• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Stockbridge Private Wealth Management

Stockbridge Private Wealth Management

Personalized Financial Strategies for a Secure Retirement

  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • Why Hire Us
    • Contact Us
  • The Retirement Specialist Book
  • Services
    • Investment Management
    • Retirement Planning
    • Retirement Income
    • Tax Planning
    • Social Security Timing
    • Insurance Optimization
  • Insights
  • Contact Us
  • Schwab Account Login

Financial Planning

Why Starting Early Builds Retirement Confidence (Not Just Bigger Balances)

January 7, 2026 By Eric Ludwig

When people think about retirement planning, they often focus on account balances. How much have I saved? Am I behind? Am I on track?

Recent research suggests a different lens may matter more early on: confidence.

I was recently quoted in a new article from Nationwide Retirement Institute, which analyzed how younger savers are approaching retirement differently than previous generations. The findings reinforce something we see consistently in practice: when people start saving earlier, they don’t just accumulate more money — they feel more prepared.

The Confidence Gap Is Real

Analysis of Nationwide Retirement Institute research by my team at The American College of Financial Services highlights just how meaningful an early start can be.

Among individuals who began saving for retirement by age 25:

  • 75% report feeling confident or cautiously optimistic about their retirement future

By contrast, among those who started later:

  • Only 46% report feeling the same way

That’s a 30-point confidence gap tied largely to when people started — not how much they had saved at the time.

Even when looking beyond that cutoff, the pattern holds. Those who feel optimistic about retirement generally began saving around age 30 or earlier. Those who feel anxious or pessimistic tended to start closer to age 32 or later.

The difference is small in years, but large in impact.

Why Timing Affects Confidence

The takeaway from this research is not that late starters are doomed. It’s that behavior shapes mindset.

Starting earlier does a few important things:

  • It builds familiarity with saving and investing
  • It normalizes market ups and downs
  • It creates a sense of momentum

Over time, that momentum translates into confidence. People who start earlier tend to view retirement as something they are actively preparing for, rather than something they hope will work out.

As I shared in the article:

“The lesson is simple: don’t wait for the perfect moment or the perfect amount to start saving. Building the habit early — even with modest contributions — sets the foundation for decades of confidence and better retirement readiness.”

That foundation matters just as much as the math.

What This Means for Planning

For younger savers, the goal should not be to hit an arbitrary dollar target early in life. Instead, the priority is to:

  • Start saving as soon as practical
  • Make contributions automatic
  • Increase savings gradually as income grows

Confidence doesn’t come from one big decision. It comes from repeated, manageable actions that reinforce the feeling of progress.

For those who started later, the research is still encouraging. Confidence is not fixed. It can improve with structure, clarity, and a plan that aligns savings with real future spending needs.

Bringing Confidence Into the Conversation

At Stockbridge, we see retirement planning as more than optimizing returns. A good plan should reduce anxiety, create clarity, and help people feel prepared for what comes next.

The Nationwide research reinforces that idea. Confidence is not an abstract concept. It is shaped by habits, decisions, and how early people begin engaging with the process.

If you’re unsure whether you’re “behind,” a more useful question may be: Do I have a plan that helps me feel confident about the future? That question often leads to better decisions than comparisons alone.

You can read the full Nationwide article here:
👉 New Year, New Savings: Young Savers Are Avoiding the Mistakes Older Savers Regret — You Can Too


About the Author

Eric Ludwig, PhD, CFP®, is a retirement income specialist and founder of Stockbridge Private Wealth Management, based in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, serving clients throughout the Madison area and nationally. He is also Director of the Center for Retirement Income at The American College of Financial Services.

Filed Under: Financial Planning, Retirement Planning

The Hidden Costs of Aging in Place: What Baby Boomers Need to Know

October 16, 2025 By Eric Ludwig

The Hidden Costs of Aging in Place: What Baby Boomers Need to Know

As featured in Straight Arrow News

The housing market has a baby boomer problem. With 61% of boomers saying they never plan to sell their homes, millions of properties are staying off the market, creating a bottleneck for younger buyers. But as I recently told Straight Arrow News, there’s a critical financial planning aspect that many families aren’t considering.

“Most people prefer to age in place, which is fine if you’re planning for it and you can pay for it,” I explained to the publication. “I’ve had plenty of clients who thought, ‘I can take care of Dad’ at home, and it works until it doesn’t.”

