(k) enrollment, many 45-year-olds don't have a choice when it comes to saving for retirement, granted that they work for a company that offers one. But that doesn't mean they don't make costly mistakes. One is not contributing enough to get the company's 401(k) match. That's free money they're leaving on the table.

Another mistake is leaving their contribution rate steady instead of automatically increasing it. Most plans offer the ability to automatically increase your savings rate by 1% each year. You can also have your plan increase contributions when you receive raises and bonuses.

Failing to save more aggressively is one of Kruzynski's primary regrets. In addition to being too conservative, she wishes she had contributed more to her 401(k). She worked for over 30 years, and while she has enough money to live comfortably in retirement, she could have had more cash to travel and to leave to her heirs. "Not adding more money to my 401(k) was a mistake," says Kruzynski.

Spending: Living on the edge with a 40-something budget

Many retirees remember all too well how managing their spending in their mid-40s was a constant exercise in discipline. Between paying down mortgages and funding children's educations, a multitude of expenses pull at the household budget all at once. When trying to manage it all, it was easy to make mistakes. A big one that throws everything else off course is winging it, says Michael Conrath, JPMorgan's chief retirement strategist. They have a vague idea of their monthly expenses and savings goals, but nothing concrete.

"On the fundamental level, they need to ask themselves, how much do I spend monthly, what are my known expenses and what do they cost me?" said Conrath. "It's important to have that foundation."

Lots of 40-somethings also live beyond their means, worrying about saving later. "They tend to believe they will keep earning the same amount they are right now and when you make that assumption, you might go for the bigger house or the bigger and better car," says Krueger. "You're living on the edge of your budget instead of putting that money to work."

The view from the finish line

Making sense of money in your 40s is a balancing act with the financial realities of spending and saving pulling you in different directions. While the oldest Millennials may feel they have plenty of time to fine-tune their investing, saving, and spending strategies, retirement will arrive before they know it. That's why it's so important for them to listen to the hard-earned lessons of the retirees who came before them. After all, sharing their lessons on unified investing, disciplined spending and aggressive saving is the best way to protect everyone's wealth.

Note: This item first appeared in Kiplinger Retirement Report, our popular monthly periodical that covers key concerns of affluent older Americans who are retired or preparing for retirement. Subscribe for retirement advice that's right on the money.

Related Content

• Eight Biggest Retirement Financial Planning Myths: How Many Do You Believe?
• Baby Boomers vs Gen X: Who Spends More?
• Counting on the Great Wealth Transfer to Fund Retirement? Why It Might Not Pan Out the Way You Hope

When navigating a divorce, securing your fair share of retirement assets is critical — especially if you're over 50 and short on time to rebuild lost savings. While a divorce decree officially ends your marriage, it cannot legally divide a 401(k) or pension on its own. Without a properly executed Qualified Domestic Relations Order (QDRO), the funds stay locked in your ex-spouse’s name, putting your hard-earned financial future at risk.

Whether you are currently negotiating a divorce agreement or reviewing finalized paperwork, knowing how QDROs work is your best defense against costly court delays and lost growth.

Take this 10-question quiz to see if your retirement plan division strategy is secure. And don't worry if you miss an answer; you can use the links below the quiz to brush up on divorce and retirement planning.

More on Divorce and Estate Planning, from the Kiplinger retirement team:

• The New Average Divorce Rate By Age: Are You in the Risk Zone?
• How QDROs Can Protect Your Retirement Savings in a Divorce
• Six Reasons to Disinherit Someone and How to Do It
• How Finances Are Split In a Gray Divorce
• What Drives Gray Divorce?
• A Retirement Guide for Solo Agers
• Why Single Retirees Have It Better Than You Think

"If you're hoping to retire someday, invest and start early."

Many of us have probably heard this, and it's true. However, investment accounts are only part of a comprehensive financial plan. Many people mistakenly believe contributing to a 401(k), IRA or brokerage account means they have a plan in place.

However, those accounts are just tools. The actual plan is a road map for how those tools should be used to help achieve financial goals.

In addition to making retirement savings contributions, a lot of people review their portfolio statements periodically, largely focusing on balances, returns and performance.

These statements are great for providing a snapshot of where your investments stand, but they don't explain how they'll be used to help you achieve your goals.

For example, two individuals can have identical portfolios with very different strategies. Someone who's planning to retire in the next few years will likely have different risk considerations and income needs compared with someone who is still decades away from retirement.

Rather than focusing on balances and returns, it's the financial plan that helps determine whether those investments align with your needs and circumstances.

Don't forget tax planning

Tax planning is another area in which portfolio statements fall short. They can tell you what type of accounts you're invested in, but they don't explain how withdrawals will be taxed or whether your money is in the appropriate account based on your situation.

Since investment accounts are taxed differently, where money is saved and how it's taken out can significantly impact your tax burden.

With a well-rounded financial plan, pre-retirees have the ability to understand how assets are intended to be distributed across retirement accounts and how withdrawals can be managed to reduce tax liabilities.

Adapting to changes

Unlike a portfolio statement, financial plans are designed to adapt to changes in your life rather than changes in the market.

Major life events such as a new job, marriage, the birth of a child or approaching retirement influence financial priorities, oftentimes requiring updates to an existing strategy.

A person's goals and spending habits can also change throughout retirement. The early years of retirement, also known as the go-go years, might mean traveling or taking on new experiences.

As the slow-go and no-go years approach, priorities tend to shift, especially when it comes to healthcare. However, financial planning doesn't stop when retirement hits.

Although a portfolio statement might list beneficiaries, it doesn't account for greater estate planning needs. Some people might want to leave assets to children or grandchildren, while others might decide to donate to charity or set specific guidelines for how their wealth should be distributed.

A financial plan helps make sure those wishes are incorporated into your overall strategy.

Paying attention to investment returns is important, but they're only one piece of the pie. A portfolio statement can give you a snapshot of current beneficiaries, various retirement accounts, and current investment performance.

It's the plan that helps determine whether those investments support your financial goals.

Related Content

• Does Your Retirement Portfolio Resemble a Junk Drawer? Here's How to Clean It Up, From a Wealth Manager
• Divide and Conquer: Your Annual Financial Plan Made Easy, Courtesy of a Financial Adviser
• 4 Great Tools to DIY Your Own Financial Plan
• 5 Do's and Don'ts for a Successful First Meeting With Your Financial Adviser
• I'm a Financial Adviser: This Is the Retirement Tax Assumption That Could Cost You

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Wealth Wise is Kiplinger's advice column on navigating retirement-related dilemmas. Got a question? See below for how to send it.

Dear Wealth Wise: My husband and I have saved about $300,000 for retirement combined, but we recently paid off some debt and are saving about $1,000 a month. We are in our mid-to-late 40s with one child. We could move from our current home (with almost $400,000 equity) to a smaller condo once our daughter graduates in a few years. Our parents have pledged to pay for our daughter’s college, but we will still need to support her financially until she gets a job.

Realistically, what can we expect to retire with and are we saving enough? Should we cut back on things like cable, or is our situation not that bad? — Late to the Party

Dear Late to the Party: It's not so unusual to reach your mid- to late 40s with modest retirement savings. Student loans, home down payment savings, and high mortgage costs can eat into your paychecks, making it hard to fund retirement until your earnings increase.

The average 401(k) balance among savers ages 45 to 49 was $163,200 in 2026, according to Fidelity. By that measure, this couple seems to be in good shape.

At the same time, Fidelity's average balance of $264,500 among savers 70 and over isn't so promising. Under the popular 4% rule, that's roughly $10,600 in annual withdrawals. So while our couple may be ahead of their peers, that doesn't mean they're in excellent shape. Here's what our experts suggest given their situation.

Don't get hung up on small changes

When you're trying to catch up on retirement savings, you'll often hear that every little bit helps. But one thing you don't want to do is cut out small luxuries to the point where life is miserable.

"Before deciding whether to cancel cable or eliminate every discretionary expense, I’d first determine whether they’re actually on track," says Ernie Cave, CFP, founder and wealth manager at Cave Wealth Management. "The biggest strategy many families miss isn’t finding another $200 per month. It’s building a retirement income plan."

As Cave explains, if this couple is in their mid- to late 40s, they may have 20 years before retirement.

"Consistent savings, investment growth, and future raises can dramatically improve their financial position over that time," Cave insists.

Before cutting cable, Cave suggests a few things. First, figure out when you want to retire, how much annual income you'll need, and how much money Social Security will provide.

"Without that roadmap, it’s impossible to know whether another $200 or $300 per month will meaningfully change the outcome," he says.

Next, Cave recommends focusing on big opportunities to build meaningful savings rather than small ones like cutting cable.

"Make sure both spouses are receiving the full employer retirement match. Increase retirement contributions every time income rises. Redirect every debt payment that disappears into retirement savings before that money quietly becomes lifestyle spending," Cave says.

Given that the couple is approaching 50, they should also plan to take advantage of catch-up contributions. Once they turn 50, they will be eligible to sock away an extra $8,000 each in their 401(k)s or $1,100 in IRAs. (Since they are not yet 50, these contribution limits will likely increase in future years)

These changes, he explains, may get you where you need to be without eliminating the smaller bills that make life more enjoyable.

Sabrina Carlson, CFP and owner of Carlson Wealth Solutions, agrees with Cave.

"Regularly review expenses less to squeeze dollars for more retirement savings, and more to ensure they are really valuing what they pay for and to keep the habit of frugality in retirement," she says.

Carlson also says that based on her calculations, increasing retirement savings by $300 a month could add around $120,000 to this couple's total assets in retirement. And, she says, while every little bit helps, "this amount could also be accounted for in many other ways."

Of course, we don't know whether the couple has saved in a traditional or Roth 401(k) or IRA. If they've invested in traditional accounts, they'll need to plan for substantial taxes when they withdraw funds in retirement.

Use home equity to your advantage

Another advantage this couple has is a nice amount of home equity.

"With approximately $400,000 in home equity, downsizing after their daughter graduates could reduce future housing costs and potentially free up additional retirement assets," says Cave. "I wouldn’t count the entire $400,000 as retirement savings because they’ll still need somewhere to live, but it should absolutely be part of the retirement plan."

That said, downsizing right after the daughter finishes college may not be feasible. A growing number of recent graduates are having trouble landing entry-level jobs in today's market.

You may be able to downsize eventually. But it's best to build a retirement savings plan that doesn't rely on downsizing at a fixed point in time.

The outlook may be better than expected

All told, the situation here isn't dire. If you take $300,000 in savings, add $1,000 per month, apply a 7% annual growth rate, and let it compound for 20 years, our couple could end up with roughly a $1.65 million nest egg.

A 4% withdrawal rate yields about $66,000 in annual income, not including inflation adjustments. And if we apply the average $2,084 Social Security retirement benefit today, that adds roughly $25,000 a year for one beneficiary or about $38,000 for a couple.

That average benefit, of course, will likely be much larger once this couple retires, so it's an imperfect measure. But throw in cashed-out home equity, and they may be looking at a $100,000 annual retirement income, which isn't shabby.

Carlson says that if our couple runs projections based on their current plan and finds that their estimated annual retirement budget should work for them, then they're "likely in good shape." But they should ask themselves what they want retirement to look like.

Carlson also recommends creating a strategy now for how to contend with potential long-term care.

"This couple is likely to be the most susceptible to one or both having a costly long-term care event, as they will have some assets which must be used before Medicaid would step in, but not enough assets to cover the bill without worry," Carlson explains.

A word from Wealth Wise

The internet is loaded with tips on how to save for retirement, with cutting your daily latte being a common one. The reality is that with a solid savings plan, you don't need to deny yourself small indulgences or sweat every penny. A better idea is to prioritize what's important to you and enjoy those small splurges without guilt.

ASK YOUR OWN WEALTH WISE QUESTION

Do you have a question for our Wealth Wise experts? We want to hear about your retirement-related financial dilemmas, especially those that impact relationships with partners, friends and family. You will remain anonymous. Fill out this Google Form or submit your question to KipAdvice@futurenet.com. Not all questions will be published. We may edit your questions for clarity.

Not all questions submitted will be published, and some may be condensed and/or combined with other similar questions and answers, as required editorially. The answers provided by our writers and experts in this advice column are for general informational purposes only. While we take reasonable precautions to ensure we provide accurate answers to your questions, this information does not and is not intended to constitute independent financial, legal, or tax advice. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on any information provided in this feature. You should consult with a financial adviser regarding any questions you may have in relation to the matters discussed in this article.

Read More Wealth Wise Articles on Retirement Advice

• Should You Upsize When College Tuition and Retirement Collide?
• I Have a Sizable Roth IRA. Do I Still Need a 529 for My Grandkids' College?
• Should We Bankroll Our Son's $180K Law School Tuition Even Though We're Retired?
• Can You Actually Get Paid to Care for an Aging Parent?
• He's 49 and 'Burned Out.' Can He Afford to Quit a $200K Job?
• 'Subsidized Adulting': Can You Afford to Help Your Children Financially?
• Should Fully Funded Retirees Invest Like 30-Year-Olds?
• Is a 60/40 Portfolio Too Aggressive When You're in Your Seventies?
• You’ve Mastered Asset Allocation — Now It’s Time for Asset Location
• A Multimillionaire Wants to Marry Again. How Can She Protect Her Money?
• Should We Borrow Money From Our Elderly Father?
• Should We Downsize or Drain Our 401(k) to Pay Off Our Home?

You've done everything the system has asked of you.

You were automatically enrolled in your 401(k) on your first day and never opted out. Your contribution rate climbs a little each year — automatically, whether you notice or not — and your money sits in a target-date fund that quietly rebalances while you live life.

On paper, you're a retirement success story — the exact "participant outcome" every employer hopes for and the entire financial services industry is built to produce.

Then the brakes on your car go, the emergency room copay hits, or the rent notice arrives with a number you simply can't cover this month. And you do the very thing you swore you'd never do: You log in and pull money out of the account you know you shouldn't touch.

If that stings a little, it's probably because it's a story about a lot of us.

In 2025, a record 6% of retirement plan participants took a hardship withdrawal from their 401(k), according to Vanguard's latest How America Saves report — the largest share the firm has ever recorded, and up from 5% the year before.

That happened in the very same year account balances climbed 13% and plan participation reached an all-time high of 86%. Read that again.

By those measures, the system looks healthier than ever. So why are more people than ever reaching into their retirement savings early? And how can we help mitigate this?

Hardship withdrawals aren't a discipline problem

The "easy" conclusion is that people simply aren't saving well, or that they lack discipline. I'd argue the opposite. The median hardship withdrawal last year was about $1,900. The two most common reasons were to stop a foreclosure or eviction and to cover a medical bill.

People aren't necessarily draining their retirement accounts for a vacation, a new pool in the backyard or an online shopping spree. They're reaching for the last cushion they have, because every other one is already gone.

That's the real story hiding inside the headlines: The early withdrawal isn't the problem. It's a symptom. The fragility was there long before the withdrawal; this is just where it finally became visible.

The rest of the data agrees. Worker confidence in retiring comfortably fell six points in a single year to 61%, the lowest since 2017, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. Fewer than three in five workers say they could handle an emergency expense, while 65% say debt is a problem in their household.

These aren't the numbers of a country that forgot how to save. They're the numbers of a country where paychecks stopped stretching as far as the plan assumed they would.

