Early Retirement?

[eliza61]

Love your post. The key is BALANCE. But as your note underscores, the definition of balance can cover a lot of ground. I would have no issue at all splurging on the ceiling fan. But a time share like DVC, well, before my children were adults, I could never afford that. And now that I can, I realize with a job that only has 3 weeks vacation a year, and no holidays off, I would never ever use it enough to justify the expense.
But, having to place an elderly parent in a care home though, and seeing the other folks there who had family struggling to pay for their care, statistically speaking, your odds of outliving your money are several times greater than saving the money and not needing it.

I think that's probably why I don't like Suzy, Dave etc etc. Planning a retirement is so darn personal. I can't imagine listening to some one who has absolutely no idea of my life experiences, how I view money, what dreams we have etc etc.

Then to top if off, all of the above changes!! Lol, my views and dreams when I was 35 are totally different than what they are now.

I think what gets me a bit frustrating is no matter what I plan or do there always seems to be some soothsayer, report, financial guide that says "it's not enough". Save a million bucks, not enough because to may get sick and need ltc, 2 million? Not enough because you could live to 95.

Lol, so darn it when do I get to relax and enjoy my old age?

 

[tvguy]

I think that's probably why I don't like Suzy, Dave etc etc. Planning a retirement is so darn personal. I can't imagine listening to some one who has absolutely no idea of my life experiences, how I view money, what dreams we have etc etc.

Then to top if off, all of the above changes!! Lol, my views and dreams when I was 35 are totally different than what they are now.

I think what gets me a bit frustrating is no matter what I plan or do there always seems to be some soothsayer, report, financial guide that says "it's not enough". Save a million bucks, not enough because to may get sick and need ltc, 2 million? Not enough because you could live to 95.

Lol, so darn it when do I get to relax and enjoy my old age?

See, DW and I have been married 32 years and our views today on retirement haven't changed since we were 24. Only thing that has really changed is our hope to retire at 62 instead off 66 1/2. Our views have been strengthened by our parents situations. My MIL died at age 64 before retiring with barely enough saved for retirement to last her 4 years. She would have been in a very bad financial situation. My FIL lived modestly, but his retirement savings and pensions meant even 10 years after his death, his wife has an a modest but level income that is equal to what my FIL earned working. However, for both all of them, being retired career Air Force (or spouses) their medical insurance was free, and they had 100% coverage.

My mom saved an invested well, and enjoyed 27 years of comfortable retirement and left me a very nice nest egg. I wish I had a list of all the cruises and around the world trips she took in those 27 years all on income of $20,000 a year. Not hard to do when your house has been paid off for 53 years, and you pay cash for your cars, and keep them 27 years.

 

[powellrj]

One things people don't mention are the unplanned events. I retired at 53 and had no intention of retiring that early. Life had a different plan for me. My parents needed me to care for them and I had a back disorder that got worse and then a car accident sealed the deal. Wheelchair bound and caring for my parents isn't anything that I planned for, but you learn to deal with the hand dealt.

My husband is still working which pays for our health insurance and our last child at home has earned several scholarships that will pay for her education, but our middle DS has moved home after graduating from college because he is very underemployed at the moment.

None of these things is what we had planned for our retirement, but you just move on and be glad for what we have.

 

[eliza61]

See, DW and I have been married 32 years and our views today on retirement haven't changed since we were 24. Only thing that has really changed is our hope to retire at 62 instead off 66 1/2. Our views have been strengthened by our parents situations. My MIL died at age 64 before retiring with barely enough saved for retirement to last her 4 years. She would have been in a very bad financial situation. My FIL lived modestly, but his retirement savings and pensions meant even 10 years after his death, his wife has an a modest but level income that is equal to what my FIL earned working. However, for both all of them, being retired career Air Force (or spouses) their medical insurance was free, and they had 100% coverage. My mom saved an invested well, and enjoyed 27 years of comfortable retirement and left me a very nice nest egg. I wish I had a list of all the cruises and around the world trips she took in those 27 years all on income of $20,000 a year. Not hard to do when your house has been paid off for 53 years, and you pay cash for your cars, and keep them 27 years.

