Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Why disaster recovery in the Himalayas needs a rethink

After five weeks of fieldwork across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Aston University researcher Dr Komal Raj Aryal is calling for a more locally grounded approach to resilience and post-disaster recovery in one of the world’s most hazard-prone regions. What happens after the headlines fade from a disaster? That question sits at the heart of new field research led by Dr Komal Raj Aryal, Lecturer in Crisis and Disaster Management at Aston Business School. After returning from a five-week research visit across Nepal, Bhutan and Northwest India, Dr Aryal says the evidence points to a troubling reality: many communities remain highly vulnerable long after major recovery programmes are supposed to have helped them rebuild. The trip brought together field visits, stakeholder consultations and community observations linked to ongoing UKRI, NERC and ISPF-supported research on earthquake risk, disaster governance, resilience and post-disaster recovery in the Himalayan region. The aim was not only to understand current conditions, but to ask why repeated losses continue despite years of international development assistance, scientific research and investment. Across the region, the research found that resilience is being undermined by a combination of persistent governance challenges, fragmented institutions, weak local preparedness systems, livelihood insecurity and mounting environmental pressures. In other words, recovery is not simply about rebuilding infrastructure; it is about whether communities are genuinely better equipped to cope with the next shock. This challenge is especially striking in places still living with the legacy of the 2015 Nepal earthquakes, where long-term vulnerabilities remain visible despite the scale of international support directed towards recovery and reconstruction. Reflecting on his findings, Dr Aryal said: “One of the most striking observations from the field is that many communities affected by the 2015 Nepal Earthquakes continue to face similar vulnerabilities today, despite significant international support allocated for recovery and reconstruction. This raises important questions about how disaster recovery is planned, implemented, and sustained over time.” The fieldwork also highlighted the growing complexity of future disaster risks in the Himalayas. Large-scale earthquakes do not exist in isolation; they interact with environmental degradation, cascading hazards, climate-related stresses and rapid urbanisation in fragile mountain settings. He added: “The Himalayan region is entering a period of growing uncertainty where environmental change, socio-economic inequality, weak governance systems, and seismic risks are becoming increasingly interconnected. There is an urgent need to rethink conventional development approaches and invest more seriously in locally grounded, community-centred resilience strategies.” For Aston University, this work reflects a broader commitment to international research on disaster risk reduction, resilience governance and humanitarian response across South Asia. Aston researchers are working with government agencies, local authorities, universities, emergency responders and humanitarian organisations to strengthen evidence-based approaches to preparedness and recovery. The findings feed into wider international debates about sustainable development, climate resilience, risk communication and the future of disaster governance in vulnerable mountain regions. They also underline the importance of moving beyond short-term recovery models towards approaches that are participatory, practical and rooted in local knowledge. Dr Aryal’s research emphasises the value of integrating community knowledge, participatory governance, youth engagement and long-term livelihood security into resilience planning. As future collaborations and policy discussions develop, these themes are likely to be central to how the region prepares for the risks ahead. The recent fieldwork is expected to inform future international research partnerships, policy dialogue and resilience-focused initiatives between the UK and South Asian partners.