To be fair, part of the increase is mechanical. It's simply easier to take a hardship withdrawal than it used to be thanks to a 2018 rule change that removed a required step, resulting in less paperwork and fewer hoops to jump through.

Going back to the 6% taking withdrawals, this could mean friction is disappearing, not necessarily that distress is appearing. But that caveat doesn't rescue the overall story. In contrast, it sharpens it.

When someone is facing eviction, unexpected medical bills or a $1,900 shortfall and this is what they reach for first, you're not looking at carelessness. You're looking at a need.

A better way to cope with financial emergencies

If you find yourself eyeing that account in a hard month, instead of asking, "What's wrong with me?", ask some of these questions instead.

Am I measuring the right thing? A growing retirement account balance feels like security, but it's a promise about a life you'll live decades from now. It tells you nothing about your next 30 days.

The fragility lives in the gap between this paycheck and the next surprise, and that gap never shows up on your quarterly retirement account statements.

The number that may better predict whether you'll have to raid it is a different one: How long you could cover the basics if the paychecks stopped tomorrow, using money you can easily reach without touching retirement at all.

Is there anything between me and the next emergency that isn't my retirement account? For a lot of people, honestly, there isn't. But that's not a character flaw — it's the most changeable thing on this list.

A small, separate emergency fund, built however it gets built — a little set aside over time — is often all that stands between an unexpected bill and a withdrawal.

And what would actually make me feel secure, as opposed to just making the balance bigger? Those aren't always the same goal, and noticing the difference is where real security starts.

Rather than focusing too rigidly on standard savings advice, find the number that helps you sleep at night.

To be clear, none of this means the years of saving were pointless. It means retirement readiness and financial security are two different things, and we've spent a long time discussing the first as if it guarantees the second.

If you're doing everything right and still feel like you're one surprise away from it all coming apart, you're not imagining it, and you're not alone — you're paying attention. The account is never the whole picture. The life around it is.

Related Content

• 8 Costly 401(k) Mistakes That Could Tank Your Retirement
• The 401(k) Loan Dilemma: Is It Ever a Good Idea?
• 6 Steps to Quickly Build Your Emergency Fund
• How Much Savings Do You Actually Need to Feel Financially Secure? Start With These 3 Benchmarks
• Take It From a Tax Expert: The True Measure of Your Retirement Readiness Isn't the Size of Your Nest Egg

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

You probably think you know precisely what stuff your adult children most want from you when you downsize, move to Palm Beach, or are pushing up daisies.

You’re probably wrong.

They don’t want their school trophies. They don’t want that fancy china that Grandma religiously took out of the hutch and served the Thanksgiving turkey on. Most of all, they don’t want those photo albums stuffed with black-and-white pictures of family members who were dead before your kids were even born.

Parting with your precious stuff is hard. Parting with stuff is even harder when your children — who you thought would be clamoring for it — want nothing to do with it. A generation of baby boomers is downsizing and flooding the market with stuff right now because they inherited so much from their own parents and grandparents.

"Gens X, Y, and Z don’t want these things," says Julie Hall, a professional estate liquidator and author of Inheriting Clutter: How to Calm the Chaos Your Parents Leave Behind. "I’ve got a 30-year-old, and I can count on one hand what she wants."

Which is precisely why you’re reading this story. We reached out to four downsizing experts for their unique insights into the ten things adult children typically want least of all — and why.

1. Anything from your living room or dining room

These are, by far, the toughest things to re-home, says Anna Novak, a downsizing expert, real estate agent, and founder of Simply Downsized, a consulting firm in Falls Church, Va. This accounts for a lot of big, dark, space-consuming stuff. Like giant mahogany dining room tables. And huge hutches filled with china and crystal from generations past.

"People don’t have formal dining rooms anymore," says Novak. Our lifestyles have changed so much that it’s increasingly rare to invite large groups of people into our homes and entertain them, she says.

Formal living rooms used to be a visual statement of success, says Novak. In another time, it was a place that was once a gathering spot where you’d feel just as comfortable bringing the Fuller Brush man who knocked at the door as you’d feel with family and friends. Now, few folks want them, and even fewer want all the stuff that fills them up.

2. Photo albums with nameless faces

It’s not that your kids don’t want any of your photos. They don’t want all of them. And they especially don’t want albums or boxes filled with images of distant family and friends whom they don’t even know, says Nonnahs Driskill, founder of Get Organized Already, a professional organizing firm in Pasadena, Calif.

Best bet is to simply offer them a few photos of their choice, she says. "When you give kids your stuff, it should feel like a gift — not a burden," says Driskill.

Best are digital albums, says Marguerita Cheng, a certified financial planner and downsizing specialist in Gaithersburg, Md. It’s especially helpful if the digital photos you share with your kids are organized in some simple way and identify who is in them, she says.

3. Books from another era

Bottom line is, whatever books your children actually want and love, they probably already have, says Driskill.

Books are big, heavy — and take up too much space, she says. They are also very personal. Think about it. Does your kid really want the textbook for the Introduction to Philosophy 101 class you took in college fifty years ago?

Ditto for CDs, records and tapes, says Driskill. Odds are, she says, your kid doesn’t even have anything to play these CDs, records or tapes on.

4. Matching, obnoxious bedroom sets

It used to be a sign of exquisite taste to have a massive, dark wooden bedroom set that included a huge dresser and mirror, a separate stand-up dresser, nightstands on either side of the bed, and a giant poster bed with a towering headboard. Now — not so much.

So, if you happen to have one of these monstrosities — or a bedroom set even remotely like this — please, please don’t foist it off on your kids, says Hall.

These days, matching bedroom sets are so uncool. And most younger folks opt for simple, platform beds that are high on function and low on decorative frills, she says. So, don’t be surprised, she says, if the only thing your kid wants from your bedroom set is a nightstand or two.

5. Linens — with or without stains

You can bet the house that your kids want absolutely nothing to do with those piles of old linens that you’ve got stored for them in a chest in the attic.

If they’re stored in a chest, that means you really don’t want them, either, says Hall.

This includes everything from tablecloths to placemats to napkins. Even that particularly onerous napkin, she says, with a shiny stain "where Uncle Joe spilled his beef gravy."

There’s probably not a woman under the age of 50 who would even consider putting out a matching linen set on the dining room table, says Hall. Why? Among other things, it requires starch and ironing. "My daughter would just throw them out," she says.

6. Collections of just about anything

Way back in the 1950s, collectibles evolved into a sign of success. If you had a Thomas Kinkade painting of a welcoming cobblestone bridge or a Maria Innocentia Hummel figurine of a young German lass standing with her bowl of porridge and geese on either side of her, well, you were the bee’s knees.

As much as you valued these collectibles, your kids don’t, says Novak. Never mind that these collections were a huge part of homemaking for so many boomer moms. They were marketed as lifetime keepsakes that would surely grow in value. But now, she says, "they are just seen as clutter. And kids don’t want them."

7. Sporting goods from another era

You might be a father who paid hundreds — even thousands — of dollars years ago for your then state-of-the-art golf clubs. They once looked so sleek and so shiny. But now, they’re yesterday’s news, says Novak.

Ditto for your one-time state-of-the-art exercise equipment, which did not age well, she says. Nobody wants an old treadmill laden with your coffee stains and sweat marks. "Your kids want their own equipment — not yours," she says. The one exception is the freestanding weights, which often look attractive even if they’ve aged a bit.

8. Your 50-year-old wedding dress

You’ve kept your wedding dress for decades and even tossed some pungent mothballs into the garment bag to keep it pristine. But guess what, neither your daughter nor your daughter-in-law wants it.

"Someone might want your wedding dress, but neither of them," says Driskill. You probably should have donated it to a charity 50 years ago, she says.

Ironically, they might want your grandmother’s wedding dress — because that would definitely be "far cooler," she says.

9. Your untimely timeshare

Timeshares get a bad rap — and as inheritable gifts, they probably deserve to, says Cheng.

Sure, as retirees, you had the time and money to book pricey timeshare vacations everywhere from the Galapagos Islands to Outer Mongolia. But do your adult children really have the time — and money — to take these vacations at this point in their lives?

"People have different needs in different stages of their lives," she says. For your adult children, timeshares probably aren’t one of those needs, she says. What’s more, timeshares often come with maintenance fees that are always spiraling upwards. So check with your kids first, but if they don’t want the timeshare, unload it.

Their own stuff

This one’s certain to surprise most parents. You’ve been saving your kids’ stuff in plastic bins and cardboard boxes for years. Their baseball card collections. Their school soccer jerseys. Even their pre-school graduation certificates. They basically want none of it.

"If they wanted it, they would have taken it by now," says Novak. Particularly, they don’t want all of their school art work — yes, even those clay dinosaurs they molded together in kindergarten — that you’ve been saving for them, says Driskill. "They don’t want their kindergarten stuff," she says. Perhaps the only clay dinosaurs they’ll want, she says, are the ones their own kids ultimately make.

Note: This item first appeared in Kiplinger Retirement Report, our popular monthly periodical that covers key concerns of affluent older Americans who are retired or preparing for retirement. Subscribe for retirement advice that's right on the money.

Related Content

• The Seven Worst Assets to Leave Your Kids or Grandkids
• You've Spent a Lifetime Amassing Your Stuff. Here's How to Get Rid of It.
• How to Get Rid of the Things Your Kids Don't Want While Downsizing

In my experience, when a couple sits down to plan their Social Security timing, one thing surprises them almost every time: They don't agree.

One spouse has read that waiting until 70 gets you the biggest possible check, so that's the plan. The other wants the income now.

Neither of them has run the number that should be driving the conversation: Not the maximum benefit, but the spousal benefit and what happens to it if they wait.

That's the piece of Social Security planning I see skipped more than any other. It can be worth hundreds of dollars a month, for the rest of a spouse's life, and most people never calculate it until it's too late to matter.

The decision you can't undo

Social Security is one of the only truly irreversible decisions in retirement planning. Once you file, that's generally it. There's a narrow exception: You can withdraw your application within 12 months of filing, but only once, and you must repay every dollar you've received. Past that window, you're locked into whatever you chose, for life.

That permanence is exactly why this decision deserves more than a rule of thumb. "Wait until 70" is good general advice for a single person maximizing their own lifetime benefit. It's incomplete advice for a married couple, because it ignores a benefit that only becomes available once someone files.

The number most couples never calculate

If you're married, your spouse may be eligible for a spousal benefit worth up to 50% of your benefit at your full retirement age, even if they have little or no work history of their own, or if their own benefit is smaller than 50% of yours.

But here's the part that trips people up: Your spouse can't collect that spousal benefit until you file for your own.

Consider a hypothetical couple, Mark and Diane, both in their mid-60s, with a full retirement age of 67. Mark's full retirement age benefit is $3,200 a month, but he's planning to wait until 70 to collect $3,968. Diane spent most of her career raising their kids and working part-time, so her own benefit at full retirement age is only $700 a month.

Most couples in this position focus entirely on Mark's number. But Diane is also eligible for a spousal benefit of up to $1,600 a month, more than double what she'd get on her own record. The catch is that she can't touch it until Mark files.

While Mark waits, Diane can draw her smaller $700 benefit or wait alongside him. Either way, that's three extra years of a meaningfully smaller household income in exchange for a bigger Social Security check down the road.

Whether that trade-off is worth it depends entirely on the couple's full financial picture, which is exactly why this number needs to be calculated, not assumed.

Running the break-even math

The other number worth knowing is the break-even age: The point at which the extra money from delaying benefits catches up to and passes what you'd have collected by filing earlier.

For someone weighing full retirement age against age 70, that break-even point typically lands in the early-to-mid 80s, depending on the exact benefit amounts involved.

If you expect to live well past that age, delaying tends to pay off in total lifetime benefits. If your health or family history points the other way, filing earlier may make more financial sense, even before you factor in what it means for your spouse's income today.

The part everyone forgets: The survivor's check

Here's the piece that rarely comes up until it's too late to plan around: When one spouse dies, the survivor doesn't keep both checks. The smaller one stops, and the survivor keeps the larger one for the rest of their life.

That means whoever has the higher benefit, and their filing age, determines the income floor their spouse will live on if they're the one left behind.

That's a real argument for delaying the higher earner's benefit, especially when there's an age gap or a health difference between spouses. But it's not automatically the right call for every couple, and it needs to be weighed against the income the household is giving up in the meantime, not treated as a rule that overrides everything else.

3 steps to take this week

You don't need an adviser to start this process. You need 10 minutes and both spouses' numbers.

Pull both statements. Log into your accounts at SSA.gov and record each spouse's benefit at 62, at full retirement age and at 70.

Calculate the spousal benefit two ways. Compare each spouse's own benefit against 50% of the higher earner's full retirement age benefit, and use whichever number is larger.

Run your own break-even math. The 80s range in this article is a general guide, not your number. Free tools, such as Open Social Security, let you plug in your actual birth dates and benefit amounts to see your household's real break-even age and total lifetime income under different filing combinations.

See the math applied to a real filing decision. If it helps to watch this reasoning play out step by step, this video walks through a similar case, including the spousal benefit tension and the break-even trade-off.

Make the decision with the numbers in front of you

Social Security timing isn't a decision either spouse should make alone, and it's not one that should be settled by general advice in an article you've read, including this one. It's a decision that depends on your spousal benefit, your break-even age, your health and what happens to the survivor.

Do the math for your household, not someone else's. And have the conversation with real numbers on the table before you file, because after that, there's no going back.

Related Content

• Claiming Social Security: 7 Tools and Rules for DIY Investors
• When Spouses Clash on Retirement Age: Longevity Risk vs Early Retirement
• How Couples Can Manage Different Retirement Timelines
• The Mulligan Rule of Retirement — Seven Mistakes You Can Fix
• Social Security Do-Overs Quiz: Can You Undo a Claiming Mistake?

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

December has become the default season for financial planning. It's when many investors review taxes, increase retirement contributions, make charitable gifts and rush to complete other planning before the calendar turns.

But it can also be one of the least effective times to make important financial decisions. Schedules are crowded as deadlines are closing in, while advisers, accountants and attorneys may have limited capacity to support.

Instead of rushing through year-end checklists, summer can give you the space and time to think more strategically. By this time of year, you can see how income, spending and investments are tracking, with several months left to make changes while they can still have an impact.

In my experience as a CFP®, that head start often leads to better decisions because families have time to consider trade-offs and adjust gradually.

1. Rebalance your portfolio and review asset location

Even if you haven't made any trades, market performance over time can change your portfolio's risk profile. Strong returns in equities, a particular sector or one concentrated holding can gradually increase risk, leaving the portfolio more aggressive than it was at the beginning of the year.

An end-of-summer review can identify where allocations have drifted and whether new contributions should be directed toward underweight areas. The goal is to ensure that the portfolio still reflects your goals, time horizon and tolerance for risk.

The review can also include asset location, or which investments are held in taxable, tax-deferred and Roth accounts. As markets move and contributions are added, assets may no longer be held tax-efficiently.

Income-producing investments may be better suited to a retirement account, while investments that receive favorable long-term capital gains treatment may fit better in a taxable account.

Liquidity needs, charitable plans, required minimum distributions and estate considerations also matter. Reviewing where assets are held can improve after-tax efficiency without changing the overall strategy.

2. Check your retirement contribution pace

Many employees choose their retirement plan contribution rate at the beginning of the year and rarely revisit it. By summer, however, a raise, bonus or promotion may have changed both cash flow and the contribution needed from each remaining paycheck to reach a retirement savings goal.

