100% success and how complicated can it be?

[RunningBum]

Perhaps this veers off topic, but I'm interested that nobody mentions part-time w*rk after retirement, particularly if a big drop in the market early in retirement increases the SORR significantly. I just retired, although I continue some consulting on the side. I had imagined picking up something p/t at a ski area for a free pass, or at a garden center for a discount on the many plants I so desperately need. ;-)

While I also worked through innumerable calculators, tinkering with variables, I am comfortable with the idea that I am still healthy and could easily pick up some extra income if things were too tight. So much of future spending scenarios seemed too difficult to predict. (I'm one of those that needed FIRECalc to be at 100% in many varied scenarios, and used perhaps a dozen other calculators in the last few years. And yes, non-Fidelity investors can use Fidelity's calculator.)

I don't want to go back to full-time at all, but I could happily earn enough for those new appliances we want, DH's dream to add (yet) another garage, or take a ski trip out West.

When I had my full-time job, I probably made about 6x what I could make at a part-time job like those. So one more year there was worth about 12 years of part-time work, so it seemed like a no-brainer to me to pad my investments while I was making good money.

YMMV. As you say, you might only have to work more if you have get off to a bad start in retirement, so if you really want out of a job due to a toxic environment, involuntary separation, etc, it's worth the risk with that backup plan.

You may also say that you like skiing or gardening, so a part-time job there would seem like a hobby. Maybe, maybe not. People have suggested to me I should do ski patrol or instruction, but I'd rather not be on someone else's schedule, and out there when it's raining or bitterly cold. I friend of mine who taught liked the teaching part but always bitched about how the managers treated the instructors. Gardening, you may think you're going to be re-potting, watering, and pruning plants, only to find out you're unloading and stacking heavy bags of rock and dirt and cleaning restrooms and other jobs like that.

 

[EarlyBirdly]

"I don't think there is any predictive difference between 80% and 100%, for example."

Agreed. If one does some research they will learn that if a Monte Carlo type of simulation gives 85% or so, that is about as good as it gets and obsessing over the difference between that and 100% is fundamentally a waste of time.

To the OP - Yes...you are overthinking this. I was doing the same thing during my first 1.5 years of this "retirement thing".

I now view these calculators as a tool to gauge whether or not my plan is on track with what I had projected. Not so much as a predictive device.

Another thing I have learned is also a simple truth - There is no right or wrong way to do this. Every one's circumstances are so different that the variables become almost infinite it seems.

Rough out a plan ( calculators help, but are NOT Gospel ) that makes sense to you, and periodically check it against the reality of your finances and investments. Then make adjustments as needed.

Think of it as Pizza - You can throw anything on some sort of crust with some sauce and call it a pizza. You like yours one way, I like mine another.....But, it's all still pizza. There is no right or wrong way to make one.

Enjoy!

 

[pb4uski]

Late to the party. I prefer to do my plan using Quicken Lifetime Planner since it is intutive, easy-to-use and pretty comprehensive. QLP's achilles heel is that it is a deterministic planner... so once I had a deterministic plan that I was comfortable with I ran my plan through a number of stochastic planners like FIRECalc and the like and all gave me various colors of a green light.

In short though, if you carve out supplements at retirement for retirement income replacements that will come later like pensions and SS and your WR is less than 3.5% then you're good to go. So for example, let's say that you are retiring at 60 and will take SS of $30k a year at age 66.... reduce your retirement assets by $180k [$30k/yr * (66-60)] and then compute your WR as (spending - $30k)/(retirement assets - $180k side fund)... if that ratio is under 3.5% (or arguably even 4%) then you are good to go.

 

[ggbutcher]

To the original question, 'How many calculators should I use', one good Monte Carlo-based tool that considers all your relevant inputs would be sufficient for the purpose of giving you a likelihood assessment. Indeed, each additional model you consider also needs to be understood with regard to its use of your inputs and its methods, and that can just confound your consideration if you don't take on modeling as a time-consuming hobby...

I haven't done it yet, but I'm going to take on one such model to assess "undesired outcomes", such as the looming SS haircut, my pensions' viabilities, and egregious life events such as onset of dementia (DW thinks this has already happened... ). IMHO that endeavor is more worthy of modeling, as opposed to "How successful will be my nominal plan?"

FWIW..................................

 

[Camas Lilly]

"I don't think there is any predictive difference between 80% and 100%, for example."