I guess I was pretty lucky, my dad was a NYC cop full pension and medical bennies. As is my sister, she retired from Nypd after 25 years on the job at 50. Once again, full benefits until she dies, most likely. Now both my dad and sister had real estate investments. My sis at 56 just purchased a McMansion to start a new career as a interior designer. No tossing and turning about having a million dollar mortgage. She didn't plan on that but is simply finally living her dream.

Now of course my retirement plans changed when my husband drops dead at 55. So I can safely say, that was not in my plans at 24. So yeah my views are not the same My sister travels a bunch also, I'm sure she writes a lot of it off because of her business but I know she has a mortgage. So still not correlating mortgage with traveling? Dh and I always had "alternative" goals or maybe not main stream. He and his partner started their own business so we never had a "debt is bad" view since we acquired a lot of debt when he started his business. Our goal has always been increasing our net wealth. so for us it wasn't we'll retire at X age but more like how can we use our resources to hit 10 million bucks. LOL I'll let you know if I make it before I retire. it's not looking good.

I get 6 weeks vacation, in 2012 took the entire family (9 people) to Paris for 10 days, I'm still working and make a bit more than 20k as did my parents. My mom was a civil rights attorney but she also died young before she could enjoy retirement. My dad, died at 85, no health issues at all. Had a steak and jack Daniels, went to the Yankee game with 2 of my brothers, died in his sleep. Go figure.

My FIL was Portugese. He thought Americans were little gerbils spending their entire lives running on a wheel, getting nowhere and never enjoying life. We had many interesting discussions about the American habit of using "fear" to get us to act. Tried for years to get us to move to Lisbon when the kids where babies. I'm sure his experiences dictated his choices, and the free medical could not have hurted. He also passed in his 80's. We never really talked about whether he worried about running out of money. He definitely came to the states often enough.

Now I just purchased a new house, besides Disney I won't do much traveling this year. Moving and decorating can suck buckets of cash. I do have a mortgage and will have one when I retire unless the markets change. Next year we plan on doing London and Yellowstone. I can't say what will happen after I retire in 5-6 years but don't expect to decrease vacation time considerably. If anything it will probably increase because If there is a God, my sons will be out my house.

God bless your mom, I totally admit, right now I drive 72 miles round trip, not sure Id want a 27 year old car. Lol. I'll have to keep revive this thread in 10 years to see if I regret taking out a mortgage late in life.

Who know TV, tomorrow I may change my mind and blow every thing on some magic beans.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

Now that this has become a healthcare topic I'll throw my two cents in.

I am extremely knowledgable about healthcare finance.

I have worked for three providers (Hospital system, dialysis provider, assisted living provider) and one insurer, all in finance positions.

Pretty much everything that gets talked about in these conversations is missing the whole point.

Fact: the USA pays more per capita than other countries.

Fact: the USA has lower life expectancy

Fact: the USA's lower life expectancy is almost entirely explained by Stillborn children (who are counted as deaths in the USA but not in other countries, and a person who dies with a lifetime of 1 day tends to drastically drive down the averages) and BMI statistics (the USA is fatter than other countries but that's beginning to change as everyone else is getting fatter, too).

So why does the USA pay more per capita than other countries?

Because we pay extradorniary amounts to keep people alive wheras other countries don't.

My father had terminal cancer that was discovered in January 2008. He was given 90 days to live if there were no operations performed.

He died in April 2011. His total medical expenses the last 3 years and 4 months came to 11 million dollars.

ELEVEN MILLION.

.

Well, according to what I could find on the Internet, Canada pays about half as much per capita as the US. We have a longer life expectancy (I could not find any confirmation of your statement that counting/not counting stillbirths is different between the two countries). I have seen research that showed people with certain diseases (breast cancer, heart disease) had a better chance of survival in Canada than in the US.

I would say that people with terminal illnesses do receive the same kind of care here with the goal of maximizing their life expectancy, if that's what they choose. I have several friends who have passed away from cancer and believe me every effort was made to extend their lives even when we knew it was pretty much hopeless.

I think one big factor may be that there is no plan or need to make a profit when you have universal health care. Insurance companies must make a profit to keep their stockholders happy and the bigger the profit, the better. I also think a single system offers other efficiencies: no need to advertise or spend money on marketing, less paperwork, few management people needed, etc. That all has to reduce the overall costs.

