(no subject)

[ewx]

When your house is on the line you assume that the guarantees on offer are copper bottomed.

...without actually having seen the T&Cs this man was shown, I'd suggest that the more you have to lose, the less you should be assuming. Certainly the notion that the stock market can fall as well as rise should not have been unfamiliar in 1987. When does a large number of people losing a bet stop being a reminder of caveat emptor and start being a scandal?

My wife and I are going to have to work until normal retirement age and perhaps even a little beyond.

I'm finding it a little hard to be very sympathetic about this. Retiring earlier than 'normal' is surely a bonus, not a right, and not one that I think my own generation are very likely to enjoy in large numbers, if current demographic trends continue.

Comments

[bopeepsheep.livejournal.com]

It should (touching wood crossing fingers) also work out for my parents, who have single-digit years to go on theirs. Any shortfall could be covered by the increase in value of the house (profit in comfortable 6 figures is likely, thanks to insane Oxfordshire house prices, should they decide to move). But my dad is also a Maxwell pensioner (ok, he will be) so has absolutely no retirement income in prospect. :-(

I am very very glad they chose to get their endowment when they did, and am hoping that nothing goes wrong when they come to redeem it. The idea of keeping them as well as us does not appeal.