Reviewing your retirement strategy in late summer allows time to make smaller adjustments over several months. Waiting until November may require a much larger increase over only a few pay periods.

This is an overlooked aspect of financial planning that has come up often in my client conversations: People assume they are on pace because their contribution percentage has not changed, but soon discover that compensation or payroll changes have left them short.

A summer financial review can also consider a mix of traditional and Roth contributions. Retirees should confirm how much remains to be withdrawn from required minimum distributions and whether qualified charitable distributions fit into their giving plans.

3. Run a tax projection

By the end of the summer, your financial picture is typically much clearer and more comprehensive than it was at the start of the year. Wages, bonuses, business income, investment gains and equity compensation are easier to estimate, making summer an ideal time to determine whether tax withholding or estimated payments need to be adjusted.

A summer tax projection may also reveal valuable planning opportunities, including Roth conversion, gifts of appreciated securities, the timing of stock-option exercises or the use of investment losses to offset realized gains.

Some of these strategies may be better executed later in the year, once the full tax picture is clearer. But reviewing them now allows you to identify your options before year-end deadlines begin to dictate your decisions.

The goal isn't simply to lower this year's tax bill — it's to ensure every tax decision supports your broader long-term objectives without creating avoidable cash-flow constraints.

4. Put cash and debt to work more deliberately

Over time, cash can accumulate without a clear purpose. Conversely, some households may have too little set aside, forcing them to rely on credit or investment sales to cover predictable expenses.

An end-of-summer review can separate money needed for taxes, travel, home improvements or other near-term spending from assets intended for longer-term goals. It is also worth checking whether savings are earning a competitive return.

Borrowers with adjustable-rate loans, home-equity lines or other variable-rate obligations should understand how interest costs are affecting cash flow. Anyone planning a major purchase should consider how new debt would interact with retirement savings and other priorities.

Cash and debt can be managed intentionally rather than carried forward without review.

5. Prepare for employee benefit decisions

Open enrollment often leaves employees with little time to make important choices. Reviewing benefits during the summer creates more time to consider whether health, life and disability coverage still match the household's needs, particularly after a marriage, divorce, new child, home purchase or change in income.

Employees eligible for a health savings account can reassess their contribution pace and consider how the account fits into their broader plan.

Executives may also need to review stock options, restricted stock, deferred compensation or company-stock concentration before election deadlines arrive.

These choices affect taxes, cash flow and investment risk, and deserve more than a rushed year-end review.

6. Review estate documents before there is an emergency

Estate planning is easy to postpone when nothing feels urgent. Summer is a good time to ensure that wills, trusts, powers of attorney, health care directives and beneficiary designations still reflect the family's circumstances and long-term intentions.

Major life events — such as births, deaths, marriages, divorces, moves and significant changes in wealth — may also require updates to your broader financial plan.

For families considering significant gifts, planning should begin well before December, given valuations, legal documents and trust administration often require coordination among several advisers.

In conversations with clients, estate planning reviews often uncover practical issues that have little to do with estate taxes. An outdated beneficiary designation, an unfunded trust or a missing power of attorney can all create complications long before federal estate-tax exposure becomes relevant.

The goal is straightforward: Ensure the right people have the authority to act in an emergency and that your assets will be distributed as intended. Don't wait for an arbitrary year-end deadline to review your plan.

Act earlier to save stress later

Year-end planning will always matter. After all, certain tax, retirement and gifting decisions are tied to the calendar. But I believe that December should not be the first time you review and adjust your financial plan.

By summer, enough information is available to provide a clearer picture of your finances while still leaving enough time to make intentional adjustments without being rushed. Acting earlier can give investors the breathing room they need to make meaningful adjustments.

For many households, the most important question is simple: Has anything changed in the markets, my finances or my life that should change what I do next? Asking that question now — rather than in December — can lead to better decisions and less stress in the year-end.

Related Content

• Most Investors Aren't as Diversified as They Think: Are You?
• Eight Steps to Help Get You Through the Open Enrollment Jungle at Work
• Estate Planning Checklist: 13 Smart Moves
• School's Out — and Summer Is the Perfect Time to Reassess Your 529 Plan
• I'm a Financial Planner: Trump Accounts Are a No-Brainer if You're Eligible (How to Apply)

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Owning a vacation home means you'll have a place of your own to retreat to whenever you feel the calling. You won't have to worry about local hotels booking up or getting stuck in a dodgy rental that makes your skin crawl. It's a popular move for setting up the lifestyle and community you want in retirement.

If you don't want to bear the financial burden of buying and maintaining a vacation home on your own, you could opt to buy one with friends. For example, if there's a couple you and your spouse know who tend to vacation in the same spots you prefer, you could choose your ideal destination, buy a home together, and share in the benefits and costs.

In theory, it's a good idea. But it may be more complex and risky than you'd expect.

The right structure is key

At face value, co-owning a vacation home might seem smart. In practice, it's important to have the proper setup, says Raul Gastesi, partner and co-founder of Gastesi Lopez Mestre & Cobiella PLLC.

Set up an LLC

"Two couples buying a vacation home together should not take title in four individual names," Gastesi insists. "They should form a limited liability company, have the LLC purchase and hold the property, and have the couples own membership interests in the company."

The reason, Gastesi says, boils down to liability.

"A vacation home means guests, a pool or a dock, someone else's grandchildren, and, if the couples ever rent it out when they are not using it, a stream of strangers," he explains. "If someone is injured on that property, a claim against jointly held real estate is a claim against all four owners personally, which puts retirement accounts and primary residences into the conversation."

On the other hand, Gastesi says, if the LLC owns the property, any claims that arise are made against the company and its insurance.

"That protection matters most in the short-term rental scenario, which is where a lot of these arrangements end up once the couples realize the house sits empty 10 months a year," Gastesi says.

Gastesi also cautions that an LLC is not a substitute for good insurance.

"The policy needs to be written in the company's name for the right kind of use, but it is the layer that keeps a bad accident from reaching everyone's personal balance sheet," he explains.

Think through financing hurdles

Of course, one pitfall is that if you'll be financing the property, Gastesi warns that a mortgage may be hard to come by.

"Many residential lenders will not write a conventional mortgage to an LLC," he explains. "Some buyers close individually and transfer the property into the company afterward, but that transfer can trigger the mortgage's due-on-sale clause."

Gastesi also points out that a vacation home does not qualify for the capital gains exclusion available on a primary residence.

Know how co-ownership impacts estate planning

Co-owning a home with friends means you'll need to document everything carefully to ensure all parties pay their share and reap equitable benefits. That may seem easy enough to arrange. But what happens if an owner passes away?

According to Gastesi, this is where the LLC earns its keep a second time.

"When the company owns the real estate, each couple owns a membership interest, which is personal property rather than real estate," he explains. "That interest passes under their estate plan. It does not pass automatically to the surviving couple."

What this means, though, is that in the absence of careful planning, that interest may also land with heirs who may not want a vacation home, may not be able to afford their share of it, and may have no relationship with the other couple.

"That is how a friendly arrangement turns into a dispute between people who never agreed to be in business together," Gastesi says. The fix, he says, belongs in the operating agreement, not each couple's will.

"[That agreement] should contain buy-sell provisions triggered by death, divorce, incapacity, bankruptcy, or failure to pay, a right of first refusal in favor of the other couple, an agreed method for setting the price such as an independent appraisal, and payment terms spread over time," he says.

Another reason to go the LLC route?

"If the vacation home sits in a state where neither couple lives, real estate held directly requires a probate proceeding in that second state when an owner dies," Gastesi explains. "A membership interest in an LLC is personal property, which generally avoids that ancillary administration. For a Florida couple with a mountain house in North Carolina, or the reverse, that alone can justify the structure."

Keeping the friendship intact

The right structure and operating agreement can protect you and the couple you're looking to buy a home with financially if one of you passes away. But to preserve the friendship, Kevin Tamlyn, founder of Next Stage Financial, says it's important to set clear ground rules

"Relying on 'we'll just figure it out as we go' is a recipe for a ruined friendship," Tamlyn says. "Sit down together and get crystal clear on the money, day-to-day living, and an exit strategy."

Tamlyn also suggests pooling money into a shared checking account that covers three to six months of expenses like HOA fees, property taxes, insurance, utilities, and routine maintenance. Then pay all running costs from that account.

Tamlyn says it's also important to agree on how to split peak dates.

"A simple rotation, like flipping prime summer weeks or alternating Thanksgiving and Christmas each year, prevents quiet resentment," he insists.

Additionally, establish a clear policy on guests and pets. Also, spell out what happens if one couple wants or needs out.

"Life changes," Tamlyn says. "Someone might need cash for medical expenses, want to move closer to grandkids, or simply stop using the home. Agree on how you’ll value the home when someone wants to leave."

Gastesi agrees and says a strong operating agreement could be the ticket to keeping the friendship intact.

"Its job is to absorb the disagreements so the friendship does not have to," he explains.

Finally, Gastesi says, each couple should have their own attorney review the operating agreement to ensure that they're comfortable with its contents.

"It costs a little more at the start," he says. However, "it's the clearest signal that both sides understood what they signed, which is exactly what you want on the record if the arrangement is ever tested."

Read More

• We Bought a Vacation Home for Retirement We Never Use. Should We Sell or Rent It Out?
• How Smart Retirees Turn a Second Home Into a Financial Asset
• Vacation Rental in Retirement: Should You Airbnb or Vrbo Your Home for Extra Cash?

When to claim Social Security is usually framed around break-even analysis and longevity.

Claim at 62, and you'll receive reduced benefits for life. Wait until 70, and your monthly check rises roughly 76% (from delayed retirement credits of about 8% per year) — but you forgo eight years of payments.

What this misses: Timing, which is one of your most powerful tax-planning tools, capable of saving tens of thousands in lifetime taxes when coordinated with other income — often the difference between the 12% and 22% bracket, a swing that compounds over decades.

Understanding the Social Security taxation cliff

Up to 85% of your benefits can be taxed federally, depending on your combined income — adjusted gross income plus nontaxable interest plus half your benefits. The thresholds are low and haven't been adjusted for inflation since 1984:

For married couples filing jointly:

• Combined income of $32,000 or less: 0% of benefits taxable
• Combined income of $32,001 to $44,000: Up to 50% of benefits taxable
• Combined income above $44,000: Up to 85% of benefits taxable

For single filers:

• Income of $25,000 or less: 0% of benefits taxable
• Income of $25,001 to $34,000: Up to 50% of benefits taxable
• Income above $34,000: Up to 85% of benefits taxable

Here's where it gets painful: In the phase-in range, every extra dollar of income makes 85 cents of benefits taxable. In the 22% bracket, that dollar triggers about 40 cents in federal tax — a 40% effective marginal rate, approaching what's usually reserved for six-figure earners.

Strategy No. 1: Use low-income years for Roth conversions before claiming

The years between retirement and Social Security are a unique opportunity: Retire at 62 but delay until 70, and you have eight low-income years for strategic tax moves.

Consider a couple with $1.5 million in traditional IRAs who need $80,000 annually. Withdrawing that keeps them in the 12% bracket (which extends to $94,300 for joint filers in 2025), leaving room to convert another $14,000 to $20,000 to Roth — paying 12% now to avoid 22% or more later.

Once they claim at 70, a $60,000 benefit plus $30,000 in IRA withdrawals pushes them into the 22% bracket. Front-loading conversions beforehand shifts hundreds of thousands into Roth accounts. Those withdrawals won't affect Social Security taxation later.

Strategy No. 2: Coordinate RMDs with Social Security timing

Required minimum distributions begin at age 73, forcing taxable withdrawals from tax-deferred accounts — and their collision with Social Security can create a surge in your mid-70s.

Run the numbers first. If RMDs will push you into a high bracket regardless, delaying might not help. Claiming earlier and using those benefits to fund Roth conversions or spare your IRAs can be wiser.

If your balance is modest, delaying makes more sense: Withdraw at lower rates in your 60s, then lean on your higher benefit after 70.

Either way, model your income through your mid-80s to find the claiming age that minimizes lifetime tax.

Strategy No. 3: Use capital gains to fill low brackets before Social Security

Long-term capital gains and qualified dividends get preferential rates: 0% if taxable income is below $94,050 for joint filers in 2025, 15% for most others, 20% at the top.

The 0% bracket is an arbitrage opportunity: In pre-claiming years, if savings or modest IRA withdrawals keep income under the threshold, you can realize gains tax-free.

Consider a couple before claiming $50,000 from IRAs plus $44,000 in realized long-term gains is $94,000 of taxable income — all within the 0% capital gains and 12% ordinary brackets.

Once benefits and RMDs arrive, that same income lands them in the 22% bracket with gains taxed at 15%. Harvesting beforehand captures those gains tax-free.

Strategy No. 4: Consider state taxes in the equation

State-level taxation varies: Eight states tax benefits to some degree, while the rest exempt them entirely. If you're considering a retirement move, this could influence timing.

In a state that taxes benefits (Minnesota, Vermont, New Mexico), delaying can pay off if you move to a no-tax state such as Florida or Texas before claiming.

If you have high rates and plan to stay, claiming earlier to trim IRA withdrawals might keep you below state thresholds.

Strategy No. 5: Coordinate spousal benefits with tax planning

Married couples have added complexity and opportunity. Note that the threshold for married, filing separately is $0 — all benefits are taxable immediately — so you can't file separately to dodge the tax.

The strategy: The lower-earning spouse claims at full retirement age while the higher earner delays until 70, freeing cash flow for Roth conversions and gains harvesting while securing the survivor's maximum benefit. Keeping household income below the $44,000 threshold can also limit the 85% taxation.

Strategy 6: Factor in Medicare IRMAA surcharges

Social Security income counts toward the modified adjusted gross income thresholds that trigger Medicare's income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA).

For 2026, surcharges run $70 to $419.30 per person monthly on Part B and $12.90 to $81 on Part D.

IRMAA is based on income from two years prior, so a large benefit claimed at 70 plus other income could push you above a threshold and add thousands annually to Medicare costs.

The opportunity: Model your income in your late 60s and early 70s to spot IRMAA cliffs. If delaying to 70 would push you slightly above a threshold, claiming at 69 — or funding expenses from Roth or cash reserves — might keep you below it. Advisers with tax-planning software can model the tradeoffs.

The holistic approach

Optimizing your claiming age for taxes isn't separate from optimizing for longevity or income — it's one part of a retirement tax plan that considers:

• When and how much to withdraw from IRAs
• When to convert to Roth and how much
• When to realize capital gains
• When to claim Social Security
• How to structure income to limit Medicare surcharges
• Whether income bunching or smoothing makes sense

Done well, this compounds meaningfully over a 30-year retirement. The worst approach is claiming based solely on when you need the money; the best is modeling scenarios with an adviser three to five years before you claim, while you can still position assets and income efficiently.

Related Content

• 5 Retirement Tax Traps to Watch in 2026
• 8 Expenses That Quietly Disappear After Retirement
• 7 Signs You Are Financially Ready to Retire Even if You Don't Feel Ready
• 7 Money Habits of Retirees Who Never Stress About Spending
• 5 Retirement Lifestyle Upgrades That Cost Less Than You Think

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

One core investing principle never fails: the less you pay in fees, the more of your return you keep. As legendary Vanguard founder John Bogle warned, "The miracle of compounding returns is overwhelmed by the tyranny of compounding costs."

