[ad_1]
Daily Spotlight: Emerging Markets Positioned for Growth
[ad_2]
Tag: retirement
-
Looking back at Pelosi and PolitiFact
[ad_1]
Almost since PolitiFact’s 2007 founding, we’ve been covering Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who announced her retirement, effective in January 2027.
We first fact-checked the former House speaker on Aug. 25, 2008, when she characterized then-presidential candidate Barack Obama as a state legislator with a history of bipartisanship, a claim we rated Half True. In all, we have rated Pelosi’s statements 56 times on Truth-O-Meter, with a median rating of Half True.
Political analysts consider Pelosi, 85, one of the most effective legislative leaders in recent U.S. history. With small margins, Pelosi was mostly able to keep her caucus united behind legislative goals on health care, the environment and other issues.
Her ability to raise money for Democrats was one reason she remained as minority leader when she lost her speaker’s gavel after the 2010 midterms and ascended again to speaker in 2018, when the Democrats won the majority. Pelosi lost the speakership when the GOP won the chamber in 2022. She left her leadership position but remained as a rank-and-file member.
Pelosi was known for her effectiveness outside the public eye — in Capitol cloakrooms and private dinners. Republicans targeted her sometimes awkward rhetorical style in front of television cameras, combined with her representation of one of the nation’s most liberal districts, in San Francisco.
On the internet, Pelosi has been falsely accused of being drunk (many, many times); of spending extravagantly on her hair; of falling; of crying in public; of being arrested; of palling around with drug kingpin El Chapo; of calling Americans stupid; of being expelled from the House; of being divorced by her husband; of being arrested and disappeared by U.S. marshals; of committing treason; and of being executed.
When a hammer-wielding intruder attacked her husband Paul in their home in 2022, conspiracy theories flourished, fanned by President Donald Trump and others, including that the entire episode was a “false flag” event.
Here’s a rundown of memorable Pelosi moments in recent fact-checking history.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., gestures during her weekly news conference on June 11, 2009. (AP)
Pelosi vs. Trump: Ripped speech, policy fights, Jan. 6
Pelosi and Trump have a long-running rhetorical feud. When a reporter asked Trump about Pelosi’s retirement announcement hours after she made it, Trump called her “an evil woman.”
In 2018, Trump falsely said Pelosi “came out in favor of MS-13,” the criminal gang. Pelosi had criticized Trump for using the term “animals” during an immigration meeting, but she hadn’t said anything positive about MS-13.
In 2020, after Pelosi dramatically ripped up a paper copy of Trump’s State of the Union address from her seat behind the president, Trump said, “I thought it was a terrible thing when she ripped up the speech. First of all, it’s an official document. You’re not allowed. It’s illegal what she did. She broke the law.”
We rated that Pants on Fire. Pelosi ripped up her own duplicate copy of Trump’s address, not the official version sent to the National Archives under the Presidential Records Act, so it would not have been illegal to destroy it.
Pelosi earned a Mostly True for saying in 2017 that Trump’s first-term tax bill “would have cut his taxes by $30 million in 2005.”
But she earned a False in 2020 for saying Trump is “morbidly obese.” Trump had told reporters that he was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent against COVID-19, an approach that mainstream doctors called dubious; she said it was not a sound idea for someone “in his, shall we say, weight group.” Even if Trump was fudging his official height and weight, he would have needed to be substantially heavier to meet a level of morbid obesity.
The pair’s most bitter exchanges revolved around Jan. 6, 2021, the day Trump supporters stormed the Capitol as Congress formally counted the 2020 electoral results. Rioters entered Pelosi’s office and called for her as they marched through the Capitol.
Trump has repeatedly said he requested “10,000 National Guardsmen” to provide security at his supporters’ Jan. 6, 2021, rally but that Pelosi “rejected it.” As early as Feb. 28, 2021, we rated that False. In subsequent fact-checks, we found no new information to support Trump’s assertion about Pelosi and National Guard troops.