Why Shrinking the Pay Gap is a Question of Dollars, Not Percentages

The gender wage gap shows no sign of improving any time soon. If anything, evidence suggests it’s growing in the United States. Recent stats show that for every dollar earned by men, women in the same job earn just 92 cents—that equates to one month of salary less in a given year. That gap widens even more for Black and other minority women. In the meantime, men’s wages are increasing—just shy of 4% in the last two years—while women’s income hasn’t budged. Organizations should take note, warn Goizueta’s Karl Schuhmacher and Kristy Towry. Wage inequity is an issue that undermines the concept of equal pay for equal work. It’s also bad for business. Employers that don’t pay or play fair with their workers stand to lose talent to competitors who offer better conditions, not to mention customers or investors who care about fairness. And that’s not all. In meritocracies, employees are incentivized to engage more, care more, and create more value because they understand their compensation is pegged to the effort they make and outcomes they achieve—to merit itself, regardless of demographics. The gender wage gap in the United States is inherently unmeritocratic. And fixing it has proved elusive—at least until now. In their new study, co-authored by Goizueta PhD graduate, Hayden T. Gunnell 25PhD of the University of Texas in Austin, Schuhmacher and Towry have come up with a novel approach to addressing the gender wage gap; one as practicable as it is simple. And it’s all down to percentages. Pay Gaps Baked In Most employers review employee salaries on an annual basis—usually yoking them to performance reviews. Overwhelmingly, managers will frame raises in terms of percentages: those doing well might be awarded a five or even 10 percent pay raise, for example. The problem with this, argues Schuhmacher, is that percentage-based raises are tied to initial salaries. And if that baseline is biased from the start, handing out similar percentage raises will only compound the problem, and perpetuate inequities—whatever the intention. If women start out getting paid less than men for the same job, and your raise budgets are framed in percentages, you end up baking those gaps in more, even if you don’t mean to. Karl Schuhmacher, Assistant Professor of Accounting “That five percent raise you’re giving everyone for the same job well done sounds fair and effective,” says Schuhmacher. “But it’s only actually fair if the initial salary is equitable—if Jane has been making the same as John from the off. And if she hasn’t—if John is being overcompensated relative to Jane—then all you’re doing is perpetuating that gap.” Awarding similar percentage raises doesn’t recognize or acknowledge preexisting, unfair discrepancies in initial salaries. A better approach, he and Towry argue, is to reframe pay raise budgets in terms of absolute dollars. “Budgeting for raises in absolute terms—a $150,000 pool for all raises in a group, say, versus a budgeted pool of 5% per person—automatically unshackles raises from preexisting unfairness in people’s pay,” says Schuhmacher. “You reduce the risk of perpetuating pay gaps by giving managers a way of assessing and evaluating work and assigning a dollar value that recognizes that work. It’s a fairer, more meritocratic approach.” It also has the effect of “nudging the cognitive processes” that employers use. Percentages are a ubiquitous way of determining raise budgets because they feel fair and easy to use, says Towry. A five percent raise for employees sounds reasonable, equitable, and doesn’t tax managers cognitively, making it simple to implement again and again—a norm or procedural “anchor” within most organizations. Substituting dollars for percentages, however, should provide enough of a nudge that managers focus more on the actual value their employees contribute to the organization. And it shouldn’t require a major rehaul of the system: a win-win for employees and organizations looking to retain talent, says Towry, where the gains significantly outweigh the effort involved. Thinking in Dollars, Not Percentages To put this idea to the test, Towry, Schuhmacher, and Gunnell enlisted Goizueta MBA students to participate in a lab experiment, taking on the role of manager at a hypothetical bank. Participants were given the salary details of four high-performing employees—two male, two female—with gender discrepancies baked into initial pay. Importantly, in this setting, male and female employees do the same job and perform equally well. Participants were divided into two camps: the first instructed to hand out percentage raises, the second dollar raises. All participants had to allocate the same pay raise budget of $30,800—5% of total salaries—among the two male and two female employees, the sole difference being that one group received a percentage budget, while the other group received a dollar budget. The results support the theory, says Towry. When participants use percentages, the individual pay raises cluster around the 5% mark, meaning that existing pay gaps are perpetuated. Kristy Towry, Professor Emerita of Accounting “Our fictional male employees, Jason and Gary, walk away with higher overall raises than Martha and Sarah, because they are already earning more than the women,” says Towry. “And this happens even though our participants know about initial pay discrepancies, and women and men perform equally well in the same job.” When participants use absolute dollars, however, this clustering effect around the 5% mark disappears. Participants give pay raises that better reflect employees’ value contributions to the organization. As such, pay raises are less dependent on initial pay gaps. In some cases, participants even award more cash to the women than the men to counteract the initial gap. “Martha ends up with a higher raise than Gary, but their initial salaries are $116,000 and $192,000, respectively,” says Towry. “So, what we’re seeing here is that our managers are asked to take out the percentage and think in dollars, they effectively redress the balance. The preexisting pay gap is reduced in recognition of equal merit.” Reproducing this in real-word settings shouldn’t be difficult for organizations. And at a time when gaps are becoming more entrenched and progress on equitable pay is stagnating in the United States, there is a clear imperative ahead of employers interested in sending clear signals to existing and future male and female talent, says Schuhmacher. Pay that reflects performance fairly is inherently meritocratic and we know that being a meritocracy is attractive to employees—to your existing workforce and to the workforce that you want to attract. Karl Schuhmacher “When people know they’re being evaluated based on their results, regardless of their gender or background, they are more motivated to work hard,” says Schumacher. “The beauty of this solution is that it supports a more meritocratic way of rewarding talent. It’s also easy to implement—easier than interventions like bias training or organizational audits that consume time and resources. Using dollars instead of percentages is something that organizations can do that translates into real impact. And it’s something that they can do in a day. Our advice: start tomorrow!”

Expert Insights: Want More Engagement? Eliminate the Barriers.

