Most clients begin with a number in mind. The better ones eventually realize that number was never the point
For years, I’ve seen the same pattern play out. Clients walk in asking whether they have enough to retire. They want a definitive answer tied to a portfolio value. It’s an understandable instinct, but it’s also where many plans quietly break down. What they actually need is not a number. It’s a system.
The real conversation begins when we shift from “Do I have enough?” to “Can this support the life I want in a way that holds up over time?” That shift re-frames everything. We move away from static targets and toward how income will actually be created, structured, and sustained.
That means thinking in terms of cash flow, not just capital. We look at how withdrawals will be sequenced across registered and non-registered accounts, how those decisions interact with pensions, and how tax impacts outcomes over time. Because in retirement, gross returns are theoretical. After-tax income is what clients actually live on.
Where plans actually break down
The biggest issue I see is not market performance. It’s flawed assumptions, particularly around spending.
Most clients underestimate how much they will spend in the early years of retirement and overestimate what they will spend later. Spending tends to follow a pattern, often referred to as the retirement spending smile — higher in the early active years, tapering through the middle, then potentially rising again later due to health-related costs.
If we assume a flat, inflation-adjusted spending level across decades, we miss that dynamic entirely. More importantly, we risk building plans that look stable on paper but fail in practice.
That is why I push clients to test their assumptions before retirement. If a plan calls for $12,000 a month, but they are consistently spending $18,000, the issue is not the model. It is the reality. Something has to adjust, whether that is spending, timing, or expectations.
Plans rarely fail because of investment returns alone. They fail because the inputs were never grounded in how clients actually live.
Why the number is often misleading
Even when clients focus on the right question, they can still be misled by the number itself.
Not all assets are equal. A dollar in a registered account does not behave the same way as a dollar in a non-registered account. The after-tax income those assets can generate may differ significantly over time.
Add guaranteed income sources into the mix, and the contrast becomes even clearer. A client with $1.5 million and a defined benefit pension may be in a stronger position than someone with $2.5 million and no income floor. Yet the larger portfolio often creates a false sense of security.
This is where advisors can get it wrong. There is too much emphasis on portfolio size and not enough on income structure. Retirement planning is not about how much you have. It is about how that capital translates into reliable, after-tax income across different market conditions.
Building a plan that can adapt
There is another dimension of retirement that often goes unaddressed: readiness beyond the numbers. A client can be financially prepared and still struggle with the transition. The loss of structure, identity, and purpose can be significant, particularly for those whose careers have defined much of their lives. Yet this is rarely part of the planning process.
I often frame this as what clients are retiring to, not just what they are retiring from. I’ve seen financially ready clients delay retirement by two years simply because they hadn’t answered that question. The planning process should surface it deliberately, not leave it to chance.
At the same time, market uncertainty forces trade-offs. Retiring earlier introduces more risk, while working longer may improve outcomes but at the cost of time. The goal is not to eliminate that tension. It is to make it manageable.
That starts with education, particularly around sequence-of-return risk. A downturn early in retirement can have a lasting impact, very different from volatility during accumulation years.
From there, we build flexibility into the plan. Maintaining several years of spending in more stable assets can reduce the need to sell growth investments at the wrong time. Adjusting discretionary spending during downturns can help preserve capital. In some cases, phased retirement or reduced work can create a smoother transition.
Retirement is not a one-time decision. It is an ongoing process. Clients are continually reassessing their spending, priorities, and circumstances. Scenario planning allows for small, deliberate adjustments rather than reactive decisions when conditions change.
The most successful retirements aren’t defined by the largest portfolios. They’re defined by a plan that is clear, flexible, and built to adapt as life unfolds.
Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed in this report are the opinions of the author and readers should not assume they reflect the opinions or recommendations of Richardson Wealth Limited or its affiliates. Richardson Wealth Limited is a subsidiary of iA Financial Corporation Inc. and is not affiliated with James Richardson & Sons, Limited. Richardson Wealth is a trade-mark of James Richardson & Sons, Limited and Richardson Wealth Limited is a licensed user of the mark. Richardson Wealth Limited, Member Canadian Investor Protection Fund.