While you can’t control the market, you can control what you pay. That’s part of the appeal of accounts marketed as "zero-fee" individual retirement accounts (IRAs). But a new white paper from PensionBee, an online retirement account provider, finds these accounts often charge savers in ways most will never see.

To measure the toll, PensionBee modeled the costs on a $107,000 account — roughly the median retirement savings for millennials and Gen X. Even a cost-conscious retirement saver, it found, pays 0.16% to 0.32% of their balance a year, or about $160 to $340. Under common investor behavior, such as unknowingly choosing pricier funds, that can climb to around 1.3%, or $1,400 a year.

"'Zero-fee' does not necessarily mean free," explains Romi Savova, founder and CEO of PensionBee. "It’s basically a catchy marketing term that refers to the removal of certain flat fees, like account opening fees, but it does not necessarily apply to other costs within the account."

Avoiding those costs, experts say, comes down to a little effort on your part and a clearer understanding of how your account works.

Six hidden ways "zero-fee" accounts can cost savers

First, a clarification. "Zero-fee" is not a new kind of IRA. As Marianela Collado, CFP® and financial adviser at Tobias Financial Advisors, puts it: "An IRA is an IRA is an IRA."

It’s the same account available at any financial institution or custodian that holds a saver’s money, and the label simply means a firm has waived some charges, not that the account is free to own.

Savova compares it to a trip to the grocery store. Walking in and out costs nothing, but your bill adds up depending on what lands in your basket.

Here are the six charges the paper identifies that can cost retirement savers without ever appearing on a statement.

1. Idle cash

When you open or roll over an IRA, your money arrives as cash — and it doesn’t invest itself. If you leave it sitting, the account provider often sweeps it into a low-yield account while keeping most of the interest, a practice known as a cash sweep.

It happens more than you might think. A Vanguard study found that 28% of rollover assets and 55% of direct contributions sit in cash a full year later, with nearly 30% of rollovers remaining uninvested for up to seven years.

"The biggest hidden tax in a 'zero-fee' IRA is the interest rate you don’t earn on your idle cash," says Sean Lovison, CFP® and founder of Purpose Built. Leave $10,000 parked, he notes, and you could forfeit $400 to $500 a year.

The fix can be as simple as choosing your investments once the money lands. "Set a calendar reminder for 48 hours after funding an IRA and actually select an investment," advises Jeff Judge, CFP® and managing partner of Chesapeake Financial Planners. "A target-date fund is a reasonable default if you don’t want to build a portfolio from scratch."

And if a financial adviser is steering you into cash, Lovison adds, "make sure you know why and what you are earning."

2. Securities lending

The stocks and bonds in your account can be loaned out to large institutions that pay to borrow them. While this is often routine, the account provider usually keeps most of the fee while you carry the risk. "They make money on your money," Collado explains. "As the lender, they charge a fee that they keep."

Some programs pay the customer as little as 15% of the proceeds, PensionBee’s analysis found. Its advice: understand how lending works before you opt in, and sit it out if you’re not comfortable with the risk.

3. Payment for order flow

When you buy or sell, your order may be routed through a middleman who pays your provider, leaving you with a slightly worse price than the market offers.

"That hidden execution drag adds up fast," warns Lovison, "which is why minimizing trade frequency remains important, even when the platform claims trading is 'free' — and why many providers will encourage you to make trades through gamification and faux educational materials."

Two factors drive the cost, according to Savova: what you trade and how often. Sticking to well-known, high-volume funds and trading rarely keeps it small. For someone who buys a few funds and holds them, this is a minor concern; it mainly adds up for frequent traders.

4. Fund choice

This is the $171,000 mistake.

An actively managed fund can charge nearly nine times what a comparable index fund does — 0.98% versus 0.11% — and the two can sit side by side with nearly identical names. As the report argues, active funds have their place for some savers, but many do not know the difference.

That gap of about 0.87% a year sounds trivial, but PensionBee estimates that on a growing balance, compounded over 30 years at a 7% annual return, it can quietly cost a saver around $171,000 in lost growth.

"The most overlooked cost is the expense ratio buried inside the funds themselves," says Judge. "A platform can charge zero dollars to open an account and still bleed a client 0.5% to 1% a year through the funds it defaults them into." To avoid the trap, he advises, "Read the prospectus, not the landing page."

5. Administration and service charges

Waiving account fees doesn’t rule out charges for specific actions. For example, wire transfers, moving money to another firm or foreign-exchange conversions.

None of it should come as a surprise, Savova notes, since "financial services companies are not charities and the products they offer will always come with a cost." There may be no single "right" price for a retirement account, she adds, but savers "should seek to balance cost against the level of service, management and portfolio grade you have selected."

6. The fine print

PensionBee's analysis found that "zero-fee" sometimes applies only below a balance limit, or that a small advisory fee — often 0.25% to 0.27% – kicks in once you cross a threshold. In other cases, a "zero-fee" account sits beside a pricier full-service option, and an accidental click at sign-up routes you into the wrong one.

Given the complexity, Savova recommends putting on your detective hat. Read the fine print and investigate any obscure charges. "Just because you don’t see a cost doesn’t mean you aren’t paying for it," she says.

Paying for professional help may be the right cost

A 2019 survey found two-thirds of Americans are not confident in their knowledge of IRAs, while assets in those accounts hit a record $18 trillion in 2026, up from $5 trillion in 2010.

For all their variety, these hidden costs can share a single root: nobody to tell savers what to look for. That’s where professional help can earn its keep. A 2026 TIAA Institute report found that people who work with a financial adviser reported a 14- to 19-percentage-point edge in financial confidence and preparedness, and were far more likely to invest consistently rather than let their money sit.

Of course, professional management comes at a cost, too, but typically with more transparency. As Collado puts it: "I’d rather you know what that is than have you think you’re paying $0.00 and then actually pay 3X what’s normal."

Read More

• Is Your Financial Adviser for Retirement Worth the 1% Fee?
• 6 Changes to IRAs, 401(k)s and HSAs in 2026
• I Thought My Retirement Was Set — Until I Answered These 3 Questions
• The '401(k)-Rich and Cash-Poor' Retirement Trap

The most common piece of housing advice in retirement planning is also the most rarely examined: Your home should be the last thing you touch.

It sounds prudent. It feels prudent. Homeownership carries an emotional weight that no other line on the balance sheet carries, and "don't touch the house" honors that weight.

But follow the arithmetic of that advice across a retirement, and it does something no adviser would ever recommend on purpose.

The concentration no one plans

Start where most retiree households actually start: The home is a significant share of total wealth, often the single largest asset on the balance sheet. Now apply the standard sequencing. Spend the portfolio first. Draw down the stocks, the bonds, the cash, every non-housing asset, before the home is considered.

Each year that plan runs, the household's remaining wealth becomes more concentrated in a single asset. Carried to its conclusion, a client who began retirement reasonably diversified ends it with something approaching all of their wealth in one illiquid, undiversified position.

The entire premise of thoughtful financial advice is diversification, not the manufacture of a riskier position over time.

Yet that is precisely what the last-resort rule produces — not by accident of markets, but by design of the sequencing itself.

An asset that ages with its owner

The concentration would be concerning even if the asset were a strong one. The research suggests something more uncomfortable. A January 2026 research brief from Boston College's Center for Retirement Research found that home sellers begin realizing lower sale prices around age 70, with an 80-year-old netting roughly 5% less than a younger seller on a comparable home, and that deferred maintenance and upkeep explain about a quarter of the gap.

Related academic work reaches the same direction: As homeowners age, the capacity to maintain a property declines, and the home's relative performance tends to decline with it.

The last-resort rule therefore concentrates a client's wealth into an asset whose performance is most likely to weaken during exactly the years the concentration peaks.

The literature already moved

This is not a novel objection. Financial planning research has been building the case for more than a decade that housing wealth works harder when it is coordinated with the plan rather than quarantined from it.

Barry Sacks and Stephen Sacks, writing in the Journal of Financial Planning in February 2012, found that coordinated strategies outperformed the conventional last-resort sequencing.

John Salter, Shaun Pfeiffer and Harold Evensky at Texas Tech reached parallel conclusions the same year on housing wealth as a standby buffer that protects portfolios during drawdowns, and Wade Pfau's 2016 work on incorporating home equity into retirement income strategy points the same direction.

Notably, FINRA itself removed the "last resort" description from its investor guidance in early 2014. The research moved. Much of the advice has not.

What 'proactive' looks like

None of this argues that any client should access home equity, and nothing here is a recommendation. The point is that a sequencing question deserves the same scrutiny as every other allocation decision.

Some advisers have begun treating housing wealth that way: Evaluating it early in the plan, in a client's 50s and 60s, while the household still holds a diversified balance sheet and the widest range of options, rather than arriving at it last, by default, when the options have narrowed.

Timing carries a benefit that sharpens the point: Many of the strategies housing wealth can fund — life insurance and long-term care coverage among them — depend on insurability, and insurability narrows with age and health.

Evaluated early, home equity can still fund that kind of long-term planning. Deferred to the last resort, the same equity often arrives after the underwriting window has closed.

The instruments available for that conversation have also broadened.

Alongside traditional financing, newer structures such as home equity investment agreements — CHEIFS® (Cornerstone Home Equity Insurance/Investment Funding Solutions), where I am a co-founder, is one — allow housing wealth to enter the planning conversation without adding new monthly payments or interest, settling instead from the home's value at a future settlement event such as a sale, a permanent move-out or the homeowner's passing.

Which tool fits, if any, is a client-by-client judgment for the adviser and the homeowner's own professionals to make.

The question that is not client-by-client is the one the last-resort rule keeps answering by default. Advisers spend their careers protecting clients from concentration. The sequencing of housing wealth deserves the same protection.

Related Content

• Wealthy Homeowners Want Frictionless Ways to Tap Into Home Equity — and the Market Is Providing Them
• Home Equity Evolution: A Fresh Approach to Funding Life's Biggest Needs
• This Is How You Can Turn Your Home Equity Into a Retirement Buffer
• Does Your Retirement Plan Ignore Half of Your Net Worth? Here's How You Can Tap Your Housing Wealth for a More Robust Retirement
• How Combining Your Home Equity and IRA Can Supercharge Your Retirement

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

If you're a high-earning woman, you may be doing many things right.

You've built a successful career, accumulated meaningful assets and likely earn more today than at any other point in your life.

Yet, there is a surprising reality many successful women face: A big paycheck doesn't automatically translate into long-term financial security.

The amount you save, how you invest and how you manage taxes will have a profound impact on the wealth you ultimately keep. Small inefficiencies that may seem insignificant today can compound into meaningful missed opportunities over time.

That challenge is particularly important for women, who generally live longer than men and often face higher lifetime healthcare costs. As a result, your assets may need to support a longer retirement and provide greater financial flexibility than you initially expected.

Many successful women accumulate less retirement wealth than their male counterparts despite high incomes. Vanguard's 2025 retirement data found that women have about 21% lower 401(k) balances than men despite saving at similar rates.

The real issue is not just how much you earn, but how well you turn that income into long-term wealth.

That is why intentional investing matters.

Intentional investors understand that every dollar has a job

Intentional investing can have an outsize impact on long-term financial security, especially for women who are in their peak earning years.

In addition to supercharging your savings, savvy investors should consider expected returns as well as risk, taxes, liquidity, diversification and how those investments fit within your overall financial plan.

Ask yourself:

• Do I have a diversified portfolio?
• Do I have a concentrated position in one investment that creates unnecessary risk?
• Am I holding investments in the most tax-efficient accounts?
• Does my asset allocation reflect my true time horizon and goals?
• Is my investment strategy aligned with the life I want to live in the next 10, 20 or 30 years?

The hidden cost of being conservative by default

If you're in your peak-earning years, retirement may still be 15, 20, even 25 years away. Yet, your portfolio could be positioned as though retirement is only a few years from now.

Over time, cash accumulates:

• A bonus gets deposited and never invested
• The proceeds from a stock sale sit in a money market account longer than intended
• An old 401(k) remains untouched for years
• Dividends and interest payments accumulate without being reinvested

In some cases, you may find yourself holding an increasingly large allocation to bonds simply because you've been told that bonds are "safer" than stocks.

Individually, each of these decisions may seem reasonable. Collectively, they can create a portfolio that is far more conservative than you realize.

The challenge is that the cost of being overly conservative is often invisible. Unlike a market decline, which immediately grabs your attention, the opportunity cost of holding too much cash or too many bonds unfolds slowly over time.

Every dollar that sits on the sidelines is a dollar that's not benefiting from the long-term growth potential of the stock market.

While cash and bonds play an important role in providing stability and liquidity, a portfolio that becomes overly weighted toward these assets may struggle to generate the growth needed to keep pace with inflation, rising healthcare costs, and a retirement that could last three decades or more.

In other words, avoiding market risk can sometimes create a different kind of risk: The risk that your money won't grow enough to support the future you envision.

Asset location: One of the most overlooked investing decisions

You've probably spent time deciding in what to invest. Far fewer investors spend time thinking about where those investments should be held.

Asset location is the art of placing investments in accounts where they are taxed most efficiently. For high-earning women in their peak earning years, this can be particularly important because they're often in the highest federal and state tax brackets of their careers.

Over a lifetime, the tax savings can be substantial, allowing more capital to remain invested and benefit from long-term compounding.

To understand why, it helps to think about investments in two broad categories.

Ordinary income investments generate income that's typically taxed at higher ordinary income tax rates. Examples include taxable bond interest, real estate investment trust (REIT) distributions and certain dividend-paying investments. For high-earning women in their peak earning years, that income may be taxed at some of the highest federal and state tax rates they will ever face.

Capital appreciation investments generate most of their return through growth in the stock price rather than current income. Stocks, stock mutual funds and many exchange-traded funds might produce relatively little taxable income. Instead, investors can defer paying taxes until they choose to sell. At that time the gains will be taxed at lower long-term capital gains tax rates.

While both types of investments can play an important role in a diversified portfolio, they're not always best held in the same type of account.

Income-producing investments that generate ordinary income are better suited for tax-deferred accounts such as traditional IRAs and 401(k)s. This income is not taxed until you withdraw it from the account, and it continues compounding.

Over time, that additional growth can make a meaningful difference in the value of a portfolio.

Taxable brokerage accounts, on the other hand, are better for holding investments such as stocks that generate most of their return through capital gains. Stocks can increase in value over time without creating an immediate tax bill. When the stock is eventually sold, the gains will be taxed at more favorable capital gains rates.

Coordinating a complex portfolio

If you're a high-earning woman, there's a good chance your wealth has been built through multiple channels rather than a single investment account. Assets are often spread across employer retirement plans, brokerage accounts, equity compensation, deferred compensation, real estate and business interests.

Each asset carries different tax treatment, liquidity constraints and risk profiles. Without coordination, portfolios can become unintentionally concentrated or inefficient.

I saw this firsthand with a client I'll call Carrie. Carrie was an executive at a Fortune 500 company earning well into the seven figures and had saved more than $4 million. When we evaluated all her investments, we discovered that a significant portion of her wealth was tied directly to her employer.

Carrie's financial future was more dependent on one company than she realized. She had stock options, restricted stock units (RSUs), deferred compensation and retirement accounts invested heavily in her employer's stock.

We developed a coordinated strategy that diversified her holdings over time, improved tax efficiency and aligned her portfolio more closely with her long-term goals rather than simply the accumulation of past decisions.