Anyone born in the 70’s or earlier will probably remember it well. Time was when playing any kind of video game meant physically disporting yourself to the local arcade—a twilight zone of flashing neon, electronic beeps and bops, and the clink of quarters hitting the slot. As technology advanced, the videogame came to you. Home consoles and TV stations rigged with joysticks duly became the mainstay of gaming. The Atari 2600 brought the arcade experience into dens all over the US; Pac-Man, Space Invaders, and Asteroids now at the fingertips of a generation of games who no longer needed to leave home to play. Fast forward to the era of smart phones and hi-tech, and gaming has evolved again. Today, Fortnite, Minecraft, and The Legend of Zelda can accompany you pretty much anywhere—onto a train or a bus, into the canteen at work or school, or under the covers at 2am. In our always-on, on-demand world, video gaming increasingly meets players where they are; a play-anywhere, digital user experience that empowers individuals to engage with their game of choice wherever they are, whenever it suits, and via whatever platform they prefer, desktop or mobile. For users, the benefits seem clear. But what about game producers? As availability expands to new channels and platforms, how does it change user behavior? Does it deepen engagement or does cross-platform continuity simply end up redistributing play—the addition of each new platform shifting players away from, and effectively cannibalizing, existing channels? It’s a conundrum, and not just for video game producers. Retailers, bankers, insurance firms, media, and hospitality providers—anyone with an online-first approach looking to meet their customers wherever they are—should also be cognizant of the potential downsides of channel expansion in the digital space. Weighing in here is research by Professor of Marketing and expert in the intersection of sports and cultural analytics and marketing Michael Lewis. Together with Wooyong Jo of Purdue, Lewis looks at the impact of omni-channel strategy on videogames—a proxy, he says, for other sectors and industries. What they find is critical for marketers and decision-makers in any context or business setting. Increasing the digital touchpoints between your product and customers does impact behavior—but the net results are overwhelmingly positive. Video game players play more, they spend more frequently, and they integrate gameplay more deeply into their everyday lives. In other words, the investment pays off. And the dividends in customer engagement are serious. Switching to the Switch To unpack all of this, Lewis and Jo partnered with a large US video game publisher to analyze player-level behavioral data for one its major titles in the Multiplayer Online Battle Arena, or MOBA genre. Players form teams and compete to destroy opposing team’s bases, selecting a character from a set of 100+ options. Revenue for the publisher comes from a “freemium” business model—users can make voluntary purchases to unlock new characters or buy cosmetic enhancements. These purchases are geared toward enhancing the gaming experience but don’t affect competitive outcomes, making them a critical measure of engagement. In 2019, the game was released for the Nintendo Switch, which can be docked in home consoles but is most commonly used as a mobile, hand-held device. PC players were given the option to download this new version and continue gameplay seamlessly using their existing accounts. Analyzing player behavior before and after the adoption of the new Switch platform, Lewis and Jo were able to zoom in on some critical measures of user engagement including game usage or the total number of matches played, in-game spending—what, when and how much players spent—and player inactivity or churn. “We were able to really get into player behavior over time, and what happens when you introduce the Switch option and remove the constraints of having to play in one place—the home or gaming PC,” says Lewis. “What happens when you make it possible for players to access the game they love while they’re commuting or on their lunchbreak?” Plenty, it turns out. Mobile access: gameplay, spending and churn Crunching the data, Lewis and Jo find that mobile access dramatically increases gameplay. Players who adopted the Switch version played approximately 31% more games than before—a dramatic uptick that underscores how flexibility gains translate into new opportunities to play and engage. And that’s not all. Lewis and Jo also find that gameplay becomes less concentrated within narrow windows—after school or work, say—and is now more spread out across the day, the result of the “ubiquity effect,” says Lewis. “Take away the constraints of having to be in a fixed location and you see players adding additional play sessions. Interestingly though, we don’t find any adverse effect on PC gaming. Players are simply playing more, and playing longer, rather than replacing PC time.” Then there’s in-game purchasing. MOBA-type games typically give players the option to voluntarily buy modifications for characters, known as “skins.” These skins are cosmetic enhancements: new armor, costumes, skill animations or effects. Crucially, these kinds of purchases don’t advance players to new levels of success in the game. Instead, they are used for personalization—to demonstrate status or to celebrate an in-game event. Lewis and Jo find that mobile adopters make more frequent in-game purchases. While the overall total doesn’t increase materially, these players are spending small amounts, more often—almost 7% more frequently than before. This makes intuitive sense, says Lewis. If players are logging in more often, they have more opportunities to feel inspired to want to spend on skins. But there’s another factor that may be at work. “With this kind of in-game purchasing, it’s likely that a lot of it is about credibility. When you buy a skin or a character pack, it’s like you have more aura within the game; you want to signal something to other players and let yourself be known. And this is more than just monetary, it’s about a deeper kind of engagement,” says Lewis. “It’s possible that as mobile access makes the game more of a frequent companion, as the rate of play increases, there’s this effect that players fall deeper into the community—their engagement deepens even more.” Interestingly, the shift to mobile access had the most significant impact precisely on those players whose pre-Switch in-game purchasing was lowest. These users, who were arguably most likely to disengage and drift away from the game, became significantly more active once the hand-held option became available. “If you have players spending less and less inside the game, the intuition is that these are the customers you are most at risk of losing,” says Lewis. “Bringing in the Switch has seen these customers—those more prone to churn—actively reengage with the game, maybe because they have greater propensity for the mobile version.” Either way, this should be a particularly interesting finding for marketers, he adds; retaining existing users is typically cheaper than attracting new ones. “The evidence suggests that mobile access can serve not only as a growth strategy, but also a defensive one if it helps keep marginal users engaged; those who might otherwise have detached from the product altogether.” Help Them Switch So far, so encouraging. There is one potential downside to porting a game or online product to a new channel, however, and that is usability. Lewis and Jo find that players who switched between platforms experience a slight, initial decline in in-game performance—likely because of differences in the control systems between devices. Players who’ve been using keyboard and mouse controls may need time to adapt to hand-held controllers. To mitigate this, he and Jo suggest that producers could offer tutorials or introductory gameplay modes that accelerate the learning curve as users adjust to the new interface. In most cases, usability should be factored in as an additional, hidden cost, when developers and organizations are contemplating investing in more online customer touchpoints. “Expanding your online channels will always have some cost. Taking a game from one platform and porting it to another one isn’t free, so you will want to anticipate the hurdles, even as you weigh up the clear benefits,” says Lewis. “The key is to make sure you protect your users. With things like video games, you want to think about how to guide or upskill your players, maybe have them play bots at first to ramp up their capabilities. Whenever you create a new channel that has a different operating system from the user’s perspective, you’re probably going to want to provide some aid to your fan community.” The benefits of omni-channel access should always be weighted against the costs involved, counsels Lewis. Even so, today’s competitive pressures—the seemingly inexorable march of technological innovation and evolving user expectations—are likely to make platform expansion unavoidable for most online businesses. In the world of video gaming, as major franchises release new products across multiple platforms, and player preferences become more sophisticated, companies may simply have to adopt similar strategies to remain competitive. “As everyone else invests in the same new technologies, you almost have to do the same—just as a matter of doing business,” says Lewis. “If you are launching a video game, you’ve got to compete with whatever Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto are doing. You can’t just tell your players they can only engage on one platform. The competition is continuously raising the stakes just in terms of the bare minimum.” Building Fandom: the Connective Cultural Tissue More broadly, Lewis and Jo’s findings speak to how human beings form communities of shared passion around business entities and, perhaps more compellingly, around cultural phenomena: video games, for sure, but also sports teams, music, films, comic books, fashion, and more. Understanding the mechanisms that drive and deepen engagement sheds more light on what Lewis calls the “connective cultural tissue of fandom: ”the powerful social bonds, camaraderie, and shared identity that connect people to cultural entities and to each other. Fandom, he argues, is the “key to our world.” Understanding fan behavior is critical to understanding how it is that games, brands, sporting teams, or politics forge communities built on shared passion. “Whatever your organization or business is, you are going to be interested in driving passion. You want people to engage and love what you do. What we’re looking at in this study is a building block towards understanding how cultural entities fit into consumers’ lives, and how eliminating barriers helps to expand communities and drive relationships—extending reach and engagement by weaving cultural experiences more deeply into everyday life.” The real challenge in front of organizations, be they video game producers or online retailers, says Lewis, is to give their product the kind of “cultural meaning” that creates fans—and not just users. “When you think about the behavior of fans, the level of passion and engagement that exists around cultural phenomena—whatever they are from video games to FIFA, the English Football League to the Super Bowl, Taylor Swift to the Republican Party—that’s where you see the passion that really drives the world. And that to me, is critical in understanding how business works, how societies function, and how our world evolves.”