Agreed. If one does some research they will learn that if a Monte Carlo type of simulation gives 85% or so, that is about as good as it gets and obsessing over the difference between that and 100% is fundamentally a waste of time.

To the OP - Yes...you are overthinking this. I was doing the same thing during my first 1.5 years of this "retirement thing".

I now view these calculators as a tool to gauge whether or not my plan is on track with what I had projected. Not so much as a predictive device.

Another thing I have learned is also a simple truth - There is no right or wrong way to do this. Every one's circumstances are so different that the variables become almost infinite it seems.

Rough out a plan ( calculators help, but are NOT Gospel ) that makes sense to you, and periodically check it against the reality of your finances and investments. Then make adjustments as needed.

Think of it as Pizza - You can throw anything on some sort of crust with some sauce and call it a pizza. You like yours one way, I like mine another.....But, it's all still pizza. There is no right or wrong way to make one.

Enjoy!

Thanks EarlyBirdly. You make a lot of sense and I am sure we will work out whatever comes our way, always have and always will. I can definitely plan on retiring next year, but the reality is we have to move, cleanup, repair and sell a home and that will probably cause some delay, but at least I have peace of mind knowing whatever happens at work, I am OK in whatever I decided to do.

 

[RunningBum]

I thought I typed in a response this morning to the 80%/100% thing, but see my post 23 in this thread. http://www.early-retirement.org/for...omplicated-can-it-be-98860-2.html#post2271576 Bottom part of post.

It's not just a matter of "I spend X, and historically this is what the market has done so as long as I have this factor times X, I'm safe enough." Most people really can't give an accurate estimation of X. If you're too low, and you hit a bad scenario, 100% gives you a lot more safety buffer than 80%. 100 and 80 aren't the same thing.

 

[ERD50]

I thought I typed in a response this morning to the 80%/100% thing, but see my post 23 in this thread. http://www.early-retirement.org/for...omplicated-can-it-be-98860-2.html#post2271576 Bottom part of post.

It's not just a matter of "I spend X, and historically this is what the market has done so as long as I have this factor times X, I'm safe enough." Most people really can't give an accurate estimation of X. If you're too low, and you hit a bad scenario, 100% gives you a lot more safety buffer than 80%. 100 and 80 aren't the same thing.

I was going to type something similar, this is the text from the post you mention:

This part I don't really agree with. Maybe I'm just interpreting this wrong, but it sounds to me that many people treat 95% or even 80% the same as 100%. But as long as you spend and invest the same way, 100% is always going to be safer than anything less than 100%. In most cases it's just a matter of having a little buffer, but there is some possible case that you can handle with more money that you can't with less.

I don't equate Firecalc 100% as a guarantee of safety, but I do view 100% as safer than 95% or 80%.

And I agree 100% with that. Another way to say that is that 80% or 100% do not have much meaning in absolute terms, but they are important in relative terms.

-ERD50

 

[ychuck46]

Sounds Reasonable

If you are using a 3.5% WR you should be fine. Firecalc is probably one of the best for getting a quick snapshot using Monte Carlo simulations. Vanguard has a decent calculator as well; you do not have to be a Vanguard customer, although I am. Personally I prefer a 2-3% WR but I am just a fiscal conservative in general.

 

[Jerry1]

Perhaps this veers off topic, but I'm interested that nobody mentions part-time w*rk after retirement, particularly if a big drop in the market early in retirement increases the SORR significantly.

I think working in retirement is a last resort and not a good plan in general. Per the comment above, yes, the earlier in retirement something bad happens the more likely it will be that you will be able to find work. The problem is, the more likely scenario is that you will realize you’re running out of money late in the game. While anything is possible, picking up work in my late 60’s and beyond doesn’t sound pleasant or even possible. Age discrimination is alive and well but more likely is that your health and mental capacity will be waning and you will not be able to make it work. Also mentioned was the general reality that you’re not going to make anywhere near what you made in your later working years. I made over $100K. Minimum wage or part time is say $20K. Yep, I worked two more years at my job rather than face 5 to 10 years of working a part time job. Of course, there are true “hobby” jobs, but I doubt they are the norm.

Best to plan well and error on the side of being conservative. Then, have enough cushion in your spending that your first response can be to cut back on unnecessary spending. My budget is about $80K. $50K to $60K is necessary so I can essentially make $20K just buy tightening up.

