devastated with our retirement money that we have left
"I'm going to discuss this, in general, as specific investment advice isn't allowed here. What type of account is the $60K in now? I mean - Is it in a 401(k), IRA or regular account/CD/money market?  You are still working? Does your company offer any kind of matched 401(k)? If so, take advantage of that right up the level they'll match. If not, are you currently depositing to pretax IRAs? You can't just deposit that $60K into an IRA if it isn't already, but you can put $11k/yr ($5 for you, $6K for hubby if you make $11K or more this year.) Now, disclaimer, I am anti-annuity. Like many who are pro or con on issues, this is my nature. The one type of annuity I actually like is the Immediate Annuity. The link is not for an end company, it shows quotes from many and is meant as an example. Today, a 65 yr old man can get $600/mo with a $100K purchase. This is 7.2%, in an economy in which rates are sub 3%. You give up principal in exchange for this higher annual return.  This is a viable solution for the just-retired person whose money will run out when looking at a 4-5% withdrawal but 1% CD rate. In general, these products are no more complex that what I just described, unlike annuities sold to younger fold which combine high fees with returns that are so complex to describe that most agents can't keep their story straight.  Aside from the immediate flavor, all other annuities are partial sold (there's a quote among finance folk - ""annuities are sold, not bought"") based on their tax deferral features. I don't suspect you are in a tax bracket where that feature has any value to you.  At 48/54, with at least 10 years ahead of you, I'd research 'diversification' and 'asset allocation'. Even $60K is enough to proper invest these funds until you retire and then decide what's right for you.   Beginners' Guide to Asset Allocation, Diversification, and Rebalancing is an interesting introduction, and it's written by the SEC, so your tax dollars paid for it.  Some months ago, I wrote Diversifying to Reduce Risk, which falls short of a complete discussion of asset allocation, but it does illustrate the power of being in a stock/bond mix. The ups and downs were reduced significantly compared to the all stock portfolio.  (for follow up or to help others reply to you, a bit more detail on the current investments, and how you are devastated, eg was there a huge loss from what you had a few years ago?) Edit - The original poster hasn't returned. Posted the question and left. It's unfortunate as this was someone who would benefit from the dialog, and the answers here can help others in a similar position, but I feel more discussion is in order for the OP. Last, I caught a downvote on my reply today. I take no offense, but curious which part of my answer the DVer disagreed with." "It sounds like the kinds of planners you're talking to might be a poor fit, because they are essentially salespersons selling investments for a commission. Some thoughts on finding a financial planner The good kind of financial planner is going to be able to do a comprehensive plan - look at your whole life, goals, and non-investment issues such as insurance. You should expect to get a document with a Monte Carlo simulation showing your odds of success if you stick to the plan; for investments, you should expect to see a recommended asset allocation and an emphasis on low-cost no-commission (commission is ""load"") funds. See some of the other questions from past posts, for example What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? A good place to start for a planner might be http://napfa.org ; there's also a franchise of planners providing hourly advice called the Garrett Planning Network, I helped my mom hire someone from them and she was very happy, though I do think your results would depend mostly on the individual rather than the franchise. Anyway see http://www.garrettplanningnetwork.com/map.html , they do require planners to be fee-only and working on their CFP credential. You should really look for the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) credential. There are a lot of credentials out there, but many of them mean very little, and others might be hard to get but not mean the right thing. Some other meaningful ones include Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) which would be a solid investment expert, though not necessarily someone knowledgeable in financial planning generally; and IRS Enrolled Agent, which means someone who knows a lot about taxes. A CPA (accountant) would also be pretty meaningful. A law degree (and estate law know-how) is very relevant to many planning situations, too. Some not-very-meaningful certifications include Certified Mutual Fund Specialist (which isn't bogus, but it's much easier to get than CFP or CFA); Registered Investment Adviser (RIA) which mostly means the person is supposed to understand securities fraud laws, but doesn't mean they know a lot about financial planning. There are some pretty bogus certifications out there, many have ""retirement"" or ""senior"" in the name. A good question for any planner is ""Are you a fiduciary?"" which means are they legally required to act in your interests and not their own. Most sales-oriented advisors are not fiduciaries; they wouldn't charge you a big