Skip to content
Am I on track? Client Access
Beratung Advisors
Hypothetical illustration. Walt and Ruth Stahl are not real clients. This composite is shown for educational purposes to illustrate our planning process. It does not reflect the experience of any actual client and is not a guarantee of future results.

A Planning Story

Walt & Ruth Stahl

We saved $2.5 million. Then we couldn’t spend a dollar of it.

Walt and Ruth are sixty-three and sixty-one, a CPA and a recently retired teacher. Between them they spent four decades living on less than they made, saving and investing through every paycheck. They got here by being deliberately boring: never a card balance, never lowered the deferral, drove the Camry to 241,800 miles. Nobody ever taught them the other half.

We know what it’s worth. We have no idea what it means. Nobody has ever told us what we’re allowed to spend.Walt & Ruth, first meeting

We are values-based planners

We started with their values, not their statements.

Walt and Ruth spent forty-one years building a life together and never once sat down to name what they were building it for. There was always a deadline, a tuition bill, a market to watch. The values were there the whole time. Nobody had ever written them down, so nobody could plan around them.

We do values before we do dollars. So before we opened a single statement, we walked them through our Core Values Exercise. Each of them sorted the same fifty-two cards down to five, separately, and then we set the two lists side by side for the very first time.

Walt chose

FaithFamily OrderSecurityIndependence

Ruth chose

FaithFamily PhilanthropyCommunityRelationships

Two values they share, Faith and Family. The rest are their own: Walt reaches for Order, Security, and Independence; Ruth for Philanthropy, Community, and Relationships. Neither is wrong. For the first time, they could see exactly where they agreed, where they differed, and why the same decision felt obvious to one of them and impossible to the other.

That is the whole point of doing values first. Once a couple can name what they value, individually and together, money stops being an argument and becomes a decision. Should we take the trip? Make the gift? Help the grandkids? The values answer it. And the day Walt and Ruth are no longer in the room, those same values become the framework their children use to carry it forward. Every recommendation that follows was measured against this list, not against a benchmark.

Ruth setting the family table with the good china

The good china still comes out, because the people who gather around it still do.

Then we built the plan

With their values clear, the plan had something to answer to.

Most families we meet need to save more. Walt and Ruth needed the opposite: permission to spend, a plan for taking money out, and someone to read the paperwork. Here is what we found, and what we changed, each decision traced back to a value they had just named.

When they walked in
  • A pension that ends when she doesRuth elected the maximum single-life option at retirement. Nothing continues to Walt. The election is irrevocable, and half her pension for life would have cost $266 a month.
  • $1.34 million at 90% equityNo investment election changed and no rebalancing since March 2004. Twelve months from their last paycheck.
  • $18,634 a year in fees2.32% all-in across four accounts, disclosed in writing, in a document they signed and never read.
  • A form from 1998Walt’s 401(k) still named his late mother as beneficiary. She died in 2016. The same name appears on four separate documents.
  • Coverage running outEverything ends the month they retire. Ruth is on the plan and doesn’t reach Medicare for three more years.
After the plan
  • Survivor income rebuiltThe pension election can’t be undone. Delaying Walt’s Social Security can, and it puts the survivor benefit back where the pension used to be, protecting whichever of them outlives the other.
  • A portfolio for the next ten yearsRepositioned for the decade that actually matters, instead of the one already behind them.
  • Costs cut to a fractionSame money, share classes that don’t quietly pay someone else, and a fee they can explain.
  • Paperwork that matches the familyEvery beneficiary corrected. Wills rewritten. A trust for the lake house, so it doesn’t become the thing the children argue about.
  • The gap closedThe answer to Ruth’s three-year coverage problem was printed on her own pension statement. Nobody had turned the page.
$2.5M
built by being deliberately boring for 35 years
11 years
between their last paycheck and their first forced withdrawal
$96,400
of after-tax basis that can move straight to a Roth
4
documents still naming someone who died in 2016
Three generations of the family together on the dock at the lake

This is what the plan is really for: everyone on the dock, at the same time.

Two halves of the same job

Almost nothing here was a mistake they made. It was paperwork nobody had opened and rules nobody had explained.

What we found

Reading the file

Thirty-seven documents. The answers were in them.

  1. Eleven years between their retirement date and their first required distribution, the longest planning window either of us had ever had.
  2. $96,400 of after-tax money inside the 401(k), sitting in a column of the statement nobody reads.
  3. A $200,000 gap between what their umbrella requires and what the lake house policy actually carries, printed side by side on their own declarations page.
  4. A retirement estimate showing exactly what the survivor option would have cost, and what she chose instead.
  5. A pension statement that also explained how to solve their health insurance problem.
What we changed

Then doing something

Decisions, each one tied to something Walt or Ruth had actually said.

  1. Built an income plan, so there is a number they are allowed to spend without flinching.
  2. Used the eleven-year window deliberately instead of letting it pass.
  3. Repositioned a portfolio still built for a couple in their forties.
  4. Rebuilt survivor income around a decision that could not be reversed.
  5. Started the giving Ruth had been asking about for six years, while they are both here to watch it land.

Ready to plan for the whole family, not just retirement?

Retirement was never the finish line. The best plans reach the next generation too, the kids and grandkids you built it all for. See how the same planning plays out one generation down.

Find Out If You’re On Track

See Max & Joy’s Story →

Important disclosures. Walt and Ruth Stahl are hypothetical individuals created for educational purposes. They are not actual clients of Beratung Advisors, and the situation described is a composite illustration. It does not represent the experience of any particular client and should not be construed as a testimonial or endorsement. Results will vary. No portion of this content should be interpreted as a guarantee that similar results will be achieved.

Figures shown reflect account balances, fees and benefit amounts within a hypothetical household and are not investment returns. Reducing investment costs does not ensure a profit or protect against loss. Any references to probability of success reflect the output of financial planning software using stated assumptions; changing those assumptions changes the result. Decisions regarding Social Security claiming, pension elections, Roth conversions and insurance depend entirely on individual circumstances.

This material is for informational purposes only and is not intended as tax or legal advice. Please consult a qualified tax or legal professional regarding your individual situation. Beratung Advisors does not provide legal services and does not draft estate documents.

Securities and advisory services offered through LPL Financial, Member FINRA/SIPC, a registered investment advisor.