Pelosi played a central role on landmark health care legislation
One of her biggest policy legacies is the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, which was Obama’s top policy priority in 2009. The bill dominated the early political debate of his presidency, and Pelosi, as speaker, had a key role in securing Democratic support for Obama’s vision.
Pelosi accurately discussed some policy differences between Democratic and Republican health care bills, such as the Democratic proposals’ protection for people with a preexisting condition.
But we also found truth in one Republican criticism involving the bill — that Pelosi had said Democrats “have to pass their terrible health care bill so that the American people can actually find out what’s in it.” That was close to what Pelosi really said, though that Republican Party of Texas’ synopsis ignored her comments about why the legislation made her proud.
Pelosi was a star fundraiser, but we found one of her money claims misleading
Between 2000 and 2024, Pelosi raised $86.6 million for her campaign committee and an additional $51 million for her leadership political action committee, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit that tracks campaign finance information.
Despite her fundraising prowess, she exaggerated in 2017 when describing Wall Street money raised by Republicans and Democrats. She said, “Wall Street comes out en masse with its money against House Democrats every election.” But she had cherry-picked three campaign cycles in which Republicans held the House majority while ignoring election cycles in which the Democrats were in control, including two in which Pelosi was speaker. We rated the statement Mostly False.
Pelosi’s Pants on Fires
Pelosi’s four Pants on Fire ratings included:
-
Her 2010 blog post saying that then-House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, “admits ‘we are not going to be any different than we’ve been’” by returning to “the same failed economic policies” that “wrecked our economy.” We found that Boehner had been talking specifically about social issues, not the economy, and that the video clip she shared removed that context from Boehner’s statement.
-
Her decision in 2011 to promote a chart showing Obama has “increased the debt” by 16%, compared with his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who had increased it by 115%. The chart included a major calculation error, ignored different lengths of presidential tenure and cherry-picked the most favorable measure.
-
Her 2016 claim that until shortly before her statement, China and Russia had “never voted with us at the U.N. on any sanctions on Iran.” We found eight Security Council resolutions over a decade threatening, imposing or continuing sanctions against Iran in which Russia and China approved.
-
Her 2019 statement that a voter-roll purge in Wisconsin would mean that more than 200,000 registered Wisconsin voters would be prohibited from voting. We found that a purge could have potentially removed more than 200,000 people from the voting rolls, but they would not be “prohibited” from voting; anyone could re-register, including on Election Day.
That one time we fact-checked Pelosi in real time, kind of
We once fact-checked Pelosi in person, on television, in real time. And this time, it wasn’t on policy.
In 2018, this reporter was president of the Washington Press Club Foundation, which mounts an annual black-tie congressional dinner. Pelosi has been a frequent guest speaker at the event, and that year, she began her remarks by thanking members of the head table, including “President Louis Jacobson of FactCheck.org.”
I interrupted her. “Actually, PolitiFact.” As the audience laughed, Pelosi quickly pivoted.
“That’s OK, staff,” she said. “It was Mostly True.”
(C-SPAN)
[ad_2]
-
-
Nancy Pelosi, first woman to be speaker of U.S. House, will retire from Congress
[ad_1]
Speaker Emerita Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, speaks during a news conference on redistricting at the Governor’s Mansion in downtown Sacramento on Friday, Aug. 8, 2025. She announced Thursday, Nov. 6, 2025, that this will be her final term in Congress.
dheuer@sacbee.com
WASHINGTON
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congress’ first woman leader, known for presiding over the U.S. House with an iron fist and a compassionate heart, said Thursday she won’t seek another term next year.
“I want you, my fellow San Franciscans, to be the first to know. I will not be seeking reelection to Congress. With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative,” Pelosi said in a video posted Thursday morning.
The San Francisco Democrat, the Baltimore-born daughter of one city mayor and sister of another, was a dominant force during her 20-year run as her party’s House leader.