sales commission if they were, and they are not ""on your side"" legally speaking. It's a good idea to check with your state regulators or the SEC to confirm that your advisor is registered and ask if they have had any complaints. (Small advisors usually register with the state and larger ones with the federal SEC). If they are registered, they may still be a salesperson who isn't acting in your interests, but at least they are following the law. You can also see if they've been in trouble in the past. When looking for a planner, one firm I found had a professional looking web site and didn't seem sketchy at all, but the state said they were not properly registered and not in compliance. Other ideas A good book is: http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Simple-Financial-Strategies-People/dp/0743269942 it's very approachable and you'd feel more confident talking to someone maybe with more background information. For companies to work with, stick to the ones that are very consumer-friendly and sell no-load funds. Vanguard is probably the one you'll hear about most. But T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, USAA are some other good names. Fidelity is a bit of a mixture, with some cheap consumer-friendly investments and other products that are less so. Avoid companies that are all about charging commission: pretty much anyone selling an annuity is probably bad news. Annuities have some valid uses but mostly they are a bad deal. Not knowing your specific situation in any detail, it's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. It's virtually certain that any planner who is for real, and not a ripoff salesperson, will talk a lot about how much you need to save and so forth, not just about choosing investments. Don't be afraid to pay for a planner. It's well worth it to pay someone a thousand dollars for a really thorough, fiduciary plan with your interests foremost. The ""free"" planners who get a commission are going to get a whole lot more than a thousand dollars out of you, even though you won't write a check directly. Be sure to convert those mutual fund expense ratios and sales commissions into actual dollar amounts! To summarize: find someone you're paying, not someone getting a commission; look for that CFP credential showing they passed a demanding exam; maybe read a quick and easy book like the one I mentioned just so you know what the advisor is talking about; and don't rush into anything! And btw, I think you ought to be fine with a solid plan. You and your husband have time remaining to work with. Good luck." I'll be blunt. When you say: I am 48 and my husband is 54. We have approx. 60,000.00 left in our retirement accounts. We want to move our money into something so our money will grow. We've   been looking at annunities. We've talked to 4 different advisors about   what is best for us. Bad mistake, I am so overwhelmed with the   differences they all have til I can't even think straight anymore. @Havoc P is correct: ...It's very likely that 60k is not nearly enough, and that making the right investment choices will make only a small difference. You could   invest poorly and maybe end up with 50K when you retire, or invest   well and maybe end up with 80-90k. But your goal is probably more like   a million dollars, or more, and most of that will come from future   savings. This is what a planner can help you figure out in detail. TL; DR Here is my advice: The answers you've received already are very good. I truly sympathize with your situation. In general, it makes sense to try to build off of existing relationships. Here are a few ideas: I don't know if you work for a small or large company, or local/state government. But if there is any kind of retirement planning through your workplace, make sure to investigate that. Those people are usually already paid something for their services by your employer, so they should have less of an interest in making money off you directly. One more thought: A no-fee brokerage company e.g. Charles Schwab. They offer a free one hour phone call with an investment adviser if you invest at least $25K. I personally had very good experiences with them. This answer may be too anecdotal and not specifically address the annuity dilemma you mentioned. That annunity dilemma is why you need to find someone you can trust, who is competent (see the credentials for financial advisers mentioned in the other answers), and will work the numbers out with you. Get a job, if you don't have one right now. Take deductions from your paycheck for an IRA or 401K if the company has one.