The Real Cost of Staying Put

The desire to age in place is understandable and often the right choice. However, too many families make this decision based on emotion rather than comprehensive financial planning. The math isn’t always as simple as “keeping the house is cheaper.”

Consider these often-overlooked costs:

Home Modifications: Most homes need significant updates for safe aging in place. Bathroom renovations, stair lifts, ramps, and wider doorways can easily cost $15,000-$50,000 or more.

Increased Care Costs: While institutional care is expensive, professional in-home care can be equally costly. Full-time care at home often runs $4,000-$6,000 per month in many markets.

Opportunity Cost: The equity tied up in a large family home could be generating income elsewhere. A $500,000 home represents potential investment income that many retirees desperately need.

Family Financial Strain: Adult children often shoulder unexpected costs when parents age in place, from lost wages due to caregiving responsibilities to emergency home repairs.

The Capital Gains Red Herring

Many families point to capital gains taxes as the reason for not selling, but this often masks deeper issues. Yes, the tax implications are real, but they shouldn’t drive the entire decision. For many families, the tax cost is manageable compared to the long-term financial benefits of right-sizing.

More importantly, capital gains concerns can prevent families from having crucial conversations about care preferences, family dynamics, and realistic long-term costs.

A Better Approach to the Decision

Rather than defaulting to “we’ll figure it out,” families need structured planning that considers:

1. Total Cost Analysis: Calculate the true cost of aging in place versus alternatives over 10-15 years, including home modifications, care costs, and opportunity costs.

2. Care Preferences and Realistic Assessment: Honestly evaluate the level of care that may be needed and whether the home can accommodate it safely.

3. Family Capacity: Assess the real ability and willingness of family members to provide care, including the financial impact on their own retirement security.

4. Flexibility Planning: Build in decision points and triggers for when the plan might need to change.

The Bottom Line

Aging in place can be a wonderful option, but only when it’s properly planned and funded. The families who succeed are those who make the decision based on comprehensive financial analysis rather than hope and emotion.

If you’re part of the 84% of Americans planning to age in place, make sure you’re planning for it financially. The time to have these conversations and run the numbers is now, while there are still options and choices available.


Eric Ludwig, CFP®, is Director of the Center for Retirement Income at The American College of Financial Services and CEO of Stockbridge Private Wealth Management. If you’d like to discuss aging in place planning or retirement income strategies, contact our team for a consultation.

Filed Under: Financial Planning, Life & Wealth, Retirement Planning Tagged With: aging in place, baby boomers, retirement

Is 2020 the Year for Recession?

June 12, 2018 By Eric Ludwig

Is 2020 the Year for Recession?

According to former Fed Chair Ben Bernanke, the U.S. economy will get a Wile E. Coyote surprise in 2020.  You know, just when everyone thinks he caught the Roadrunner, Wile notices he has run straight off a cliff, plummets seemingly forever before hitting the bottom in a cloud of dust, and then, just for spite, an anvil lands on his head.

In other words, Bernanke sees a 2020 recession looming.  Other analysts are saying it, too.  And whenever they do, they get their name in the headlines. Scaremongering attracts attention.

But there is good news here: The Pouting Pundits of Pessimism don’t think the crisis starts tomorrow.  No longer does some exogenous crisis event – say, Brexit, or Grexit, student loan defaults, etc., – threaten imminent collapse.  Now, the recession doesn’t happen for another two years.

Another interesting detail: the new problem is that the economy is growing too fast.  Remember when analysts used to say, “since the economy is growing less than 2% annually, it means a recession is coming”?  Now, Bernanke says the U.S. applied stimulus (in the form of a tax cut) “at the very wrong moment,” with the economy already at full employment.  In other words, real GDP growth is too strong, so the Fed will over-tighten and a recession is inevitable.

Now we agree that a recession is coming – someday.  Guess what happens after Summer?  Winter!  What happens after expansion? Recession!  Recessions are a fact of life, like death and taxes.  But predicting one in 2020 – and being right about it – is like reading tea leaves, it’s pure chance.  No one, and we mean no one, can honestly see that far in the future – not with the clarity expressed by these forecasts.

No one knows exactly what the Fed will do, not even the Fed.   Let’s say they follow their forecasts, raising fed funds to 3.5% in 2019. That alone doesn’t tell us if policy is “tight.”

