Are you saving enough for retirement?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I appreciate you aren't familiar with how these things unfold, but that doesn't mean they don't happen. Like, here's a random one I just found with zero effort.

https://www.investmentexecutive.com/...r-fined-48000/

So five years later, and if you think they were made whole after, I have an investment in a bridge company to sell you.

That’s the fine for the unauthorized transactions, but the dealership they were through would make the investors whole.

[Strange Brew]

You can spend 4% of your nut every year and it will last you through retirement. Of course there are a thousand variables, including how long your retirement will last and how your money is invested.

In most simulations, you will die with more money than you retired with using the 4% rule. But some bad negative returns at the start can be dangerous. The 4% rule is meant to cover all scenarios.

If you have the ability to flex your spend downwards if needed, then you’re really covered.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I appreciate you aren't familiar with how these things unfold, but that doesn't mean they don't happen. Like, here's a random one I just found with zero effort.

https://www.investmentexecutive.com/...r-fined-48000/

So five years later, and if you think they were made whole after, I have an investment in a bridge company to sell you.

The fact that you think that there can be laws that prevent people from doing bad things is remarkable to me.

All they can do is deter. There is an onus on you to not hand your money and authority over to someone.

Your example also outlines someone that used margin, so I'm going to also say that the investor was just as greedy as the Ferengi that took advantage of him.

While that situation is unfortunate, does that somehow mean that you're susceptible to the same shams? Well that is a question only you can answer. I'm going to say no though, because obviously you fall for every spam email sent your way.

Also, what makes you think someone at Vanguard or Blackrock wouldn't do the same thing? You know, like what Nick Leeson or Jerome Kerviel did?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

That’s the fine for the unauthorized transactions, but the dealership they were through would make the investors whole.

*spoiler alert*

That doesn't happen. I know I'm not going to convince you that investors occasionally get screwed over by they system, because if you knew that this was the case, you wouldn't argue it(and I guess I'm saddened but not surprised people in the industry don't understand the weak points).

All I can say is I've spoken to a mediator who has done many mediations after the fact understands the system does not, and was never intended to make investors whole when one or several do things they shouldn't. I think it's harmful advice for you to say investors will be made whole. Are there cases it happens? Maybe? I doubt it. But ff it were true as a statement of fact, I wouldn't have grievances. His own advice after working in the system and against it for decades when I asked how one should proceed in this world where you can never fully know, and that does not have appropriate compensation was "manage your own money." And that was a person with the qualifications to give that advice.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Shazam

The fact that you think that there can be laws that prevent people from doing bad things is remarkable to me.

All they can do is deter. There is an onus on you to not hand your money and authority over to someone.

Your example also outlines someone that used margin, so I'm going to also say that the investor was just as greedy as the Ferengi that took advantage of him.

While that situation is unfortunate, does that somehow mean that you're susceptible to the same shams? Well that is a question only you can answer. I'm going to say no though, because obviously you fall for every spam email sent your way.

Also, what makes you think someone at Vanguard or Blackrock wouldn't do the same thing? You know, like what Nick Leeson or Jerome Kerviel did?

OK, but I didn't say that so I'm not sure the relevance. My "example" is one random story that proves exactly what you said wouldn't happen.


To turn it around and blame the investor is a pretty big hunk of bull####, and you should feel bad for even trying to make that connection. Particularly when the very failure was "failed to properly ensure a margin account was appropriate for a client". If you go to an advisor you shouldn't have to have full working knowledge of the industry and also police them. What would be the point of that?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

*spoiler alert*

That doesn't happen. I know I'm not going to convince you that investors occasionally get screwed over by they system, because if you knew that this was the case, you wouldn't argue it(and I guess I'm saddened but not surprised people in the industry don't understand the weak points).

All I can say is I've spoken to a mediator who has done many mediations after the fact understands the system does not, and was never intended to make investors whole when one or several do things they shouldn't. I think it's harmful advice for you to say investors will be made whole. Are there cases it happens? Maybe? I doubt it. But ff it were true as a statement of fact, I wouldn't have grievances. His own advice after working in the system and against it for decades when I asked how one should proceed in this world where you can never fully know, and that does not have appropriate compensation was "manage your own money." And that was a person with the qualifications to give that advice.

Look, arguing these things with half facts and anecdotal evidence that I don’t really know all of is not possible. I can only tell you that I have a very strong connection to someone on a disciplinary committee in the industry, and I’ve seen a lot of these things play out. I’ve seen situations where advisors have done bad things and seen investors made whole and suffer no ill consequences as a result. Are investors potentially disadvantaged? I guess it’s possible. But I would suggest that a lot of those cases are the result of dealing with people who are not registered/licensed and they have little to no oversight as a result. I definitely don’t think that this is rampant and investors are just regularly fleeced. I think it’s rare that mistakes are made where an investor is disadvantaged in the first place, but then incredibly rare where they would not be made whole.

I know people in the industry can break rules and do nefarious things. I don’t deny that. But, I have a lot of confidence that when they do, the rules in place are there to protect investors and shield them from that malfeasance. I don’t think that this is just because I am in this industry that I hold that position.

