Sue Pimento

I have a friend who announced she was downsizing the way some people announce a move to Tuscany. Lightness. Optimism. A touch of smugness. Six months later, she called me from her condo and whispered, “Sue… I think I bought a very expensive closet with a concierge.” Welcome to downsizing, the most celebrated, most recommended, and most wildly misunderstood retirement strategy in Canada. Like most things that sound simple, it works beautifully until you look a little closer. I spent a decade in the reverse mortgage industry watching this play out. Clients would come in — smart, capable, financially savvy people — who had spent years being told their retirement plan was simple: sell the big house, buy something smaller, pocket the difference, and ride off into the sunset. Many of them were sitting across from me because that plan had not worked the way anyone promised. The advice was decades old. Their lives were not. Two Retirees. Same Strategy. Completely Different Outcomes. Let me introduce you to Carol and Robert, whose stories say everything. Carol did everything right. She sold her long-time home, bought a sleek condo, freed up some equity, and checked every box on the “responsible retirement” list. On paper, it was a perfect move. In practice, she lost her community, her routines, her doctor, and a piece of her identity. She found herself sitting in a condo surrounded by unpacked boxes, wondering how a smart financial decision could feel so much like a personal loss. Robert also did everything right, but his story unfolded differently. He sold his home, moved closer to family, bought something smaller, and banked a meaningful sum. What he gained had very little to do with the numbers. He gained connection, belonging, and a life that felt fuller, not smaller. The strategy was identical. The outcomes were not. That is the uncomfortable myth about downsizing. It is not a formula. It is a life decision disguised as a financial one. The Downsizing Math People Love to Quote For decades, downsizing earned its reputation honestly. Retirement was shorter, often fifteen to twenty years. Pensions were stable. Housing was affordable. Families lived closer together. Selling your home and buying something smaller freed up real capital and meaningfully cut expenses. It was practical, logical, and often the right call. Fast forward to today, and almost none of those conditions still apply. Retirement now runs twenty-five to thirty-five years — a span longer than most people’s careers were when this advice was invented. Defined benefit pensions have largely become a public sector privilege. In the 1970s, 90% of private-sector workers with a workplace pension had a defined-benefit plan. Today, that figure has dropped to roughly 40%, and that’s only among the shrinking share who have any pension plan at all (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2025). Housing prices have surged far beyond income growth.  Real estate now accounts for over half of household wealth in Canada. Meanwhile, according to Statistics Canada, the average Canadian at sixty-five has approximately $272,000 in retirement savings, while estimates for a comfortable retirement often exceed $1 million. That is not a gap. That is a canyon. This gap turned the family home into something it was never designed to be. Not just a place to live, but a retirement plan. And once that shift happened, we collectively made a convenient assumption: the only way to access that wealth is to sell the house. That assumption is where things begin to unravel. The four assumptions that made downsizing work are no longer as reliable as they once were. 1. Smaller homes are cheaper. In many markets, the opposite is true. Smaller properties often command higher prices per square foot, and retirees now compete with first-time buyers and investors for the same limited inventory. That charming condo may cost nearly as much as the house you just sold. 2. Selling releases meaningful capital. Transaction costs alone can consume eight to twelve percent of the home’s value. Commissions, legal fees, land transfer taxes, moving costs, repairs. What looks like a windfall on paper can shrink dramatically before you ever see the money. 3. New home costs will be lower and more predictable. Condo fees, special assessments, and rising insurance costs tend to quietly escalate. What was supposed to simplify your financial life can quietly complicate it. 4. The process is straightforward. Market timing plays a much larger role than most people realize. Selling in a soft market while buying in a strong one can erode value on both sides. Downsizing is not just a financial decision. It is a transaction with real timing risk. When all four of these assumptions weaken at once, the outcome can be very different from what was promised. And yet, despite the evidence, the advice has not changed. We still tell people to “just downsize,” as though the calendar hasn’t moved since 1987. Nostalgia is not a strategy. The Part Nobody Puts in the Spreadsheet Here is what the financial projections consistently leave out: the emotional weight of this decision is enormous, and most people dramatically underestimate it. We are not talking about a slight reluctance to pack boxes. We are talking about the deep, visceral human attachment to home. The place where you raised your kids, hosted Thanksgiving, walked the dog, and knew every creak in every floorboard. The urge to age in place is powerful, primal, and not remotely irrational. And when we dismiss it with a spreadsheet, we are not being helpful. We are being reckless. And here is the harder truth: to make the numbers actually work, people often need to move two or three hours away into smaller communities where housing is genuinely cheaper. That means leaving your neighbourhood, your friends, your church, your yoga class, your