While most recessions are caused by an excessively tight Fed, we don’t think the Fed is too tight until it drives the federal funds rate close to, or above, the rate of growth in nominal GDP.  Over the past five years, nominal GDP has averaged about 3.9%.  Which means if the Fed were to raise the funds rate by 0.25% three more times in 2018 and four times in 2019 (reaching 3.5%), and if nominal growth slowed to 3.5%, the Fed would be tight at that point. A recession would be possible.

However in the past year, nominal GDP growth has accelerated to 4.7%, and next year it could be as high as 6%.  That means a 3.5% federal funds rate would not be restrictive.  The Fed would have to raise rates faster and farther than any forecast we have seen in order to be “tight” going into 2020. At the same time, there are still at least $1.9 trillion in excess bank reserves.  Until those reserves are eliminated, no one knows if raising rates can actually cause a recession.

We do have one major worry.  Government spending is rising rapidly, and the deficits this spending creates will put pressure on politicians.  If they were to raise tax rates, this could cause potential problems for U.S. growth.

But the bottom-line remains: the U.S. is not facing an imminent threat.  That’s why doom and gloomers have shifted to forecasting future recessions, not looming crises.  But we think it’s not going to be the economy that gets an anvil on its head in 2020.  More likely, it’ll be investors who believe in the recession forecast.

Filed Under: Financial Planning, Updates

May Unemployment Looks Great

June 8, 2018 By Eric Ludwig

May Unemployment Looks Great

In over thirty years of watching the economy we’ve seen recessions, recoveries (both slow and fast), panics, lulls, and boomlets.  But we’ve rarely seen a job market this strong.

Everything is hyper-politicized these days, and we get accused of playing politics all the time. But what we care about deeply, what drives our focus, is the growth that creates opportunities for individual skills to shine in service to others. The development of assets – both physical and intellectual – to build for the future.  But it all starts with work, and there are now more Americans working than ever before – over 148 million, to be precise.

Nonfarm payrolls grew 223,000 in May and are up 2.4 million in the past year.  Civilian employment, an alternative gauge of jobs that better measures small business start-ups, grew 293,000 in May and is up 2.3 million in the past year.

And, importantly, it’s the private sector driving growth, not government.  Government jobs are up a total of 21,000 in the past year.   Meanwhile, manufacturing payrolls are up 259,000 in the past year, the fastest twelve-month increase since 1998.  If technology is supposed to be killing employment in manufacturing, I guess they didn’t get the memo.

No matter how you slice it, things look good.

But we’re not done. The unemployment rate dropped to 3.8% in May, tying the lowest reading since 1969.  We think we’re headed lower, forecasting a 3.2% rate by the end of 2019 with a chance for a 2-handle on the unemployment rate sometime in 2020.

May also saw the black unemployment rate fall to 5.9%, the lowest reading since record keeping started in the early 1970s.  Black employment is up 3.5% per year in the past two years, versus a 0.9% per year gain for whites.  As a result, the gap between the black and white unemployment rates is now only 2.4 percentage points, the smallest gap on record.

Let’s keep it going. In the past twelve months, the average jobless rate among those without a high school degree is 6.0%, also the lowest on record (going back to the early 1990s).

Still, people bemoan wage growth.  We’ve never thought average hourly earnings (which do not include irregular bonuses, commissions, or tips) are a good measure of living standards.  “Real” (inflation-adjusted) average hourly earnings are up just 0.2% from a year ago and up 7.2% from the start of the last recession.  But, again, this does not include the one-time bonuses many companies paid after the tax cut was enacted late last year.

In addition, there’s evidence that the Labor Department’s measure of wage growth is being held down by the retirement of older, more highly paid Baby Boomers, while new-hire Millennials are just beginning to climb the compensation ladder.  So while average hourly earnings for all workers are up 2.7% (not adjusted for inflation), if you take out new entrants and retirees, wage gains are up 3.3% in the past year.  We expect this to accelerate, pushing overall wages higher as well.

It’s a tight labor market, with initial claims at the lowest level ever as a percent of total employment and wages rising fast enough to pull people off the disability rolls and back into the job market.

This will help improve the low labor force participation rate.  Participation among prime-age workers – those 25-54, who are either working or looking for work – was 81.8% in May, the same as the average for the past year.

