Pension Maximization Part Deux

This post is a direct continuation of Pension Series Part 30. In that article, I introduced my general framework for maximizing your defined benefit (DB) pension, which I call Grumpus Maximization. I also walked through the first two steps of Grumpus Maximization, which were (1) setting expectations and (2) orienting on yourself and your pension. These two steps are about understanding your retirement needs and your pension. In fact, step 2 required answering nine questions along those lines, not all of which were easy.

This article covers steps 3 through 5 of the Grumpus Maximization framework. As a preview, step 3 involves determining your Gap Number, which I discuss in detail below. Step 4 identifies tax minimization and investment maximization strategies that complement your pension’s steady earned income. Finally, step 5 discusses identifying other pension maximization opportunities.

Upon completion, I review the entire Grumpus Maximization framework covering both Pension Series articles. Afterward, I discuss my plans for world domination of the pension maximization industry through more half-baked marketing ideas like the t-shirts mentioned in Pension Series 30. Just kidding … maybe.

Grumpus Maximization Step 3: Identifying Your Gap Number

At the end of Grumpus Maximization Step 2, which posed nine questions, I justified why you needed to determine your projected annual or monthly spending in retirement. The primary justification was that an annual (or monthly) retirement spending plan provides a benchmark to compare your projected pension annuity’s annual value against. In other words, if your annual projected retirement spending is $100,000, and your annual projected pension payments amount to $70,000, then your pension covers 70% of your projected retirement spending.

At its most basic, that uncovered $30,000 is what I call your Gap Number. It’s a significant number, so much so that I’ve written two articles about it. I consider those articles required reading for anyone seeking to maximize their pension. If you haven’t read them or need a refresh, they are located here and here.

Gap Number Math

Once you read those articles, you will realize several things. First, I didn’t invent the idea of the Gap Number. I merely appropriated it from regular and early retirement planning circles and applied it exclusively to retirement planning for pensioners. Second, calculating your Gap Number is simple. It only requires subtracting your total projected annual retirement fixed income from your total projected yearly expenses (i.e., your projected retirement spending). As a formula, I wrote it like this:

• • Gap Number =  Expenses – Fixed-Income
    • G = E – F

In this case, expenses (E) include all discretionary and non-discretionary spending. In other words, necessities like food, shelter, and clothing, as well as the fun stuff that makes retirement rewarding like travel and entertainment. On the other hand, fixed-income (F) includes your pension and any other passive and fixed retirement payments, like a spouse’s pension, an insurance annuity, or Social Security. The idea here is that we’re only talking about low-risk and fixed-income supplies of monthly or annual income. Income stemming from singular long-term bonds, like a municipal bond, fits that category. Income from riskier assets like stocks, bond funds, and rental property does not.

More Than Just Your Retirement Budget

Now, if determining your projected income and expenses for retirement sounds like needing to build a retirement budget, then … you’re correct! As I mentioned under question 9 in Pension Series 30, determining your Gap Number means you must create a retirement budget. At least a rough one. Ideally, though, the more accurate, the better.

If that sounds like a lot of work … it is! But don’t lose hope. I provided resource links in Pension Series Part 30 to accomplish this task. Also, this website has an entire planning section full of articles that show you how to construct (and test) a retirement budget. I also have a section dedicated to resources you can use to track your spending. You can find both categories listed on my Article Index page.

A Retirement Planning Tool

Determining your Gap Number is more than just a retirement budget exercise; it’s a retirement planning tool. As I pointed out in my first Gap Number article, the primary use for your Gap Number is determining the required size of your retirement nest egg. In other words, once you calculate your Gap Number you can calculate the total value of stock and bond investments you’d need to amass by your retirement age. My second Gap Number article provides a more in-depth look at how that works in practice.

Determining the required size for your nest egg is vital since these investments will generate the cash needed to cover your annual retirement income gap. Or, as drawn from my example, the nest egg would generate the $30K a year in expenses that the $70K pension doesn’t cover. Thus, you want to ensure your projected nest egg value at retirement is correct. If it’s not, you may run out of money.

Grumpus Maximizing the Gap Number

That said, my previous two Gap Number articles don’t address how you can fine-tune your Gap Number calculations to maximize your retirement pension’s impact. To do that, you need to examine the Gap Number formula holistically and understand what each variable represents. Remember:

• • Gap Number =  Expenses – Fixed-Income
    • G = E – F

As I just discussed, (G) allows you to determine how large or small of an investment nest egg you require at retirement. However, you need not consider that number as fixed.

