Taking too much risk with your investment: We all want the highest interest rate possible and the lowest risk possible – unfortunately these are competing objectives. High rates always spell high risk BUT high risk does not always spell high rates. You should know that risk and reward are traveling companions: if you want low risk you’ve got to settle for low rates and if you want the chance of making high rates you’ve got to accept high risk.

Most people work a lifetime to save enough so they can have a comfortable retirement – the last thing in the world they want is to lose their retirement nest egg in bad investments. So why is it that most retirees have all their money in mutual funds, stock, bonds, a diversified portfolio of securities, variable annuities, etc.? All these things carry the risk of loss – yeah I know that “in the long run” you’ll do a lot better than with a safe money alternative. BUT, in retirement you don’t have a long run. A great economist once said, “in the long run we’re all dead”.

In the closing years of the 1900’s and up until 2002 the stock market was roaring upward – would-be-retirees were making loads of paper profits and looking forward to retirement next year. Out of the blue came the dot.com bust and a market meltdown – over the next two years the S&P lost half its value, the DJIA sank like a rock and the poor NASDAQ stocks lost 80% of their value (that’s where most of the dot.coms were traded). Instead of retiring, or continuing to be retired, many “risk taker” had to change plans or go back to work as Walmart greeters, taxi drivers or whatever they could get in the depressed employment environment. Can this ever happen again?

Look around you: sub-prime problems, foreclosures shore to shore, the dollar losing ground at an alarming rate, inflation picking up, real estate activity grinding to a halt, economic recession being mentioned often, bank stocks losing half their value, major corporation turning to China and the UAE for capital infusion to stay solvent, record federal deficits, commodity prices shooting upward and lots more of gloom and doom. I don’t want to be negative…but there are storm clouds gathering and you don’t have an risk umbrella if you’ve put your retirement money in the market.

The first big mistake retirees (or would-be-retirees in the red zone before retirement) make is they have taken too much risk with them retirement money.

What can you do? Find a financial adviser quick if you don’t know how to lower your risk without one. Examine every retirement investment you have and make sure the money you’ll be using in the next 10-15 years is in rock solid saving places like bank CDs (for use in years 1 – 5) or fixed annuities (for use in years 6 – 15). If you don’t like either for-the-first-half-of-your-retirement money, you can continue to keep your money at risk and hope for the best.Putting your money only in short-term bank CDs: Many of you have all your retirement money in 6-months CDs because you want safety and are afraid you’ll need it all very soon. The good news is that you’ve got safety and ready access…the bad news is that this is costing you a king’s ransom.

Generally, the longer you commit you money the higher the rate of interest you’ll earn – that’s why 5-year CDs pay more than 3-months CDs. You should space, or ladder, your money so that it comes due at about the same time you think you’ll need it. Yes, you may guess wrong sometime but the penalty will be a lot less than if you always keep your money short and liquid.

Let’s say you now have $150,000 in short-term bank CDs that you’ve earmarked for retirement. You think you’ll need about $15,000 a year of this money to cover expenses above your Social Security, pension (if you have one) and other income. Here how a CD ladder could work. Put $15,000 in a money market account (can get anytime you want without penalty), $15,000 in a one, two, three and four year bank CD. You now set so that every year for the next five you’ll have access to $15,000 (plus interest which will keep you up with inflation) to cover your needs.

What do you do with the other $75,000? Why not look into a five year tax-deferred fixed annuity? You’ll pay no taxes on the interest you earn in the annuity until you withdraw it (that means triple compounding: interest on principal, interest on interest and interest on money you would have paid in taxes) and you’ll have rock solid safety because your principal and interest is guaranteed by a major insurance company. The same insurance company that insures you home, life, health, business, car and everything else of value. Oh yes, you’ll probably get a much better earnings rate than if you put the money in a bank CD.

Yes, you will lose the opportunity to hit it out of the park with a high flying stock your brother-in-law told you about but you’ll also avoid the risk that goes with that high flying stock. When you annuity matures in five years you an annuitize (take an income) over the next five years or do another 5-year bank CD ladder.

Retirement is a time to keep what you’ve got rather than trying to double or triple your money in a short period of time. But, you can err by being too safe and too liquid with everything in short-term bank CDs. Retirement is also a time to reassess your risk and make sure you can afford the worse case outcome. That’s why money in the market don’t make sense unless you’ve got a lot more money than you’ll need for retirement.

If you think the market can’t turn around and bite you, check out the following links:

www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2007/03/21/a-market-crash-is-coming.aspx

mutualfunds.about.com/cs/history/a/marketcrash.htm

finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/richricher/26878For more info on Retirement Planning go to the Retirement Pros at http://www.theretirementpros.com/. Learn more from topics such as “Managing Your Retirement Money”, “Guide to Social Security – How to Pay Fewer Taxes”, “Risk and Reward are Traveling Companions”, “Retirement: Your Greatest Financial Challenges” and more. Free Calculators, eReports and online video seminars each month.

Terminal wealth dispersion is the technical term that describes the variability of the future value of investment portfolios. This inevitable variability means that no one knows what the value of their investment portfolio will be when they reach retirement age or at any time during their retirement. And the uncertainty of individual’s life expectancies compounds this problem.

Hedging against the risks associated with these two factors places an onerous burden on individuals. Although this hedging could result in a very comfortable retirement, if one can afford the hedge and their timing is right, the potential downside risk is so great that it may be deemed unacceptable by many individuals. So one has to ask “Do individuals really prefer to forgo a sure but modest retirement income and play the odds with their retirement savings in hopes of being very well off in retirement?”