To put that in perspective, that’s higher than it ever was before 1986.  The averages by decade are 67.4% in the 1950s, 70.0% in the 1960s, 74.2% in the 1970s, 81.1% in the 1980s, 83.7% in the 1990s, and 83.1% in the first decade of the 21st Century.  Even the all-time high for any twelve-month period, back in 1998-99, was 84.2%, not substantially higher than it is today.

So, while participation is down from when the U.S. population was younger on average, it’s way up compared to the 1950s-60s, which many view as a strong period for the labor market.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, redistribution of income was well below today’s levels.  If the U.S. really wants more people in the labor force it must either reduce government benefits for not working or wait for the private sector to raise wages enough to pull people off government programs. With the recent strength in the labor market, the latter seems more probable.  Tax cuts and deregulation will keep the job market strong.

Eric Ludwig is a Certified Financial Planner in Sun Prairie, WI primarily for a select group of successful professionals and business owners, who aspire to a work-optional lifestyle.  Stockbridge has developed and refined a process to put all the pieces of the financial puzzle together and we call it the Stockbridge D3 Process, which stands for Discover, Design, Deploy.

 

Filed Under: Financial Planning, Updates

Do you have an investment strategy or are you gambling?

December 11, 2015 By Eric Ludwig

Do you have an investment strategy, or are you gambling?

Recently, somebody asked for my opinion of a certain stock they were considering buying.  I never know quite how to answer that question because buying individual stocks isn’t part of the investment strategies we run.  For 1, I’m not a big fan of owning individual stocks because I’d much rather own a commission-free, low-cost ETF that consists of 1,000 companies instead of buying only 1 company.  And 2, it probably doesn’t matter so much as “what stock to buy” as much as it does to be able to answer “when should I buy it” and “when should I sell it.”

The reason this question irks me so much though, is because it gets at the root of most investors problem: they’re gambling, not investing.  How do you know if you’re a gambler or an investor?  The ex-airline pilot in me has created a checklist to find out.  If you answer “no” to any of the questions, you’re probably just gambling with your money.  Or even worse, if you use the services of an investment advisor and they answer “no” to any of the questions, you’re paying someone else to gamble with your money…not cool dude!

First, the nuts and bolts of what makes it an actual strategy:

  1. My investing decisions can be boiled down to rules that could be programmed into a computer and answer the following:
    1. what to buy
    2. when to buy it
    3. how much to buy
    4. what to sell
    5. when to sell it
    6. how much to sell

Now you see why asking me “what do you think of this stock” just seems odd to me.  If it fits your investment strategy’s rules, buy the stock; if not, don’t buy it.  It’s pretty linear thinking at this level.  The idea of some stock jockey sitting in front of 15 computer screens watching their indicators with beads of sweat dripping down their forehead is Hollywood my friend, not Wall Street.  Investing, pragmatic investing, is pretty damn boring.  You run your system, you follow the rules, you go on about your day.  Once the rules are developed, it’s all about the proper execution of the strategy and just following the rules.  Think about weight loss for example.  You eat healthy, eat less, you exercise.  You just follow the steps and the results will happen.  That’s why it’s so important to focus on “process”, not “outcome.”  You can’t change the outcome.  That just happens.  But we can change our process.  And a better process will eventually lead to better results.

The next part of the checklist will determine if the strategy will actually make money or not. For example, I could come up with a “strategy” that buys all stocks that start with the letter A, every January, with 100% of my account value, and then sell them in December and repeat with the letter B next January.  That fits all the criteria to make it a “strategy”, but now we need to address whether or not it will make money.  And last time I checked that is the point of investing, right.  We need to be able to answer ‘yes’ to these questions:

  1. My investment strategy is based on a market truth of how the market really works (ex. momentum, short-term mean-reversion, trend-following, etc.  Not “buy in May and go away”.)
  2. My investment strategy has a repeatable edge that is not sensitive to input metrics, as determined by robust back-testing results (okay, that was the nerdiest thing I wrote today, but it’s very important. Many back-tested systems work because someone tried 487 combination of inputs until they finally got 1 that showed it would generate $200 million in 5 years.  If you roll the dice long enough, you’ll eventually roll a pair of snake-eyes 10 times in a row.  But we want positive results that work under all market conditions.  That’s what I mean by being robust, and not chance.)
  3. I can calculate the expected return, maximum equity drawdown, and probability of a positive and negative year (again, the only way to know this is because you can back-test a set of rules that you created in step 1 above)
  4. Finally, once you know the risk and return metrics, does the strategy fit your goals? Does it fit your comfort level?  The reason Kahnemann won the Noble Prize in economics for doing research on behavior, is because he knew that at the end of the day, it is investor behavior that has the biggest outcome on our final wealth result, not investment performance. Do you buy at market peaks and sell at market bottoms?  Do you exit because you’re currently down 6% even though historically the strategy has been down 10%?  Those decisions will have a much larger impact on our final wealth result than anything else in the checklist.  Since 1980, even Warren Buffett has had 4 times of losses worse than 30%, and 2 of those losses were worse than 50%!  On the upside, he’s outpaced the stock market (that’s investment performance).  But how many people can sit through 30% drops, or 50% drops, especially in retirement?  That gets to the core of investor behavior. See what I mean?

If you have a portfolio of actively managed mutual funds with internal costs of 1% per year, plus a 1% management fee that’s re-balanced quarterly (like they do at companies that rhyme with “you, “es”, pank”) you have a strategy, it’s just not a very good one, unless you actually like paying high fees and can sit through 50% losses every 8 years.  Or, if you buy Disney stock because Star Wars is coming out next week, I’m sorry fellow nerdy friend, but that’s more gambling than investing.  Spend your money going to the movie instead!  You could even ask a girl to go with you!

Final point: having a pragmatic set of rules to follow for making investment decisions, that will get you closer to your unique financial goals, is where we should focus our time.  And in the final analysis, that’s all that really matters.  If you want to know “whaddya think of XYZ stock?” call Jim Cramer instead of me.  At least he’s entertaining.

 

Eric Ludwig is a certified financial planner in Madison, WI primarily for a select group of successful professionals and business owners, who among other things aspire to a work-optional lifestyle.  Stockbridge has developed and refined a process to put all the pieces of that puzzle together and we call it the Stockbridge GPS process.  GPS stands for Goals, Planning, Strategy.

Filed Under: Financial Planning, Momentum

Buy your Advisor 5 Lamborghini’s

June 11, 2015 By Eric Ludwig

Let’s say you’ve done well in life.  You did what you were supposed to do: you saved all your life, invested, and accumulated $1 million.  You’re ready to retire and looking to hire a Financial Advisor to help manage your investments and keep you on track with your financial plans throughout life.

Advisor Fee: 1%

You call around and find that the average Financial Advisor charges 1% per year (National Average, PriceMetrix.com).  Many people believe that is the only cost.  There are additional costs for the investments.

Mutual Fund: 1.25%

According to Morningstar, the average mutual fund charges 1.25% a year.  I have yet to see a firm show this charge being deducted on a statement, but make no mistake, if you own a mutual fund there is a fee being deducted by the fund manager (called the expense ratio).

Total Cost: 2.25%

So using the average cost of an Advisor and a Mutual Fund, you’re “all-in” at 2.25% per year.

How to Reduce Costs:

ETF Cost Reduction: 1%

Let’s say your Advisor uses low cost index funds, ETF’s (Exchange Traded Funds) instead of Mutual Funds.  The average cost of ETF’s that we use at Stockbridge charge a 0.11%, a full 1.14% less than the average Mutual Fund.  So what does this amount to in cost savings over 25 years, and a 7% return?

$1 MILLION!

Actually it’s $1,066,235 LESS in FEES.  $1 million grows to $3.2MM using the average fees (1% Advisor, 1.25% mutual fund), but grows to $4.3MM simply by reducing costs.

Control the Controllable

While we can’t control the market, we can control fees.  The effect of reducing costs could be $1 million for every $1 million you have invested.  OR, you could simply buy 5 Lamborghini’s and drop them off in your Financial Advisor’s parking lot for them.  It’s up to you.

Filed Under: Financial Planning

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Reach Out

We’ll call you, talk about your financial goals, and help you decide if we’re a good fit.  Yeah, it’s that easy.

Ready to Learn More?

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Name *

Footer

Corporate Headquarters

2180 Baptisia Pass, WI
Sun Prairie, WI 53590

Email

Email us by clicking here

Office Number

(920) 287-3010

Copyright © 2026 StockbridgeWealth.com

  • Who We Are
  • What We Do
  • Recent News