[Fuzz]

The investment firm also states that it is not responsible for the alleged actions of its broker, and described Field as "a sophisticated investor with extensive investment experience and knowledge" who "actively participated in the ... decision-making relating to the accounts."

'A known problem within the industry'
That defence makes lawyer Harold Geller bristle.

The financial loss litigator and his Ottawa firm have handled more than 1,500 cases over the past decade, and Geller says more often than not, investment firms try to blame their clients for mismanagement of accounts.

"Almost every case I deal with, the consumer is told absolutely ludicrous things like, 'You're sophisticated. You should have known. You made the decisions,'" says Geller.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...ions-1.4328616


Yes, look at how the brokerage firm took responsibility and made them whole. Oh, right, no they denied it and then this happened.

Meanwhile, financial worries have meant Field's husband has had to delay retirement from his job as a mental health worker. Field's disease has prevented her from being able to work for three decades.

The court case has been adjourned because of Field's deteriorating health, and no future date has been set.

"I'm not vindictive," says Field. "I just want what's right."

The mediator also told me this is what they do to a lot of victims. They drag it out in court for years, decades, and just wear you out.


This #### happens all the time, so I don't know why you are denying it.

Former senior financial advisor charged for misappropriating nearly $5 million from clients

https://rcmp.ca/en/news/2024/04/form...illion-clients

The lawsuit reached a consent agreement on June 9, 2021, signed by Gill and the couple’s lawyer Patrick Sullivan for a monetary order of $450,000.

According to the ruling, by the time of the disciplinary hearing that concluded in November 2023, Gill had not paid any of the amounts owing from the agreement.

https://www.delta-optimist.com/highl...d-310k-8678231


Look, whatever. I know what I know. There aren't enough protections to count on with your retirement. People can believe that statement or not and make their own decisions. I'm sorry part of your industry is so ####ty, I wish it weren't.

[Slava]

See, this is a case where it’s impossible for me to defend people who are committing criminal acts, though. But to suggest “hey these people are criminals and they’re in your industry, so I’m tarring you all with the same brush” isn’t really fair either.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Slava

See, this is a case where it’s impossible for me to defend people who are committing criminal acts, though. But to suggest “hey these people are criminals and they’re in your industry, so I’m tarring you all with the same brush” isn’t really fair either.

But what am I going to do with all this Tar then? They only sell it by the drum!!

[White Out 403]

everytime I see this thread title in CP, in my brain:

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Slava

See, this is a case where it’s impossible for me to defend people who are committing criminal acts, though. But to suggest “hey these people are criminals and they’re in your industry, so I’m tarring you all with the same brush” isn’t really fair either.

Oh, I know. Unfortunately you can go on reputation, organization, whatever, but I'm not sure there is a way to be assured it won't ever happen to you. And the problem is, if it does, you have no guarantees you will be made whole. Which means there is always a risk to it.

[Sylvanfan]

I kind of think I'll be lucky to hold a job for 5 more years until AI essentially wipes us all out. So even if I had the net worth to retire...I wouldn't just yet. I feel like I'll be forced out of the work force a good 12 years before I was ready to be.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Oh, I know. Unfortunately you can go on reputation, organization, whatever, but I'm not sure there is a way to be assured it won't ever happen to you. And the problem is, if it does, you have no guarantees you will be made whole. Which means there is always a risk to it.

Well I just disagree, but there’s no counter. I mean, what can I say? You give the most egregious examples (where we actually don’t know the circumstances, and just assume that the advisors there stole peoples money). My only counter is “I don’t do that and there are many thousands of cases where that never happened”.

So is it a risk? Sure, I guess and so is a nuclear war. It could happen, but I would suggest the odds are ridiculously low.

[RichieRich]

.... back to the title of this thread... please....

I'm always curious what "enough" looks like.. both for myself and others. I've run lots of scenarios in FireCalc, both with and without inheritance. SHOULD one consider inheritance? (it might be "only" as much as $250k, but certainly not a $1MM).


Anyways, I'm working with a pretty solid idea that 2 people should be able to live well (but not "stately" or in luxury) on a combined $80k/yr pretax in Calgary, assuming no mortgage or vehicle payments. Ya'll can make whatever assumptions you want regarding Pensions/CPP/OAS value and/or timing, but that's an "all-in" number.

The Spouse asked me recently when I'd be ready for retirement... said that totally depends on ability to stick to a spending level and other risk management. I could do so now, however want slightly better than "cat-food". Would love to take a "test retirement ride" (~6mo) however in my industry that is harder to come back from (especially if it's not a sabbatical with return to same role).

[RichieRich]

here's a rather lengthy CANADIAN article discussing the merits of the 4% "rule".


https://www.moneysense.ca/columns/re...ule-revisited/

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

SHOULD one consider inheritance? (it might be "only" as much as $250k, but certainly not a $1MM).

I think it's a matter of risk tolerance because it's an uncertainty. I don't include anything of that type in my calculations, but then I also don't include the proceeds from the sale of my primary residence - I have no idea what my living situation will be in 30 years.

Just go off your retirement plans' projected growth, assuming a conservative percentage, and target a modest retirement income that you could live off of fairly comfortably if frugally, IMO. Then whatever you end up with on top of that is gravy.