 

[pb4uski]

Perhaps this veers off topic, but I'm interested that nobody mentions part-time w*rk after retirement, particularly if a big drop in the market early in retirement increases the SORR significantly. I just retired, although I continue some consulting on the side. I had imagined picking up something p/t at a ski area for a free pass, or at a garden center for a discount on the many plants I so desperately need. ;-) ....

I think working in retirement is a last resort and not a good plan in general. Per the comment above, yes, the earlier in retirement something bad happens the more likely it will be that you will be able to find work. The problem is, the more likely scenario is that you will realize you’re running out of money late in the game. While anything is possible, picking up work in my late 60’s and beyond doesn’t sound pleasant or even possible. Age discrimination is alive and well but more likely is that your health and mental capacity will be waning and you will not be able to make it work. ...

+1 I don't see work as being a solution to mitigage SORR much.... if the SHTF then there will be layoffs and we would be competing with other job applicants with more recent work experience... definitely a last resort and no way it would pay anywhere near what I was earning before.

 

[CindyBlue]

I rather like https://financialmentor.com/calculator/best-retirement-calculator as it gives me the greatest freedom to consider “special events”. Inheritance, sale of a vacation home or rental property or possible income streams but that are limited in time or when they may start and stop. Such as the aforementioned rental property which changes from an income stream to part of investment portfolio at some point when you sell.

Sadly most retirement calculators don’t deal with Real Estate very much.

Can you tell me what this means on that calculator?
"Post-Retirement Income (Pension, SS, Wages, etc. Enter amount net of taxes)"
It's the "net of taxes" part I don't understand.

 

[Camas Lilly]

Can you tell me what this means on that calculator?
"Post-Retirement Income (Pension, SS, Wages, etc. Enter amount net of taxes)"
It's the "net of taxes" part I don't understand.

I remember seeing that too. I thought "net amount" but wasn't sure.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Perhaps this veers off topic, but I'm interested that nobody mentions part-time w*rk after retirement, particularly if a big drop in the market early in retirement increases the SORR significantly. I just retired, although I continue some consulting on the side. I had imagined picking up something p/t at a ski area for a free pass, or at a garden center for a discount on the many plants I so desperately need. ;-)

While I also worked through innumerable calculators, tinkering with variables, I am comfortable with the idea that I am still healthy and could easily pick up some extra income if things were too tight. So much of future spending scenarios seemed too difficult to predict. (I'm one of those that needed FIRECalc to be at 100% in many varied scenarios, and used perhaps a dozen other calculators in the last few years. And yes, non-Fidelity investors can use Fidelity's calculator.)

I don't want to go back to full-time at all, but I could happily earn enough for those new appliances we want, DH's dream to add (yet) another garage, or take a ski trip out West.

Our retirement safety plan is low overhead / low consumption / self sufficient living, at least low enough so that SS, pensions and TIPS interest cover all our fixed expenses and then some. We can do that ourselves without having to rely on stock market returns or look for a job, which we might not be healthy enough for or be able to find in old age.

I don't have all of these yet, but over time with solar panels (once the price comes down); a highly energy efficient home; a xeriscaped yard and highly water efficient home; electric cars + public transportation; ability to grow some of our own food; capsule wardrobes; cheap hobbies; estate sale furniture; plant based diet; credit card hacks for travel; and activities like seat filler tickets, college events and park passes for entertainment, life should continue to not be too expensive for us in retirement. I understand this isn't the lifestyle everyone wants, but it works for us and we enjoy not having to worry about running out of money or stock market gyrations.

 

[Camas Lilly]

Our retirement safety plan is low overhead / low consumption / self sufficient living, at least low enough so that SS, pensions and TIPS interest cover all our fixed expenses and then some. We can do that ourselves without having to rely on stock market returns or look for a job, which we might not be healthy enough for or be able to find in old age.

I don't have all of these yet, but over time with solar panels (once the price comes down); a highly energy efficient home; a xeriscaped yard and highly water efficient home; electric cars + public transportation; ability to grow some of our own food; capsule wardrobes; cheap hobbies; estate sale furniture; plant based diet; credit card hacks for travel; and activities like seat filler tickets, college events and park passes for entertainment, life should continue to not be too expensive for us in retirement. I understand this isn't the lifestyle everyone wants, but it works for us and we enjoy not having to worry about running out of money or stock market gyrations.