Let’s say your initial calculations produce a large Gap Number, which projects the need for a large nest egg. Perhaps this nest egg number is so large that you think it’s almost impossible to reach. Or, maybe you believe relying so heavily on investments represents too much risk to your retirement plan. Well, there are things you can do to change it! Primarily, you can tinker with your Gap Number’s inputs by lowering projected annual retirement expenses (E), raising projected annual fixed-income (F), or both.

In mathematical terms, expenses (E) and fixed-income (F) are independent variables, while the Gap Number (G) is the dependent variable. That’s simply a fancy way of saying anytime you change either (E) or (F), then (G) changes too. Fortunately, DB pensions can often positively impact the value for both (E) and (F).

Independent Variable: Fixed-Income

A pension’s impact on fixed-income (F) is probably a more straightforward example of this independent-dependent variable idea. In most cases, the longer a pensionable worker’s career, the larger the pension. Also, in most cases, the larger a person’s final salary, the larger the pension. As a result, through either working longer (increasing tenure) or earning more (increasing final salary), a pensionable worker can increase their fixed-income (F) in retirement.

This fixed-income (F) increase leads directly to a decrease in a person’s Gap Number (G). Furthermore, a decrease in (G) decreases the necessary size of the investment nest egg. That isn’t a 1 for 1 reduction either; it’s far more significant. How retirement planning math works means even a slight increase in annual retirement income produces an outsized reduction in your required nest egg’s value at retirement! Thus, increasing fixed-income (F) is an excellent way for someone to reduce the required value of a retirement nest egg.

For those who paid attention in Pension Series Part 30, you can hopefully see where I’m going with this line of thinking. The impact of tenure and salary on fixed-income (F) is why I spent so much time discussing time-based questions and conditions in step 2 of Grumpus Maximization.

For those that don’t remember, I asked you to answer both “how soon can pension payments start?” (question 5) as well as “when do you want to retire?” (question 7). And, because you (hopefully) did your homework and answered those questions, you understand how tenure and final salary impact your pension’s annuity formula. This allows you to fine-tune the fixed-income (F) independent variable in the Gap Number equation to suit your retirement needs.

Independent Variable: Expenses

Of course, the Gap Number equation contains another independent variable, expenses (E). It too can alter (G). Once again, you can apply your built-up pension knowledge from steps 1 and 2 of Grumpus Maximization here. Specifically, you can use the knowledge gained through answering question 3, “what design elements are built into your pension?”

As I pointed out before, pension plans which include design elements like pension-subsidized healthcare coverage or a cost of living adjustment (COLA) can help reduce retirement expenses. They can do this by eliminating or drastically reducing spending within specific expense categories. However, as I also pointed out in Pension Series Part 30, these benefits often include tenure requirements of their own. As a result, a pensionable worker’s ideal tenure timeline based on the fixed-income (F) variable may conflict with that required to reduce expenses under the (E) variable. Thus, in some cases, (E) and (F) may not be all that independent from each other.

A Lot of Ingredients

I never said maximizing your pension would be uncomplicated. Still, my use of the baking metaphor in Pension Series 30 should’ve prepared you for the complexities. What ingredients you use and how you choose to mix them will ultimately impact the output. Some bakers bake bread, others cupcakes. From a retirement spending point of view, a lot, if not all, of that difference in desired baked-product output comes down to personal preference. Therefore, when considering your choices, it’s helpful to refer back to Grumpus Maximization’s step 2 question 6 (i.e., why do you want to retire?).

As previously stated, there’s a big difference between a retirement plan dedicated to spending time with grandkids versus one designed to slow travel the globe. Your retirement goals are going to impact your spending needs. As a result, retirement expenses will adjust to meet those needs. This is why I placed the question within the framework. Another question I put within the framework to help determine your spending needs was question 4, (i.e., where do you want to retire?). As stated in Pension Series Part 30, retirement location impacts retirement expenses through taxes and cost of living.

Final Gap Number Thoughts

Numerous more issues impact retirement spending, but I need to move on for article length. If this Gap Number stuff still doesn’t make sense, then please (re)read my two previous articles on the topic. Feel free to post or email me questions as needed, and I will endeavor to help you through it.

