Investing

The Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina would likely be an immediate blow to the ability to maintain diverse classes of students, experts say.
However, “the ruling does allow for students to express, through their essay or otherwise, things about themselves that could include race,” says Robert Franek, editor-in-chief of The Princeton Review.

Harvard Yard, on the campus of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Maddie Meyer | Getty Images

By lunchtime Thursday, Christopher Rim, president and CEO of Command Education, had received more than two dozen calls from students and their families, all with one question: How would the Supreme Court’s ruling on the affirmative action admission policies of Harvard and the University of North Carolina affect their future applications?
“I do think the makeup of the schools is going to change drastically,” he said.

The ruling is considered a massive blow to decades-old efforts to boost enrollment of minorities at American universities through policies that took into account applicants’ race.

“There’s a real risk that the incoming classes will look different,” said Cara McClellan, director of the Advocacy for Racial and Civil Justice Clinic and practice associate professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School.
“Without considering race, there would be a reduction in the number of underrepresented students of color.”

Diversity could take an immediate hit

Studies show the effect on colleges’ and universities’ ability to maintain racial and ethnic diversity would likely be immediate.
After the University of California eliminated affirmative action in 1996, the share of underrepresented groups fell 12%, and when Michigan banned race-conscious admissions, Black undergraduate enrollment at the school dropped nearly by half from 2006 to 2021, according to the Urban Institute.

“This idea, essentially striking down affirmative action, on its surface will result in less diverse classes,” said Robert Franek, editor-in-chief of The Princeton Review.

Applicants can still highlight their racial identity

But because the ruling is narrowly focused on the admissions process, “if an applicant wants to talk about their experience in high school or any other aspect of their life that is related to their racial identity, they can do so,” according to Kelly Slay, assistant professor of higher education and public policy at Vanderbilt University.
Colleges can still consider personal essays about “how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration or otherwise,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, even though “universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”
“The ruling does allow for students to express, through their essay or otherwise, things about themselves that could include race,” Franek also noted.
More from Personal Finance:Supreme Court decision on student loan forgiveness expected FridaySUNY sends acceptance letters to 125,000 high school seniors4 strategies to avoid taking on too much student debt
“If only the playing field of K-12 education — prior to the time students apply to colleges — was a level one,” Franek said.
“It is not, particularly among students attending public schools where funding, resources and opportunities vary greatly based on locale as well as socioeconomic factors.”

Colleges may find other ways to remove barriers

That’s where the burden shifts back to colleges to come up with alternative ways to level the playing field, experts say.
Rim predicts that the Supreme Court’s decision could encourage colleges to put more weight on students’ household income and their regional background to diversify their student bodies. Schools may also rely less on standardized test scores or even eliminate SAT and ACT requirements, which have reinforced race gaps, other studies show.
“It’s really important to emphasize that colleges and universities still have duties to eliminate barriers,” McClellan said.
“Remember that there are still many people in this country who recognize the value of diversity,” she added. “Race continues to matter.”
Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

Millions of Americans are battling scorching temperatures as the country faces a dangerous heat wave.
Meanwhile, U.S. residents are expected to pay about 2% more for electricity this summer, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts. 
Experts cover four ways to save money on cooling costs this summer.

The sun sets behind power lines near homes during a heat wave in Los Angeles, Sept. 6, 2022.
Patrick T. Fallon | Afp | Getty Images

As millions of Americans across the country grapple with scorching heat, experts are offering tips for saving money amid record-breaking temperatures.
Despite falling inflation, electricity prices remain elevated with a 5.9% annual increase in May, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. This summer, Americans are expected to pay about 2% more for electricity compared with last year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration predicts. 

“This is one of those difficult times where staying cool is not just a matter of comfort and convenience — it can be a health and safety issue,” said Bruce McClary, a senior vice president of the National Foundation for Credit Counseling. 
More from Personal Finance:3 reasons it can be smarter to rent, even if you can afford to buySupreme Court case may impact federal wealth tax proposalsYour 401(k) plan may be worsening climate change, expert says
McClary said the heat wave is particularly concerning for warmer parts of the U.S., where summertime energy bills are already higher. For cash-strapped consumers, larger-than-expected electric bills can sometimes be the “tipping point” into a financial crisis, he said.
With lingering triple-digit temperatures in some parts of the country, here are some of the best ways to save on cooling expenses, according to experts.

1. Increase your thermostat

One of the top ways to save on home-cooling costs is to bump up your thermostat, according to Mary Farrell, a senior editor with Consumer Reports. While your savings may depend on many factors, she said that changing the setting by even a few degrees can mean substantial savings.

You can save up to 10% per year on both cooling and heating by adjusting your thermostat seven to 10 degrees from its normal setting for eight hours a day, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

2. Minimize heat gain

It’s also critical to reduce your home’s “radiant heat gain” by closing the blinds or curtains for sun-facing windows and keeping the doors shut, said Arcadio Padilla, complex issues supervisor for Texas-based Reliant Energy.
While it’s nice to have natural light, it brings too much heat into the home during the summer, he said. “And that’s our enemy right now.”

3. Optimize your airflow

Another wallet-friendly option is to check on your system’s airflow. “Air conditioners use more energy when they have to work harder,” said Adam Cooper, Edison Electric Institute’s managing director of customer solutions. 
Cooper said replacing dirty air filters reduces energy consumption 5% to 15%, and you can make sure the system is working efficiently with regular tuneups and keeping debris clear from the unit outside.

4. Check your thermostat setting

For high-humidity areas, Padilla from Reliant Energy also recommends keeping your thermostat on the “auto” setting rather than “on” or “circulate.”
“We don’t want to introduce more humidity,” he said, so if you have a smart thermostat, it’s critical to turn off the circulate function. More

Within 24 hours, student loan borrowers are likely to learn the fate of the Biden administration’s debt forgiveness plan.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision Friday, which could be the last day of its term before it breaks for summer recess.

Visitors with signs regarding student loan payments outside of the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, June 27, 2023.
Al Drago | Bloomberg | Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s term is almost over and the justices still haven’t issued a decision on President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel up to $20,000 for tens of millions of Americans. But the ruling is almost certain to come out Friday, experts say.
“I would expect it then, absent some very unusual circumstances,” said Amy Howe, a co-founder of Scotusblog.

Jed Shugerman, a law professor at Fordham University and Boston University, agreed, saying it was “almost certain” that the justices will issue the rest of their decisions Friday before they break for their summer recess.
“The justices preserve July and August for getting out of town,” he said.
There is only a small chance that the justices add another decision day next week or request more time with this case.
More from Personal Finance:Term life insurance is often best but most buy another kindYour 401(k) plan may be worsening climate changeWhat Supreme Court case could mean for wealth tax ideas
Borrowers should be able to read the ruling on the Supreme Court’s website, likely sometime Friday morning.

The other big decision expected tomorrow, 303 Creative Inc. v. Elenis, involves a Colorado web designer who objects to providing services for same-sex marriages.

What’s at stake in loan forgiveness decision

The justices’ ruling will determine whether the Biden administration can move forward with its plan to wipe out more than a quarter of the country’s $1.7 trillion in outstanding federal student debt.
Roughly 14 million people would have their student debt entirely cleared by the program, according to an estimate by higher education expert Mark Kantrowitz.
In total, around 37 million people would be eligible for some loan cancellation, Kantrowitz estimates — up to $20,000 if they received a Pell Grant in college, a type of aid for low-income families, or as much as $10,000 if they did not.
Shortly after Biden announced his plan, the legal challenges piled up. The program has now faced at least six lawsuits from Republican-backed states and conservative groups, most of which accuse the president of executive overreach.
Two of those legal challenges made it to the Supreme Court: one brought by six GOP-led states — Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska and South Carolina — and another backed by the Job Creators Network Foundation, a conservative advocacy organization.

Justices consider executive authority to cancel debt

In the cases, the justices examined whether Biden has the power to forgive so much student debt without authorization from Congress. And at an estimated cost of $400 billion, the policy would be among the most expensive executive actions in U.S. history.
Biden officials insist that he’s acting within the law, pointing out that the Heroes Act of 2003, which is a product of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, grants the U.S. secretary of education the authority to make changes to the federal student loan system during national emergencies. The country was operating under an emergency declaration due to Covid-19 when the president rolled out his forgiveness plan.
The plaintiffs trying to block forgiveness say the president is incorrectly using the law, which they argue allows only for narrow applications of relief and not the kind of across-the-board loan cancellation the president wants to deliver.

The justices also considered whether the plaintiffs suing the Biden administration had successfully shown they’d be harmed by the president’s policy, which is typically a requirement to gain the right to sue. The need to prove so-called legal standing is designed to prevent people from suing against different policies and programs simply because they disagree with them.
Multiple justices, including some of the conservatives, seemed unconvinced during oral arguments that the plaintiffs had proven injury, Shugerman said. As a result, although most pundits expect forgiveness to be struck down given the high court’s conservative majority, there is still a possibility for it to survive.
For now, Kantrowitz said to borrowers, “Hold tight.” More

The Covid-19 pandemic prompted the Social Security Administration to prioritize phone over in-person services.
But outdated technology and other glitches led to disruptions, a new report found.

Thanasis Zovoilis | Getty

Callers who have sought help from the Social Security Administration in recent years have reported long wait times, dropped calls and inability to access the agency’s services.
A new report from the Social Security Administration Office of the Inspector General found the agency experienced more than 40 telephone system disruptions between May 2021 and December 2022.

The disruptions came as the agency limited its in-person services following the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. During that time, the telephone was the “primary option” for the public to interact with the agency’s employees, the report noted.
More from Personal Finance:Retirees’ biggest fear is outliving assets, research findsSocial Security may be key issue for GOP presidential rivalsThis tool lets you play at fixing Social Security woes
Most of the disruptions happened between October and December 2022 and involved the agency’s 800 number, resulting in longer wait times or busy messages, according to the report from the office of Inspector General Gail Ennis. The office oversees the Social Security Administration’s programs and operations on the public’s behalf.
The unanswered rate reached its highest among the service disruption dates identified in the report — 80.4% — on Feb. 22 and 23. During those two days, excessive calls per second happened while the phone system was at peak capacity, while the average speed with which calls were answered was 46.3 minutes.
The servers were rebooted, and preventive measures were put in place with the goal of preventing the issue from happening again, according to the report.

Other dates identified in the report showed the unanswered rate ranged from 32.3% at the lowest, while the average speed at which calls were answered was at least 13.5 minutes.

The official average phone wait times are around 35 minutes, according to Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
“Most people I’ve talked to have experienced longer wait times than that,” Romig said.
For periods of up to two days, the 800-number services, including those that are automated, were unavailable, the report found.
Reasons for the disruptions included defective hardware, software glitches and server issues.
“The telephone is still a primary method of communication for handling business for many Americans, particularly the vulnerable, elderly or disabled,” said Ennis. “It is critical that SSA is reachable, especially by those who depend on them the most.”

Phone system upgrade coming

To better serve the public following the onset of the pandemic, the Social Security Administration implemented temporary workarounds to its telephone systems, the agency’s chief of staff, Scott Frey, said in a written response to the Office of the Inspector General’s report.
“Since then, we worked steadily to improve the stability of this temporary solution, reducing service disruptions since Dec. 30, 2022,” Frey wrote.

For years, the Social Security Administration has had three telephone systems for its 800 number, field offices and headquarters, according to the report. The agency plans to replace those with a single, uniform platform that is intended to be more “efficient, stable and functional,” according to the report. The Covid-19 pandemic has delayed that upgrade.
The agency plans to implement a new telephone platform for the 800 number by the end of the 2023 fiscal year, Frey wrote.
The Social Security Administration did not immediately respond to a request for further comment.

More funding for SSA also needed, expert says

A Social Security Administration office in Sebring, Florida.
Jeff Greenberg | Universal Images Group | Getty Images

In addition to technological improvements, the Social Security Administration also needs to have more people answering the phone, according to Romig.
“In order to have more people answering the phones, you need more money,” she added.
But securing extra resources for the federal agency may not be easy, Romig said.
The recent debt limit deal agreed to an average flat funding of 2023 levels for next year, she added. Romig noted, however, that House Republicans are pushing for average appropriations of 2022 levels.
Either of those options would be harmful to the agency’s ability to provide services, she said.

In order to have more people answering the phones, you need more money.

Kathleen Romig
director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

The agency has many fixed costs that increase with inflation. At the same time, about 1 million people become beneficiaries on average each year due to the aging population, Romig said.
Capping fiscal year 2024 spending at a 2022 enacted level would cause a cut of about 6% from the agency’s 2023 enacted funding, Social Security Administration acting commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi wrote in a March letter to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee.
A 6% cut below current funding would “significantly affect our ability to serve the public and undermine our core mission — producing longer wait times for benefits and to reach SSA representatives, as well as reduced access to in-person service,” Kijakazi wrote. More

The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that could affect broad swaths of the U.S. tax code, corporate revenue and federal wealth tax proposals.
Moore v. United States will challenge a levy enacted through President Donald Trump’s 2017 signature tax overhaul.

The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2023.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images

The Supreme Court will soon hear a case that could affect broad swaths of the U.S. tax code, corporate revenue and federal wealth tax proposals.
The case, Moore v. United States, is slated for the next court term and challenges a levy enacted through President Donald Trump’s 2017 signature tax overhaul. Originally designed as a transition tax, the levy aimed to collect a one-time tax from U.S. corporations that deferred income by keeping profits in foreign subsidiaries.

The plaintiffs are fighting taxes incurred via their investment in an India-based company by arguing about the definition of income. But experts say the Supreme Court decision may have broader implications.
More from Personal Finance:Biden to revisit ‘billionaire minimum tax’ in addressThere’s a growing interest in wealth taxesIf the billionaire tax survives, it may face legal challenges
The case revisits the law’s definition of income, as outlined by the 16th Amendment, and whether individuals and companies must “realize” or receive profits before incurring taxes on unrealized gains. It’s a lingering question amid past billionaire tax proposals.
While experts say Trump’s 2017 tax works differently than a wealth tax, there are still concerns about the Moore case. “This is taking a case with a completely different set of facts, and could have these very, very broad implications for other parts of the tax code,” said Amanda Parsons, an associate professor at the University of Colorado Law School who specializes in tax law.
“This is just a very dangerous thing that they’re playing with here,” she added.

What the case means for corporations

The Supreme Court ruling could invite litigation about Congress’ approach to taxing so-called pass-through entities, such as partnerships, limited liability corporations, and S-corporations, said Chye-Ching Huang, the executive director of the Tax Law Center at New York University Law.
“That would create uncertainty and confusion about the correct tax treatment,” she said.
Other experts point to the possible implications for future corporate tax revenue.
“What this case is about is trying to make sure that corporations also pay the amount of tax that they’re supposed to pay,” said Susan Morse, a law professor and associate dean for academic affairs at the University of Texas at Austin School of Law.
“It’s a good illustration of how difficult it can be to resist corporations’ inclination and the push to try to avoid taxes and reduce their tax bills,” she said. More

Less than 5% of 401(k) plans offer funds dedicated to environmental, social and governance issues, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of America.
The money Americans have in their 401(k) plans is likely enabling fossil fuel extraction and deforestation, experts say, both of which climate scientists blame for the warming planet.
ESG funds have not been spared from the political fight over climate change.

Fotograzia | Moment | Getty Images

BOSTON — As worried about climate change you might be, it can be tricky, if not impossible, to invest with the environment in mind in your workplace retirement plan.
Less than 5% of 401(k) plans offer funds dedicated to environmental, social and governance issues, according to the Plan Sponsor Council of America’s latest member survey.

“There has been significant growth in the availability of ESG funds over the past five years, but including them in 401(k) plans has been slower,” said Georges Dyer, co-founder and executive director of the Crane Institute of Sustainability. CNBC interviewed Dyer after he spoke on a panel at the GreenFin conference this week in Boston.
More from Personal Finance:Retirees’ biggest fear is outliving their assets, research findsSocial Security may be key issue for GOP presidential rivalsThis tool lets you play at fixing Social Security woes
As a result, the money Americans have in their 401(k) plans is likely enabling fossil fuel extraction and deforestation, experts say. Both are issues climate scientists blame for the warming planet.
“In terms of accelerating climate change, a key impact of continuing to invest in high-carbon industries [or] greenhouse gas emissions is signaling to markets and governments that it’s okay to continue with business as usual,” said Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow, a nonprofit promoting corporate environmental and social responsibility.

Companies are slow to offer ESG options in 401(k)s

Worried about confusing employees, 401(k) plan sponsors are often wary of adding more fund options to their lineup, Dyer said.

“If they have gone through a process of selecting funds they are confident in including, they can be hesitant to trade those out for new funds,” he said.
Increasingly, employees are automatically enrolled in their 401(k) plan without weighing in on their investments. Often, their money is put in so-called target-date funds, which have become more popular for the fact that they automatically adjust the mix of investments over time to reduce risk as the worker approaches retirement.
More than 45% of fund options offered in retirement plans are target-date funds, according to research by the CFA Institute.
Yet, this ease may be making it harder for the planet. The CFA Institute found that target-date funds have a 16% higher weighted carbon intensity compared with all the retirement plans it sampled.

Meanwhile, some employers may be worried their workers won’t get high enough profits from ESG funds, Dyer said.
“Despite a large body of evidence that shows ESG funds tend to perform as well or better than non-ESG funds, a persistent misperception remains that they don’t,” Dyer said. Indeed, an analysis by Morgan Stanley in 2019 found that there was no significant difference in total returns between ESG-focused funds and traditional mutual funds.

Political fights have also hindered adoption

ESG funds have also not been spared from the political fight over climate change. That’s another factor slowing their adoption on 401(k) menus, experts say.
A Trump administration-era rule discouraged retirement plan sponsors from offering ESG funds, experts say. Under President Joe Biden, the U.S. Department of Labor has since changed that policy. Biden also used his first presidential veto to save the rule on investment choices related to ESG.
“The DOL rule is very clear that ESG factors may be material to investment performance, and therefore may be considered in the investment process,” Dyer said.
Although that rule remains in effect, it is currently being challenged in federal court in Texas, said Bradford Campbell, a former DOL official who also spoke at GreenFin. House Republicans also recently introduced legislation that could limit the use of EGS funds, or what they call “woke” investing.
“Interest in ESG-related investments is growing,” Campbell said. “But uncertainty about the future of the regulation due to the pending litigation and the possibility of policy changes [in] the next presidential election are certainly affecting the pace at which plans adopt such investments.”

How to examine your ESG 401(k) options

If you’re in the small pool of employees who do have access to an ESG fund in your retirement plan, your research may end there.
“Unfortunately, most often, we see that if a 401(k) offers sustainable investments, it offers just one,” Behar said.
If you do find multiple ESG options on your menu, you can look up which funds are climate-safe and also offer competitive returns, Behar said. Tools to do so include As You Sow’s Fossil Free Funds and MSCI’s ESG database.
For most other workers who aren’t able to divest from firms potentially worsening climate change, Behar recommends speaking to management at your company and requesting that sustainable funds be made available.
“It’s possible that a simple ask can start the process,” he said.

Employers have a fiduciary duty to administer retirement plans in the best interest of plan participants.

Andrew Behar
chief executive of As You Sow

If doing so doesn’t lead anywhere, employees may consider organizing with their colleagues, Behar said. “It’s easier to ignore a single voice than a chorus.”
His website includes an action toolkit to help employees make the case for a sustainable investment option in their retirement plan.
“Employers have a fiduciary duty to administer retirement plans in the best interest of plan participants,” Behar said. “If they’re not assessing climate risks as part of that process, they may be failing.” More

Many young adults do not become financially independent until they are well into their 20s.
However, there are steps parents can take that can speed up the process.
Here are four money moves to help children become financially independent, according to an advisor.

Imtmphoto | Istock | Getty Images

These days, many young adults do not become financially independent until they are well into their 20s.
To be sure, inflation has made it even harder for those just starting out.

But, in addition to soaring food and housing costs, millennials and Gen Z face financial challenges their parents did not as young adults: On top of carrying larger student loan balances, their wages are lower than their parents’ earnings when they were in their 20s and 30s.
More from Personal Finance:When to retire has little to do with how much you’ve savedAmericans think they need nearly $1.3 million to retire wellFewer Americans are now living paycheck to paycheck
More than half of Gen Zers and millennials are still financially dependent on their parents, although two-thirds said they don’t feel good about it, according to a recent survey by Experian.
While older generations are more likely to think their kids should be completely financially independent by the time they turn 21, young adults say that’s a good age to start paying some of their own expenses, such as credit card bills and travel costs, according to a separate report by Bankrate.com.
“There’s definitely a disconnect between parents and adult children,” said Ted Rossman, Bankrate’s senior industry analyst.

Now, 68% of parents with children over the age of 18 are making a financial sacrifice to help support them, Bankrate’s report also found.

Parents sacrifice their own financial wellbeing

From buying groceries to paying for cell phone plans or covering health and auto insurance, parents are spending more than $1,400 a month, on average, helping their adult children make ends meet, a report by Savings.com found.
For parents, however, supporting grown children can be a substantial drain at a time when their own financial security is in jeopardy. 

Paying those bills “can also put your own retirement and other financial goals at risk,” Rossman said. “You can get loans for a lot of things, but retirement isn’t one of them.”
About half of parents with adult children said support has come at the expense of their own emergency savings or ability to pay down debt, while slightly fewer said supporting their children has been detrimental to their retirement savings, Bankrate found.

Helping children become financially independent

However, there are moves parents can take now to protect themselves down the road, according to Derek Miser, a financial advisor and president of Miser Wealth Partners in Knoxville, Tennessee.
Here are his top tips to help yourself, and your adult child, take financial control:

Focus on yourself. For starters, your debts and obligations should take priority before providing any financial support, Miser said. Further, you should also save for your future by contributing to retirement accounts, he added, so you are in a better position to help your adult offspring.
Avoid giving and instead loan. “It’s okay to financially help your children, but don’t just give money out without expecting payment back,” Miser advised. Consider loaning money instead, he said, and put a repayment plan in place, in writing to set the parameters.
Help children build healthy credit. Co-signing on credit cards or loans can help your children build healthy credit while they’re young to ensure they won’t need to lean on you in the future, he said. However, be aware that you may be responsible for that debt if your child cannot pay it back.
Introduce your children to financial experts. When you visit your financial, tax or accounting advisor, consider bringing your child and encourage them to participate in the conversation, Miser said. “This can help them understand how money works and what they can expect to be dealing with in the future.”

Subscribe to CNBC on YouTube. More

U.S. households over the age of 55 control 74% of investable assets, but their retirement status has little to do with their asset levels, according to a new report.
Assets don’t always drive retirement choices, says certified financial planner Carolyn McClanahan.

Pixdeluxe | E+ | Getty Images

Americans often worry about hitting specific money goals for retirement, but a new report finds that the decision to retire often happens independently of reaching that “magic number.”
U.S. households over the age of 55 control 74% of investable assets, but their retirement status has little to do with their asset levels, according to a new report from Hearts & Wallets.

The research firm analyzed U.S. Census Bureau and Federal Reserve data, and conducted a survey of 5,993 people in August and September 2022.

The report found that more than a third, 36%, of households ages 55 to 64 are already retired. In that age group, 27% are within five years of stopping full-time work and 37% expect to continue working full-time for more than five years.
About a third, 35%, of people in that age group who have less than $50,000 in investable assets described themselves as retired. Among those with $2 million to just under $5 million set aside, 52% are retired.
More from Personal Finance:Americans think they need nearly $1.3 million to retire wellFewer Americans are now living paycheck to paycheckWhy it’s important to spend on joy, according to an advisor
There are also some older workers who haven’t retired despite significant savings. Among survey respondents with $2 million to just under $5 million in investable assets, 82% of those ages 65 to 74 and about 94% of those 75 and older are retired.

“Recognize not all older households are retired. Retirement is more about having the financial house in order by paying off debt and scaling back lifestyle than reaching an asset target,” CEO and founder Laura Varas wrote in the report.

Retirement choices not always driven by assets

There are two major reasons people may delay their exit from the labor market, said Carolyn McClanahan, a certified financial planner and founder of Life Planning Partners in Jacksonville, Florida. She is also a member of the CNBC Financial Advisor Council.
“There are some people that love to work, and that work brings them meaning, and they can’t imagine not doing work, because its part of their well-being, and that’s not a bad thing,” said McClanahan, who is also a medical doctor. People who continue to work at that point make sure to maintain a balance where they can still enjoy their life.

A second group “lives out of fear,” she said, and are unsure whether they have enough to retire.
That may be especially true of those in the 55-plus age group, who may believe they have enough, but cannot predict whether they will live another four decades.  
“They fear that, ‘If I quit and I lose my ability to work, and then the work falls apart, what am I going to do?’ They live out of fear, and it keeps them from quitting work, even though they may want to,” McClanahan said.

For those workers, figuring out their retirement needs may help overcome that fear. Analyze how much you spend and break it down into how much you’re spending on the needs versus the wants, she said.
“What do you need for your base lifestyle? And do you have enough money to support that should you no longer work?” McClanahan said.
On the flip side, almost half, 47%, of workers end up retiring earlier than expected, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute’s 2022 Retirement Confidence Survey. Of those, 32% pointed to a hardship such as illness or disability as the cause of their early exit, while 23% retired due to changes at their company, and 38% said they could afford to retire early.

If you’re forced to quit when you are not ready, it is crucial to connect with a financial planner to identify the sources of your cash flow, including assessing a strategy for collecting Social Security or making withdrawals from retirement plans.
“If they’re taking care of a loved one, that’s where it’s really important to look [for] any resources that the loved one who they’re taking care of can provide for them to soften the blow,” McClanahan said. More