Another research study I found interesting: in one city, they decided to try an experiment to see if it would reduce health care costs if people were encouraged not to go the ER or the doctor's office for minor symptoms such as a cold or stomach upset. We do not pay any "co-pay" or fee for these visits, so the thought was that people were going unnecessarily. They had a lot of public education and advertising telling people that if they just had certain symptoms there was no need to see a doctor, etc. It did reduce the number of visits for colds and stomach flu - but the overall costs went UP! Why? Because people are not doctors! So people would stay home with what they thought was just a cold, for example, but it was actually pneumonia or bronchitis or another more serious disease, and by the time they were sick enough that they did go to the doctor, they required much more extensive care and possibly hospital admission. The researchers realized that it was cheaper to have people come in with minor ailments so that the one or two serious ailments would be caught early. I suspect that the system in the US, where people are expected to pay for each doctor's visit, has the effect of discouraging people from going to the doctor if they think they are not seriously ill, and as a result it ends up costing more because serious illness are missed at the early stages.

I don't know if that explanation was very clear! But it was an interesting and unexpected outcome.

TP

 

[DVCcurious]

Well, according to what I could find on the Internet, Canada pays about half as much per capita as the US.

I think one big factor may be that there is no plan or need to make a profit when you have universal health care. Insurance companies must make a profit to keep their stockholders happy and the bigger the profit, the better.

By law Insurance companies must return 80% of premiums paid to their customers through medical payments. If they don't pay out 80% of premiums for medical payments they must refund that amount to their customers.

So that leaves 20% of premiums paid for all of their employees salaries and benefits plus the advertisements and profits you mentioned.

Go to Cigna's or Aetna's website and read their 10k. I'm sure you'd be shocked to find out they make very little profit as a percentage of insurance premiums.


You state that we pay twice what Canada pays (so if Canada pays 50 we pay 100), insurance profits are like 4-5% of total premium revenue, so if we made all insurance companies not-for-profits we'd pay 95 or 96 vs Canada's 50.

Nope, Insurance Company profits are not the driver of our high per capita healthcare costs. I know EVIL insurance companies are a common target of certain politicians, but those politicians are either liars or they are ignorant.

Read the 10k, then get back to me if you still think Profits are what's driving our high cost.

And don't mention that we'd save money by not paying the employees salaries because that is also not accurate. Insurance companies collect premiums and pay the providers. If they didn't exist there would still be a need for this service. So those salary expenses at the insurance companies would just become salary expenses at the federal government, there would be no net savings to the consumer.

 

[MrsPete]

My dad was 60 years old when cancer was discovered.

I'm not sure why you think 60 is "elderly" but I think most people would consider that later-middle age rather than "elderly"

I guess I read It wrong. I was thinking he was much older.

 

[MrsPete]

I think that's probably why I don't like Suzy, Dave etc etc. Planning a retirement is so darn personal. I can't imagine listening to some one who has absolutely no idea of my life experiences, how I view money, what dreams we have etc etc. ?

Disagree. The formula for retirement is pretty much the same for everyone:

- Start saving early while the power of compound interest is on your side.
- Live on less than you earn (which is easier if you avoid debt and live a frugal lifestyle).

The important thing is to save. THEN the personal part comes into play. If you and I both save for our retirements, and you choose to use your retirement funds to buy an RV and tour the country, while I choose to stay home and indulge in hobbies, it doesn't really matter.

 

[DVCcurious]

I guess I read It wrong. I was thinking he was much older.

No problem

I just want to make the point that deciding whether to stop treatments is a difficult decision. I think most people would say that it's not worth $1,000,000 to keep a terminal patient alive one more year when there is no chance of recovery. But I don't think any politician would get elected if he or she came out and said "Under my healthcare plan if you're going to cost more than $3000 per day to keep you alive we're going to just let you die!"


This is why healthcare discussions in this country drive me crazy. Everyone has an opinion but no one knows what they are talking about. It's easy for a politician to blame insurance companies or trial lawyers for high healthcare costs and for the ignorant public to believe them. But it's all BS.

It's been awhile since I left the healthcare field. I left Cigna in 2010, I spent my last year helping CIGNA do financial forecasts for different Obamacare scenarios to see which scenarios maximized profits and we passed that info on to our lobbyists who then tried to influence the legislation. I know, I'm going to hell, right? But back when I was in the healthcare field I'm pretty sure I heard that people spend like 30% of their entire lifetime healthcare expenses in their final year of life.