On the other hand, if this Gap Number discussion makes sense, I want you to consider one more thing. There’s nothing inherently wrong with having a large Gap Number. It’s simply a mathematical expression of how much you’ll need to rely on other sources of retirement income to cover your retirement expenses. In my examples above, I used stock and bond investments to generate that income. However, those certainly aren’t the only two methods available. Ultimately, it’s up to you to decide how comfortable you are with the size of your Gap Number and how you will cover it.

Furthermore, compared to non-pensionable workers who make up the overwhelming majority of the modern workforce, future pensioners have a luxury that most other retirees don’t. In fact, non-pensionable workers who retire before their Social Security must cover all retirement expenses through non-fixed-income streams. That’s a 100% Gap Number! As a future pensioner, employ the Gap Number as a retirement planning tool. Use it to find your sweet spot between working too long for a larger pension or retiring too soon without enough money saved and invested.

Grumpus Maximization Step 4: Tax Minimization and Investment Maximization 

OK, I flogged the Gap Number horse to death. Let’s move on to strategies to minimize taxes and maximize investment gains since Grumpus Maximization is all about efficiency in these two areas. For that, I will point to another two articles of mine. The first is my article on pension geoarbitrage, which I’ve already mentioned several times between this article and the last. You may think it strange that an article about moving is the one I choose to highlight taxes. However, taxes on pension income may make up a significant and reoccurring expense in a future pensioner’s retirement budget. So, it’s worth examining whether retiring to a different locale can reduce your retirement tax burden.

That said, save for one exception, I’ve found no evidence of a situation where pensioners can avoid federal-level income taxes on their DB pension payments by moving to a different country. In other words, a pension is taxed either by the home country where the pension was earned or the new host country. Which government taxes the pension typically comes down to the agreements laid out in a bilateral tax treaty. In some situations, often where no tax treaty exists, the pension may be taxed in both countries. Alternatively, the new host country may not tax the pension’s entire amount, so the home country will tax the remainder.

The Exception to the Rule

The exception I mentioned was Portugal for UK pensioners, which I examined in my geoarbitrage article. I used the past tense “was” for a reason. I wrote that article before the UK officially left the European Union (which Portugal is still a member of), so I’m not sure if that option still exists. Thus, to my knowledge, there is no silver bullet international move for pensioners that will do away with their federal tax burden entirely in retirement.

Furthermore, for US pensioners, it’s worth noting that the US is one of the few countries in the world that taxes their expatriate’s income no matter where they live. This includes taxing pension income. However, that’s not always a bad thing. Take my case, for example. The US-New Zealand (NZ) Dual Tax Agreement states that taxes on a government-provided pension remains under the jurisdiction of the government providing it. My military-provided pension from the US Department of Defense stays under the US’s marginal income tax brackets. The US’s marginal tax brackets are more moderate than NZ’s. As a result, I pay less tax on my earned pension income than I would if NZ were to tax it.

I’m Not a Tax Professional

If you’re thinking this international tax stuff sounds complicated, then you’re correct; it is. That’s why I employed two international tax specialists (one from the US and one from NZ) to work through some of these issues before my family’s move. Even then, I didn’t catch everything, as I chronicled in my latest Kiwiarbitrage article. Thus, for anyone thinking that a Grumpus Maximization opportunity may exist through international geoarbitrage, spend the money on a professional international tax expert during your retirement planning stage. Furthermore, ensure they’re savvy on the issues between the two countries involved.

Of course, you don’t have to move abroad to minimize your pension’s tax burden. As pointed out in my geoarbitrage article and Pension Series Part 30, you could just move to a different state. That assumes you live in a country big enough to have states with their own (additional) income tax regimes. That’s certainly the case in the US and especially relevant since not all US states tax income. Thus, it’s often cheaper to retire to a different state than the one where you worked and earned your pension.

Moving to a US state with no income tax isn’t always necessary, though. Some US states don’t tax pension income, whereas they tax other retirement income. Several other states don’t tax pension income from their state-sponsored pension plans. In other words, they don’t tax the pensions of former state employees if they retire in-state. My pension geoarbitrage outlines many of these options.