Downsizing: The Biggest Retirement Myth We Keep Repeating

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.

U.S. National Debt: How to Stop the Bleeding

The U.S. national debt exceeding the size of the American economy is a dubious milestone that has sparked alarm and confusion among policymakers who are asking how worried they should be and what can be done to stop the bleeding. David Primo, a political scientist and professor of business administration at the University of Rochester and a fiscal policy expert who has testified before Congress on the national debt, says Americans should be very concerned about the debt and, at the same time, know there is a solution. “The federal budget outlook is grim and threatens the economic future of the United States,” says Primo, the author of Rules and Restraint: Government Spending and the Design of Institution (University of Chicago Press). “If Congress waits to act, Americans will need to give up a bigger piece of the nation’s economic pie to stabilize the country’s finances.” Primo says a solution lies in a constitutional amendment restraining the federal budget. Specifically, such an amendment would clearly define spending and revenue, set spending limits based on a multiyear period, and allow for waiving the limit only with a large supermajority in Congress. “As it stands, Congress is constitutionally incapable of tying its own hands, making it difficult for legislators to implement durable changes to the federal budget,” Primo says. Recent data show the national debt has crossed 100% of the GDP threshold — roughly $31.27 trillion versus $31.22 trillion in economic output — marking the highest peacetime level in U.S. history. The Congressional Budget Office has projected that debt levels, if left unchecked, could reach 181% of GDP in the next 30 years. Primo says delaying implementing a solution raises the risk of increased interest rates, which would, in turn, reduce investment and, ultimately, economic growth. For journalists covering deficits, tax policy, and the long-term economic outlook, Primo offers key expertise and a clear lens on: • The implications of national debt exceeding GDP • Constitutional and institutional approaches to fiscal reform • Fiscal policy and political incentives “The United States is in precarious fiscal health,” Primo told Congress in 2023. “In the absence of a constitutional amendment, I fear it will take a fiscal crisis before Congress acts. Nobody wants that.” Connect with Primo by clicking on his profile.