So if you live to 100 you'll spend as much in year 100 as you did in years 0-30, 31-60, 61-90, etc.

That's a huge driver of healthcare costs we just don't want to talk about. It's easier to blame CIGNA or evil trial lawyers than blame Grandpa for wanting to live another year.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

I don't really have time to read insurance company documents and I'm sure I wouldn't understand most of it anyway. I was just looking for other possible causes, since you were saying that the main driver of high health care costs in the US were the high costs of end-of-life care. It seems to me that these particular costs would be similar in Canada, yet our per capita costs are much lower, so I was looking for other possible factors and suggested three: profits, the efficiencies you gain when you have just one insurance system rather than multiple companies, and the co-pays which might discourage people from going in for early treatment of illness. Sounds like you feel profit is not a significant factor and I accept your expertise in that area - I think it would be well worth trying to figure out what the factors are.

TP

 

[tvguy]

I don't really have time to read insurance company documents and I'm sure I wouldn't understand most of it anyway. I was just looking for other possible causes, since you were saying that the main driver of high health care costs in the US were the high costs of end-of-life care. It seems to me that these particular costs would be similar in Canada, yet our per capita costs are much lower, so I was looking for other possible factors and suggested three: profits, the efficiencies you gain when you have just one insurance system rather than multiple companies, and the co-pays which might discourage people from going in for early treatment of illness. Sounds like you feel profit is not a significant factor and I accept your expertise in that area - I think it would be well worth trying to figure out what the factors are.

TP

Canada has far fewer specialists, and GP's treat far more ailments than the U.S. Specialists cost more. The wait for non-life threatening ailments is far greater. Knee replacement surgery in the U.S. usually is scheduled within a few weeks of a diagnosis. Both my Uncles in Canada had a wait of 10 to 11 months.

 

[eliza61]

Disagree. The formula for retirement is pretty much the same for everyone: - Start saving early while the power of compound interest is on your side. - Live on less than you earn (which is easier if you avoid debt and live a frugal lifestyle). The important thing is to save. THEN the personal part comes into play. If you and I both save for our retirements, and you choose to use your retirement funds to buy an RV and tour the country, while I choose to stay home and indulge in hobbies, it doesn't really matter.

Ok we disagree. Because how and what you save are very important. If I save 1 dollar a month unless that compound interest jumps really high, I ain't retiring because there won't be much funds.
And even "frugal" is very personal. I'm pretty sure what you think is frugal is different than my definition. One size rarely fits all. Just telling some one to "save" would not be what I'd define as great retirement advice.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

Canada has far fewer specialists, and GP's treat far more ailments than the U.S. Specialists cost more. The wait for non-life threatening ailments is far greater. Knee replacement surgery in the U.S. usually is scheduled within a few weeks of a diagnosis. Both my Uncles in Canada had a wait of 10 to 11 months.

Yes, that makes sense. I am often surprised that my US friends take their children to pediatricians, because here most of us have family doctors (GPs) who do routine care for children and you'd only see a pediatrician if your child had some unusual or serious illness. I think the timing for surgery does depend a lot on where you live, as I have several friends who have had knee replacements with only a short wait time but they were mostly in the Toronto area. I know it can be tougher in more rural areas (and Canada has a LOT of more rural areas!).

TP

 

[DVCcurious]

I don't really have time to read insurance company documents and I'm sure I wouldn't understand most of it anyway. I was just looking for other possible causes, since you were saying that the main driver of high health care costs in the US were the high costs of end-of-life care. It seems to me that these particular costs would be similar in Canada,

Why does it seem to you end of life costs would be similar?

I'm sure the vast majority of Americans would agree with your point of view, so I'm not picking on you in any way. I just want to make a general comment about Americans lack of knowledge of medical cost drivers.

If one country just gives you some morphine and pats you on the back and sends you on your way, and the other country tries every test know to man and every surgery they can rush you into the costs would be very, very different. My dad's last three years cost 11 million dollars. According to our friend who lived in Sweden they wouldn't have done any surgeries for my dad and his cost would have been in the hundred thousand dollar range (for morphine, hospice, some hospital stuff to keep him comfortable while he did). 11 million is much higher than a hundred thousand.

Hey, we're all entitled to our own opinion. We are all free to believe whatever we want. Most people are ignorant about the drivers of medical costs, but they don't realize the extent of their ignorance.

