Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
there was an interesting show on consuelo mac last week.
it pertained to the retirement planning of women.
study after study seems to show that women and their money seem to have different needs then men do.
because women tend to live on average 5 years longer then men and many more tend to be single their biggest concern is how long will my money last.
men seem to be more pre-occupied with the returns they are getting on their money.
the point of the show was that financial planners really have to understand they are dealing with 2 very different wants and needs.
women want their money to last but they also seem to fear investing more then men.
men will take more risk for higher returns.
women like money they can count on and the feeling of security like annuity products. men shy away from those products and want to do it on their own.
the financial planners need to recognize this fact and not paint everyone with the same brush like they do.
men by nature are the hunters and gatherers , women like safe , secure and consistant, and the two are very opposite.
Last edited by mathjak107; 07-02-2013 at 03:56 AM..
To avoid painting everyone with the same brush, I will say, for me, those points pertaining to women are accurate.
Do other women also believe that they are ready to live more frugally in order to make their funds last longer as an alternative to taking bigger risks in the hopes of higher returns ......that we can live more frugally than our men?
Those points are true for me also. As a single working mother for many years, I had to be frugal. That hasn't changed now that the kids are on their own. When I meet with my CFP yearly, our main topic of discussion is putting some of my retirement funds in more aggressive funds, how much, and what I'm comfortable with. I feel he knows my background and where I am coming from.
I think it's truer for older women. Younger women have been more exposed to financial dealings, aka 401Ks, IRAs, etc. where they had to make some decisions.
My MIL really knows nothing about her finances..says "her financial planner" takes care of it.
This is what she said after my FIL passed away. Found out he's just a broker at a big name firm.
I got ahold of my SIL and told her she better get involved with her mother's finances because brokers make money by trading, not planning.
Turned out the finances weren't so good. She had to sell the house and now rents. Can only take 2 vacations up north per year now and cannot just "buy what she wants". It was a rude awakening. She's not broke or anything, but she's not the "Ivana Trump" she thought she was.
And a year later..she still doesn't know what her budget is per month. My SIL is managing all her finances now.
I think it's truer for older women. Younger women have been more exposed to financial dealings, aka 401Ks, IRAs, etc. where they had to make some decisions.
My MIL really knows nothing about her finances..says "her financial planner" takes care of it.
This is what she said after my FIL passed away. Found out he's just a broker at a big name firm.
I got ahold of my SIL and told her she better get involved with her mother's finances because brokers make money by trading, not planning.
Turned out the finances weren't so good. She had to sell the house and now rents. Can only take 2 vacations up north per year now and cannot just "buy what she wants". It was a rude awakening. She's not broke or anything, but she's not the "Ivana Trump" she thought she was.
And a year later..she still doesn't know what her budget is per month. My SIL is managing all her finances now.
What you say is relative to a certain segment of women but I was taking the op more aimed at women who do see to their own finances.
I've always been the 'financial director' of our household and , at one time, was even NASD licensed so wasn't/am not totally naïve, but that did not make me more or less risk averse.(and definitely not even smarter
Well, I am an "old lady", have always done my own investing and am probably more aggressive than I should be. I have always been a risk taker and that has not changed any... even in retirement.
My lady friends know very little about investing, all they care about is having enough money to pay their bills and then they spend the rest. Not one of them have more than 20K invested and they only put their money in CD's, any other monies they have received in divorce settlements or inherited have been blown on expensive vacations, shopping, cars and their children.
It is too late to change them, I can only hope that todays younger women becomes more learned and in control of their investments.
Aside from inheritance, there are only two ways to earn money, go to work for it or let your investments earn it for you....and, even with an inheritance it is important to know what portfolio will work best for you....if not...it will soon be gone and back to work you will have to go.
many are not aware of diddly.. many still go by age which is a crock.
what good is being 25 years old , put 80-100% into equities because they are young and then they bail and lose money in the downturns because they haven't the pucker factor for risk.
on the other hand even a 65 year old old has money that will not be used to eat for 15-30 years. no reason if they have the ability to take some risk they can't have a nice growth and income mix.
planners like to stay with the old school ways , they can always defend them when using the conventional criteria even if it is the wrong advice for many folks .
most are not aware of diddly.. many still go by age which is a crock.
what good is being 25 years old , put 80-100% into equities because they are young and then they bail and lose money in the downturns because they haven't the pucker factor for risk.
on the other hand even a 65 year old old has money that will not be used to eat for 15-30 years. no reason if they have the ability to take some risk they can't have a nice growth and income mix.
planners like to stay with the old school ways , they can always defend using the conventional criteria even if it is the wrong advice for many folks .
Age (or the time until money is to be needed based on contributing and withdrawing) is significantly more important than gender differences. Meaning, the advice given to a 22 year old vs a 60 year old is going to differ a lot more than the advice given to to a similarly aged woman and man.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
