All the talk Boomers hear about having enough money for retirement raises an intriguing question: Does money make you happy in retirement?

Financial advisor Wes Moss, writing for The Balance, studied happy and unhappy retirees and came up with some interesting answers to that question. He found, for example, that retirees who own a BMW, long regarded as a luxury car associated with wealth, are actually pretty unhappy. Similarly, retirees who trade in stocks on their own, which you might associate with having enough money to put some at risk, are generally unhappy.

This led Moss to create something he calls the "Rich Ratio," which is basically "the amount of money you have in relation to the amount of money you need." In his interesting article, Moss offers two examples to demonstrate "how someone with less money saved can actually have a higher Rich Ratio and is probably living happier." His point is that money for money's sake doesn't buy you happiness; money has to have a purpose. Happy retirees, writes Moss, understand that money is not the end goal, it is simply a means for living a happy life.

This is a sensible way to put one's monetary needs into perspective. Wise retirees who have lived a relatively comfortable life during full employment years, not worrying about money, may have a more challenging time maintaining their lifestyle in retirement. Typically, income is reduced during retirement years, so even with substantial savings, it is advisable to reduce expenses as much as possible and preserve a certain amount of capital. This may mean that one's lifestyle expectations need to be adjusted in retirement. Retirees with realistic expectations may find that they don't need as much money as they think to be happy -- and that the key to happiness is not money.

Food for thought.

It is often assumed that the most successful entrepreneurs in American society are young go-getters willing to take the ultimate risk and start a new business. Well you can substitute the word "youthful" for "young," because it turns out that middle-aged entrepreneurs are more successful than those who are young. Startling to some (perhaps including Boomers), this was demonstrated in a research study conducted this year. "Age and High-Growth Entrepreneurship," a paper written by Pierre Azoulay (MIT), Benjamin F. Jones (Northwestern University), J. Daniel Kim (MIT), and Javier Miranda (U.S. Census Bureau) arrives at the following conclusion:

"Our primary finding is that successful entrepreneurs are middle-aged, not young. The mean founder age for the 1 in 1,000 fastest growing new ventures is 45.0. The findings are broadly similar when considering high-technology sectors, entrepreneurial hubs, and successful firm exits. Prior experience in the specific industry predicts much greater rates of entrepreneurial success. These findings strongly reject common hypotheses that emphasize youth as a key trait of successful entrepreneurs."

This conclusion is based on Census Bureau data used to study the ages of founders of growth-oriented start-ups in the past decade.

The authors of the paper write that "all evidence points to founders being especially successful when starting businesses in middle age or beyond, while young founders appear disadvantaged." They go on to say, quite specifically, that "Conditional on starting a firm, a 50-year-old founder is 1.8 times more likely to achieve uppertail growth than a 30-year-old founder. Founders in their early 20s have the lowest likelihood of successful exit or creating a 1 in 1,000 top growth firm."

There can be no doubt about what the research discovered: "We find that age indeed predicts success, and sharply, but in the opposite way that many observers and investors propose. The highest success rates in entrepreneurship come from founders in middle age and beyond."

When you think about it, of course, this makes perfect sense. Why wouldn't someone with greater maturity and deeper business experience be more successful as an entrepreneur?

Still, the research paper, which you can access via the link above, might be useful to you in convincing friends, family, and financial lenders that you can succeed at doing your own thing! This research should be very encouraging to any Boomer who wants to start a business. Not only is it possible for you to do so, the evidence points to the fact that you are likely to be more successful than younger entrepreneurs, despite the typical perception. 

If you are in your fifties or even sixties and you haven't saved enough for retirement, you are in good company. More than 25 percent of Americans 55 years of age and older have saved less than $25,000, according to the Retirement Confidence Survey by EBRI (Employee Benefit Research Institute).

Writing for CNN Money, Walter Updegrave offers "3 ways to recover from a late start on retirement planning." The three ways are not a silver bullet, by any means, but they make a lot of sense: Very simply, (1) start saving right now, (2) stay employed longer, and (3) "be flexible and resourceful." Updegrave goes into detail about each of the three ways, offering sound advice. It is an article every under-funded Boomer should read.

Obviously, the later you started saving, the more you'll have to make up. Examining sources of income (including anticipated Social Security payments), understanding how to leverage your assets (such as your home), and reducing expenses will all be important in helping you cope.

Updegrave's conclusion is fair warning, but still hopeful. He writes: "I'm not saying it will be easy or that you can put yourself in the same position for retirement you would have been in had you saved throughout your career. But if you combine several of the steps I've outlined here — and keep an eye out for even more ways to generate more post-career income or lower your future expenses — you can still improve your chances of achieving a secure retirement."