In her first stint as speaker from 2007 to 2011, she won passage of the Affordable Care Act. The overhaul of the U.S. health care system that made it easier for millions to obtain coverage but also ignited angry protests over its mandates and its costs, protests that still inflame political discussion today.
Pelosi, 85, was first elected to Congress in 1987, and was House Minority Leader from 2003 until 2007. She also held that position from 2011 to 2019 when Republicans controlled the House but made a rousing comeback in 2019 as Democrats regained the majority. Pelosi quickly became the party’s leading voice of opposition to President Donald Trump.
Once Joe Biden became president in 2021, she was instrumental in securing passage of economic plans to help people impacted by the Covid downturn.
Pelosi vs. Trump
She also presided over two impeachments. In 2019 Trump became only the third president to be impeached. Like the other two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton, he was acquitted in the Senate. Two years later, he was again impeached, this time for his actions involving the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. He was again acquitted in the Senate.
Pelosi rarely let up. She upended the usual decorum at Trump’s 2020 State of the Union a few weeks after he was impeached for his activity involving Ukraine. She sat behind Trump and then tore a copy of Trump’s address in half after he was done.
The speaker, though, found Democrats, particularly younger House members, were growing impatient with her traditional way of getting things done. They wanted more outspokenness, more confrontation with Trump.
She stepped down from leadership in 2023 but remained in Congress. And she remained angry with Trump. “He’s just a vile creature. The worst thing on the face of the Earth,” she told CNN’s Elex Michaelson recently.
Pelosi’s husband, Paul, got the spotlight in 2022, when a man broke into the couple’s San Francisco home and attacked him with a hammer. The assailant said he had wanted to take Nancy Pelosi hostage. Paul Pelosi suffered injuries to his skull. The attacker was convicted in 2023 and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
This story was originally published November 6, 2025 at 8:28 AM.
[ad_2]
David Lightman
Source link -
Where’s the best place to retire? A look at new rankings from US News and World Report – WTOP News
[ad_1]
The latest rankings from U.S. News and World Report on the 2026 best places to retire could be a place to start, and some of the top places might surprise you.
Are you planning for retirement? Finding the place to settle in could take a lot of research. The latest rankings from U.S. News and World Report on the 2026 best places to retire could be a place to start, and some of the top places might surprise you.
“There’s a lot of geographic diversity in the new rankings,” said U.S. News and World Report contributing editor Tim Smart.
Midland, Michigan, came in at the No. 1 spot, followed by Homosassa Springs in Florida and the Woodlands and Spring, both in Texas.
Lynchburg, Virginia, came in 10th; Harrisonburg came in 77th. Ellicott City in Maryland came in 89th.
“Midland, Michigan did, in fact, secure the top spot in the rankings, mainly because of good scores on quality of life, affordability and the overall tax environment for retirees,” Smart said.
He said the best places to retire list expanded its reach this year, looking at more than 850 U.S. cities, and ranking the top 250.
“This was more granular and focused on cities. We also looked at population and migration patterns of seniors, 55 plus, to see where people were going and have been going,” Smart said.
For the rankings, they surveyed people 45 and up on what matters most to them. And for the first time in several years, quality of life ranked higher than affordability.
“While inflation is still higher than people would like, I think people have come to grips with that, and now maybe they’re thinking quality of life is what really matters,” Smart said.
Get breaking news and daily headlines delivered to your email inbox by signing up here.
© 2025 WTOP. All Rights Reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.
[ad_2]
Valerie Bonk
Source link -
Most Gen-Z Employees See Traditional Career Paths Coming to an End
[ad_1]
Many employers and co-workers have voiced exasperation at Gen-Zers’ reputed resistance—if not defiance—to conforming with traditional workplace roles and demands. New data indicates the workforce’s youngest members not only don’t plan on bending to that criticism, but even view the long-held business models those gripes are based on as doomed.