TCU Nutritional Sciences Expert Discusses New US Dietary Guidelines

As updated federal recommendations roll out, Samantha Davis highlights gaps between science and messaging. When the 2025-2030 Dietary Guidelines for Americans were released, the message seemed straightforward: Eat more whole foods and reduce processed ingredients and sugar intake. But for Samantha Davis, professor of professional practice in nutritional sciences in TCU’s Louise Dilworth Davis College of Science & Engineering, a closer look reveals a more complicated picture. “These guidelines influence far more than individual choices,” she said. “They shape what’s served in schools, child care programs and federal nutrition programs nationwide. That’s why it’s so important to ensure the recommendations and the messaging are aligned with the science.” A Growing Public Health Challenge The conversation comes amid rising concerns about chronic disease in the United States. More than 70% of American adults are overweight or obese, and nearly one in three adolescents has prediabetes. At the same time, almost 90% of health care spending is tied to chronic disease. “These are not small trends,” she said. “Nutrition guidance plays a significant role in how we respond.” When the Math Doesn’t Match the Message While the guidelines recommend limiting saturated fat to 10% of daily calories, following the suggested servings, particularly for animal proteins and full-fat dairy, the numbers do not add up. “When you actually break it down, those recommendations can push intake closer to 20%,” Davis said. “The math is not mathing.” That gap raises concerns for heart health, as higher saturated fat intake is associated with elevated LDL cholesterol and increased cardiovascular risk. Rethinking Protein in the American Diet The updated guidelines increase protein recommendations, in some cases significantly. However, protein deficiency is not a widespread issue in the United States. “The idea that more protein automatically leads to more muscle is a misconception,” she said. “Exercise builds muscle. Protein supports maintenance and repair.” Davis also notes that protein is found across a variety of foods, including grains and vegetables, reinforcing the importance of balance ahead of overemphasis. Not All Fats Function the Same The guidelines encourage incorporating “healthy fats,” but distinctions between fat types may not always be clear. “There’s important nuance here. Some fats support heart health, while others are linked to increased risk. That difference matters,” she said. “If we’re trying to address obesity at a population level, we need to consider where calories are coming from.” For most people, nutrition guidance is distilled into quick takeaways and simplified messaging. “People remember what they see and hear in an instant,” she said. “If those messages aren’t clear or consistent, it can lead to confusion.” Her advice remains grounded in fundamentals: Focus on whole, minimally processed foods and look beyond trends for long-term health. Davis’ expert perspective was also featured in Fort Worth Weekly, contributing to the broader conversation about how national nutrition guidance shapes everyday life.

University of Delaware biomedical engineer helps develop first immune-capable cervix-on-a-chip

A major breakthrough in biomedical engineering is changing how scientists study sexually transmitted infections (STIs) – and a researcher from the University of Delaware is at the forefront. Published in Science Advances, the study introduces the first immune-capable “cervix-on-a-chip,” a cutting-edge microphysiological system that replicates the human cervical environment. The platform allows researchers to observe how infections, the immune system and the vaginal microbiome interact in real time – something not previously possible with traditional lab models. Co-lead author Jason Gleghorn, associate professor in the College of Engineering, led the development of the model. His work highlights how engineering-driven approaches are advancing critical research in women’s health. By integrating engineering with biology, we can now simulate complex human systems more accurately and make these tools accessible to a wider range of researchers, Gleghorn said. The model recreates key features of the cervix using human cells, immune components and naturally occurring microbiomes within a dynamic system that mimics physiological conditions. When tested with infections such as chlamydia and gonorrhea, the platform revealed how protective bacteria can reduce infection risk – while imbalanced microbiomes can worsen outcomes. These findings could help accelerate the development of new therapies, including probiotics and other preventative strategies aimed at strengthening the body’s natural defenses. The research underscores the growing impact of the College of Engineering, where interdisciplinary collaboration is driving innovation across biomedical engineering and beyond. By combining expertise in engineering, microbiology and immunology, the team has created a powerful new tool that could reshape how STIs – and other complex diseases – are studied. To speak with Gleghorn further about this advancement, email mediarelations@udel.edu.

Study finds most cancer patients exposed to misinformation; UF researchers pilot 'information prescription'