On pensions, part of the issue will be how well funded they are.  Most pensions are not completely funded.   In the US pension payments are insured to an annual cap by the PBGC. So you can loose out on part of your pension payment. I don't know what/if there is an equivalent in Canada. &gt; At $31 billion, GE’s pension shortfall is the biggest among S&amp;P 500 companies and 50 percent greater than any other corporation in the U.S. It’s a deficit that has swelled in recent years as Immelt spent more than $45 billion on share buybacks to win over Wall Street and pacify activists like Nelson Peltz. &gt;  &gt; Part of it has to do with the paltry returns that have plagued pensions across corporate America as ultralow interest rates prevailed in the aftermath of the financial crisis. But perhaps more importantly, GE’s dilemma underscores deeper concerns about modern capitalism’s all-consuming focus on immediate results, which some suggest is short-sighted and could ultimately leave everyone -- including shareholders themselves -- worse off. Well this is not the best situation.  Sorry to your friend. First off ROTHs are out, you need earned income.  Secondly, I don't think the focus should be on retirement planning until there is again an earned income.  Thirdly, this person is just in a bad spot. Lets assume that you can find some really good mutual funds, that consistently return 10% per year.  At best this person can only pull out 10K per year without touching principle.  At that income level, taxes are not much of a concern; not as much as surviving.  If this person knows anything about investing, they know funds don't work like this.  They could be down 5%, down 5%, up ~40% in three years to give an average of 10% return.  Which of course further complicates matters.     This person (IMO) should seek to start a different career.  One that can cater to any long term issues this person has with pain/disability.  The money could be used toward training/education in order to get money flowing again.  That is not to say the full amount should be used for a BA in Russian Folk Literature, but some minimum training to get a career that starts earning real money. Don't forget job. That's one of the things people in the lower classes lost. I was trying to figure out why there weren't mass firings at trading and accounting firms until the numbers started popping up. They had basically just liquidated what they had, bought at lower numbers, and are now reaping the profits.  Too bad most people earning under $250k a year can't do that. "The gross liabilities (benefit obligation) will still be there, regardless. They are *future* benefits.  Sure, you can increase funding to the plan to eliminate the *net* pension liability, but why? The new assets would earn very little. The shortfall is not an excessively large risk. The only reason seems to be the ""all-consuming focus on immediate results"" which is more rhetoric than reality in this case." I am sorry for your loss, this person blessed you greatly.   For now I would put it in a savings account.  I'd use a high yield account like EverBank or Personal Savings from Amex.  There are others it is pretty easy to do your own research.  Expect to earn around 2200 if you keep it there a year.   As you grieve, I'd ask myself what this person would want me to do with the money.  I'd arrive at a plan that involved me investing some, giving some, and spending some.  I have a feeling, knowing that you have done pretty well for yourself financially, that this person would want you to spend some money on yourself.  It is important to honor their memory. Giving is an important part of building wealth, and so is investing.  Perhaps you can give/purchase a bench or part of a walkway at one of your favorite locations like a zoo.  This will help you remember this person fondly.  For the investing part, I would recommend contacting a company like Fidelity or Vanguard.  The can guide you into mutual funds that suit your needs and will help you understand the workings of them.  As far as Fidelity, they will tend to guide you toward their company funds, but they are no load.  Once you learn how to use the website, it is pretty easy to pick your own funds.   And always, you can come back here with more questions. I'm not sure I'd say the assets they had were worthless. One of the big controversies was whether it was a solvency crisis (bad assets) or a liquidity crisis (fine assets, but if everyone sells illiquid assets there's a fire sale problem).   The US and Buffett bet it was a liquidity crisis, and they were proven right. Uhh ... Not really. There was a bank run, it just wasn't on deposits. We are only staving off depression by taxing future dollars ... That policy will probably fail eventually and if we haven't gained enough aggregate hard inputs (people or technology) by the time this delaying tactic runs out then it will be depression.  You really misread my comment anyway. Move all insured deposits to not for profit credit unions and sever them completely from investment/commercial banking. Remove all deposit insurance from commercial/investment banking and with it the inherent moral hazard imbedded in the system. We still have insured deposits but for profit banks won't be able to filter them through to investment banking through the shadow banking system. Well, if they were lemons, the value is significantly less than what GS sold them to the government for. What is more sad is that Fannie and Freddie are going to get made whole and we are going to pretend like their incompetence and lack of due diligence never happened.   Back to business as usual, until the next time the hacks at these government agencies get burned. &gt; I no longer have the fantasy belief that I can do better managing my money than professional investors  The pension fund probably lost about as much as your investments did, but they still had to pay out as if they were meeting their targets. I understand you weren't really offered a choice between a higher salary or a pension, so my observation is academic, but to me it just seems strange to believe that a company can pay you a fixed sum of money 30 years in the future.   