I've studied a lot in the field of Economics, and one of the jokes we have in economics circles goes something like this:

Walk up to a person on the street and ask them "do you understand chemistry?" and they'll most likely say "of course not, I've never take any chemistry classes beyond a high school class". Then ask that person "do you understand economics" and they'll say "of course I do". Then ask them "how many economics courses have you taken" and they'll say "none, but I watch the nightly news so I'm very informed about economics".

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Disagree. The formula for retirement is pretty much the same for everyone: - Start saving early while the power of compound interest is on your side. - Live on less than you earn (which is easier if you avoid debt and live a frugal lifestyle). The important thing is to save. THEN the personal part comes into play. If you and I both save for our retirements, and you choose to use your retirement funds to buy an RV and tour the country, while I choose to stay home and indulge in hobbies, it doesn't really matter.

Many forget about compounding interest. The key to this type of investing is "time". If you start saving early in life you don't have to ride the ups and downs of the stock market. Just keep contributing to an interest bearing account ( higher paying yields are in investment companies not the bank) and watch it grow!! Last year we averaged 4%. Not too shabby of a return and we didn't lose any money

 

[Colleen27]

Disagree. The formula for retirement is pretty much the same for everyone:

- Start saving early while the power of compound interest is on your side.
- Live on less than you earn (which is easier if you avoid debt and live a frugal lifestyle).

The important thing is to save. THEN the personal part comes into play. If you and I both save for our retirements, and you choose to use your retirement funds to buy an RV and tour the country, while I choose to stay home and indulge in hobbies, it doesn't really matter.

The formula is simple, but the numbers are very personal. Someone living on 30K/year may very well start saving early but still fall well short of any reasonable retirement goals and may not have the ability to live below his/her means, but most of the experts more or less ignore the fact that a person of such modest means throughout his working years isn't likely to have retirement expectations of world travel or indulging expensive hobbies either.

I think it is important to keep in mind, whatever your retirement goals, that most of the experts are being paid in some way by the financial planning industry and thus have a vested interest in making even the most dedicated savers feel that they need the services of those sponsors. I think that's where a lot of the absolute dollar goals come in - because if you tell Joe and Jane Blue-collar that they need to be saving a million dollars if they hope to retire, they're going to feel like they need professional help (or a miracle) to make that happen.

 

[NotUrsula]

The formula is simple, but the numbers are very personal. Someone living on 30K/year may very well start saving early but still fall well short of any reasonable retirement goals and may not have the ability to live below his/her means, but most of the experts more or less ignore the fact that a person of such modest means throughout his working years isn't likely to have retirement expectations of world travel or indulging expensive hobbies either.

I think it is important to keep in mind, whatever your retirement goals, that most of the experts are being paid in some way by the financial planning industry and thus have a vested interest in making even the most dedicated savers feel that they need the services of those sponsors. I think that's where a lot of the absolute dollar goals come in - because if you tell Joe and Jane Blue-collar that they need to be saving a million dollars if they hope to retire, they're going to feel like they need professional help (or a miracle) to make that happen.

ITA. DH got a freebie subscription to Money magazine, and the folks writing in about their fears over retirement crack me up. "We are 45 and our net worth is only $1.2M; is there any hope for us?" Urk. DH's grandfather worked 30 years stoking furnaces in a chemical plant, retired at age 62 with an old-fashioned pension, and proceeded to collect that pension for 41 years. Along the way he also saved about $200K in cash, which he invested mostly in CD's.

Those "Money" readers would scoff at $200K and say that he wasn't being frugal enough, but here is what they are not considering: $200K was equal to just under half of the entire gross wages that he made in his lifetime. He and his wife were VERY frugal people; they ate out in a restaurant maybe once per year, had only one car (and not even one until the late 1940's.), always raised their own veggies, and raised two children in an 800 sq. ft. house, for which they paid the princely sum of $4,700, financed over 20 years. His idea of living large was buying a few bottles of good imported beer from back home in Germany, rather than Bud once in a while. (Also, he never went home again. Emigrants didn't go back to Europe to visit in that era. When you left home, you left forever, and you knew it.)