That view of traditional work and career paradigms being destined for the ash pile of history appears to explain many why many Gen-Zers are behaving in ways that alternatively confuse and annoy older colleagues. According to the latest Next Gen of Work report by freelance job platform Fiverr, its survey of 12,000 workers born between 1995 and 2012 found a majority saying the model of working one’s way through the corporate ranks will soon be sleeping with the fishes alongside cradle-to-grave employment. That view explains why many cohort members are not only disinclined to comply with workplace expectations and demands, but think conforming to a mold in order to keep a long-term job has become a road to nowhere.
As a result, a mere 18 percent of Gen-Z respondents cited ascending a profession with a single employer as a smart way of getting ahead in the world. Bolder still, over half of survey participants—or 54 percent of the total—predicted traditional employment itself will become obsolete in coming years. And only 14 percent of Gen-Zers questioned listed working for a well-known corporation as one of their career ambitions—furthering the cohort’s break with the tenets that dominated post-war employment.
Not illogically, many Gen-Zers who view career paths that older generations adhered to as living on borrowed time are instead creating alternatives to the 9-to-5, five-day week, working for a single employer models. As part of that, many of them are turning to income stacking—or generating multiple sources of revenue by juggling several professional activities. Fully 67 percent of Fiverr survey participants said they considered having an array of revenue sources as essential to attaining financial security.
But in addition to Gen-Zers’ (in)famous determination to blaze their own trails tailored to their personal interests—often at the expense of workplace conformity and harmony—there’s another factor driving their multi-activity alternative. The survey found many cohort members are haunted by worries that a single job and income won’t allow them to get by.
“Faced with economic uncertainty, Gen Z is experiencing what we’re calling ‘single-paycheck panic’—they’re diversifying income streams because relying on one job feels too risky,” said Michelle Baltrusitis, Fiverr’s associate director of community and social impact in comments on the survey results. “Instead of waiting for stability, they’re betting on themselves by embracing freelancing and building financial resilience as the smarter path forward.”
But Baltrusitis stresses that “Gen Z isn’t rejecting work, they’re redefining it.” The survey found respondents often start doing that even before quitting the full-time jobs they consider doomed. Nearly 40 percent of survey participants said they had or currently were taking on freelancing work in addition to 9-to-5 jobs they held down.
The reason for that transitioning? Nearly half of respondents cited not making enough money as their biggest career worry. In addition to whatever presumably insufficient salaries they were earning from full-time positions, many Gen-Z survey participants said external costs like high rents, increasing prices, and paying off student loans have made working just one job too risky.
And as they shift from a single job to the independence of juggling multiple gigs full-time, a large portion of Gen-Zers are adapting their use of artificial intelligence at work in ways that are also beneficial to their outside activities. Nearly 60 percent of respondents said they trust the tech to assume some of their professional responsibilities. Meanwhile, 20 percent or more of survey participants said they used apps for help in brainstorming their multiplying workflows, generating content, and improving creative ideas.
But even as they define what they consider post-modern work paradigms, the survey found Gen-Zers remained conscious of—and a bit hacked off by—the ways former and future co-workers viewed them.
Nearly a quarter of respondents said older colleagues were off base in considering members of the younger cohort as lazy. As an apparent reflection of their willingness to toil away alongside previous generations, just 17 percent of respondents listed early retirement as a career ambition.
That attitude may well earn Gen-Zers more respect from older colleagues, but they’d get even more props—plus heartfelt thanks—if they’d do something about the stare.
[ad_2]
Bruce Crumley
Source link -
Why I Don’t Save for Retirement (and Neither Should You)
[ad_1]
The smartest financial move I ever made was to stop contributing to retirement savings. It may sound counterintuitive, even reckless. Dave Ramsey would have stress dreams about this article, but it may be time to get a divorce from your 401(k).
Here’s the truth: You actually don’t need millions to retire.