Agreed. We can certainly cut back in discretionary spending without much change in quality of life.

 

[HI Bill]

Can you tell me what this means on that calculator?
"Post-Retirement Income (Pension, SS, Wages, etc. Enter amount net of taxes)"
It's the "net of taxes" part I don't understand.

Cindy - please see my comments above. I would recommend not using this calculator, as it is provides completely unrealistic results based on linear assumptions.

 

[ncbill]

I thought I typed in a response this morning to the 80%/100% thing, but see my post 23 in this thread. http://www.early-retirement.org/for...omplicated-can-it-be-98860-2.html#post2271576 Bottom part of post.

It's not just a matter of "I spend X, and historically this is what the market has done so as long as I have this factor times X, I'm safe enough." Most people really can't give an accurate estimation of X. If you're too low, and you hit a bad scenario, 100% gives you a lot more safety buffer than 80%. 100 and 80 aren't the same thing.

IIRC, the financial pundit I was reading sees too much chance of a really bad event (fat tail? Black Swan?) to make the difference of "success" between 80% & 100% meaningful.

 

[RIGM]

Kluchich, you mentioned you have money at Vanguard. They will run a retirement analysis for you (for fee likely). This would be one more set of results for your decision.

Here’s what I did. I looked at several online calculators to see if their models made sense (some have fixed assumptions that seemed goofy, some could not handle my situation, etc.). I rejected the misfits. I then ran my data through several different calculators that passed muster. Then I had Vanguard, USAA and my wife’s employer’s retirement department (mega-cap, highly sophisticated finance group) also run our situation through their models. All of this was more input to my planning and decisions. In my case, there was an overall reasonably good correlation in the results across all of the models, or I could explain where there wasn’t. Maybe all of this was overkill, but it beats hitting “feel older” age and saying, “Who knows, it’s a crap shoot, what the heck, I’m just gonna retire.”

Yet those are just inaccurate plans. Whatever they predict will be 100% wrong at some precise (or gross) level. So now what? I retired at 60 this year. I created a deterministic, 40 year spreadsheet showing by-year projected account balances, estimated (conservative) returns, inflation, spending, asset sales/ purchases, blah, blah, etc.

Anyone can do the same thing more simply (albeit not very accurately) using the Excel @pmt function and your liquid account balance, and comparing the “payment” number (the payment your assets could deliver at some interest rate over some time period) to your budgeted expenses in retirement.

In my model, I adjusted my spending up/ down to achieve my end of life goal for net worth (some positive value, with some reserve for end-of-life expenses). That adjusted spending (or excel) now shows me what I possibly can spend in the perfect (highly deterministic, planned) world. This spending number should be reasonably close to, but most certainly higher, than all the previous models (which will incorporate other conservatism; Vanguard doesn’t want to tell you a number and it be too optimistic).

Is this just another, even more inaccurate plan? Yes and no. Yes, there again is zero chance for life to follow this plan. Yet, no, it forms a reasonable (+/-X%) guideline for spending. The key chart in the model is the liquid assets account balance over time. At the end of each year, I can compare what I actually have at Vanguard to what the plan says I should have at that point in time. If I have more, I can spend more the next year or adjust upward my estate giving; if actual balances are lower than planned, I need to cut discretionary spending (assuming that I am able to do so sufficiently to get back on track; I will be able to do so in all but “end of world” scenarios), or adjust other factors (estate giving, % stock allocations, etc).

There are three key things we all need: first, in pre-retirement we need some reasonable idea of what we can spend (and compare it to what we estimate we will spend (the models help here); second, in retirement we need ongoing guidance on how things are going (the planned vs actual asset balance chart for me); and third, we need a sufficient ability to cut discretionary expenses reasonably to get back on track (an ability to adjust without having to declare total failure).

Side note: I saw where a couple of people called Firecalc a Monte Carlo based model. It is not. The historical data set it uses is deterministic. If you put the same numbers in twice and run it twice, it will give the same result. A true Monte Carlo model would not. Still, the premise of Firecalc seems good: if your money and reasonable assumptions would have survived most or all the historical vagaries, then that money and assumptions just might do well going forward.

 

[RIGM]

Sorry, that post got away from me.

 

[footenote]

Sorry, that post got away from me.

Don't apologize - well-written, logical and useful summary of your approach.

