If your financial advisor proposed a retirement plan that had a possibility of a ‘disaster’ occurring would you go along with it?
The first question you’d ask is how likely is it that a disaster could occur ?
Disaster is defined as losing all your income and/or assets. This disaster may happen at any time over the next 40 years, so assume you’re unable to find work (no-one will employ an aged, long term unemployed person during a recession). Also assume that there are alternative plans available that are guaranteed risk free for life (eg govt bonds).
There’s been discussion elsewhere about backup plans if the original retirement plan fails. Eg Go back to work, or adjust asset allocation, or just don’t be negative. Comment on any backup plans you feel able to implement in case the original one fails in 20 or 30 years time.
For the purposes of the poll assume you DON'T want to have to implement any backup plans.
Is this starting to sound like an exam question?
The first question you’d ask is how likely is it that a disaster could occur ?
Disaster is defined as losing all your income and/or assets. This disaster may happen at any time over the next 40 years, so assume you’re unable to find work (no-one will employ an aged, long term unemployed person during a recession). Also assume that there are alternative plans available that are guaranteed risk free for life (eg govt bonds).
There’s been discussion elsewhere about backup plans if the original retirement plan fails. Eg Go back to work, or adjust asset allocation, or just don’t be negative. Comment on any backup plans you feel able to implement in case the original one fails in 20 or 30 years time.
For the purposes of the poll assume you DON'T want to have to implement any backup plans.
Is this starting to sound like an exam question?
Last edited: