|
From denial to acceptance: A guide to moving through the five stages of grief during an inflation shock.  I recently walk into a Chase Bank branch, which, yes, is still a sentence in 2026. The teller I was talking with has a family of 4. While discussing the astronomical cost of raising kids in this day and age, he jokingly said “Every time I leave the house, it costs me $200”. While I'm sure he was embellishing a bit, the statement rings true for a lot of Americans.
Gas is $5/gallon. A casual dinner out for two means $100 with tip. Movie theatre tickets are $20 each (before concessions), and you can forget getting a decent seat at a live sporting event. I mean I just bought a $30 polo from Target for goodness’ sake. What on earth happened? Sadly...the prices we knew are gone. The consumer price index has risen roughly 26% over the course of this decade¹. That's cumulative, and it's permanent. 5% inflation for services and healthcare. 3% inflation on goods. The sub 2% inflation of the 2010s is long gone. Around 46% of Americans in a recent Politico survey said the cost of living is worse than ever². YouGov has tracked inflation as Americans' most important issue every year since 2022³. What makes this dynamic even stranger: the economy, by most measures, is holding up. GDP grew 2% in 2025 despite everything thrown at it⁴. Unemployment has stayed near 4%. Private sector wages grew close to 4% year over year⁵. Leisure travel is booming. Many asset classes are hitting record highs. From a pure data standpoint, we should mostly feel better. But that’s just not the case. Americans are still intensely grieving the prices of the past, and unable to fully move on.
0 Comments
The standard retirement calculator gives you a simple output and a false sense of certainty. The reality, hidden inside that 7% CAGR assumption, is a wide distribution of outcomes that can span millions of dollars. How timing luck can shape your retirement balance regardless of how well you saved.  Meet two retirees. We’ll name them Linda and Mark.
Linda retired at the end of 2008. Mark retired at the end of 1999. Both worked for 40 years. Both contributed the same amount to their 401(k)s. Both invested in a basic S&P 500 index fund. Neither panic-sold during crashes nor tried to time the market. They simply just invested their savings in their retirement accounts for the entire span of their careers. Linda finished with roughly $1.52M in today's dollars. Mark finished with roughly $4.97M. Same strategy, same discipline, same 40-year horizon, and a $3.45M gap between them. The only variable difference was the years they started and ended their careers. Now, go open any standard retirement calculator. Plug in their identical inputs: same contributions, same 40-year horizon, same 7% average assumed return. The calculator will spit out one number for both investors. It has no way of telling you that there is a wide range of outcomes somewhere between $1.52M and $4.97M, and that where you land inside that range is drastically attributable to the whims of the stock market. It's a structural problem with how retirement planning is oversimplified in its presentation. It only gets worse when you layer on what the behavioral research says about how people like Linda and Mark actually behave during their careers. Many People Don't Need to Hire a Financial Planner. Here's How to Know If You're the Exception.3/3/2026  The financial advice industry operates on a simple assumption: professional guidance improves outcomes, no matter the client background. The reality is more conditional than absolute.
Some people try to captain their own financial ship and pay dearly for avoidable mistakes. Others would simply be giving away money by hiring an advisor. The goal of this article is not to sell you either way, but instead to help you figure out which type of investor you are, and whether you actually need to hire a planner based on that determination. Financial advice is more of a tool than an obligation, and like all tools, its value depends entirely on who’s using it and in what situation.  There is roughly a 50% chance that at least one partner in a married couple will live into their 90s.¹ And the 90+ population is projected to grow rapidly as medical advancements continue to push life expectancy further into the 21st century.
Simply put, we are living longer than ever, yet we continue to invest as if life ends at 65. From the autopilot glidepaths of Target Date Funds that begin cutting growth decades too early, to retirees who stay "defensive" five years into a thirty-year retirement, the typical investor has traded the temporary discomfort of market volatility for the permanent risk of outliving their money. While a number of factors contribute to seniors’ affection for low-risk assets (the 24-hour news cycle, structural pessimism², etc.), the advice industry itself has normalized excessive conservatism as the default. My view is more straightforward: unless you are in the Retirement Risk Window (the critical five-year window immediately surrounding your work exit date), over-allocation to safety has likely harmed long-term outcomes more than it has protected them.  This year's tax refund season is shaping up to be quite a boon for taxpayers. Early reports have the average IRS tax refund is up 10.9% so far this season, with an average refund amount of $2,290.¹
For many Americans, this means a check of several thousand dollars or more landing in their bank account. The annual question remains: save it or spend it? Research suggests the answer depends less on your willpower and more on how your brain categorizes that money.  I recently watched Jay Kelly on Netflix, where George Clooney plays a fictional movie star who dedicates his life to his craft and succeeds by every external measure. The catch? He later admits to choosing his career over his family, only to realize he’s missed many of life’s most meaningful moments and relationships.
I don’t generally sit down to watch a movie looking for financial metaphors, that would be weird. But every so often, a story brushes up against a question I already spend time thinking about. In this case, Jay Kelly’s story happened to remind me of the FIRE movement. Whether it’s Coast, Lean, or Fat FIRE, the core philosophy is the same: front-load sacrifice in your early years to buy freedom later. The math is sound. Saving aggressively from an early age is essentially the equivalent of a financial superpower. The appeal is also undeniable. Who doesn’t want the freedom to do whatever they want in their 40s? I’ve always joked that my dream job is retirement, and FIRE is a good mechanism for getting me there. But the FIRE movement raises a complicated set of questions. What are the movement’s disciples missing by deferring their lives in their 20s and 30s? And how do we find the "goldilocks" zone between saving responsibly for the future and actually living along the way?  Budgeting may easily be the least sexy habit in personal finance. And to be honest, it can really suck. It’s tedious, it’s boring, and it often confronts us with truths we’d rather keep in the background.
In my line of work, I routinely hear clients say: “Well, we tried tracking our spending, but life just got in the way and we couldn’t keep it consistent. If things ever get tight, we’ll hunker down then.” But that’s just kicking the can down a road paved with hidden stress. Eventually, a "surprise" expense or heavy financial decision reveals that we weren't as prepared as originally thought. We avoid facing the discomfort for the sake of "ignorant bliss," but as with any bad habit, the cost of that clarity-avoidance compounds.  Did you know that the most popular finishing time for marathon runners is 3:58?¹ A while back, I read about common marathon themes in Adam Alter’s Irresistible and came across a fascinating detail: finish times aren’t distributed smoothly across the clock. Instead, runners cluster at round numbers (3:30, 4:00, 4:30).
The evidence points to a meaningful takeaway: people will sprint to cross a finish line before a psychological threshold. Cross at 3:59 and you’re triumphant; cross at 4:01 and it feels like you fell short. This isn’t unique to running a marathon. Psychologists call this the goal-gradient effect: as we approach a target, our motivation increases sharply.² Runners sprint the last mile. Sandwich shop customers order more often when their punch card is nearly full. Investors save harder when they’re closing in on a milestone.³  Today, I’m another year older, which feels like a fitting time to talk about the intersection of money and age.
Sometime or another, we’ve all felt ourselves racing against an invisible clock built on cultural milestones: the house, the car, the wedding, the job, the travel, the retirement. It’s human nature to chase these benchmarks and compare our progress to those around us. We crave certainty, and age offers a convenient marker. When you’re 25, you’re supposed to be building. At 35, stabilizing. At 45, optimizing. By 55, coasting toward independence. And at 65, freedom.
|
RSS Feed