A Holistic Approach to Taxes and Investing

While moving to a different country or state to minimize your retirement tax exposure may sound extreme, I don’t want to over-emphasize the tax issue. Yes, taxes are typically a sizeable and reoccurring expense in a retirement budget, but they are also manageable. You just need to plan for them. Furthermore, in cases like the US, where the federal tax code is overly complicated, there’s a significant chance of the tax tail wagging the retirement planning and pension dog. Thus, Grumpus Maximization proposes a more holistic view of retirement that right-sizes taxes and investment concerns.

Speaking of right-sizing your retirement planning for taxes, investments, and a pension, most modern retirement planning assumes that a retiree won’t have access to a pension. At least, that is the case in the US. As a result, most retirement planning emphasizes using programs that funnel retirement savings into pre-tax investment vehicles like a 401K. Pre-tax means the money invested isn’t taxed until it (and its proceeds) are withdrawn in retirement, which shows up as regular income.

However, if you have access to a pension in retirement, and plan to save and invest money to meet your Gap Number, then investing through a pre-tax retirement savings plan may prove counterproductive. Conversely, saving in post-tax retirement investment vehicles may be the more appropriate approach. I discuss this in detail for my University of Golden Albatross article, which is the other mandatory reading assignment for this step of Grumpus Maximization.

Caveats

As a warning, I wrote the University of Golden Albatross article for my US audience. But, in general terms, it represents the type of long-range tax and investment planning that a pensionable worker should engage in to Grumpus Maximize their pension. Therefore, I think it’s a suitable read for anyone looking to take full advantage of their pension in retirement.

The investment and tax considerations I lay out in my University of the Golden Albatross article are long-term. By long-term, I mean about a decade or more. That time frame gets into the complicated business of trying to predict your tax exposure in retirement while considering how tax laws may change as political winds blow. In fact, in the article, I call this type of pension maximization work “graduate-level stuff.”

Assumptions

That said, instead of walking you through the finer points of the article, which you can read for yourself, let me address the planning assumptions on which they rely. This will better help you gauge whether or not this part of Grumpus Maximization is for you.

The first assumption is that you have a Gap Number that you intend to cover through investments. The second assumption is your pension annuity will be taxed as regular income. The third assumption is that your tax code is marginal with graduating tax brackets and not a flat-tax system. Fourth, there must be pre- and post-tax retirement investment vehicles available to invest in. Fifth, the tax code must treat withdrawals from those retirement investment vehicles differently. In other words, withdrawals from pre-tax accounts are taxed, while withdrawals from post-tax accounts are not.

Since I wrote the article for US pensionable workers, it’s no surprise that the US tax and retirement savings landscape meets these pre-conditions. Honestly, though, I don’t know how many other nations’ tax codes do. Similarities exist in some countries but dig deeper many of them appear cosmetic. If you’re not an American but interested in squeezing every maximization opportunity from your pension, then you’ll need to do some research and comparison. If you are an American, then you need to read the article!

Don’t Forget About Taxable Investment Accounts!

Whether you’re in the US with its two different retirement savings vehicles or a country with only one, there is another type of investment account worth comparing your options against. Again, this assumes you have a Gap Number and plan to cover that gap partially or entirely with cash generated from investments. The type of account is the plain-vanilla taxable investment account.

A taxable investment account is different from a post-tax retirement account in that both contributions and withdrawals are typically taxed. However, unlike either type of retirement investment account, a taxable investment account doesn’t have time limits or age restrictions on withdrawals. This means the accounts, and funds within them, are far more flexible.

Long-Term Capital Gains Are Better

Bottom line, if you’re planning to retire before the age restriction on your retirement investment account ends (typically 60 across the Western world), you need cash or a taxable investment account to fund your Gap Number. Otherwise, you’d pay a hefty penalty if you withdrew money from one of your retirement investment accounts before the age restrictions end. Furthermore, if you hold investments within a taxable investment account long-term (typically a year or more), then your withdrawals may be taxed at a discounted rate as long-term capital gains.

This lower tax on long-term capital gains aspect of a taxable account allows a billionaire like Warren Buffet to live off of his investments with a lower tax rate than his secretary. In fact, some countries like New Zealand (where I currently live) don’t tax long-term capital gains at all. As a result, it may be cheaper to invest through a regular investment account than through a pre-tax retirement account to cover your Gap Number. Once again, this is something you’ll need to research based on where you live or pay a certified professional for accurate advice.