doctor of twenty years, and your very carefully curated hairdresser. (Finding a new hairdresser in a rural town? That is not a life transition. That is a medical emergency.) Re-establishing a full support network in an unfamiliar community is daunting and exhausting work for anyone at any age. It often requires the senior to resume regular driving, something many are quietly hoping to scale back. And then there is healthcare. Access to specialists, familiar family physicians, and hospital services is non-negotiable for most people over sixty-five. It does not figure neatly into a spreadsheet, but it absolutely figures into the decision. I have never once met a senior who said, “You know what, I’m really glad I had to find a new GP at 72.” The urge to stay put almost always wins. Here is something worth sitting with: every older person knows what it is like to be young, but no young person knows what it is like to be old. That asymmetry matters enormously in this conversation. A well-meaning adult child running scenarios on a laptop has never felt the specific, irreplaceable comfort of a neighbourhood they have lived in for thirty years. Really listening — not just problem-solving — can bridge that gap. Because retirement is a family affair. And the families who navigate it best are the ones where everyone feels heard before anyone pulls out a spreadsheet. The Conversation That Actually Needs to Happen Financing retirement is not a binary choice. Downsize or don’t. That framing does everyone a disservice, and spoiler alert: the senior will almost always choose not to downsize. The real question is what happens next, because “stay put and hope for the best” is not a retirement plan. It’s a wish. The more useful conversation is about how to create cash flow while staying put. And that conversation is a minefield if you are not prepared. Here is the first obstacle: suggesting any kind of loan to finance retirement is a spectacular lead balloon. These are people who spent forty years lecturing their kids to pay off their mortgages and eliminate debt. Debt is the villain in their financial story. It is a bug, not a feature. So when you walk in and suggest that borrowing against their home might be the solution, their internal switchboard immediately puts that call on permanent hold. And if you mention a reverse mortgage? The Cybertruck of mortgages. The product everyone has an opinion about and almost no one fully understands. You will get one of two responses: the “talk to the hand” or the look usually reserved for the person who reheats leftover fish in the office microwave. Is some of that resistance rational? Absolutely. But is some of it just fear in a hat — old anxiety dressed up as financial principle? Also yes. This is why the key is to ask, not tell. The moment you lead with a product, you’ve lost the room. Lead with questions instead: What are your actual cash flow needs? How are you planning to meet them? Are you carrying debt that is quietly strangling your monthly budget? Do you need a lump sum, or do you need more reliable monthly income? The answers look very different, and they lead to very different solutions. If the goal is to free up monthly cash flow, paying off high-interest debt using home equity may deliver an immediate and meaningful result. A home equity line of credit can do that cleanly. If the goal is ongoing income, a reverse mortgage can provide tax-free monthly payments or a lump sum without requiring a move or a monthly repayment. If there is room on the property, a secondary suite or an addition can generate rental income and potentially add long-term value. For those comfortable thinking a few steps ahead, using a reverse mortgage or HELOC to purchase an annuity or a small rental property creates a stream of sustainable income that has nothing to do with square footage. None of these options shows up in the standard “should I downsize?” conversation. They should. The biggest financial mistake most retirees make is not the decision they choose. It’s the options they were never shown. Back to Carol and Robert Their outcomes were not the result of luck or timing. They were the result of alignment. Robert moved toward what he wanted. Carol moved away from what she felt she should. One decision created a sense of expansion. The other created a sense of loss. No spreadsheet captures that distinction. But it is the distinction that matters most. Downsizing is neither inherently good nor bad. It is simply a tool. When it is driven by clear goals, realistic assumptions, and an honest accounting of both the financial and emotional realities, it can be genuinely transformative. When it is driven by habit, pressure, or advice that stopped aging well some time ago, it tends to lead somewhere Carol knows well. So before you follow the script, pause long enough to ask a different question. Not “Should I downsize?” but “What do I actually need, and what are all the ways I can get there?” Retirement is not about having less space. It is about having more life. The right strategy is the one that gets you there without sacrificing everything that makes life worth living in the first place. Your community. Your doctor. Your Sunday routine. Your hairdresser who finally knows exactly what you mean by “just a trim.” Downsizing is a tool. Like a hammer. Enormously useful when you actually need a hammer. Spectacularly unhelpful when what you really need is a different plan.  The goal was never to end up with less. It was to end up with enough. Ask better questions. You’ll get better answers. And maybe keep your hairdresser’s number. Sue Don’t Retire…Re-Wire!!! My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend, or a loved one. It will be on store shelves on September 8, 2026. You can now order on the ECW Press site here. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore.

