Four retirement paths beyond the full-time countdown

Some clients want time away from work before their mid-sixties. Others want to keep going past the usual retirement age, for the paycheck, the routine, the people. Kitces.com's latest post names four retirement paths that serve both groups, and argues that bringing them up early can produce an 'aha' moment in a planning conversation.

The familiar default is full-time work into the sixties, then a clean exit. That model fits clients who want exactly that. The post's argument is that it doesn't fit everyone, and the alternatives deserve a place in the conversation because each one reshapes the financial plan.

Financial independence is the cleanest break. A client whose savings cover lifestyle expenses without paid work can leave early. The costs are real: health insurance to buy before Medicare, and a withdrawal period long enough to test whether the portfolio holds up. The tax side offers an advantage — years with little or no wage income leave room for Roth conversions and capital gains harvesting. The paycheck's security disappears, and in its place sits a set of planning problems the advisor has to solve.

Sabbaticals make a different trade. A client steps away for caretaking or travel while still healthy, planning to return to the same job or an equivalent one. The path allows flexibility in length and frequency and requires fewer assets than full independence. But saving pauses, and there is no guarantee the commensurate job will still be there. That combination can push the final retirement date past the traditional age. The planning work is to model the contribution gap and pressure-test the re-entry assumption.

Coast FIRE belongs to the client whose savings are projected to grow, without further contributions, into a portfolio large enough to support future retirement spending. From that point, work has to cover only current expenses. That is what opens the door to a lower-paying but more meaningful job. It is a middle route for someone who has not reached full independence but wants off the high-stress track. The catch sits in the phrase 'projected to grow.' The plan leans on compounding, and the advisor's job is to make sure the client understands what happens if returns fall short.

Semi-retirement is the trial run. The client cuts hours and tests the retirement premise before committing to it. The Kitces post keeps the description brief, but the planning issue is visible: a portfolio that must support partial income, and a client who may keep nudging hours down over time.

Kitces.com's point about advisors is direct: these paths are not options to mention in passing. Introducing them can be the moment a client sees that retirement does not have to mean one fixed exit date. The 'aha' is only the start. The ongoing work is matching each path to its risks: the extended withdrawal period for the financially independent, the savings gap for the sabbatical-taker, the growth projection for the Coast FIRE client, the income transition for the semi-retired.

Each path hands the advisor a specific planning agenda. The financially independent client needs a withdrawal strategy that survives a longer retirement and a tax-efficient way to use low-income years. The sabbatical-taker needs a model showing what the contribution gap costs in delayed retirement. The Coast FIRE client needs a realistic growth projection and a fallback if returns underperform. The semi-retired client needs a budget that blends earned and portfolio income. These are not one-time conversations; they are the ongoing support Kitces.com says advisors are well-positioned to provide.

The paths are not fixed identities. A client could take a sabbatical in their forties, find a Coast FIRE job in their fifties, and ease into semi-retirement before a final exit. But that sequence only becomes visible if the conversation happens early, before the default retirement age takes over. The default retirement age is sticky; without that early conversation, it will make the decision for the client.