Those retirement calculators love to spit out impossible numbers: $3 million, $5 million, sometimes more. Numbers so big they make financial freedom feel like a five-decade slog.
Here’s the part they leave out. Most people following the “save for 40 years” script never hit those numbers. They keep working and waiting, but they’re aiming for a moving goalpost.
And this isn’t about only money. It’s about decades of your life you don’t get back.
The real shift isn’t stockpiling a fortune someday, but creating passive income now. You don’t need millions. You need cash flow. Changing your perspective on that changes everything.
Why the “retirement number” is a mirage
Here’s the dirty secret about those retirement calculators: They’re built on a foundation of mediocre returns.
Financial advisers love showing you diversified portfolios earning 2 percent on treasuries, 4 percent on bonds, maybe 8 percent to 10 percent on index funds if you’re lucky. Then they compound those small numbers over 40 years and tell you that’s the path to freedom.
But what if I told you I routinely invest in small businesses earning annual returns of 32 percent or more? Same dollars, radically different outcome.
The $3 million to $5 million magic number isn’t magic at all. It’s a moving target designed to keep you paying fees to Wall Street. Inflation pushes it higher. Lifestyle creep makes it bigger. Market volatility makes it unpredictable.
And here’s the part Wall Street doesn’t mention: The longer your money stays parked in their products, the more fees they collect. It’s not a conspiracy; it’s a business model. Their incentive is to keep your money locked up for decades.
What $120,000 taught me about real wealth
Early in my investing journey, I had a choice with my $120,000 of life savings. I could do what most people do: Put it into bonds or index funds, let it grow slowly, and maybe, decades later, it would turn into something meaningful. At 4 percent, that money would earn about $400 per month. I’d be waiting 30 years before I could really use it.
Instead, I bought a small business that was already earning $150,000 a year. I made a few simple changes, tightened operations, hired a virtual assistant, improved SEO, and that same business had grown by nearly 40 percent.
That one decision changed how I think about investing forever. Once you see cash flow hitting your bank account in real time, “waiting for retirement” at 6 percent earnings stops making sense. A few investments pay back your income entirely.
Since then, I’ve repeated and improved that model over and over, not just with my own capital but with investors I work with. We buy existing businesses selling for three to four times earnings, translating to annual returns of 32 percent or more. And unlike stocks or bonds, those returns don’t sit on a statement. They generate cash flow starting in year one.
Compress 40 years into five
Here’s the most important lesson I’ve learned: The difference between traditional investing and high return cash flow investing isn’t the return, it’s the time.
Traditional retirement thinking locks you into a 50-year plan. You keep saving, hoping compound interest will eventually catch up with your life goals. Cash flow flips that script. It lets you start living off your investments almost immediately.
I started this approach back in 2017 and bought, merged, and managed eight companies. After perfecting the process, I helped other investors and operators do the same. None of us waited for a magical retirement number. We built predictable income streams that paid our expenses, and with those returns financial freedom is available in under five years.
What surprises most people is this: You don’t need hundreds of businesses to create substantial passive income or diversification. A portfolio of eight to 10 uncorrelated small businesses can deliver 60 to 80 percent of the diversification benefits of thousands of stocks, without watering down returns.
The future of financial freedom
Building wealth isn’t about chasing a number. A net worth target is a someday goal, and “someday” often never comes.
Cash flow is about today. It’s about building predictable income that pays your bills and funds your lifestyle now. It’s about having the freedom to pursue meaningful work while you’re still young enough to make an impact.
Financial freedom isn’t a number on a screen. It’s a system that pays you month after month and gives you back the decades most people trade away.
The retirement lie costs you 30 years. Cash flow gives them back.