Type of Account vs. Type of Investments

Up to this point, I haven’t discussed the type of investments one should hold within their investment accounts. That’s for a good reason, primarily because I’m not a professional investment advisor! However, since Grumpus Maximization is about efficiency, one type of investment naturally fits within the framework: index funds. For those not familiar with index funds, they’re essentially a basket of passively held stocks that track a stock market index. The US S&P 500 index, composed of the top 500 companies in the US by market share, is one of the most popular indexes to track. If you buy a share in an S&P 500 index fund, you’re purchasing a little slice of all 500 companies.

Of course, you don’t need to stick with just the S&P 500. You can find an index fund that tracks just about any stock index out there. This includes small-cap companies, commodity companies, and public utility companies, just to name a few. Furthermore, there are bond index funds, meaning you don’t have to purchase an individual bond to hold bonds in your investment portfolio.

Efficiency

Now that you know what index funds are let’s discuss why they’re such a good match for Grumpus Maximization. First, index fund investment returns almost always beat those of actively managed funds (i.e., funds of stocks picked by professionals) over longer periods of time. That period tends to be five or more years, meaning index funds outperform actively managed funds after the five-year mark. Consequently, since Grumpus Maximization is ideally employed ten years or more before retirement, index funds are a good match.

For those who don’t believe me or the series of articles I just linked, I refer you to my 3 books + 2 Booklets + 1 Chapter article. Specifically, you should read the “1 Chapter” from Nate Silver’s book The Signal and The Noise. It changed my mind because it emphasizes how even a 1% to 2% difference in annual returns between index funds and actively managed funds can add up to large sums of money over those longer periods.

Moreover, index funds are cheaper and less costly to own because they minimize operating costs. Without analyzing stocks and actively picking them, index fund managers employ fewer people. Those cost savings are passed on to the consumer in the form of much lower operating expenses than actively managed funds. Compounded over time, these cost savings contribute to the differences in investment returns between actively and passively managed funds. Nate Silver also analyzes this in his book.

Tax Efficiency

Finally, for someone who deems tax efficiency a large part of Grumpus Maximization, it’s no surprise that index funds are tax efficient. They’re efficient in two ways, at the individual level and the fund level. First, the individual level. Index funds are typically used with a buy and hold strategy, which means you’re not buying and selling numerous individual stocks to try and beat the market. Therefore, you’re not paying long- or short-term capital gains taxes nearly as often as you would if you were actively trading. Furthermore, unless you specifically buy an index fund for dividend-paying stocks, index funds typically produce fewer dividends for the shareholder than actively managed funds. Thus, fewer dividends equal fewer taxes.

Index funds are more tax-efficient at the fund level for similar reasons. Since fund managers don’t actively trade stocks as they attempt to pick winners and sell losers, they generate fewer capital gains taxes. That means fewer capital gains distributions are passed on to the shareholder (i.e., you). And, since capital gains distributions are taxed, less of them equals fewer taxes for you!

As a final aside, I’m perfectly willing to admit my bias for index funds. That bias developed in my younger adult life as I made stupid investment mistake after stupid money stake. This includes actively trading stocks with no clue as to fundamentals, chasing market trends, and paying large tax bills due to the ill-advised timing of stock sales. You can read about my series of misadventures in my Grumpy Meander series. Feel free to have a chuckle at my misfortune, or should I say missed fortunes? In any case, you’ll understand after reading the articles and hopefully avoid my mistakes.

Grumpus Maximization Step 5: Other Maximization Opportunities

FINALLY!

Step 5 is the final step of Grumpus Maximization. Like step 1, this step is about developing a mindset and less about concrete examples. My goal is that you read this and start actively scanning for opportunities to maximize your retirement through your pension. In marketing terms, this is called horizon scanning, which I learned in a master’s marketing class. Glad to see that my education wasn’t entirely wasted!

The gist of horizon scanning is that you “identify the actions needed to take advantage of an opportunity or minimise a risk” (Consumer Intelligence, 2022). When you think about it, a DB pension is excellent at mitigating risk. Primarily, it mitigates the risk of completely running out of money in retirement. I say “completely” because if you have a Gap Number but don’t manage your money correctly, you could run out of some money. However, with a pension, there is a floor of retirement income you’d never fall under. Hopefully, that floor covers essential costs like housing and food.

When Opportunity (and Death) Comes Knocking

I can think of two examples of how an opportunity might present itself through horizon scanning your pension opportunities. The first is survivorship, which must be offered to all pensioners by US law.

