Why Retirement Experts Say to Plan for the Exit You Don't Choose
Retirement plans tend to be built on an assumption most people never test: that the worker, not the employer or their own health, will pick the retirement date. At the 2026 Morningstar Investment Conference, retirement experts Dana Anspach of Sensible Money and Michael Finke of The American College of Financial Services joined Morningstar's Christine Benz to argue that the safer assumption is an exit arriving earlier than planned — and that preparing for it has no real downside.
Anspach said she regularly works with clients who were pushed out of the workforce in their late 50s or early 60s after building plans around working to 65. Her response is to stress-test the plan as if the client's career ends at 60 or 62, then recalculate what a sustainable retirement income looks like from that earlier starting point. The logic is deliberately asymmetrical: if the client does keep working longer, the plan is simply stronger than needed; if they are forced out early, the plan was already built for that day.
The stakes go beyond money. Finke cited data showing that retirees who chose their exit date report no drop — sometimes a small gain — in life satisfaction afterward, while those who were downsized show a large decrease that persists for about four years for men and three for women. He described an involuntary exit as a form of rejection that makes people question their identity and self-worth, and said preparing for the possibility in advance can blunt the impact.
Finke also pointed to a consistent gap between planned and actual retirement ages. People who expect to retire around 61 generally do; people who expect to retire at 65 tend to retire later than they think, and the discrepancy grows with every year the target is pushed past 65. In practice, he said, the retirement date is usually dictated by circumstance — an employer's decision or a health problem — rather than by choice. Anspach added a related caution: people who leave the workforce in their mid-50s expecting an easy return often discover re-entry is far harder than assumed.
What the 61 'Magic Year' and Forced-Exit Data Show
The 'Magic Year of 61' and the Optimism Trap
Finke's data point flips a common assumption. Workers who feel retirement is within reach at 61 tend to retire close to that age, which suggests a realistic view of their own situation. Workers who aim for 65, by contrast, show a widening gap between expectation and outcome — and after 65 that gap grows each year. The implication is that optimism about a long working life is frequently disappointed by circumstance: the retirement date is often set by a company's restructuring decision or by health, not by the worker. Planners who build around a hoped-for retirement age are therefore building around the least reliable input in the plan.
Forced Exit Leaves a Mark the Balance Sheet Can't Show
The satisfaction data Finke cited separates the financial shock from the psychological one. A voluntary retirement leaves life satisfaction roughly unchanged or slightly better; an involuntary one produces a drop that lingers for years — four for men, three for women. His framing of a forced exit as rejection matters for planning because it means the event attacks identity and self-worth, not just income — and that advance preparation reduces the damage. Any stress test that only recalculates portfolio withdrawals is addressing half the problem.
Why Anspach Builds Plans as if Work Ends at 60
Anspach's stress-testing approach converts the statistics into practice. By building the plan as if work is done at 60 or 62 — removing the remaining salary years, pulling income from savings earlier and reworking the sustainable spending math — the advisor sees whether the portfolio can absorb the shock before it arrives. The structure creates an asymmetric payoff: if the worker reaches 65, the plan is stronger than required; if they are pushed out at 60, the plan is already in place. Her observation about acquaintances who left the workforce in their mid-50s only to find re-entry difficult adds a second risk to the same scenario: an early exit can become permanent, and the plan should assume it will be.
The Other Shocks in the Same Shadow
The early-exit discussion sits inside a broader warning the panel raised: sequence-of-returns risk, inflation and long-term-care costs can disrupt a retirement plan just as abruptly as a lost job. The panel's point was that all four are predictable enough to build into a plan in advance rather than discovered in retirement — with an unplanned early exit being the one that also carries the emotional weight.
Stress-Testing Your Plan for Retirement at 60 or 62
For anyone more than a few years from retirement, the panel's advice is that "working to 65" should not be treated as a plan. Concretely:
- Stress-test at 60 or 62. Anspach's method is to build the entire income plan as if work ends at 60 or 62, even if you expect to work to 65. If you do keep working, the outcome is better than planned; if you are pushed out, the plan already fits the reality.
- Treat re-entry as unlikely. As Anspach described, people who leave the workforce in their mid-50s often find the door much harder to reopen. If an early exit happens, plan around it being permanent.
- Prepare for the psychological shock, not just the financial one. Finke's data shows a forced exit cuts life satisfaction for roughly four years for men and three for women, and he says preparing in advance reduces the impact. Knowing the date may not be yours to choose is itself part of the plan.
- Anchor on 61, not 65. Finke's data shows workers who expect to retire at 61 usually do, while those aiming for 65 retire later than planned, with the gap widening after 65. Use the earlier age as the anchor for savings rates and spending assumptions.
- Name the other three disruptors. Sequence-of-returns risk, inflation and long-term-care costs sit alongside an early exit as known retirement shocks; the panel's advice is to prepare for them in the plan rather than react to them in retirement.
Comments 0