Diversifying away from her employer reduced her risk and gave her greater financial peace of mind. Carrie ultimately transitioned into a consulting role that she was passionate about and shared that knowing her financial plan and investments were working together gave her the confidence to live her dream.

The bigger picture

High-earning women face a retirement paradox in which they often need more savings due to longer lifespans, but retire with fewer assets than men.

The solution is not simply saving more. Every investment decision, tax strategy and portfolio allocation should work together to maximize the wealth you keep, the opportunities you preserve and the flexibility you create for the future.

Related Content

• What Every Woman Needs to Know Before Retiring
• I'm a Wealth Adviser: These 10 Strategies Can Help Women Prepare for Their Impending Financial Power
• Yay! You've Been Awarded Stock! Boo, the Tax Hit Is Massive: How to Avoid the Mistakes High Earners Make Before They Even Realize It
• Legacy Planning for Moms: How to Protect Your Family From Chaos and Conflict
• Your 5-Step Guide to Financial Freedom After Divorce, From a Financial Planner

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Even retirees who budget carefully can find themselves needing extra cash. A good 49% say their expenses are higher than what they expected, according to Schroders’ 2026 US Retirement Survey. So it's not surprising that many retirees are turning to part-time work or other solutions to earn more income.

As Amy Zamikovsky, JD, CFP, and senior wealth adviser at Focus Partners, says, "Extra retirement income allows retirees the ability to more easily absorb financial surprises, which is important while our broader macroeconomic reality still looms."

But earning extra money doesn't have to mean retail work or committing to a job you find boring. (It might not even mean working at all.) We asked financial pros for creative ways retirees are generating more income.

1. Sell your expertise (and your network)

You may have spent many years in the workforce honing skills and learning your industry inside and out. In retirement, you can take advantage of that knowledge in a couple of ways. First, you can consult in your former field on a schedule that works for you. Brandy Barnes Marion, retirement plans education manager at BOK Financial, says you can also take the concept a step further by selling your expertise.

"Expert networks pay retired operators and executives by the hour for short calls with investors and researchers," she says. "Medical schools pay standardized patients. Law firms pay mock jurors. Forty years of knowing how a distribution center actually runs is worth real money to somebody."

Other such jobs include acting as an expert witness, an industry mentor and a peer reviewer or grant reviewer.

Tip: These gigs can be lucrative, and they aren't necessarily time-consuming. You can work them into your schedule around vacations or other plans. Some of these jobs can be done virtually, though they may command a lower hourly rate.

2. Work a seasonal job with fringe benefits

Committing to an ongoing part-time job or gig work may not be optimal in retirement, as it might too closely mimic the work schedule you're trying to move on from. That's why Elias Friedman, CFP and founder and senior wealth adviser at Kadima Wealth, suggests pursuing seasonal work.

"Seasonal jobs at golf courses, museums, theaters, or parks can be fun, a great way to make new friends, and stay active," he says. "There are other perks retirees can receive by working at these places, too."

Tip: If you work in a museum or theater, your gig might include free admission or comp tickets for friends and family. You can check sites like Indeed for listings.

3. Rent out space you don't need

You'll often hear that renting out unoccupied space in your home, like a spare room, basement, or finished garage, is a great way to generate income in retirement. But it also means sharing your living quarters with another person. That's why Friedman suggests a different approach.

"I have seen interesting and creative things to get additional income," he says. "For example, this could include renting a garage, parking space, storage area, spare room, or even an RV space."

Tip: Apps like Neighbor can help you rent out your driveway, shed, garage or other home space, providing you with $1 million insurance coverage and charging a processing fee of about 5%. If you have an EV charger at home, you may also want to bundle it into a parking space rental. However, before you sign up, check your home insurance policy and local regulations to make sure it won't affect your coverage and is allowed in your neighborhood.

4. Turn clutter (yours and your friends') into income

It's pretty common to accumulate a lot of stuff in the course of your lifetime. Ernie Wingard, RFC and adviser at Capital Choice Financial Group, says you can turn unwanted items into a goldmine during retirement.

"The most creative thing I've seen is a retiree who built a resale marketplace for her own friend group," he explains. "She takes pictures, posts them online, and takes a small commission for her efforts. After all is said and done, it brings in another $400 or $500 a month."

Tip: Learn about collectibles that are genuinely valuable and niche areas such as silverware and vintage stereos.

5. Launch a YouTube channel

YouTube may not be the most popular app among retirees, but Wingard insists it offers solid opportunities to make money.

"I've also seen some really creative YouTubers in the retirement space," he says. "Lots of shared experiences from their previous field, passing those stories on to future generations, and even providing consulting for people trying to get a leg up in that same industry."

Wingard says one person he knows has a channel where he talks about golf from his perspective of being a caddy for several decades.

"He teaches people how to pick up caddying professionally while teaching golfers how to read greens for themselves," Wingard says. "Talking about your life from that perspective can be a lucrative endeavor, and it can get really cool with some sponsorships, too.

Tip: Don't expect to make money at this type of venture until you have invested substantial time building a brand. Even then, you may not turn much of a profit if you can't grow an audience, so research the competition and various platforms first.

6. Do something you love

When you're in your 30s, 40s, or 50s, you may have to take a job that covers the bills, even if it's not something you're particularly passionate about. But if you're going to work in retirement for extra money, Zamikovsky says it pays to pursue something you enjoy.

"Once upon a time I worked with the loveliest retired couple," she says. "Neither one of them had any experience in photography, but what they lacked in technical experience, they more than made up for with their inspirational love for each other and natural talent at being great with people."

That couple, Zamikovsky says, went on to establish a lucrative photography business.

"With their solid reputation, they booked regular weddings and created a fun and meaningful income stream. Being wedding photographers fit who they were and allowed them the opportunity to build something meaningful together."

The takeaway?

"Don't confine your search or ideas to the tasks and jobs you did pre-retirement," Zamikovsky says. "Instead, be honest with yourself about what it is you're good at, what you like to do, and what unique knowledge or product you can offer the world. If you're going to work during retirement, the work should truly reflect who you are and be something you enjoy."

Read More

• The Social Security Earnings Test: Know This Rule Before Working in Retirement
• The Top 10 Side Gigs For Retirees In 2026
• Best Jobs for Retirees

Are you 401(k) rich but cash poor? If so, your retirement nest egg may have some dangerous fault lines.

Just as being house poor can create a cash squeeze in your prime earning years, investing the bulk of your money in a traditional retirement account can make a seemingly solid retirement plan more vulnerable.

The big risk of retiring with too little cash is a costly liquidity crunch if a large, unexpected expense hits. Not having adequate cash reserves may force you to take withdrawals from your retirement account at the worst possible time — when markets are tanking and asset prices are falling.

The case of the missing bucket

There are two major downsides to forced selling of stocks and other so-called risk assets: 1) it can trigger taxes, and 2) it can deplete your nest egg prematurely.

That's where a large cash hoard comes in. Cash, as is often said, is king — mainly because it's safe, liquid, and easy to access with zero tax consequences. Financial planners recommend putting money in three separate buckets.

• An emergency savings bucket (e.g., cash savings)
• A goals bucket (e.g., car down payment)
• A retirement bucket (e.g., long-term savings, typically invested in a tax-advantaged account that holds more volatile assets with growth potential like stocks)

Ideally, the cash bucket should be outside a traditional 401(k) so you won't have to pay taxes on any withdrawals. But in reality, many people don't have an emergency savings bucket. More than half of Americans (53%) say they don't have sufficient liquidity to cover a $1,000 emergency expense, according to Bankrate. That's where Plan B (which we'll discuss in more detail later) comes in: holding ample cash reserves for emergencies in a retirement account, where you're likely to have the bulk of your assets.

Risk 1: a bigger tax bill

Withdrawals are taxed as regular income. Distributions from traditional 401(k)s are treated as income. That means your withdrawals will get taxed at ordinary tax rates, which range from 10% to 37%. The tax you pay to the IRS also puts an extra drain on your account balance. Let's say you're in the 24% tax bracket and need to raise $45,000. To net that large lump sum, you'll need to withdraw $59,211 from your 401(k) to account for the $14,211 tax owed to Uncle Sam.

Withdrawals may push you into a higher tax bracket. The extra income generated from 401(k) withdrawals may bump you up to a higher tax bracket, increasing your tax bill. Say you're at the tippy top of the 24% bracket and you withdraw $45,000 from a traditional 401(k). All that extra income will bump you up from the 24% bracket to the 32% bracket. The tax amount on $45,000 at 32% is $14,400, which is $3,600 more than the $10,800 tax hit in the 24% bracket.

That additional income could also inadvertently result in a future increase in Medicare Part B and Part D premiums (IRMAA) if it pushes your modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) above certain income thresholds.

Another financial drawback of keeping most of your savings within a traditional 401(k) is less flexibility in managing taxes on withdrawals.

"You don't have optionality around crafting an income tax-efficient cash flow stream," says Charles Carter, managing director at Oxford Financial Group. "You're beholden to the ordinary income tax rate. The more you take out of the retirement plan, the more your ordinary income goes up, the higher your marginal tax rate. It becomes sort of a vicious cycle."

Risk 2: the growth hit and sequence of returns risk

Withdrawing money during a down market means you must sell more shares to raise the cash you need. So, you now have fewer shares in your retirement account to benefit from a market rebound. That, in turn, means you lock in losses and miss out on compound growth.

This risk, known as sequence of returns risk, is particularly damaging for retirees at the beginning of retirement, as their account balance is depleted more quickly than planned, which is hard to overcome.

"Retirees who withdraw from a retirement portfolio in a down market are unfortunately steepening the already uphill battle," says Jonathan Lee, investment adviser at U.S. Bank Private Wealth Management.

Liquidating stocks, equity funds, or other positions in your 401(k) permanently reduces the dollar amount and share count in your account, shrinking the amount of assets that can benefit from compounding over time. For example, at a 7% average annual return, $10,000 withdrawn 20 years before it would have been needed represents $28,697 in lost appreciation.

"We don't know what the market is going to do in two days, two months, or two years," says Jason Grover, a financial planning specialist at Grover Financial Services. "What we don't want to do is be forced to sell positions to generate cash that we need to pay our everyday bills." That cash protection, Grover adds, allows the retiree to stay invested and benefit from an eventual market recovery.

Where to keep your cash buffer

Ideally, you have set up an emergency fund outside of your 401(k). Financial advisers recommend retirees keep one to three years of expenses in a cash account, preferably in a high-interest savings account they can access without incurring penalties or taxes.

Grover recommends retirees set aside a cash reserve totaling at least two years of living expenses. "Anything less than that is irresponsible," says Grover. "For a client who is taking $5,000 a month (or $60,000 a year) from their 401(k), I'm going to have $120,000 minimum in cash," says Grover.

You should also pay close attention to "asset location" as you save for retirement. That strategy refers to having a mix of investment buckets with different tax treatments such as taxable brokerage accounts, tax-free Roth accounts, and traditional retirement accounts. However, a sound plan also requires proper "asset allocation" — including an ample cash buffer to ride out market downturns.

If you don't have an emergency fund and most of your savings sit inside a tax-deferred (traditional) retirement account, you can still take action. You should build a cash hoard inside your traditional 401(k), even though any withdrawals will be taxed as ordinary income. Having a cash allocation in your 401(k) gives you an all-important liquidity option that's not negatively impacted by short-term market movements.

"If your 401(k) is your sole bucket for cash flow, it would be risky, if not foolish, to not have a sufficient cash reserve sitting there ready and waiting," says Carter.

Actionable ways to replenish cash savings

Rebalance your 401(k) portfolio. If the lion's share of your assets is in a traditional retirement plan, a short-term fix is to rebalance your portfolio periodically to bolster your cash bucket in your 401(k), Carter advises. Ideally, opportunistically sell stocks when the portfolio's equity weighting has swelled beyond financial plan targets — and when markets are up. "Those are opportunities to strategically raise cash," says Carter.

Consider Roth IRA conversions. Roth accounts allow tax-free withdrawals and are a valuable tool for managing cash in retirement. However, Roth conversions are a taxable event, so work with your financial adviser and run the numbers to see whether you can convert savings held in traditional IRAs or 401(k)s to a Roth account.

Buy a short-term Treasury and hold it to maturity. If you have an adequate emergency fund now but plan on burning through the money in the next two years, you can replenish your bucket for year three and beyond by purchasing a short-term U.S. Treasury bond of, say, three years' duration, says Grover. "Hold the bonds to maturity," said Grover. By holding to maturity, you'll lock in the current yield of roughly 4.25% and know the money will be there when you need it in a few years.

Commit to a savings plan to build a rainy-day fund. A long-term solution to a cash shortage is to start building an emergency fund outside your 401(k), advises Carter. Rejigger your budget and start setting aside money in a high-yield savings account or a taxable brokerage account. "Take a thoughtful, intentional, and diligent approach to saving," says Carter. Building an ample emergency fund this way won't happen overnight. It could take a few years.

Read More

• The '120 Minus You' Rule of Retirement
• Average 401(k) Balance by Age in 2026
• Are You Rich? The Average Net Worth by Age
• A 'Mega Backdoor Roth' Can Save Thousands More for Retirement

Setting down roots near the grandkids is a popular choice for many new retirees. You finally have the free time, so why not spend it with family?

If you're among the 66% of baby boomers who plan to pass on generational wealth during their lifetimes, living nearby guarantees you'll see your gifts make an impact firsthand.

Sounds like what retirement dreams are made of. But not so fast — it can quickly become far more complicated than expected if you aren't careful. Your grandchildren won't stay young forever, and there are financial costs you might not have considered. Let's not forget the emotional side of stepping away from your established life for a completely new one.

"It's one of the largest financial decisions that retirees never actually model into their plans," says Patrick Shope, a certified wealth strategist and founder of Shope + Associates. "They will spend months looking at their budgets, but they drop everything when asked to move near their grandbabies. That decision comes very quickly, but it affects their taxes, their healthcare, and their spending for the next 30 years."

Moving near the grandkids in retirement might be the perfect decision for you, or the flawed, complicated, not-so-ideal decision.

Don't retire near the grandkids until you answer these three questions

1. Why am I moving, and is everyone on the same page?

Unless your children are begging for your help, make sure you can answer this question first: Why do I want to move there?

"I want to spend time with my family," or "I want to help out," isn't sufficient. Your reasons need to be specific, and they can't only be about your family. Sure, they can be the draw, but if you hate everything else about the location, you'll end up miserable when you aren't with your loved ones. Find other attributes that make relocating feel like home. Maybe it's the weather, the proximity to cultural events and the arts or nature. Whatever it is, there has to be something about the move that appeals to you beyond the grandkids.

After that, make sure your adult children are on the same page. You don't want to uproot your entire life to spend time with your grandkids, only to find that your adult children and grandkids are too busy to spend much time with you, nor do you want to become a full-time free nanny, with no time to pursue your retirement dreams.

"Retirees may think this is going to be a Norman Rockwell picture where everyone sits down for weekly dinners, but the children might be thinking 'I need childcare,' " says Joe Buhrmann, advisory financial planning consultant at eMoney Advisor. "Have an honest conversation about how often you will see each other, what role Grandpa and Grandma will play, and what support looks like on both sides."