Ninety-three percent of patients with a new cancer diagnosis were exposed to at least one type of misinformation about cancer treatments, a UF Health Cancer Center study has found. Most patients encountered the misinformation — defined as unproven or disproven cancer treatments and myths or misconceptions — even when they weren’t looking for it. The findings have major implications for cancer treatment decision-making. Specifically, doctors should assume the patient has seen or heard misinformation. “Clinicians should assume when their patients are coming to them for a treatment discussion that they have been exposed to different types of information about cancer treatment, whether or not they went online and looked it up themselves,” said senior author Carma Bylund, Ph.D., a professor and associate chair of education in the UF Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics. “One way or another, people are being exposed to a lot of misinformation.” Working with oncologists, Bylund and study first author Naomi Parker, Ph.D., an assistant scientist in the UF Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, are piloting an “information prescription” to steer patients to sources of evidence-based information like the American Cancer Society. The study paves the way for other similar strategies. Most notably, the study found the most common way patients were exposed to misinformation was second hand. “Your algorithms pick up on your diagnosis, your friends and family pick up on it, and then you’re on Facebook and you become exposed to this media,” Parker said. “You’re not necessarily seeking out if vitamin C may be a cure for cancer, but you start being fed that content.” And no, vitamin C does not cure cancer. Health misinformation can prevent people from getting treatment that has evidence behind it, negatively affect relationships between patients and physicians, and increase the risk of death, research has shown. People with cancer are particularly vulnerable to misinformation because of the anxiety and fear that comes with a serious diagnosis, not to mention the overwhelming amount of new information they have to suddenly absorb. While past research has studied misinformation by going directly to the source — for instance, studying what percentage of content on a platform like TikTok is nonsense — little research has looked at its prevalence or how it affects people. The team first developed a way to identify the percentage of cancer patients exposed to misinformation. UF researchers collaborated with Skyler Johnson, M.D., at Huntsman Cancer Institute, an internationally known researcher in the field. The survey questions were based on five categories of unproven or disproven cancer treatments — vitamins and minerals, herbs and supplements, special diets, mind-body interventions and miscellaneous treatments — and treatment misconceptions. The myths and misconceptions were adapted from National Cancer Institute materials and included statements like “Will eating sugar make my cancer worse?” The team surveyed 110 UF Health patients diagnosed with prostate, breast, colorectal or lung cancer within the past six months, a time when patients typically make initial treatment decisions. Most had heard of a potential cancer treatment beyond the standard of care, and most reported they had heard of at least one myth or misconception. The most common sources were close friends or family and websites, distant friends/associates or relatives, social media and news media. The findings mark a shift in misinformation research, with major implications for the doctor-patient relationship, said Bylund, a member of the Cancer Control and Population Sciences research program at the UF Health Cancer Center. “I still think media and the internet are the source and why misinformation can spread so rapidly, but it might come to a cancer patient interpersonally, from family or friends,” she said. Most patients rarely discussed the potential cancer treatments they had heard about with an oncologist, the study also found. Next, the researchers plan to survey a wider pool of patients, then study the outcomes of interventions designed to decrease misinformation exposure, like the information prescription.

When the Cheque Stops Coming: Canada Post, Seniors, and the Quiet Cost of Modernization

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.

April 1st is the one day we all expect to be fooled. Scammers are counting on the other 364