Enjoyed the recognition that the calculators are just (flawed! useful!) guides and that we need to constantly adjust our spending along the way. Thank you.

 

[pb4uski]

....Side note: I saw where a couple of people called Firecalc a Monte Carlo based model. It is not. The historical data set it uses is deterministic. If you put the same numbers in twice and run it twice, it will give the same result. A true Monte Carlo model would not. Still, the premise of Firecalc seems good: if your money and reasonable assumptions would have survived most or all the historical vagaries, then that money and assumptions just might do well going forward.

Agree that it isn't Monte Carlo, but there is an option to use Monte Carlo rather than history..... see below. If you chose Mone Carlo and submit it more than once you do not get the same result like you do with history.

 

[Dtail]

Agree that it isn't Monte Carlo, but there is an option to use Monte Carlo rather than history..... see below. If you chose Mone Carlo and submit it more than once you do not get the same result like you do with history.

True.
However the Fidelity Monte Carlo calculation does provide the same results when running it multiple times with the same information. Still a good calculator.

 

[pb4uski]

True.
However the Fidelity Monte Carlo calculation does provide the same results when running it multiple times with the same information. Still a good calculator.

That's odd... I have never heard of a Monte Carlo calculator doing that... I would then question whether Fidelity's calculator is really Monte Carlo.

 

[ERD50]

True.
However the Fidelity Monte Carlo calculation does provide the same results when running it multiple times with the same information. Still a good calculator.

That's odd... I have never heard of a Monte Carlo calculator doing that... I would then question whether Fidelity's calculator is really Monte Carlo.

Not odd at all. The programmer can decide which to do. Anything like a Monte Carlo is going to use a random number generator in the program. But these are actually "pseudo-random" - you feed it a seed, and it generates a 'random' number from that seed. If you give it the same seed every time, you get the same 'random' number. But there is essentially zero correlation between the seed and the resulting 'random' number.

So the programmer uses a fixed seed if they want a 'random' sequence that is the same each time each time the program is run. Or they use the date/time or some other ever-changing number as the seed, if they want a different test sequence each time. Just depends what you are looking for.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

Not odd at all. The programmer can decide which to do. Anything like a Monte Carlo is going to use a random number generator in the program. But these are actually "pseudo-random" - you feed it a seed, and it generates a 'random' number from that seed. If you give it the same seed every time, you get the same 'random' number. But there is essentially zero correlation between the seed and the resulting 'random' number.

So the programmer uses a fixed seed if they want a 'random' sequence that is the same each time each time the program is run. Or they use the date/time or some other ever-changing number as the seed, if they want a different test sequence each time. Just depends what you are looking for.

-ERD50

+1

With the seed of the random number generator changed, a set of 100 runs is going to be different than the next set of 100 runs.

However, the idea behind Monte Carlo simulation is based on the law of large numbers, such that when you make a large enough set of runs, a convergence point will emerge. That however may mean that you need to make a very large set of runs.

For example, if you make 10 million runs, the answer may come out that your probability of success is 90.5%. Make another 10 million runs with a different seed, and the probability of success may be 91.2%.

While I used Monte Carlo simulation quite a bit in my engineering work, I do not care to use it for financial planning and prefer the historical data approach of FIRECalc. We have made millions of devices and machines in order to have a good statistical sample of their behavior. We do not have enough years of market performance to obtain the same meaningful model of the market, and never will.

 

[Camas Lilly]

Kluchich, you mentioned you have money at Vanguard. They will run a retirement analysis for you (for fee likely). This would be one more set of results for your decision.

Here’s what I did. I looked at several online calculators to see if their models made sense (some have fixed assumptions that seemed goofy, some could not handle my situation, etc.). I rejected the misfits. I then ran my data through several different calculators that passed muster. Then I had Vanguard, USAA and my wife’s employer’s retirement department (mega-cap, highly sophisticated finance group) also run our situation through their models. All of this was more input to my planning and decisions. In my case, there was an overall reasonably good correlation in the results across all of the models, or I could explain where there wasn’t. Maybe all of this was overkill, but it beats hitting “feel older” age and saying, “Who knows, it’s a crap shoot, what the heck, I’m just gonna retire.”

Yet those are just inaccurate plans. Whatever they predict will be 100% wrong at some precise (or gross) level. So now what? I retired at 60 this year. I created a deterministic, 40 year spreadsheet showing by-year projected account balances, estimated (conservative) returns, inflation, spending, asset sales/ purchases, blah, blah, etc.