2. Can I afford to maintain my lifestyle and to undo the move if things change?

Spending time with the grandkids is great, but it can also get expensive. How expensive? According to a recent AARP survey, grandparents spend $2,654 per year per grandchild, and that's just an average. If you're living near your grandkids, expect that bill to increase.

That's not the only cost of relocating to be near the grandkids. Depending on which state you move to, you could pay more in taxes, insurance, or cost of living, all of which puts pressure on your retirement budget. That's why the second question to ask yourself is: Can I afford my lifestyle and a move back if I had to?

You could be ready for your final place of residence, but that might not be true of your adult children. If you moved to live near them, then they decided to relocate, you might find yourself wanting to go back to your original home.

"So many people price what the cost is to move out to this new location to be near the grandchild, but they never price out what the cost is to move back," says Shope. Should you have to move back, not only would you be re-entering the market at a higher price point than when you originally bought a home, but you would have lost tax breaks from moving.

3. Will this location still work if I need care?

When you move to be near your grandkids, you might start eager to play cheerleader, chauffeur and caregiver. But as you age, getting around becomes harder, making it important that you choose a location that continues to support your independence. You must ask yourself: Will this location still work if the tables turn and I am the one who needs care?

"Most people make this move while they are healthy, and the value they bring is physical: carpools, babysitting, being at the pool. Twenty years later, the direction of help reverses, and the same house has to serve a very different set of needs," says Eric Ludwig, director of the American College of Financial Services Center for Retirement Income.

While you want to be near the grandkids, Ludwig says to consider how far the location is from major hospital systems, and whether it has the specialists you may need. If you have to travel for care, will you still be willing and able to do so at 83?

Consider a hybrid approach

If you can't answer all these questions definitively, then you might want to consider a hybrid approach. Instead of moving full-time to a new location, move part-time or on a seasonal or trial basis, to the new location and see how it goes. Some retirees have a second home near the grandkids, while others opt for extended stays in hotels or Airbnbs.

Ludwig's parents, for one example, are residents of Florida and spend their summers with him and his family in Wisconsin. While they live a mile away, there are stretches in the summer where they go a week or two without seeing each other, but that's what's expected. "It’s close to my dad’s golf buddies and their doctor appointments, so it works well all around," says Ludwig.

Editor's note: This article is part of an ongoing series looking at three questions to ask yourself before making a major financial or lifestyle decision. The other stories in the series are:

Retirement readiness

3 Questions That Determine If You're Actually Ready to Retire Early

3 Questions to Ask Before Unretiring

Lump Sum vs Monthly Pension: 3 Questions To Ask Before Making a Permanent Mistake

Where to retire

Moving to Florida or Texas for Retirement? 3 Questions to Ask First.

3 Questions That Reveal If You're Actually Ready to Age in Place

Retirement savings and spending

3 Questions to Ask Before Deciding if a Roth Conversion Is Right for You

3 Questions That Help You Find Your Perfect Social Security Claiming Age

Go Ahead and Splurge, But Ask Yourself These 3 Questions First

Before You Give Money To Your Kids, Ask Yourself These 3 Questions

3 Questions to Ensure Your Retirement Nest Egg Is Inflation-Proof

Related content

• Vacationing With the Grandkids: What Could Go Wrong?
• Retirement Savings On Track? How Much You Should Have By 60 and 65
• 5 Unexpected Costs of Aging in Place — Even With No Mortgage
• The Longevity Blueprint: 4 Everyday Signs You’re Tracked for a Longer Life

Investors can't help but be pleased with the market's performance over the past three years.

There have been intermittent signs of volatility when world events made the market temporarily shaky, but overall, there's been a positive upward trend for quite some time. The S&P showed double-digit gains for 2023, 2024 and 2025.

Retirees and those nearing retirement may have been especially jubilant as they watched their portfolios grow. But they also may be experiencing another feeling. To accomplish what they have with their retirement savings, they may have taken on risk, which may or may not have made them anxious.

Now the questions arise:

How do they feel about risk right now?

Have the recent good times lulled them into thinking that they aren't facing as much risk as they actually are?

The dangers of recency bias

Investors can sometimes fall prey to something called recency bias. This is the tendency to place too much emphasis on what's happened lately rather than also looking at long-term trends.

Recency bias can work both ways. If times have been tough, people can become gloomy and worry that they will never get better.

If the market has performed well — as it has for three years in a row — they expect that to continue, even though history tells us that, almost certainly, the market will head in the opposite direction at some point.

History shows that three years of double-digit gains are uncommon, with a negative year almost always tossed in there somewhere.

If you look at long-term return data for the S&P 500 — such as datasets compiled by institutions such as the NYU Stern School of Business — you'll find there have been only a handful of periods since 1926 in which the market produced three consecutive years of double-digit gains.

In most of those cases, the fourth year has been positive as well, though not always.

While that leaves room for optimism, it's no guarantee that this particular three-year double-digit span will be followed by a fourth good year or even a fifth one.

Still, recency bias can be hypnotic, and retirees and near-retirees especially need to be careful not to be caught up in its spell.

Risk tolerance vs risk capacity

It's easy to fall prey to the enchantment. As success builds on success with your portfolio, your confidence grows along with the numbers. The idea of a market drop can seem distant — and even more so after a few of these positive years are strung together.

But while your willingness to take more risk may have increased, your ability to might not have kept up.

This is where it's wise to look at your risk tolerance vs your risk capacity.

Risk tolerance is how willing you are to endure market volatility without losing sleep over each fluctuation.

Risk capacity is whether you and your portfolio can withstand those fluctuations.

When you're nearing retirement age, your risk tolerance may or may not remain the same. But your risk capacity changes. In your younger years, you could afford to be unmoved by market dips because you had plenty of years — even decades —to recover.

Now, your focus is no longer on growing your money; it's about protecting it. You'll be counting on that money to live on in retirement, and a market decline can be devastating to your portfolio, especially if you're withdrawing money at the same time you're sustaining market losses.

It becomes difficult — if not impossible — to recover, and soon your portfolio could wither away completely.

At this stage of life, the timing of a loss becomes as important — maybe even more— than the amount of the loss due to This is sequence of returns risk. Essentially, a market decline early in your retirement can have a disproportionate effect on the long-term outlook for your portfolio.

The five years right before retirement and the first five years of retirement are sometimes referred to as the "fragile decade" because of how vulnerable your portfolio can be during this time.

That is why around five years out from retirement is a good time to start reassessing your risk and deciding whether you should reduce it.

Re-evaluating risk

When evaluating risk at this stage, I often ask clients a clarifying question: If your portfolio grew by another $100,000, would it change your lifestyle?

For many families, the answer is no.

Then I ask a follow-up: If the market declined and that same $100,000 disappeared, would it affect your decisions? Your confidence? Your peace of mind?

In most cases, the answer is yes.

For many, losses are much more devastating than gains are gratifying.

Does this mean, as retirement approaches, you should eliminate all risk, withdrawing from the market entirely and putting your money in CDs, bonds or anything else that seems a safer bet?

Not at all. Even in retirement, it's important to have a portion of your portfolio invested for growth. Otherwise, another risk — inflation — can whittle away at your buying power.

But you do want to re-evaluate and possibly trim back the risk. If you've spent decades saving, investing and taking on risk — and your portfolio has benefited from that discipline — there may come a point at which the question shifts from "How much more can I gain?" to "How much am I willing to risk losing?"

For many investors nearing retirement, the answer to that question is more important than any market forecast.

If you've already played the game, taken the risks and won, it may be worth asking whether continuing to play the same way still serves your future.

Ronnie Blair contributed to this article.

The appearances in Kiplinger were obtained through a PR program. The columnist received assistance from a public relations firm in preparing this piece for submission to Kiplinger.com. Kiplinger was not compensated in any way.

Related Content

• Market Volatility Tests More Than Just Portfolios — It Tests Soon-to-Be Retirees' Nerves: Are You Passing?
• I'm an Investment Expert: These 5 Steps Can Help You Keep Your Head When Market Volatility Causes Others to Lose Theirs
• Your Final 10 Years Before Retirement: Why Your Current Strategy Might Be Your Biggest Risk
• How to De-Risk Your Portfolio in 5 Different Scenarios
• 65 or Older? Potentially Cut Your Tax Bill Before the Clock Runs Out

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Wealth Wise is Kiplinger's advice column on navigating retirement-related dilemmas. Got a question? See below for how to send it to us.

Dear Wealth Wise: We've saved almost $4 million: $3.2 million in retirement and a $500K inheritance from my father that we put toward education and has already grown to almost $800K. I'm 53 and my husband is 54. Our children are ages 16, 13 and 10.

My husband and I work full-time but want to retire in eight years once our youngest graduates high school. Staying in our starter home helped us save, but we outgrew it years ago. We have equity in our home we could use to upsize, but we'd triple our mortgage payments and take on higher property taxes and insurance. We're not sure how much additional money we'll be able to save.

Can we just say we've saved enough for retirement plus college for three kids? In a few years, it won't make sense to upsize since our kids will be moving out. We've worked hard and would enjoy a bigger space. We're willing to downsize in eight years along with retiring. I see buying a bigger house as a very expensive rental to get more space while we see our kids through to college. — Cramped but Cautious.

Dear Cramped but Cautious: Saving for retirement often requires sacrifice. By staying in a starter home, you have clearly saved a bundle and understandably want to upsize while it still makes sense.

You might struggle to find something affordable. During the first quarter of 2020, the median U.S. home sale price was $329,000. Today, it's $410,700. That marks a roughly 25% increase. Throw in elevated mortgage rates, and it's no wonder you question if you can keep saving after upsizing.

But do you really need to worry? Let's see what our experts have to say.

You've probably saved enough for retirement

Moving to a larger home can feel like a risky financial decision when it means you don't have extra money to fund a retirement account. But Christopher Walsh, regional marketing director and financial adviser at Capital Choice Financial Group, says that assuming your future income needs aren't too outrageous, you're probably OK to stop contributing toward retirement.

"I would say for the most part, your work is done," Walsh says. "If your investable assets continue to compound around 9%, and if you follow the rule of 72, your retirement [account] should be near double what it is today."

Walsh says that if you also follow the 4% rule in retirement, that should provide an income of about $256,000 a year. Keep in mind that a 9% return might be too high a goal as you near retirement and invest more in fixed income. You'll also need to account for inflation. Still, with Social Security added in the income mix, you should have plenty with which to work.

"For most people, that's an outstanding retirement income and should also empower you both to leave quite a legacy for your children," Walsh insists.

Watch out for the expensive college years

While your strong nest egg positions you well to hit the brakes on retirement savings, it's the college years that might trip you up, says Michael McSweeney, financial adviser at Ascend Wealth Partners.

"An $800,000 balance should go a long way toward paying for college," McSweeney acknowledges. Your family's college savings are far ahead of the average 529 college savings account balance, which had slightly more than $34,000 at the end of 2025.

"That said, I'd be careful not to underestimate what the next eight years will look like," cautioned McSweeney. "Having three children close in age means there could be several years where college costs run $50,000 to $100,000 per year, or more, on top of their normal living expenses."

Given that you're looking at expensive college costs in the years leading up to retirement, the danger, says McSweeney, is being tempted to tap your nest egg to cover added expenses that arise, such as expensive off-campus housing or airfare to a distant school. That would still likely leave you with plenty of money to retire on, but it does change the math.

"That's why I would think twice about buying a larger home," McSweeney says. "The question isn't whether they can afford it. It's whether it makes sense to dramatically increase their housing costs for a home they already expect to sell in eight years."

As McSweeney points out, "A larger house doesn't just mean a bigger mortgage. It usually means higher property taxes, insurance, utilities, maintenance and furnishing costs."

There may be options other than buying a new, more expensive home

Eager as you might be to upsize while you still have kids living at home, whether it makes the most financial sense is questionable, says McSweeney. His recommendation? Renovate your current home to make it more comfortable.

"A home equity line of credit (HELOC) could be a great tool here," McSweeney says. "They can tap into the equity they've built over the years to remodel the kitchen, update bathrooms, finish a basement, add usable living space or make other improvements that help the house function better for a family with teenagers."

The payment on a reasonable HELOC, McSweeney explains, might be much lower than the cost of upgrading to a more expensive home. That way, he says, if you want to downsize in eight years, you'll have an updated home that's easier to sell.

The downside? Because they’ve lived in this starter home so long, their capital gain might already be approaching the $500,000 tax-free exclusion for married couples. Staying put for eight more years means future appreciation might be taxed. (Documenting qualified renovation costs will raise their home's cost basis, helping to offset some of that future tax bill).

The verdict: Go for it (or renovate)

All told, you can probably afford to stop saving for retirement and college and buy the bigger house you've always wanted. But you'll need to decide if it's worth the potential financial stress.

"When you factor in transaction costs, mortgage interest, property taxes, insurance, maintenance and moving expenses, they're spending a significant amount of money for something they already know is temporary. That's not necessarily wrong, but it's a lifestyle decision, not a financial investment."

If living in that bigger home is important to you, then you should go for it. You've earned it. But if you can make your current home work with a thoughtful renovation, McSweeney says, you'll likely enjoy these last few years with your kids just as much while keeping your monthly expenses lower, preserving more flexibility and putting yourself in an even stronger position when it's finally time to retire.

"They've spent years making smart financial choices, including staying in a modest home while building nearly $4 million in assets. I wouldn't abandon that strategy just a few years before retirement," McSweeney says.

A word from Wealth Wise on college costs

One of the hardest lifetime expenses to plan for (aside from retirement) is college. We agree that $800,000 for three children is a robust college fund, leaving an average of $266,000 for each child. That's almost exactly what four years of private college would cost ($60,920 times four years), according to College Board Research (PDF).

The reality, however, is that few students pay full price these days. As the table above shows, the net cost of attendance is about $28,000 less than the "official," published cost of attendance. Even if your income is high, your child might qualify for merit-based aid. Moreover, your child might choose an in-state public school which is much more affordable; the net cost of attendance at a public college was $21,340, according to the same study.

Still, it doesn't hurt to have plenty of college savings. Your child might wish to take a gap year abroad before college starts or might need more than four years to complete their educations.

Finally, if one of your children wants to go to law school or study medicine, they might need to stretch their college funds into graduate school.

Not all questions submitted will be published, and some may be condensed and/or combined with other similar questions and answers, as required editorially. The answers provided by our writers and experts in this advice column are for general informational purposes only. While we take reasonable precautions to ensure we provide accurate answers to your questions, this information does not and is not intended to constitute independent financial, legal, or tax advice. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based on any information provided in this feature. You should consult with a financial adviser regarding any questions you may have in relation to the matters discussed in this article.

More Wealth Wise Retirement Advice

• I Have a Sizable Roth IRA. Do I Still Need a 529 for My Grandkids' College?
• Should We Bankroll Our Son's $180K Law School Tuition Even Though We're Retired?
• Can You Actually Get Paid to Care for an Aging Parent?
• He's 49 and 'Burned Out.' Can He Afford to Quit a $200K Job?
• 'Subsidized Adulting': Can You Afford to Help Your Children Financially?
• Should Fully Funded Retirees Invest Like 30-Year-Olds?
• Is a 60/40 Portfolio Too Aggressive When You're in Your Seventies?
• You’ve Mastered Asset Allocation — Now It’s Time for Asset Location
• A Multimillionaire Wants to Marry Again. How Can She Protect Her Money?
• Should We Borrow Money From Our Elderly Father?
• Should We Downsize or Drain Our 401(k) to Pay Off Our Home?