[ad_2]
Joseph Drups
Source link -
Who you gonna trust: Barry Ritholtz or Jim Cramer? – MoneySense
[ad_1]
The first can be regarded by retirees and those on the cusp of retirement as a must read: William Bengen’s A Richer Retirement, the long-awaited update of his classic book on the much-cited 4% Rule: Conserving Client Portfolios During Retirement. First published in 2006, that book was really aimed at financial advisors but became popular with the general investing public after it got extensive press exposure over the years.
The 4% Rule—which is actually closer to a 4.7% Rule depending how you interpret it—refers to the “safe” percentage of a portfolio that retirees can withdraw each year without running out of money in 30 years, net of inflation. Bengen’s term for this is “SAFEMAX.”
The new book is supposedly aimed at average investors. Still, I found it pretty technical, filled chock-a-block with charts and tables that are probably more accessible to the original audience of financial professionals. Counting some useful appendices, the book is just under 250 pages.
After wading through all Bengen’s tweaks meant to minimize the impact of inflation, bear markets, and unexpected longevity, I was left with the impression the original 4% Rule remains a pretty good initial guestimate for what retirees can safely withdraw in any given year.
Sure, 3.5% or 3% may be technically “safer,” especially if you expect to live a very long life or want to leave an estate for your heirs. I’ve even seen arguments that a 2% retirement rule may be appropriate for extremely risk-averse retirees.
On the other hand, it’s not too dangerous to withdraw 6% or 7% or more as long as stock markets and interest rates cooperate. That’s what many retirees intuitively do anyway; they reduce withdrawals in bear markets, and splurge a bit in raging bull markets.
It’s also worth noting that whether you choose 3%, 5%, or larger percentages, that guideline really just applies to your investment portfolios, whether held in tax-deferred or tax-exempt accounts or taxable ones. Most Canadian retirees can also count on the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Old Age Security (OAS), not to mention employer pensions. Those lacking big defined-benefit pensions but who have plenty saved in RRSPs and TFSAs can choose to pensionize or partially pensionize their nest eggs by buying annuities. (For timing, see this piece published recently on my blog.) For that concept, refer to Professor Moshe Milevsky’s excellent book, Pensionize Your Nest Egg.
Making money in any market
More controversial is Jim Cramer’s How to Make Money in Any Market. I know it’s fashionable for some mainstream financial journalists to disparage the long-time host of Mad Money and in-house stock-picking guru on Squawk on the Street. I never watch him on TV (MSNBC) but often listen to his podcasts while walking or at the gym, usually at 1.5x speed and skipping over interviews with the CEOs of more speculative stocks I have no interest in. Cramer’s critics tend to be diehard indexers who swear it’s impossible to consistently pick stocks and “beat” the market over the long run. I tend to side with them, but more on that below.
Obviously, Cramer begs to differ, often trotting out testimonials from Nvidia millionaires who bought that spectacular artificial intelligence (AI) chip stock the moment he named his dog after it (sadly now deceased). Cramer devotes an entire chapter to that call, which he mentions every chance he gets. I did buy that stock too, although I was too late and risk-averse to bet the farm enough to change my life with it.
What his critics may not realize is that even Cramer believes in indexing at least 50% of a portfolio. In fact, he tells newcomers to stocks that their first $10,000 (US) should go in an S&P500 index fund. Hard to argue with that.
Where I part ways is his book’s recommendation of holding just five stocks for the 50% of a portfolio that is not indexed. That would mean holding around 10% of your total portfolio in each such stock, which is way more concentrated than most investors would countenance. Much of the book goes into how to choose the kind of secular growth stocks he prefers, with the help of modern AI tools like ChatGPT, Grok, and all the rest.
I used to wonder about his show’s regular segment, Am I diversified?, where readers submit their five picks for Cramer’s consideration. I’d be surprized if there is an investor anywhere whose portfolio is that concentrated. Even Cramer’s much-cited Charitable Trust holds many more than five stocks.