Maybe it's just a generational thing but the whole idea of investing (figuratively) your entire future in a single company doesn't make sense to me. I actually think it's good in the long run that we're moving away from the work at one company your entire life model. Companies shouldn't be in the business of providing retirement benefits any more than they should healthcare plans, IMO. "The abysmal stats on personal savings concern me the most.  When push comes to shove, these people will vote to steal from those of us who made wise financial decisions and were responsible savers.  Forced draw downs of 401k's before retirement age?  Taxation on internal gains in retirement plans?  ""Wealth"" taxes on retirement balances?  It's coming in some form or another.  Stay vigilant!" "Since your question was first posted, I happened to watch PBS FRONTLINE's The Retirement Gamble, about ""America's Retirement Crisis"" and the retirement industry.  You can watch the entire episode online at the previous link, and it's also available on DVD. Here's a link to the episode transcript. Here's a partial blurb from a post at PBS that announced the episode: If you’ve been watching any commercial television lately, you are well   aware that the financial services industry is very busy running   expensive ads imploring us to worry about our retirement futures. Open   a new account today, they say. They are not wrong that we should be doing something: America is   facing a retirement crisis. One in three Americans has no retirement   savings at all. One in two reports that they can’t save enough. On top   of that, we are living longer, and health care costs, as we all know,   are increasing. But, as I found when investigating the retirement planning and mutual   funds industries in The Retirement Gamble, which airs tonight on   FRONTLINE, those advertisements are imploring us to start saving for   one simple reason. Retirement is big business — and very profitable. (... more... ) There's another related PBS FRONTLINE documentary from back in 2006, Can You Afford To Retire? You'll find a link on that page to watch the program online. Finally, I'm also aware of but haven't yet seen a new documentary called Broken Eggs: The Looming Retirement Crisis in America. Looks like it isn't available for online streaming or on DVD yet, but I expect it would be, eventually." I was also going to mention people going through savings during unemployment.  And given the unemployment figures, 28% having no emergency savings even seems low.  Purely anecdotal but I cleared through my savings a few years ago during seven months of unemployment and have several friends who did the same and/or racked up thousands in debt. "I can see why you are feeling financial stress.  If I understand right you have put yourself in a very uncomfortable and unsustainable situation and one that should indeed be very stressful for a person of your age.  I feel a lot of stress just reading over your question. I'm going to be very frank.  Your financial situation suggests that you have very aggressively taken wealth from your future self in order to consume and to make inefficient investments.  Well, look in the mirror and say to yourself ""I am now my future self and it is time to pay for my past decisions.""  Don't take money out of your IRA.  That would be continuing the behavior as it is a very inefficient use of your resources that will lead to yet more extreme poverty down the line. Ok, you can't take back what you have done in the past.  What to do now?  Major life restructuring.  If I were you, I'd sell my house if I had one.  Move in with one of your kids if you have any nearby.  If not, move into the cheapest trailer you can find.  Take a second job.  Very seriously look to see if you can get a job that pays more for your primary job--I know you love your current job but you simply cannot continue as you are now.  Start eating really cheap food and buying clothes at thrift stores.  Throw everything you can at your debts, starting with the ones with the highest interest rate.  Plan now to continue working long after your peers have retired. Early in life is the time to be borrowing.  Middle age is when you should be finishing paying off any remaining debts and tucking away like crazy for retirement.  Now is not an OK time to be taking on additional debt to fund consumption. I know changing your life is going to be very uncomfortable, but I think you will find that there is more peace of mind in having some amount of financial security (which for you will require a LOT of changes) than in borrowing ever more to fund a lifestyle you cannot sustain." Yes, I think this is the general idea. We're going through a deleveraging. On the one hand, this isn't entirely a bad thing because the financial crisis showed some people were lending irresponsibly. A lot of bad loans were made and bad loans that don't get repaid cause a lot of havoc.  One the down side, like the original poster said this makes it seem like money is drying up. This has been a bigger problem in some places than other. A lot would argue, myself included, that the US has deleveraged relatively--and key word is relatively--smoothly. Other places, like Europe have not been so lucky.