Cover art has been finalized and Your Retirement Reset (ECW Press) is now heading to print ahead of its September 8, 2026 release date. Pre-orders are now available on the ECW Press website. Written for Canadians navigating the realities of modern retirement — and the adult children supporting them — Your Retirement Reset delivers a clear, practical roadmap for converting home equity and other assets into lasting financial security. It tackles the defining challenges of today's retirement landscape: longer lifespans, eroding purchasing power, vanishing pensions, and the near-universal desire to age in place. Susan Pimento brings decades of experience in the financial industry to a conversation that's long overdue — one that goes beyond saving to address how Canadians can strategically and safely spend what they've built. Susan Pimento is available for media interviews and speaking engagements. To arrange, contact: Jennifer Smith ECW Press jsmith@ecwpress.com

There’s an old line that has saved more awkward conversations than most of us care to admit: “The cheque is in the mail.” It has been used to buy time, soften bad news, and occasionally stretch the definition of truth. But it worked because, deep down, everyone believed the premise. The mail would come. Eventually. Reliably. Without negotiation. That quiet assumption carried a surprising amount of weight — especially for the 79-year-old navigating an icy driveway. Now, it seems, even that assumption is up for review. I understand the economic argument. Big Losses: The official Canada Post 2024 Annual Report shows they have racked up $3.8 billion in losses since 2018.  Lower Letter Volumes: The shift to email has hit Canada Post hard.  Letter volumes have dropped dramatically.  Less in the mailbag equals far less revenue to offset costs.  Increasing Costs Factors: The number of Canadian addresses continues to grow. The math is not subtle, and change is clearly required.  But this deserves more attention.  Modernization is not the problem. Thoughtless modernization is. Cuts to Canada Post Service May Not Land Equally Not all Canadians experience change the same way, and this particular shift will land unevenly if proper consultation isn't done. We're getting older: According to Statistics Canada, nearly one in five Canadians is now over the age of 65, and that proportion continues to rise. A meaningful share of those older Canadians also live outside major urban centers. We're spread out geographically: Depending on how you measure it, we're also far apart compared to most other countries.  According to the Public Health Agency of Canada & the Vanier Institute of the Family, roughly one-quarter to one-third of seniors live in rural or small communities, where services are more dispersed, and distances are longer. Rural Canada is also aging faster than urban Canada. In other words, the places most likely to lose convenient access are often the places with the highest concentration of people who rely on it. This is not a niche issue. It is a structural one. The Real Issue Isn’t the Mailbox. It’s the Journey. Policy discussions tend to reduce this to a simple question of location. Move the mailbox, problem solved.  But the issue is not where the mailbox is. The issue is whether someone can get to it safely, consistently, and without turning a routine task into a risk calculation. I am thinking of a client. She is 79, sharp, organized, and fully in charge of her life. Her bills are paid on time, her paperwork is immaculate, and she has no interest in becoming dependent on anyone.  In the summer, she walks daily without a second thought. In the winter, she studies the ground before every step. Ice changes everything. A short walk becomes a decision. A slightly longer one becomes a concern. For her, a community mailbox is not a mild inconvenience. It is a variable she now has to manage.  That is the difference between designing for the ideal user and designing for the real one. Mail Still Matters More Than We Pretend There is a quiet assumption that everything important has already moved online. That assumption works well for people who are comfortable navigating digital systems. It does not work for everyone. For many seniors, mail remains the backbone of how they manage their lives. Pension statements, government notices, insurance documents, tax slips, prescription information, and replacement banking cards still arrive in envelopes, not inboxes. And yes, occasionally, an actual cheque. The phrase “the cheque is in the mail” may be fading, but the need behind it has not disappeared. For some Canadians, that envelope still represents income, security, and peace of mind. Digital systems are efficient when they work. When they do not, they can be frustrating and, at times, risky. One expired password or one convincing phishing email can turn a simple task into an afternoon of confusion. It is easy to underestimate the value of paper systems when you no longer rely on them. It is harder to replace them when you still do. Efficiency Has a Way of Moving Downward There is a pattern in modern service design worth naming. Call it effort laundering: the practice of shifting work from institutions to individuals in the name of efficiency. We see it in banking, where branches quietly disappear. We see it in healthcare systems that assume patients are comfortable online. We see it in customer service models built around apps and automated menus. And now we may see it in mail delivery. Where the service moves from your front door to a location you