Affluent women expect to be more active than their male counterparts in retirement, but they are also more worried about outliving their money, according to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch study.
The vast majority of affluent baby boomers believe their retirement will be more active and prosperous than that of their parents, the quarterly survey found.
It also found 70 percent of respondents expect to work, at least part time, to fund that lifestyle.
The survey polled 1,000 Americans with at least $250,000 in investable assets.
Affluent women, in particular, expect to keep very busy in the retirement. Some 86 percent plan to travel, compared with two-thirds of men. Nearly two-thirds of women also plan to be involved in their communities, compared with 43 percent of men.
“Women are leaning toward an active retirement,” Lyle LaMothe, head of U.S. wealth management for Merrill Lynch, said at a presentation for journalists. “A lot of fellows just want to find the couch and sit on it for a while.”
Women are also more worried about the rising costs of healthcare and whether they will have enough money to last them through their lifetime.
About 70 percent of the women surveyed said they worried about rising healthcare costs, compared with 57 percent of men. Similarly, 63 percent of women were worried about their money running out, compared with 52 percent of men.
Merrill Lynch said the survey also revealed that the majority of respondents did not understand the impact of investing conservatively.
Nearly half of the respondents described themselves as ”conservative” investors, and two-thirds of those believed that being conservative helped to shield them from losses.
Only a quarter acknowledged that they might also be giving up opportunities for growth during stronger markets.
The most conservative investors were also the youngest group surveyed. Nearly 60 percent of respondents between the ages of 18 and 34 described themselves as conservative.
Many people in this group lived through two of the worst bear markets in history just as they were starting their careers, and it has made them wary of investing in the markets, said LaMothe.
“It’s a very serious phenomenon and it shows we have a lot of work to do,” he said. “That group can’t stay at 60 percent (identifying themselves as conservative) throughout their lives and achieve their goals or help our economy.”
If affluent women think they have worries, imagine being among the working-poor. What kind of worries do working-poor people have, or is that of no interest to the Tribune business pages? I guess those with 4 or 5 figure incomes don’t matter. The affluent women can sell their jewelry and furs if need be, or maybe find more economical ways to eat other than dining at Michelin rated restaurants 7 days a week.
Welcome to the real world, how about modifying your lifestyle.
Haters in the club
Poor affluent women.
Anyone who has had a lifestyle doesn’t want to make modifications late in life. There are ways to preserve one’s income, but these ladies need to learn prudent means of conducting their lifestyles in order to keep the momentum. If they really want to go out in style, however, it is an imperative that they purchase the kind of funeral they want to have because once you have that prepaid funeral, you can spend yourself into oblivion, and should you need Medicaid, you can keep the prepaid funeral, so you get to go out in style after all. The reason you get to keep the prepaid funeral is because it is a Priority Final Expense. And, really, it’s not about the life style, but how to pay for that expensive 24-hour care that may be needed in those final years. That will bankrupt anyone.
If you are affluent, and it looks like you are going outlive your money, please send it to me! I will be sure that it is taken care of while you are gone…
$250,000 in investable assets is “affluent”? That wouldn’t last 10 years living in a place like Chicago!
“The affluent women can sell their jewelry and furs if need be, or maybe find more economical ways to eat other than dining at Michelin rated restaurants 7 days a week.”
You’re pathetic. If you feel so sorry for the “poor”, you can donate all of your money to them. Until then, don’t cry.
If you have less than $250K, why are you even reading about retirement? You aren’t going to have one.
@Ella – You’re the one who is pathetic. Keep worrying about the rich, maybe you can donate all of your money to them. Oh, wait. Every time the rich get another tax break, you are.
The headline of this article bothered me. The article itself seems short-sighted and silly. That is, until you realize that the real meat of the article is that even if you have the ability to save a substantial amount for retirement, you still may not have enough money. Many advisors say to plan to live until you are 90 years old. If you retire at 65 years of age, that is 25 years of retirement. When you factor in the cost of long-term care, prescription medications, and major health events, very few people will have enough money to retire, even if social security stays solvent. I am already talking to my teenagers about the importance of saving a substantial amount of their salaries for their own retirements, even though I remember how hard it was to save anything in those early years of marriage. We need to learn to save more and spend less. While this is certainly not a possibility for everyone, it is doable for a fair number of people.