Breaking News: Free Cruise for All Retirees! Congratulations!!! If you are reading this, you have just been chosen for a luxury Caribbean cruise, a $5,000 shopping spree, and a lifetime supply of… well, something vaguely exciting. All you need to do is: Click this link, enter your banking info, confirm your SIN, and maybe your childhood pet's name for good measure. Still reading?  Good. Because if that opening gave you even the tiniest thrill, the little flutter of wait, really? You've just experienced exactly what scammers are counting on. APRIL FOOL'S!!! And also: welcome to the world of phishing. Population: way too many of us. Phishing vs. Fishing: A Retirement Skill You Didn't Know You Needed There are two kinds of fishing in retirement.  One involves a dock, a thermos of good coffee, and no deadlines at all. The fish might or might not cooperate. That's fine. That's the whole point. The other scenario involves someone trying to steal your identity by congratulating you on a cruise you never booked, a prize you never won, and a windfall that demands your banking details, your SIN, and, just for fun, the name of your first pet. (Buttons. It's always Buttons.) Let's make sure you're fluent in the first kind and bulletproof against the second. Fraud Doesn't Just Happen to Fools Here's something important to say aloud before we proceed. Fraud isn't caused by people being careless, gullible, or old. It is orchestrated by professionals whose full-time job is to manipulate human behaviour under pressure. There is a clear difference between these two, and how we discuss fraud influences whether victims come forward or stay silent out of shame. This issue is more significant than most realize. Canadians lost over $638 million to fraud in 2024, an increase from $578 million the previous year, according to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. However, that figure only tells part of the story. The CAFC estimates that just 5 to 10 percent of total fraud losses are ever reported. Think about that for a moment. The number we see is already staggering, and the real total is almost certainly ten times higher. Seniors make up a disproportionate share of those losses, especially in investment fraud, romance scams, and the grandparent scam. But here's the part the statistics don't show: fraud is improving at its craft. These aren't the poorly written emails of 2005. Today's scams are refined, patient, and psychologically targeted. They're designed to create urgency, confusion, and fear — aiming to override careful thinking precisely when it's needed most. So let's talk about what that actually looks like. A Very Personal Fraud Story That Will Stay With You A family reached out to me recently, after reading one of my earlier posts on fraud and seniors. Their father had been the victim of a prolonged scam, one that unfolded over months and caused significant financial damage. They only found out after he passed away. Three things about this story stopped me cold. First, their father kept meticulous records. He journaled every interaction, every step, every decision. There was essentially a play-by-play account of how he became entangled and how difficult it became to find a way out. Second, he was an intensely private person. Not a single family member knew any of it was happening while it was happening. Third, he was a chartered professional accountant. Decades of financial training, discipline, and experience. Someone who understood numbers, risk, and how money moves better than most people ever will. And still. Under the right conditions, with the right psychological pressure applied at the right moments, he was drawn in. That is not a story about a foolish man. That is a story about how sophisticated fraud has become. And it is a story that is playing out in living rooms and email inboxes across this country every single day. Why Seniors Are Targeted (And It's Not What You Think) Scammers don't just go after older adults because they think we're naive. They go after us because we have assets. Savings. Home equity. Good credit. Pension income that actually shows up every month. We're not easy targets; we're valuable ones. They also go after us because retirement can come with conditions that fraud is specifically designed to exploit: financial anxiety about making savings last, changes in how we process decisions under pressure, and, for many, reduced opportunities to run something by a trusted person before acting. Social isolation is not a character flaw. It is a vulnerability, and the people running these operations know exactly how to use it. The Scams You Actually Need to Know About The Grandparent Scam. You get a call. It's your grandchild. They're in trouble, arrested, in an accident, stranded, and they need money right now. Please don't tell Mom and Dad. The caller may not even sound exactly right, but panic has a way of filling in the gaps. Sometimes a fake lawyer or police officer jumps on the line to add credibility. The script is designed to bypass your rational brain and go straight for your heart. If this ever happens: hang up. Call your grandchild directly on a number you already have. Every time. The CRA Impersonation Call. This one is especially popular at tax time.  An official-sounding voice informs you that you owe back taxes and if you don't pay immediately via e-transfer or gift cards, a warrant will be issued for your arrest. The Canada Revenue Agency does not call you out of the blue demanding gift cards. Full stop. If you're ever unsure, hang up and call the CRA directly as 1-800-959-8281. The Romance Scam. Someone finds you online, charming, attentive, almost too good to be true. Weeks or months in, a crisis emerges. Could you help, just this once? These scams are emotionally brutal and financially devastating. If an online relationship moves unusually fast and a financial request follows, that's not love. That's a script. The Investment Opportunity. Guaranteed returns. Exclusive access. Limited time. These words belong together the way "healthy" and "deep-fried" don't. Legitimate investments don't come with countdown clocks. Phishing Emails and Texts. These mimic your bank, Canada Post, Service Canada, Amazon, and anything you'd recognize. They look almost right. The email address is a little off. The link goes somewhere slightly wrong. They want you to click, to enter information, to act now before something bad happens. The urgency is the tell. No Shame. Seriously. None.  If this has happened to you, or someone you love, please hear this: falling for a scam does not mean you are getting old, losing it, or slipping cognitively. It means you are human and were placed under carefully engineered psychological pressure by someone who practices this for a living. That is it. The end. And if you need a reminder that this crosses every age and profession, consider the case of a retired district court judge who lost the equivalent of over $100,000 to a digital arrest scam. Fraudsters called claiming his phone number was linked to a trafficking investigation. Despite decades on the bench watching deception unfold in real time, fear and intimidation did what all that professional knowledge could not protect against. A judge. Still got hooked. That is what these scams do when they are built well. (Source: Devdiscourse) RCMP Sergeant Guy Paul Larocque of the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre puts it plainly: "Fraudsters are professional salespeople who work a target until they close the deal and get their money." That framing matters. You would not blame yourself for being sold something by a skilled salesperson operating under false pretenses. This is no different. The embarrassment is real and completely understandable. However, it does not fairly reflect what occurred. The CAFC has pointed out that many individuals feel ashamed of being victims of fraud and hesitate to report it, but every report helps break up fraud schemes and protect others. Reporting to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is not a sign of failure; it is a vital way to safeguard the next person. A Word to Family Members re: Fraud: Drop It Like It's Hot If someone you care about has been scammed, put down whatever you are holding, take a breath, and read this carefully. Do not scold them. Do not lecture them. Do not "grandsplain" them into the ground. Grandsplaining, for the uninitiated, is mansplaining for the aged, and it is just as unwelcome. Nobody needs a slow, patient, thoroughly detailed breakdown of everything they should have done differently while they sit there wishing the floor would open up and swallow them whole. They already know. They feel terrible. They have probably been replaying every moment of it since it happened, asking themselves how they missed it, why they trusted it, and what they were thinking.  