Read More on Downsizing

• You May Not Want to Downsize in Retirement: Here's Why
• We Are Retired, Mortgage-Free, With $970K in Savings. My Husband Wants to Downsize to Lower Our Costs, but I Love Our House. Help!
• 6 Myths About Downsizing in Retirement

After years of near-zero interest rates, many retirees are once again finding attractive yields in certificates of deposit (CDs) and U.S. Treasury securities.

Earning 4% to 5% on money that's backed by a bank or the federal government can feel like a welcome change after years of watching savers earn next to nothing.

For investors who have experienced bear markets, inflation shocks and economic uncertainty, the appeal is understandable. Safety matters, particularly when you're retired and no longer collecting a paycheck.

But while CDs and Treasuries can play an important role in a retirement portfolio, relying on them too heavily may create risks that are less obvious than stock market volatility.

In some cases, the greatest threat to a retirement plan isn't losing money in the market. It's failing to generate enough growth to maintain purchasing power through a retirement that could last 20, 30 or even 40 years.

The challenge of inflation

One of the biggest dangers retirees face is inflation.

Even modest inflation can significantly reduce purchasing power over time. Per the Rule of 72, at an inflation rate of 3%, the cost of living roughly doubles every 24 years. A retiree spending $80,000 annually today could need about $160,000 per year later in retirement just to maintain the same lifestyle.

Many retirees focus on the yield they're earning today. What often gets overlooked is their real return after inflation and taxes.

For example, if a CD pays 4.5%, federal taxes reduce that return, and inflation consumes another portion. The resulting increase in purchasing power may be far smaller than expected.

While preserving principal is important, preserving purchasing power is often the larger challenge.

Retirement has changed

Previous generations frequently spent 10 to 15 years in retirement. Today, many retirees can expect retirement to last 25 to 35 years.

A healthy 65-year-old couple has a meaningful probability that at least one spouse will live into their 90s. That longer time horizon changes the planning equation.

Investments designed primarily for capital preservation can be useful for short-term income needs, emergency reserves and near-term spending goals.

However, a portfolio that lacks sufficient growth assets may struggle to support decades of increasing expenses.

The irony is that investors often become more concerned about market losses as they approach retirement, even though inflation and longevity could become equally important risks.

The opportunity cost of safety

Consider two hypothetical retirees who each begin retirement with $1 million.

The first retiree places nearly all their assets in CDs and Treasury securities, earning about 4%.

The second retiree maintains a diversified strategy that includes investments designed to provide long-term growth alongside assets intended to reduce volatility and generate income.

The first retiree may experience fewer market fluctuation, but in a 25- or 30-year retirement, the difference in portfolio growth can become significant.

While no investment strategy guarantees results, history demonstrates that portfolios containing growth-oriented assets have generally provided better long-term protection against inflation than portfolios invested exclusively in fixed-income instruments.

The question isn't whether safety is important; it's whether safety alone is sufficient.

Taxes can create additional headwinds

Many retirees are surprised to discover how much taxes can affect their retirement income.

Interest from CDs is generally taxed as ordinary income each year. Treasury securities receive favorable state tax treatment in many states, but federal income taxes still apply.

For retirees who already have substantial balances in traditional IRAs, 401(k)s, 403(b)s or other tax-deferred accounts, additional taxable interest income can contribute to a larger tax burden.

It may also affect other areas of a retirement plan. Higher taxable income can increase the portion of Social Security benefits subject to taxation and may contribute to higher Medicare premiums through income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA) surcharges.

This is one reason comprehensive retirement planning often focuses not only on investment returns but also on tax efficiency.

Building a retirement income strategy

None of this suggests that retirees should avoid CDs or Treasury securities.

They can serve valuable purposes.

Many retirees benefit from maintaining a portion of their assets in highly conservative investments to fund near-term spending needs, provide liquidity during market downturns and reduce overall portfolio volatility.

The challenge arises when investors view these tools as a complete retirement solution rather than one component of a broader strategy.

An effective retirement plan often considers multiple risks simultaneously, including:

• Inflation risk
• Longevity risk
• Market risk
• Tax risk
• Health care expenses
• Sequence of returns risk

No single investment addresses all of these concerns.

Finding the right balance

Retirement planning is ultimately a balancing act.

Investors need enough safety to weather unexpected events and market downturns. They also need enough growth potential to preserve purchasing power and support a retirement that could last decades.

For some retirees, that balance may include a meaningful allocation to CDs and Treasuries. For others, those investments may represent only a portion of a broader strategy designed to address income, taxes, inflation and long-term growth.

The goal isn't simply to avoid losses.

The goal is to create a retirement plan capable of supporting the lifestyle you've worked so hard to build.

CDs and Treasuries can help provide stability and confidence. But for many retirees, they may be only one piece of the puzzle.

A successful retirement often requires looking beyond today's yield and focusing on the bigger picture: Maintaining purchasing power, managing taxes and generating sustainable income for the years ahead.

Related Content

• Your 3-Step Guide to Constructing Rock-Solid Income in Retirement, From a Financial Planner
• How to Use a Medicaid Asset Protection Trust to Help Shield Your Family From Long-Term Care Costs
• How to Help Prevent Taxes From Taking a Massive Bite Out of a Special Needs Trust
• The Illinois 'Cliff Tax': A Single Dollar Could Cost Families Hundreds of Thousands
• 8 Thrift Savings Plan Mistakes: What Not to Do With Your TSP

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Tom retired at 67 after 35 years as a CFO. He spent his career managing risk with precision and applied the same discipline to his retirement finances.

His savings are solid, his withdrawal strategy is documented, and his estate plan is current. He walks every morning and sees his doctor twice a year.

By the industry's retirement checklist, he has done everything right.

However, according to a second checklist that may be even more important for a fulfilling retirement, four of his five pillars are missing.

Every retirement planning conversation eventually centers on the same five items:

• Savings rate
• Social Security timing
• Withdrawal strategy
• Healthcare costs
• Estate planning

These are legitimate concerns, well researched and worthy of careful attention. The financial planning industry has spent decades refining tools to address them.

They answer one question with considerable precision: Can you afford to retire?

However, research has identified a second important checklist. Those five pillars have received considerably less attention in planning conversations, generate no tax provisions and do not appear on any financial statement.

The second checklist predicts the quality of your retirement years more reliably than the first checklist. For most retirees, the score on the second checklist determines whether retirement feels like a reward or a long, quiet drift.

Five pillars of a fulfilling retirement

The five pillars of a fulfilling retirement are not a motivational framework. They are a research-based map of the conditions that sustain health, meaning and well-being in later life. Each has a body of longitudinal evidence behind it. Each is plannable. Yet, in most retirement conversations, each is left to chance.

Pillar No. 1: Exercise

Tom has this one covered. The daily walk, the Wednesday golf round, the annual physical and blood pressure well within range.

Golf, it is worth noting, ranks among the top three exercises for retirees alongside cycling and pickleball: The walking, the outdoor exposure and the social dimension compound its value beyond what most people assign it.

Among the five pillars, exercise is the one the financial industry most often acknowledges, though typically as a healthcare cost to plan for rather than as an asset to build.

The distinction matters. Physical activity is not only a hedge against medical expenses. It is also a cognitive protector, a mood regulator and the most accessible form of independence insurance available to a retiree.

Tom has this pillar but has not yet fully valued it.

Pillar No. 2: Intellectual stimulation

Tom reads the Wall Street Journal every morning. He follows the markets, tracks economic indicators and considers himself intellectually engaged. He is not wrong, but he is missing a distinction that the research makes with precision.

Consuming information is not the same as generating it. For 35 years, Tom's role required him to produce: Analysis, decisions, arguments and strategic recommendations with real consequences. That daily cognitive demand kept his mind operating at full capacity.

Reading is maintenance. The brain grows under novelty and demand, not under consumption and repetition.

A 2025 systematic review confirmed that retirement is associated with measurable cognitive decline because structured cognitive demand disappears. Researchers called the mechanism the mental retirement hypothesis. Passive engagement does not prevent it.

Pillar No. 3: Emotional well-being

Tom's professional relationships were genuine. Over 35 years, he built real trust with colleagues, clients and direct reports. Most have moved to different cities and chapters. His marriage is intact and stable, running on parallel tracks that worked well when his career organized his days.

What Tom lacks is what Harvard's Study of Adult Development, the longest-running longitudinal study of human flourishing in history, identified as the single strongest predictor of health and happiness in later life: The quality of close relationships.

Not the quantity. The quality.

Relationships with real depth, mutual accountability and trust that does not depend on a shared project or a professional context.

Tom has acquaintances. He has a history of relationships. That gap is not a character flaw. It is a planning oversight.

Pillar No. 4: Spirituality

This pillar is the one most likely to be dismissed in a financial planning context and the one most consistently validated by the research.

Spirituality, as the research frames it, is not necessarily religious. It is a connection to something larger than oneself: A sense of meaning, a reason to matter beyond the personal, an answer to why the days are worth living.

Tom's career provided this without his noticing. The company's mission, the team's outcomes and the clients' results gave his work a context that extended beyond his own interests.

In retirement, that context disappeared without a replacement being designed. His days are comfortable and, in a way he has not yet named, purposeless.

Pillar No. 5: Hobbies

Tom golfs on Wednesdays. He enjoys it. The research draws a distinction worth making explicit: Activity that passes time pleasantly is not the same as activity that generates meaning. The difference is whether the outcome matters to anyone, including the person doing the activity.

Golf, in this context, is a placeholder, a reasonable one while a person figures out what comes next.

The hobbies pillar, properly understood, is purposeful engagement that fosters identity and contribution outside professional life.

It is the answer to the question retirement eventually forces on every retiree: Who am I when the job is over, and what do I build with what I know?

This is Tom's shakiest pillar. He has not yet found what replaces the sense of contribution his career provided automatically.

The second checklist

Tom is not unusual. He is representative of the retiree the financial planning industry serves most effectively: Financially prepared, psychologically unprepared and genuinely surprised by the gap between the two.

The five pillars are not equally difficult to build. Most people arrive at retirement with one or two already intact. Tom has exercise. His intellectual engagement is passive and insufficient, as research shows. This is a redesign problem, not a rebuild.

The other four pillars are largely absent. The work is to identify which are missing and to treat that absence as a planning problem rather than a personal failing. Absence is not deficiency. It is a design gap, and design gaps have design solutions.

For Tom, securing the four missing pillars does not require dramatic reinvention. Three commitments cover all four.

The first addresses two pillars at once: A role that demands his analytical skills in a context where he holds no authority, such as a nonprofit board, a civic commission or a mentorship program for young finance professionals. That single commitment restores both intellectual stimulation and purposeful engagement.

A standing social commitment with two or three people who depend on his presence, not merely his availability, addresses a third.

And a question he has not sat with long enough to answer honestly addresses the fourth: What would make the next chapter matter to someone other than himself?

None of these are financial decisions. All of them will determine the quality of the years his financial plan is intended to fund.

The first checklist tells you whether you can afford to retire. The second tells you whether retirement will be worth it. Both are necessary. For too long, only one has been completed.

To learn more about designing a fulfilling retirement, pick up my new book, Your Encore Years: The Psychology of Retirement.

Related Content

• How Retirement Puts Your Cognitive Portfolio at Risk (and the Answer Isn't Doing More Crosswords)
• How to Design Your Retirement Declaration of Independence to Build the Life You Want
• Gary Has a Plan for Retirement: Crash on the Sofa and Veg. Here's the Problem With That …
• Combating Loneliness in Retirement: Why Strengthening Your Connections Could Lengthen Your Life
• Why Doing What You 'Ought' in Retirement Beats Doing Whatever You Want

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Nearly every retirement calculator is built to answer the same question: How far am I from having enough saved to retire?

It's an important question, and if you've spent the last 30 or 40 years investing diligently for retirement, you've probably checked your progress more times than you can count.

Then one day you open your accounts, look at the balances and realize you've hit it. You've reached the number you've been working toward all these years. Naturally, you then ask, "Is it really enough?"

That's not the right question. What you should be asking is, "How will I turn my savings into the paycheck I'll be living on for the next 25 or 30 years?" That conversation is vital but, in my experience, far too few people are having it.

Reaching your number tells you that you've accumulated enough assets to support retirement. It doesn't tell you how prepared you are to make the transition from building wealth to living on it.

You've spent 40 years making one financial decision over and over: How much should I save? Retirement hands you a different set of decisions, starting with how much you can safely withdraw, where your income should come from, how taxes fit in and when to claim Social Security.

Each decision carries consequences that can last for decades. That's a conversation a retirement calculator, or an AI agent, simply isn't equipped to have.

Your portfolio has a new job

Managing your finances may have been relatively straightforward during your working life. You earned a paycheck, spent some of it and invested the rest. When the market dropped, you kept contributing because time was still on your side. If you made a mistake, there was another paycheck coming and another opportunity to recover.

Retiring changes the rules. The day your paycheck stops, your portfolio takes over. You're no longer asking how much you can save. Now you're asking how much you can safely spend.

And here's what surprises many new retirees: Two people can earn the exact same investment return and end up living very different retirements. It's not because of what they invested in, but because of how they withdraw the money.

Your discipline got you most of the way there. A strong market may have carried you across the finish line. We tend to assume the day we hit our retirement number is purely a function of years of disciplined saving, but that's only part of the story.

Here's what people easily overlook. A strong bull market may have helped push your portfolio over your retirement goal, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's the ideal time to retire.

If markets weaken just as you begin drawing income, those early retirement years can have an outsized impact on how long your savings last.

That doesn't mean retiring after a strong market is a mistake, or that you should wait around for "perfect" stock market conditions. No one knows when those will arrive.

It does mean that hitting your retirement number shouldn't automatically trigger your retirement date. It should trigger a different question: Not "Can I retire?" but "How should I retire?"

Your savings are only half the story now

Consider two couples who both retire at age 67 with $2 million saved. They invest the same way, earn the same returns and spend the same amount every year. The only difference is how they generate retirement income.

One couple simply withdraw money as they need it. The other intentionally coordinate withdrawals, Roth conversions and Social Security claiming to manage taxes over time.

Twenty-five years later, the second couple could realistically end up with hundreds of thousands of dollars more in after-tax wealth — not because they earned higher investment returns, but because they kept more of what they earned.

Research on retirement income planning has consistently shown that coordinated withdrawal strategies can add significant lifetime value for many affluent retirees. The exact benefit varies from household to household, but one point is remarkably consistent: How you withdraw your money can matter almost as much as how you invested it.

Ignoring withdrawal planning doesn't just cost you a little at the margins. It can blindside you years later, at exactly the wrong time.

Consider what's known as the widow's penalty. A married couple filing jointly enjoy lower tax brackets and a larger standard deduction. When one spouse dies, the survivor typically loses the smaller of the two Social Security checks, but required minimum distributions (RMDs) often remain largely unchanged because the retirement accounts themselves haven't disappeared.

Now much of that same income is taxed using the narrower single-filer tax brackets, while Medicare premium thresholds become much easier to exceed.

The result? It's entirely possible for a surviving spouse to pay tens of thousands of dollars more in lifetime taxes than they would have if the couple had gradually converted some of their traditional IRA to a Roth during the lower-income years they shared together.

Nobody made a bad investment. Nobody timed the market poorly. They simply never looked ahead and asked what their tax picture might look like after one spouse was gone.

