You can also fund tax-advantaged retirement savings with income from a second job or side business -- a good thing to build up now, since you'll want to continue earning something in retirement.
Investing with a late start
How should you invest your retirement funds? Most 401k plans have a number of mutual-fund options, and money in an IRA can be invested almost anywhere. Due to the continued volatility of stock markets, Hudick recommends low-cost bond funds for savers who are just getting started. That's because the chance of a loss of principal is minimal with bonds. The last thing that older savers need is to see a portfolio losing 20% of its value in the next stock market bust.
As your nest egg grows, you'll want to look more closely at stocks. Low-cost index mutual funds can be a good place to start.
Perhaps the biggest problem in starting a retirement plan later in life is the loss of an opportunity to capture the magic of compound interest.
At a 5% annual growth rate, an investment doubles in size in 15 years; at 4%, doubling takes 18 years. But even if you're in your 50s, you can still take advantage of compounded returns. That's because your retirement is likely to run upwards of 20 years. That's a sufficient period for investments put away today to bear fruit.
As you get the savings going, it's time to figure out where you stand financially and what you'll need. It's not hard to draw up a family net worth statement listing assets and liabilities, and an income statement showing income and expenses over the past year.
There are competing rules of thumb about the proportion of current net income you'll need to sustain yourself in retirement, ranging from 60% to 80% or more. But if you're new to retirement savings, don't be paralyzed because you won't reach those goals. Simply do the best you can and keep in mind that you're not starting from zero.
Learn what you're entitled to
This is a good time to paw through your files and find evidence of pensions you may be entitled to. For example, you may well have earned a monthly stipend from a previous employer.
Even more significant is Social Security, which replaces 42% of the salary of a median wage earner who retires at the "full" or "normal" retirement age -- 66 for those born between 1943 and 1954.
Replacement rates are higher than that for low-wage workers and lower for high earners. Plus, the replacement rate is higher for one-earner couples when spousal benefits are factored in.
Every dollar that comes from Social Security is one less dollar you otherwise have to provide for. (You can get an estimate of your Social Security benefits here.)
Although you can start drawing early retirement benefits from Social Security at age 62, it pays to wait. Delaying benefits is crucial if you got a late start to retirement saving. Postponing the start of Social Security benefits until age 70 can boost the monthly payout by as much as 80%.
Here comes the tough-love part. You're going to have to reduce your style of living. It's as simple as that.
Consider moving to a smaller home that's less expensive to own and operate, or even renting an apartment. (The first $500,000 of any gains on a principal residence sold by a couple is tax-free, meaning more to invest now.)
Even more dramatically, consider relocating in retirement to an area with a significantly lower cost of living.
It doesn't take a lot to start building that nest egg. A saver who puts $500 a month into a tax-deferred account -- assuming a 4% annual return, compounded monthly -- would have $74,000 in 10 years. That may not seem like much but, at current rates, that sum would buy a 68-year-old husband and wife an annuity paying out $433 a month for as long as either of them is alive.
This article was reported by William P. Barrett for Forbes.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
"Although you can start drawing early retirement benefits from Social Security at age 62, it pays to wait."
No, it does not always pay to wait.
From age 62 on, no matter when you start drawing Social Security benefits, you'll have received the same amount at your actuarial age of death. For boomers born in the late 1940s, for example, they're "expected to live" - their life expectancy - is 79 or 80 years.
If they begin drawing benefits at 62, 66, or 70, they'll have collected the same amount at that age of 79 or 80.
Clearly, those dying earlier than their life expectancy age would have done better to have not waited, but to have begun collecting as early as possible. (And those dying long after that time would indeed do well to begin collecting as late as possible.)
It also bears noting that some may wish to draw benefits early not because they need the money to live on, but because they have investment opportunities. These individuals may well find the smartest thing they ever did was draw reduced benefits at first light, instead of wait years for a higher payout, when both their opportunities and the time of their life have dwindled.
I retired before I was 50 years old. I saved a lot of money. Now I have to worry about running out of money before the end of my life because all of my kids need financial help and I don't want them and their kids to be moving in with me. If I were to refuse to help them I know what would happen and that would be the worst thing. Thanks to what is happening in the US I and millions of other people have no income from interest now. I receive year end statements from a full service investment Co. and another on line stock trading firm with almost nothing in interest paid. Fortunately I have done well in the stock market during the last two years but along comes the problems in Egypt and Libya and thirty thousand disappears immediately.
True Patriot has it right.
The too big to fail banks are considered too big because the politicos don't want to lose their contributions. I say small business promotes liberty; big business diminishes liberty; and big govt precludes liberty. The "too big to fail" are actually too big to be permitted!!!
Excessive power corrupts in govt and in business..
My plan is to bury my retirement savings in the back yard - then claim no income only to recieve a socialist check because I have no income. The socialist check will keep up with inflation and taxes and I'll make more then, than I will if I "invest" with a 401K and be taxed to death as I withdraw.
Not really - but maybe a good idea.
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.
[BRIEFING.COM] The major averages have continued their rebound with the Nasdaq (+0.2%) climbing into the green thanks to the relative strength of the technology sector (+0.2%).
Chipmakers have fueled a good portion of the rebound while top-weighted tech components remain somewhat mixed. Intel (INTC 24.83, +0.10) is higher by 0.4% while the broader PHLX Semiconductor Index trades up 0.5%.
Technology notwithstanding, the energy sector (+0.2%) has also contributed to the ... More
More Market News
|There’s a problem getting this information right now. Please try again later.|
MUST-SEE ON MSN
- Video: Easy DIY smoked meats at home
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'