These days folks like GFIL make a bit more, but living costs more as well. If the average HS graduate breadwinner couple manages to put away $400K in cash they are doing very nicely, and again, that is only possible by saving nearly HALF of gross pay for 3 decades if you make in the low 30's.

 

[tvguy]

ITA. DH got a freebie subscription to Money magazine, and the folks writing in about their fears over retirement crack me up. "We are 45 and our net worth is only $1.2M; is there any hope for us?" Urk. DH's grandfather worked 30 years stoking furnaces in a chemical plant, retired at age 62 with an old-fashioned pension, and proceeded to collect that pension for 41 years. Along the way he also saved about $200K in cash, which he invested mostly in CD's.

Those "Money" readers would scoff at $200K and say that he wasn't being frugal enough, but here is what they are not considering: $200K was equal to just under half of the entire gross wages that he made in his lifetime. He and his wife were VERY frugal people; they ate out in a restaurant maybe once per year, had only one car (and not even one until the late 1940's.), always raised their own veggies, and raised two children in an 800 sq. ft. house, for which they paid the princely sum of $4,700, financed over 20 years. His idea of living large was buying a few bottles of good imported beer from back home in Germany, rather than Bud once in a while. (Also, he never went home again. Emigrants didn't go back to Europe to visit in that era. When you left home, you left forever, and you knew it.)

These days folks like GFIL make a bit more, but living costs more as well. If the average HS graduate breadwinner couple manages to put away $400K in cash they are doing very nicely, and again, that is only possible by saving nearly HALF of gross pay for 3 decades if you make in the low 30's.

I think one of the lessons of the recent economic downturn is that what a lot of people today consider necessities, really aren't. A smartphone probably isn't, and replacing it with the latest model the second it comes out certainly isn't. Throwing out your working TV for the latest model isn't either. You get my drift, but for a lot of folks THOSE are necessities.

 

[NotUrsula]

I think one of the lessons of the recent economic downturn is that what a lot of people today consider necessities, really aren't. A smartphone probably isn't, and replacing it with the latest model the second it comes out certainly isn't. Throwing out your working TV for the latest model isn't either. You get my drift, but for a lot of folks THOSE are necessities.

Well, I don't disagree with that, but it doesn't negate the unrealistic expectation that a wage earning family needs to save over $1M for retirement. Measures like that add up over time, sure, and while that is certainly a good thing, it isn't going to miraculously turn into the monetary equivalent of loaves and fishes.

The less you make, the more likely it is that there is not much really meaningful fat to cut out to make room for significant savings. At a level under $50K/yr at today's dollars, the only thing likely to make it possible to save over 45% of your gross income for your entire working career is inheriting enough money or property up front to eliminate the cost of housing. I don't know about you, but 35% of my gross is gone before I ever see it, partly into my retirement and life/disability insurance accounts, but mostly into taxes and medical insurance premiums. I'm frugal and a big saver, but not that big.

 

[nunzia]

ITA. DH got a freebie subscription to Money magazine, and the folks writing in about their fears over retirement crack me up. "We are 45 and our net worth is only $1.2M; is there any hope for us?" Urk. DH's grandfather worked 30 years stoking furnaces in a chemical plant, retired at age 62 with an old-fashioned pension, and proceeded to collect that pension for 41 years. Along the way he also saved about $200K in cash, which he invested mostly in CD's.

Those "Money" readers would scoff at $200K and say that he wasn't being frugal enough, but here is what they are not considering: $200K was equal to just under half of the entire gross wages that he made in his lifetime. He and his wife were VERY frugal people; they ate out in a restaurant maybe once per year, had only one car (and not even one until the late 1940's.), always raised their own veggies, and raised two children in an 800 sq. ft. house, for which they paid the princely sum of $4,700, financed over 20 years. His idea of living large was buying a few bottles of good imported beer from back home in Germany, rather than Bud once in a while. (Also, he never went home again. Emigrants didn't go back to Europe to visit in that era. When you left home, you left forever, and you knew it.)

These days folks like GFIL make a bit more, but living costs more as well. If the average HS graduate breadwinner couple manages to put away $400K in cash they are doing very nicely, and again, that is only possible by saving nearly HALF of gross pay for 3 decades if you make in the low 30's.

I used to get Money magazine too. I think it was the article about the guy whining he might have to sell his BOAT and HORSES if he wanted to keep his second condo in retirement that put me over the edge and I canceled.