Anyone can do the same thing more simply (albeit not very accurately) using the Excel @pmt function and your liquid account balance, and comparing the “payment” number (the payment your assets could deliver at some interest rate over some time period) to your budgeted expenses in retirement.

In my model, I adjusted my spending up/ down to achieve my end of life goal for net worth (some positive value, with some reserve for end-of-life expenses). That adjusted spending (or excel) now shows me what I possibly can spend in the perfect (highly deterministic, planned) world. This spending number should be reasonably close to, but most certainly higher, than all the previous models (which will incorporate other conservatism; Vanguard doesn’t want to tell you a number and it be too optimistic).

Is this just another, even more inaccurate plan? Yes and no. Yes, there again is zero chance for life to follow this plan. Yet, no, it forms a reasonable (+/-X%) guideline for spending. The key chart in the model is the liquid assets account balance over time. At the end of each year, I can compare what I actually have at Vanguard to what the plan says I should have at that point in time. If I have more, I can spend more the next year or adjust upward my estate giving; if actual balances are lower than planned, I need to cut discretionary spending (assuming that I am able to do so sufficiently to get back on track; I will be able to do so in all but “end of world” scenarios), or adjust other factors (estate giving, % stock allocations, etc).

There are three key things we all need: first, in pre-retirement we need some reasonable idea of what we can spend (and compare it to what we estimate we will spend (the models help here); second, in retirement we need ongoing guidance on how things are going (the planned vs actual asset balance chart for me); and third, we need a sufficient ability to cut discretionary expenses reasonably to get back on track (an ability to adjust without having to declare total failure).

Side note: I saw where a couple of people called Firecalc a Monte Carlo based model. It is not. The historical data set it uses is deterministic. If you put the same numbers in twice and run it twice, it will give the same result. A true Monte Carlo model would not. Still, the premise of Firecalc seems good: if your money and reasonable assumptions would have survived most or all the historical vagaries, then that money and assumptions just might do well going forward.

Thank you RIGM, my sentiments exactly as another replied:

Don't apologize - well-written, logical and useful summary of your approach.
Enjoyed the recognition that the calculators are just (flawed! useful!) guides and that we need to constantly adjust our spending along the way. Thank you.

As I work through the calculators, playing with min/max numbers, I am becoming more comfortable with where we are and actually am pushing retirement date up to 2020 vs 2021. On the other hand there is still much to do in the process of getting moved from one part of the country to the other. The worst part for me is going to be taking on another mortgage, the unknown amount of time before that debt is gone along with expenses for two homes. I have figured the draw would cover all of the added expenses, but I am one of those who hates any kind of debt at all. I will lose sleep over that one even though I do have $30,000 on the sidelines for emergency. Right now, we have a balance on a truck loan to pay off and will have a small balance remaining on the mortgage.

It's really not much different than what I do now. We live on a budget with a certain amount of money and adjust our spending accordingly. We aren't going to rely heavily on investments with two SS and a Pension, so that is a real game changer. Our fixed income will cover around 95% of fixed expenses. I am just making sure we will have a comfortable amount of spending money and want to make sure my husband gets everything he wants, within reason, while he still can enjoy himself. After all, why do you save your whole life anyway? He doesn't ask for much, just a new shop so he can tinker. He loves working on the neighbors small farm (which may become ours), working in the yard and helping others at the place we are moving to. That is really what makes him happy. We were really shocked when he had his blood pressure checked upon returning from the last 8 week trip to our little place we have up there now. . Apparently this agrees with him. He already has all the tractors, trailers, mowers, tools, 5th wheel, and F-450 truck he wanted and the only thing he has left he has wanted for years is a shop, which he will get, probably before the house. Where we are now, we have a wonderful, roomy house we designed and had built, all the landscaping we planted together has matured and is now absolutely beautiful, but no quality outdoor life because of the weather. The new place will be the other way around and we are fine with that. Actually will be getting back to our roots. It will keep us active and outside a lot and we both will be perfectly happy in an older (farm)house.

In reality, we could retire now if I were to lose my job for some reason, next year would be better, and the year after even better. I will just have peace of mind knowing all we really need to do is now focus on acquiring a place, moving and selling the house we are in. I will retire when we are closer to the final move and I am really guessing that is going to push into 2021 anyway.