Survivorship provides the option to pass along all, or part, of a pension to a spouse or minor children after the pensioner dies. It’s essentially an insurance policy built specifically for your pension. It’s not cheap, and taking it is not always the correct move. Furthermore, the decision in most cases is irreversible, which is why both the pensioner and spouse must officially refuse it if they decide it’s not for them.

Fortunately, I published a survivorship article multiple years ago. It’s worth the read because I provide a method to help determine if survivorship is the correct call in your case. I also discuss my personal survivorship decision-making process in my Death Binder 2.0 article. In fact, my Death binder 2.0 article presents several opportunities to maximize a pension at death. As a result, you may also find it worth your time, even if the subject is a bit morbid.

DROP

Another example of a pension opportunity that may present itself is DROP, which stands for Deferred Retirement Option Program. DROP is essentially a false retirement, where a pensioner starts their defined benefit (DB) pension payments but keeps working at their current job. Or, as one short but worthwhile internet video puts it, a pensionable worker retires from their pension plan, but not their job. However, instead of the pension payments going into the worker’s bank account and showing up as taxable income, the payments go into an interest-bearing trust fund as deferred income (i.e., pre-tax). When the employee stops working altogether, they can either receive the trust fund money as a taxable lump-sum payment or roll it over to a tax-deferred retirement account.

DROPs are not common, and I’ve only seen them attached to public pensionable professions like law enforcement and first response. Even then, they’re not widespread in those communities. That said, if you engage in the type of pension familiarization and research required in step 2 of Grumpus Maximization, you should have no problem determining if it’s available for you.

Uncommon, But Useful

I mention this uncommon perk because DROP serves a useful Grumpus Maximization purpose for some pensionable workers. In some pensionable jobs, workers can max out their DB pension benefits before they’re ready to stop working and before their employer wants them to leave. Despite wanting to stay in those cases, there is a solid mathematical argument for the worker to retire immediately based on opportunity costs and diminishing returns.

DROP eliminates that mathematical argument and encourages workers to stay as long as an employer needs them. That said, there are usually time limits attached, with three to five years being the most common. Regardless, many pensionable workers like DROP because it helps them stockpile cash before their actual retirement. While that stockpile can serve many purposes, from a Grumpus Maximization perspective, I think it’s best used to help manage a retiree’s Gap Number.

A Review of Grumpus Maximization

In many ways, effective utilization of DROP embodies all the steps of Grumpus Maximization. As a result, it offers a great chance to review the framework.

For example, pensionable workers would learn about DROP as they familiarize themselves with their pension details in steps 1 and 2. Steps 2 and 3 would allow pensionable workers to clearly articulate their Gap Number, providing insight as to whether or not something like DROP would be needed to mitigate the gap. In step 4,  employees would determine the best tax and investment strategies for employing DROP money alongside their pension. Remember, DROP pays out either as a taxable lump sum or a roll-over into a pre-tax retirement account. Finally, as part of step 5, the employee would continuously scan to ensure DROP remains available. Its availability may be limited since it’s a retention tool for employers and mostly offered to mitigate staffing and talent shortages.

That said, please don’t think Grumpus Maximization’s sole use is limited to such an obscure program. The decision-making process for electing the survivorship option on a pension could play out similarly. Remember, survivorship is a mandatory requirement for all US pensions. Thus, the framework is robust enough to help you plan through multiple pension-based retirement scenarios.

Hard Work, But Worth It

I think the framework’s most challenging but essential step is creating an accurate retirement budget to calculate your Gap Number (step 3). Crucially, that hard work unlocks Step 4’s pension-friendly tax and investment planning, which may or may not require professional help to solidify. Step 3’s hard work also allows you to effectively scan for other pension-complimentary opportunities (step 5) based on your personal retirement plan, which should be completed after step 4.

I believe that’s a great way to end this article, with a reminder that Grumpus Maximization requires some hard work but is ultimately worth it. After all, the worth vs. worth it decision-making framework for staying or leaving a pensionable job is something else this blog is known for. Furthermore, if you decided that staying for the pension was worth it, then you should be willing to work hard to maximize your pension’s positive impact in retirement. In other words, don’t leave the task half-finished!

I hope you enjoyed this two-part series on how to crank-up your pension to maximum. As always, let me know what you think of Grumpus Maximization or anything else by either commenting below or emailing me at grumpusmaximus@grumpusmaximus.com.