With individual accounts, individuals lose the benefit of the pooling of risks. The two risks that force individuals to over-save are investment risk and the risk of living beyond the average life expectancy. In both cases the outcomes, terminal wealth and life span, are highly variable. When the risks are pooled for a large number of individuals over many overlapping life spans, the average outcomes are highly predictable, which is what makes traditional pension plans work so well.

Traditional pension plans exist, for all intents and purposes, in perpetuity. This being the case, they can build reserves during good times in the financial markets and weather the bad times, thus enabling them to make consistent payouts to retirees regardless of the timing of their retirement. Unfortunately, individuals do not get to choose their holding periods or the years of their retirement and must take whatever comes along, and what comes along might be good or it might be bad. Thus individuals must set savings goals that are sufficiently high to hedge against the risk of the average return of an investment portfolio over its holding period falling well short of that which would be expected very long term.

The relatively short duration of individual’s holding periods leave them very susceptible to the effects of market cycles, which are notoriously unpredictable in amplitude and frequency. Being broadly diversified mitigates this risk but does not eliminate it, as it’s entirely possible for a worldwide bear market to occur during one’s holding period. Then at the end of the holding period for wealth accumulation, a second holding period begins, which will be the term of retirement, and this second holding period carries the same risks as the first, but at a time in life when there is no source of income to make up for portfolio under-performance.

The other component of risk that individuals must hedge is the risk represented by the uncertainty of one’s life span, which means that individuals must aim even higher when setting their savings goals. The managers of large pension plans can depend on retirees living on average for only the average life expectancy of employees who reach retirement age. The average life expectancy for someone who reaches the age of 66 is currently 82 years, and 66 is currently the age when workers are eligible for full Social Security benefits, which makes it a reasonable baseline. Based on those assumptions, the average term of retirement would be 18 years and pension plans should only have to be funded to the extent necessary to cover the cost of this average term of retirement.

Individuals, however, don’t know how long they’re going to live, so they must over-save to ensure that they don’t run out of money before they run out of time. This need to over-save is independent of the first need, thus the need to over-save is compounded, i.e., an individual needs to save enough to cover the cost of living well beyond the average life expectancy and the targeted amount of savings at retirement age must be great enough to ensure with a reasonably high level of certainty that the actual amount on hand at retirement is at least the bare minimum necessary to get by on.

A popular estimate of the term of retirement for which individuals must plan is 30 years. Saving enough to cover the cost of a 30-year retirement is a much greater burden than saving for an 18-year retirement, but planning on a shorter retirement exposes individuals to tremendous risk. It also exposes taxpayers to tremendous risk, as individuals who outlive their savings will undoubtedly require some form of public assistance to make ends meet and are likely become wards of the state when they become physically incapable of caring for themselves.

An individual who bases their retirement saving on living to the age of 96 but only lives to be 82 will have forgone a lot of pleasures in life, such as travel, fine dining and better vehicles, that they could otherwise have enjoyed. But many individuals just don’t have the level of income required to support the saving rate necessary to amass the wealth required to hedge against the downside of terminal wealth dispersion and the possibility of living well past the average life expectancy. For them it’s not a matter of forgone consumption, it’s a matter of going through life with the knowledge that they are likely to spend their golden years living in abject poverty and that that will be their reward for 40 or 50 years of hard work. And it gets worse!

Some economists now believe that within 15 years or so, 100% of Social Security benefits will be spent on medical expenses: Medicare Parts B and D premiums, copayments, uncovered expenses and medigap insurance premiums. If that becomes the case, anyone without substantial savings or a defined benefit pension will be looking for public assistance the day after they retire.

With the situation already at this state, adding private Social Security accounts to the mix would be like throwing gas on a fire, as individual Social Security accounts carry the same risks as other individual retirement accounts. Those who have tried to kill Social Security since its inception find private accounts very appealing. But, not so coincidentally, most of them seem to be in the enviable position of not needing Social Security to support their retirement. More recently, younger workers, too, have come to oppose Social Security, but not for the same reason as the traditional opponents. Young workers may be crushed by the burden of social Security and may never receive any benefits from the system. Those who oppose Social Security simply because it’s a social program should be expending their efforts on reforming it rather than killing it.

If Social Security had been managed like a pension plan rather than a pyramid scheme, its current situation wouldn’t be so dire. Indeed, it might very well be a fully funded, functional system. CalPERS and other large public employee retirement plans have operated successfully for decades, with success being defined as being able to meet their obligations, not having an adverse effect on the financial markets, no scandalous events attributable to malfeasance by the plans’ sponsors and being free of influence from elected officials. There’s no reason that Social Security can’t also be managed in such a manner. It would literally take an act of Congress to do this, but the hardest part for Congress would be letting the system run without their interfering with its operation.

Passing off the burden of retirement to individuals was a great deal for corporations but it’s a very poor deal for most individuals, and extending individual accounts to include the Social Security system would only make a bad situation worse. It’s not a poor deal for all individuals because there will be some who can afford to save a substantial portion of their income and whose holding periods will coincide with bull markets, thus putting their wealth in the upper range of their terminal wealth dispersion, and who also live a long, healthy life. They will be the ones who benefit from over-saving and living beyond the average life expectancy, but they may end up forfeiting a portion of their wealth in the form of taxes to support the less fortunate. I don’t believe that is what the public expects from a well-conceived system.