What they do not need is you asking those same questions out loud. Your role at this moment isn't to be the smartest person in the room. It's not to claim you would never have fallen for something like this. And it's certainly not to start a sentence with "well, I always said you should..." because if you finish that sentence, you're on your own. Your job is to be kind. Full stop. Help them contact the bank. Sit with them while they file the report. Make the tea. Handle the phone call they are too rattled to make. Be the calm in the room. That is what love looks like in a crisis, and this is a crisis. Now here is the part where the tables turn, so pay attention. Scammers are not ageist. They are not sitting in a room somewhere saying, "Let's only go after the over-65s today." They go after anyone with money, a phone, and a moment of distraction. Which means they go after everyone. Your inbox is not immune. Your judgment under pressure is not immune. Your "I would never fall for that" confidence is, frankly, exactly the kind of thing scammers count on. Fraud can happen to anyone, and sharing your experience with others, whether or not money was lost, can help prevent them from being victimized by the same or a similar fraud. Nobody is too sharp, too young, or too digitally savvy to be targeted. The call is coming for all of us eventually. So when it comes for you, and you call your mother in a panic, wouldn't you rather she answer with warmth instead of a very long "I told you so"? Be nice to her now. Consider it an investment. One day, she might be the one sitting you down for "the talk." And at that point, the only appropriate response is to make the tea and keep your opinions to yourself. What the Experts Say: Practical Tips to Stop Fraud In my book "Your Retirement Reset" (ECW Press: Now available for Pre-Order here), I cover the topic of fraud and scams." I wanted to address this issue in depth because fraud prevention is not a footnote in retirement planning. It belongs front and center. Here is an excerpt of Chapter 9 of the book: "Remember the old saying, 'Nothing ever comes free'? While it is hard for many seasoned Canadians not to trust a caller, unfortunately, that's the way of the world today. Here are some tips for protecting yourself. Be skeptical. Be wary of unsolicited phone calls, emails, or messages, especially those asking for personal information or money. Don't take their word for it. Ask the person for their details. If they say they are calling from your bank, get their name and branch number and call your bank for verification. If the message is in an email, contact the institution identified in the email. Do not respond right away, ever. Don't share personal information. Never share personal, financial, or health information with unknown individuals or organizations. Consult trusted individuals. Discuss suspicious offers or communications with family members, friends, or trusted advisors. This is especially important if you are asked to donate to a charity or make any kind of financial investment. Use technology wisely. Install antivirus software, create strong passwords, and stay alert to phishing tactics such as harmful links in texts or emails. Use the block feature on your phone to cut off repeat callers you suspect are fraud artists. Work closely with your financial institution. Ask your bank to send alerts for any unusual activity on your account. Review your statements every month and report unauthorized transactions immediately. Report suspicious activity. If you suspect a scam has targeted you, contact the police. Stay informed. Keep up to date on prevalent scams aimed at older adults. A quick Google search on any unsolicited information request can often tell you whether it has already been flagged. These scams are frequently reported to authorities and featured in the media and on consumer advocacy websites." How to Stay Off the Hook When It Comes to Fraud A little friction can be helpful. Scammers depend on speed, on you reacting before you think. The best thing you can do is slow down. Avoid clicking links in unexpected messages; instead, go directly to the company's website by typing it yourself. Call back on a number you find independently, not one provided in the suspicious message. Check email addresses carefully, as a transposed letter can sometimes be all it takes. Keep your devices updated, since those updates fix real vulnerabilities. Discuss these topics openly. With your kids, friends, book club, or the person behind you in the coffee line. Scams flourish in silence and shame. Talking honestly is one of our strongest protections. In retirement, urgency belongs in spin class. Not your inbox. What to Do If You Took the Bait No judgment here. These scams are truly sophisticated. Smart, experienced, financially educated people fall for them, as we've just established. If you think you've been scammed, stop engaging immediately, change your passwords, contact your bank to flag or freeze your account, run a security scan on your device, and report it to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre at 1-888-495-8501. Reporting matters even if you cannot recover the money. It protects the next person in line. Think of it as cutting the line before the fish swims off with your whole tackle box. 3 Things Worth Setting Up This Week to Protect Yourself from Fraud These take 20 minutes and quietly protect you around the clock. Two-factor authentication (2FA) adds a second verification step. It's usually a text code. And it helps ensure that a stolen password alone won't give access to your accounts. Credit Card controls allow you to lock and unlock your debit or credit card instantly through your bank's app, so if something seems suspicious, you can freeze it within seconds. Real-time alerts enable you to set notifications for any transaction over a threshold you specify, so if someone is spending your money, you are informed immediately, rather than finding out at the end of the month when the damage is already done. Don't Get Hooked by Fraud.  Retirement should be about freedom. The freedom to fish from a proper dock, travel somewhere warm, and spend your money on things that truly bring you happiness. It's not meant to involve fake urgency, suspicious links, or people who want your SIN and the name of your childhood cat. We Need to Do More to Protect Seniors The fraud prevention system in this country, to be frank, hasn't kept pace with the rise of fraud itself. That gap is real, it's growing, and it needs more attention than it currently gets. Meanwhile, the best we can do is stay informed, keep in touch with trusted people, and not let embarrassment prevent us from seeking help or reporting what happened. You worked hard for what you have. You deserve to enjoy it without looking over your shoulder. So enjoy the lake. Take the cruise — a real one that you booked yourself. Spend wisely, live well, and protect what's yours. And if anyone ever tells you that you've won something you never entered? Smile. Wish them a Happy April Fool's. Then hang up. Have a scam story, a close call, or thoughts on what fraud prevention is getting right or getting wrong? I would love to hear from you. Drop it in the comments or send me a note. This is exactly the kind of conversation we should all be having, and the more real experiences we share, the better equipped we all are to protect each other. Sue Don't Retire…ReWire! My Book is Now Available for Pre-Order If this message speaks to you, or to someone you love, I hope you will pre-order a copy of Your Retirement Reset. Available September 8, 2026. Here's the link. And if you love supporting Canadian booksellers, please also check with your local independent bookstore. Most can easily order it for you.