Canada’s best dividend stocks
How not to invest
This leads me to the third book I ordered from Amazon, recently reviewed by Michael J. Wiener of the Michael James on Money blog: Barry Ritholtz’s book How Not to Invest. Cramer cynics might quip that would have been a better title for How to make money in any market had it not already been taken by Ritholtz; Cramer has after all famously inspired some ETF companies to provide “reverse Cramer” funds that short his major long recommendations.
Ritholtz’s book clocks in at almost 500 pages but is quite readable. It has attracted multiple testimonials ranging from William Bernstein (“Destined to become a classic.”) to DFA’s David Booth, Shark Tank’s Mark Cuban and author Morgan Housel, known through The Motley Fool, and who penned the foreword.
Ritholtz organizes his book in four parts: Bad Ideas, Bad Numbers, Bad Behavior, and Good Advice. While Cramer tempts us into individual stock-picking, Ritholtz reminds us that few can do it well; nor can most of us successfully pull off market timing. He devotes a fair bit of space to how badly some pundits’ predictions have panned out in the past. I was left with a renewed appreciation for the benefits of indexing, certainly for the core of portfolios if not for their entirety. As he puts it: “Index (mostly). Own a broad set of low-cost equity indices for the best long-term results.” He lists five advantages to indexing: lower costs and taxes, you own all the winners, better long-term performance, simplicity and less bad behaviour.
Fortunately, ordinary investors have many advantages over the pros, such as not having to benchmark against indices or worry about investors who sell a fund, the ability to keep costs low, and in theory a much longer time horizon. But the clincher is that “indexing gives you a better chance to be ‘less stupid.’”
[ad_2]
Jonathan Chevreau
Source link -
How to bridge the gap until an inheritance – MoneySense
[ad_1]
CPP/OAS strategy without other pensions
You can begin your Canada Pension Plan (CPP) retirement pension as early as age 60 or defer it as late as age 70. For each month you defer it after age 60, the pension rises.
If you start your pension at 60 and continue to work, you must continue to contribute to the pension until at least age 65. This will generally increase your pension, with an adjustment each year, but not as much as deferring it.
Since you already started your CPP, there is not much of a strategy there, Esther. But for others reading along, a healthy senior who expects to live well into their 80s should strongly consider deferring the start of their pension. They will receive more cumulative CPP dollars if they live to their late 70s. Even after accounting for the time value of money from drawing down other investments, or not being able to receive and invest the payments, someone living to their mid-80s and beyond may be better off financially.
There is also the benefit of having more guaranteed income that is simple and indexed to inflation, providing cost of living and longevity protection—especially for someone without a defined benefit pension plan.
Although you plan to start your Old Age Security (OAS) at age 65, Esther, you may want to think twice about this for two reasons:
- The same logic as CPP applies. You can defer your OAS as late as age 70 and it, too, rises for each month of deferral. If you are healthy and expect an average or longer than average life expectancy, deferral may give you more lifetime retirement income, despite the temptation to have more cash flow today.
- There is an OAS pension recovery tax if your income exceeds about $95,000 in 2026. If you are still working and receiving both CPP and OAS, you want to be careful about losing some of the OAS pension you are hoping to begin. This means-tested clawback of OAS is 15 cents on the dollar above that threshold, causing an effective tax rate of 43% to 52% and rising at $95,000 depending on your province or territory of residence.
Given your expected low income in retirement, it could be a costly decision to start OAS. There is also a low-income supplement called Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) that an OAS pensioner with a modest income may qualify for that could factor into your future income planning, Esther.
Compare the best RRSP rates in Canada
Travelling in retirement
Your plan to travel while you are young and healthy is an important reason not to work too long or wait to do things too late into your retirement. There needs to be a fine balance between saving for tomorrow and living for today—it is one of the biggest risks of retirement planning.
Conventional retirement planning methods focus on minimizing the risk of running out of money before you are 100, but this can also maximize the risk that you miss out on life experiences.
Counting on an inheritance
You must be careful budgeting for an inheritance that could be lower than expected, and may come later than anticipated. It is a risky part of retirement planning even if you have full visibility about a parent’s finances.