There's another cost to not having a retirement income plan — and this one is emotional.

According to a 2025 survey from the Employee Benefit Research Institute, more than three-quarters of retirees say they could actually afford to spend more freely than they do. Yet nearly half admit they continue to hold back because they're afraid they'll eventually run out of money.

Imagine spending 40 years building your retirement savings, only to spend the next 30 afraid to use them.

That's the real cost of not knowing exactly where your retirement paycheck is coming from each month.

If you've just hit your retirement number, celebrate it. You've earned that moment. But before you decide today's the day to retire, take the time to pressure-test the income plan that will support the next 25 or 30 years of your life.

That's where a knowledgeable, fee-only retirement income adviser can make an enormous difference.

Reaching your retirement number answers one important question: Have I saved enough? Retirement immediately asks another: Do I know how to live on it?

Those are two very different questions, and the second one deserves every bit as much attention as the first. That's where retirement planning becomes far more interesting — and far more valuable.

Related Content

• I'm a Retirement Consultant: This Is the Single Most Important Planning Step I Learned After I Retired
• The 'Permission to Spend' Rules of Retirement Spending
• Forget the 80% Rule When Budgeting for Retirement: Think 80-70-60
• Inflation Isn't the Real Problem: Having No Plan to Account for It Is
• Do You Believe You Can't Retire? You Need to Read This

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Ask a retiree how much income they need, and they'll give you a number. Ask how much cash flow their portfolio generates, and many will give you the same number. Ask what they actually spend, and you'll often get a third answer — or a shrug.

That's the problem. These are three different things, and mixing them up can quietly cost money. Here's a breakdown.

Cash flow is the movement of money, regardless of tax implications.

Move money from savings to checking? Cash flow, but no tax.

Take a qualified withdrawal from your IRA? Cash flow with a tax implication.

Sell $50,000 of stock you bought for $40,000? That's $50,000 of cash flow, but only the $10,000 gain is taxed.

Harvest a loss on a position that's down? That's cash flow, too, and it can actually lower your tax bill.

Much of what moves through your accounts is simply your own money changing seats.

Income is what gets taxed (and it comes with a decision). Income shows up on your tax return:

• Dividends paid
• Interest earned
• Rent collected
• Capital gains realized
• IRA withdrawals taken

Here's the part many people miss: Income comes with a decision. You can spend the money or reinvest it.

Depending on the account, your decisions are taxed differently. For example, in a brokerage account, the dividend (income) is taxed whether you spend it or not. If the dividend comes into your qualified account (IRA or Roth), it's not taxed.

It's important to pay attention to these little differences.

Spending is what's gone. This is the money that leaves your accounts to support you and your lifestyle (groceries, travel, property taxes). Once it's spent, it's gone. It isn't coming back as shares, basis or anything else.

Spending is the number your plan actually has to cover. Not your cash flow. Not your income. Your spending.

The drag many miss

Once the terms are straight and the plan is in place, the leaks start to become visible. Many retirees generate more taxable income than they spend.

A $1 million portfolio in your brokerage account, yielding 3% in dividends, puts about $30,000 of income on your tax return each year, whether you spend it or reinvest it.

Let's say you spend only $10,000 of it — you still pay tax on all $30,000. You wrote the IRS a check for the privilege of reinvesting money you'd already had invested. Do that for a decade, and the drag compounds quietly, every April.

Even withdrawal coordination can make a big difference. A retiree younger than 65 who funds an entire year from long-term capital gains might pay mostly 0% in capital gains tax. That's because only the realized gains count as income.

If they keep their gains/income low enough, they may also be able to lower their ACA health insurance premiums. That's a very different situation than taking a little from an IRA, a little from a brokerage account, collecting dividends along the way and layering on Roth conversions.

Same spending, very different tax bill.

Total return still wins

This is why I push retirees toward "total return" thinking. There's little difference between a stock that grows by 7% and a stock that grows by 4% while paying a 3% dividend.

The grower lets you decide when to realize income. The dividend payer decides for you, every quarter, whether you need the money or not.

Sometimes growth may be better than dividends, and vice versa.

The same is true in real estate: Rent plus appreciation is the whole picture, and the rent is taxed as it arrives.

Control what you can control

Dividend investing is a great way to grow a portfolio or generate income you can spend in retirement. The main problem is that you can't control what a company pays out.

When a dividend stops paying out, the stock may also go down in value, which can feel similar to a stock you have purchased for growth that stopped growing. The market (stocks, bonds, real estate) carries risk, no matter how you look at it.

What you can control is how much you spend from your accounts. In other words, grow your money however you see best, whether it's through growth, dividends or real estate. That's up to you.

Next, separate the growth or payout rate from how much you want to spend.

Lastly, make sure you have a backup plan so you can maintain your lifestyle and spending, regardless of market conditions.

In my book, How to Retire on Time, I call that your Reserves. Other advisers have other names for it.

The bottom line: Don't let someone else's decision (dividend payout, etc.) control your retirement, and make sure you are watching your cash flow, your income and your spending so they all work together efficiently.

Related Content

• 3 Common Cash Flow Mistakes and How to Fix Them
• The Boy Who Cried 'Bubble': What if He's Right This Time? What Investors Need to Consider
• I (Used to) Hate Annuities: Then I Looked at the Math
• The Bear Market Protocol: 3 Strategies for a Down Market
• Retirees' Anti-Bucket List: 10 Experiences You Don't Want

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Sixty-five is an age we treat like a finish line. Work stops. Retirement starts. Nobody questions it.

They should.

That selection of that number wasn't inspired by biology. It came from actuarial arithmetic in another century.

In 1889, Germany's Otto von Bismarck created the first national pension and set the eligible age at 70, then lowered it to 65. He wasn't being generous. Life expectancy in Germany at the time was around 45. Almost nobody would live long enough to collect.

Franklin Roosevelt imported the same number into Social Security in 1935. The average American lived to 61. The math worked for the same reason. Most workers were never expected to touch the benefit.

Neither man was designing for a retirement that lasts 30 years. Neither could have imagined it, and no one rewrote the number once medicine changed the outcome.

That is the part almost everyone misses: 65 was never a biological marker for the end of useful work. It was a budget line, set for a population that lived a third as long as we do now. We kept the number and forgot why it existed.

Meanwhile, the country is living through something demographers call Peak 65. More Americans are turning 65 right now than at any point in our history. More than 12,000 people a day are crossing that line.

Soon, nearly one in five Americans will be 65 or older. Most are walking into retirement following advice written for their grandparents' bodies, lifespans and bank accounts.

Here is the number that should worry you more than any market forecast. A 65-year-old man today can expect to live an additional 18 years; a woman, an additional 21. One in four will reach their 90s.

Retiring at 65 doesn't mean funding a short coda. It means financing a second adulthood, decades long, with no paycheck behind it.

Do the math on what that means for your money

Every year you keep working is a year your savings compound without a withdrawal. It's also a year less that your savings need to cover. That is not one benefit. It is two, working in the same direction at once.

Delay Social Security instead of your paycheck, and the math compounds again: Your benefit grows by roughly 8% for every year you wait past full retirement age, up to 70. Few investments anywhere offer such a guaranteed return.

Run the comparison. A worker who retires at 65 with $600,000 saved, and one who works three more years with the same balance and the same contributions, aren't close to the same outcome.

The second worker adds years of growth and years of savings and shrinks the number of years the money has to last.

Three years doesn't sound like much. On a retirement that may run three decades, it can be the difference between a plan that survives and one that does not.

None of this means grinding through the same job at the same pace until you drop. It means questioning the idea that the only options are full speed or full stop.

There is no single right answer. A construction worker with a bad back is not weighing the same choice as a consultant who sits at a desk. Someone caring for an aging parent has a different calculus than someone with no obligations at home.

The point is not that everyone should work until 70. The point is that 65 should be a choice you make with open eyes, not a deadline you face without reading the fine print.

The workplace is already moving in this direction, even if nobody has given it a name. The share of Americans 65 and older still working has more than doubled in the past 25 years. Among workers 75 and older, it has tripled.

Employers are inventing workarounds because they can't afford to lose the knowledge walking out the door.

• Engineers retire on Friday and return Monday as consultants
• Law partners shift to "of counsel" instead of disappearing
• Hospitals bring back nurses on schedules that fit their lives instead of erasing them from the roster

These aren't formal programs yet. Most companies are improvising, seeing an opportunity, not a wall.

If you are 10 years from a traditional retirement date, start the conversation with your employer now about what a phased exit could look like:

• Reduced hours
• Project-based work
• A shift from full-time to advisory

The earlier you raise it, the more leverage you have to shape it instead of accepting whatever you're offered on your way out.

If a full phase-down is not realistic in your field, look for a bridge.

• Consulting
• Board work
• Teaching what you know

Even a part-time role in a different field can cover living expenses long enough to leave your portfolio untouched and your Social Security benefit growing.

None of this is about loving your job so much that you never want to stop. Some people are done at 65, full stop, and that's a legitimate answer.

The point is that most people aren't choosing 65. They're inheriting it, the way you inherit a hand-me-down that no longer fits, then spending years wondering why the plan feels tight in all the wrong places.

Longevity isn't the problem. It's the reward. Unprepared longevity is the problem, and the retire-at-65 default is one of the clearest ways people back into it without noticing.

The finish line most of us grew up picturing was built for people who didn't get this many extra years. You did. The plan should reflect that.

Before you set a retirement date, run the math on what one, three, or five more years of earning does to the rest of your life. Then decide on purpose, not on a number handed to you by a 19th-century chancellor who never expected anyone to collect.

Related Content

• Turning 65 This Year? Here Are 10 Key Things To Know
• Want to Retire at 65? See if You Can Answer These Six Questions
• The New 65? Why the Healthiest Retirees Are Throwing Out the Old Playbook
• The Retirement Risk No One Likes to Talk About: You, Still Here
• After I Was Dropped on a Mountain in Alaska, I Realized What's Missing From My Retirement Plan

This article was written by and presents the views of our contributing adviser, not the Kiplinger editorial staff. You can check adviser records with the SEC or with FINRA.

Aging in place has its benefits. You can stay in the home you're accustomed to. You're close to friends, family, community, doctors, and caregivers. Plus, you don't have to worry about the headaches and stresses of relocating.

For all those reasons, aging in place is a popular choice for many retirees. How many? According to AARP, 75% of adults aged 50 and older want to remain in their homes and communities as they age.

Remaining in your current home during retirement also presents meaningful financial advantages. Beyond avoiding the considerable expenses associated with a retirement community — which often range from $6,200 to $10,800 per month —there are several less apparent cost savings.

From everyday grocery savings to reduced tax burdens, here are five surprising ways aging in place can protect your nest egg.

(Read our companion story: 5 Unexpected Costs of Aging in Place — Even With No Mortgage)

5 unexpected aging in place savings

1. Cheaper groceries

Eating out can add up, and if you relocate to a retirement community or a new location, you may spend more on meals than if you age in place.

That's because living in a retirement community or assisted living facility usually comes with prepared meals and a set meal plan. Sure, standard meals may be included, but extra meals or guest dining aren't, which can quickly add up. If you live at home, you can cook for yourself, buy food on sale, shop in bulk, and find other ways to save on your groceries.

As for retirees who relocate to a new area, they may spend more money dining out, trying new restaurants in the town as they get a feel for the new neighborhood.

2. Flexible healthcare

Aging in place allows you to control your support costs, saving you serious cash compared to an assisted living facility or nursing home. Instead of paying a steep, flat monthly fee regardless of how much care you actually use, you only pay for what you need. If you require help for a couple of weeks after a fall, you can hire an aide for just that timeframe. If you only need assistance with errands for a few hours a month, you pay solely for those hours.

A non-medical home care aide generally costs $30 to $35 per hour (or $300 to $350 a month) for ten hours of help. Compare that to a full-time facility, which runs $6,200 or more per month, and the savings are substantial. Best of all, the money you aren't spending on a facility can stay invested and continue to grow.

3. Property tax savings

Setting down roots does mean something, even if the younger generations are quick to switch jobs and cut ties. And that loyalty is rewarded for homeowners who stay put in the form of tax breaks that you won't get if you relocate in retirement.

Most states and towns offer some sort of property tax break for residents over the age of 65, whether it's a homestead exemption, senior property tax exemption or a tax freeze. You won't get those immediately if you move to a new home, even if you are over the age of 65. Typically, you must own and live in the property as your primary residence for one to three years before you're eligible.

Staying put means you can collect as much as three years of tax savings, which could amount to hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in savings.

4. Loyalty and senior discounts

Loyalty pays off, and that's particularly true for retirees who stay put as they age. By remaining in your long-time home, you can get discounts on everything from utility bills to property insurance. Discounts that you might not get if you relocate.

Utility companies tend to offer rate reductions or senior credits to long-term residents, while staying in the same home enables you to keep your policy discounts with your insurer. Staying put also protects you from taking on a brand-new policy at today's inflated market rates. That's good news since homeowner's premiums have jumped nearly 47% nationally over the last five years alone, according to LendingTree.

If you relocate to an area prone to severe weather or natural disasters, like hurricanes in Florida, your homeowners' insurance premiums could soar even higher, wiping out any expected savings from moving.

5. Free support networks

Whether it's close friends, long-time neighbors, or family living nearby, an established support network becomes invaluable as you age, especially if you decide to stop driving. By staying in your home, you can rely on informal favors, like a neighbor driving you to a doctor's appointment or a friend picking up your prescriptions.

If you relocate, a simple trip to the pharmacy or grocery store can easily run $20 or more for a rideshare if you don't have a car or a network of similar help. Relying on private transit services for every errand can quickly add up to hundreds of dollars a month.

Add savings to the list

There is a long list of reasons why people choose to age in place, and saving money isn't typically top of mind. But it is a major added perk, one retirees can comfortably add to their list.

After all, whether it's groceries, home maintenance, insurance, property taxes or support, aging in place offers real savings that go far beyond just avoiding the steep costs of an assisted living facility.

Related content

• 3 Questions That Reveal if You’re Actually Ready to Age in Place
• 4 Household Expenses You Should Never Pre-Pay in Retirement
• The Longevity Blueprint: 4 Everyday Signs You’re Tracked for a Longer Life
• 9 Upgrades That Transform Your Family Home Into a Retirement Oasis

Dividing an estate is a deeply personal matter, but disinheriting a family member requires far more than just omitting a name from your will. Between state spousal laws, federal 401(k) rules, and strict probate requirements, a single paperwork misstep can invite costly court battles and overturn your exact intentions.

Whether you are navigating a second marriage or protecting a child with special needs, testing your estate planning IQ is the best way to spot hidden vulnerabilities. Take our 10-question quiz below to learn the smartest legal tools — from no-contest clauses to non-probate designations — that ensure your hard-earned assets go exactly where you want them.

And don't worry if you miss an answer; you can use the links below the quiz to brush up on disinheriting an heir and estate planning.

More on Estate Planning, from the Kiplinger retirement team:

• 6 Reasons to Disinherit Someone and How to Do It
• Wills Gone Wild: How to Avoid Estate Planning Disasters
• 15 Estate Planning Terms You Need to Know
• Is Your Estate at Risk? The 5 Trusts You Need to Understand
• Revocable vs Irrevocable Trusts: It Comes Down to Control vs Protection
• The Little-Known Tool to Protect Your Retirement Savings in a Divorce