must reach yourself. For many Canadians, this is manageable. For others, it is not. When the burden of efficiency lands on those least able to absorb it, the system may be efficient on paper but inequitable in practice. If Change Is Necessary, It Should Be Smarter I understand that change is necessary. The cost differences between door-to-door delivery and centralized delivery are real, and the financial pressures on Canada Post are not going away. But the choice is not between doing nothing and eliminating access. There is a middle path, and other countries have already explored it. In Norway, proposed postal reforms included reducing delivery frequency to once per week. Following public consultation, the government stepped back earlier this year from that plan and maintained more frequent delivery, recognizing the impact on certain populations (Norwegian Ministry of Transport, 2026). In the United Kingdom, the regulator Ofcom has examined reducing delivery to 5 or even 3 days per week as a way to manage costs while preserving universal service (Ofcom, 2025). Research from Sweden and New Zealand shows that older adults rely more heavily on traditional mail systems than the general population, particularly for official and financial communication (Crew & Kleindorfer, 2012; New Zealand Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 2021). These examples point to a practical conclusion. Reducing frequency can achieve savings without removing access. Eliminating access altogether is a different decision with different consequences. Canada Is Not Denmark Denmark has gone further than most, effectively ending traditional letter delivery after a dramatic decline in mail volumes of roughly 90 percent since 2000. The move is often cited as a model of modernization. It should be considered with caution. Denmark operates within a context of high digital adoption, a compact geography, and milder weather conditions. Notably, Canada’s digital divide among seniors is more pronounced than Denmark’s, meaning the proportion of older Canadians who cannot easily go online is higher to begin with. Even so, a significant number of Danish residents have been classified as "digitally exempt" and continue to rely on alternative arrangements to receive essential communications (PostNord, 2025). Canada is not Denmark. Our geography is larger, our winters are harsher, and our population is more dispersed.  Also, we play better hockey.  If Home Delivery Changes, People Will Adapt Canadians are remarkably adaptable, and seniors are often the most resourceful of all. If home delivery is reduced, practical solutions will emerge. Neighbours will organize. Families will build mail pickup into regular visits, turning a logistical task into a reason to connect. Some seniors will finally set up paperless billing, one account at a time. These are workable adjustments. But they should be supported by thoughtful policy, not forced by avoidable design choices. The Problem With Accommodation Accommodation programs will likely exist, but their effectiveness depends on how easy they are to access. Systems that require people to search, apply, document their needs, and follow up repeatedly tend to favour those with the time and persistence to navigate them. The seniors who most need support are often the least inclined to engage in that process. The real test is not whether accommodation exists. It is whether it is simple, visible, and available before a problem becomes a crisis. This Is About More Than Mail At its core, this debate is not really about mail. It is about independence. It is about whether people can continue to manage their own lives without unnecessary friction. It is about whether public systems are designed for real users rather than ideal ones. The ideal user is mobile, tech-savvy, and well-supported. The real user may be older, living alone, and quietly determined to remain independent. That determination deserves to be supported, not complicated. Modernization, With a Memory Home delivery is not just a legacy feature. For many seniors, it remains a small but meaningful part of how life stays organized and manageable. When that support disappears, the burden does not disappear with it. It shifts to individuals, to families, and to systems that will eventually feel the impact. If the greatest disruption falls on those least able to absorb it, the design needs a second look. And About That Cheque... We may be moving toward a world where fewer things arrive by mail. That is probably inevitable. But before we retire the idea entirely, it is worth remembering why that old line worked in the first place. “The cheque is in the mail” was believable because the system behind it was dependable. It showed up. It connected people. It did its job quietly and consistently.  Modernization should aim for the same thing.  Not nostalgia. Not resistance to change. Just reliability that works for everyone. Because if the day comes when the cheque is no longer in the mail, we should at least be able to say that whatever replaces it works just as well for the people who need it most. Ideally, without requiring ice cleats, a flashlight, and a willingness to sign a waiver. Sue Don’t Retire…ReWire! My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order I hope you will consider pre-ordering a copy of Your Retirement Reset for you, a friend or loved one.  It's available September 8, 2026 You can now order on the ECW Press site here. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore. Most can easily order it for you.