The substantial nature of the inheritance you foresee, Esther, is an important factor in your own retirement planning. Given that you are 64, I assume your mother is well into her 80s or beyond.
In your case, the key to bridging the gap until that inheritance is definitely real estate.
Real estate strategy in retirement
The benefit of owning vs. renting from a financial perspective is overblown, in my opinion. Until recently, real estate prices appreciated at an extraordinary pace in many Canadian cities, leading some to believe it is the key to wealth creation.
Real estate should not be an investment, unless it is a rental property earning rental income. A principal residence should probably grow at slightly above the rate of inflation, in line with wage growth. Perhaps this is the reason prices have flatlined or declined recently. Although interest rates have risen, they have only gone up to normal levels, not extraordinarily high rates.
A discussion of real estate price appreciation often ignores property tax, maintenance, renovations, and interest costs, as well.
All that to say that selling and renting would not be a failure in this financial planner’s opinion, Esther. But you would want to consider an apartment or seniors’ community where you could live as long as you wanted, as opposed to a condo with a landlord that has risk with regards to being a long-term residence. Being forced to move in your 70s or 80s on 90 days’ notice may not be a good risk to take.
One solution you may not have considered is borrowing against your debt-free condo. You can apply for a mortgage or home-equity line of credit based on your income and qualifying ratios. A line of credit may be more flexible than a lump-sum mortgage deposited to your bank account, because you can withdraw funds as needed and pay interest as you borrow.
[ad_2]
Jason Heath, CFP
Source link -
Colorado-based Newmont Corp. announces third round of layoffs at headquarters
[ad_1]
In a third round of layoffs, Newmont Corp. plans to let go 65 employees at its headquarters in Denver, bringing to 107 the number of recently announced staff reductions.
Newmont, the world’s largest mining company, notified state and Denver officials Wednesday that the layoffs are expected to occur around Dec. 14. The announcement follows one in August that 19 employees would be laid off and one Oct. 1 that 23 positions, primarily in its headquarters, would be terminated on or around Nov. 30.
Many of the targeted positions are management jobs. Newmont said in its notice that the reductions don’t “constitute a shutdown or closure of all operations at the company’s Denver headquarters.”
Newmont said the employees will be offered severance.
The latest notice of layoffs is part of a process the company has been working through, according to a statement from Newmont on Friday. Newmont won’t have a total number of affected employees until the process is finished, the company said.
Newmont has said the layoffs are part of a plan announced in February that includes both labor and non-labor reductions. The company said in August that it is taking several steps “to reduce our cost base and improve productivity” to deliver on commitments to shareholders and partners.
The cuts come as gold prices have hit record heights, rising above $4,000 an ounce for the first time. The price was about $4,265 per ounce Friday, down slightly from recent highs of above $4,300 per ounce.
The New York Times reported that gold has jumped more than 50% in value this year.
Newmont’s cost-cutting follows its $19.5 billion acquisition of Australian-based Newcrest Mining Ltd. in late 2023. Newmont completed its sale of the Cripple Creek & Victor Gold Mine in March. SSR Mining Inc. paid Newmont $100 million in cash and agreed to up to $175 million in additional payments for the Colorado mine.
Tom Palmer will resign as Newmont CEO and from the board of directors on Dec. 31, according to statement by Newmont. He has been CEO since 2019.
Natascha Viljoen, president and chief operating officer, will succeed Palmer and will join the board Jan. 1, 2026. Palmer will serve as strategic adviser until his retirement at the end of March.
Palmer joined Newmont in 2014 as a senior vice president, leading its operations in Indonesia. By 2016, he was named executive vice president and chief operating officer.
Palmer has been in the mining industry for nearly 40 years. He is a fourth-generation miner from Broken Hill in New South Wales, Australia.
[ad_2]
Judith Kohler
Source link
