cut off point

[Khan]

When calculating your retirement, what age cut off point do you use?

Looking at the TSP calculators I see they go all the way to 115.

I consider 80 the far point.

I really do need to get all finances in order for 5 10 20 years.

[hankster]

I use 100 mainly because the parents both turn 90 next year and are still plugging along pretty well.

[Htown Harry]

The easiest charts to find are the ones social security administration publishes

Actuarial Life Table

Needless to say...YMMV

[Moemg]

I use 90 even though I have a 94 year old Mom in amazing health .

[Khan]

Most of my relatives didn't make it to/much past 80. That includes a few who killed themselves.

[Purron]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan Most of my relatives didn't make it to/much past 80. That includes a few who killed themselves.

Truth be told, I had an uncle who killed himself. Good Kansas farmer. He had cancer and offed himself with a shotgun. My dear Aunt was never the same. She found him.

In reply go your question, I use 100. I figure we are unlikely to make it that far, and if we do, chances are we won't much care anymore.

[CoolChange]

Looks like I am on the conservative side here: I use 120 which is pretty much the current upper limit of human life span. As (if?) that continues to rise, I will probably adjust my planning accordingly.

Yep, there is a good chance that I will be leaving money on the table when I check out; but, very little chance of outliving my stash this way. (Probably very, very little chance in my case since there hasn't been a man in my family to live past 50 in a couple of generations...all heart attacks.)

[bbbamI]

I posted this poll when I was just a forum pup....way back in Jan, 2007.

http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ncy-25401.html

I use 90 now...seems I'm the optimistic sort as none of the ladies in my family ever made it over the age of 76.

[W2R]

Longevity runs in my family. Right now I use age 93-95 in doing my computations.

But what if I live longer? In my eighties (if I live that long) I plan to recompute my withdrawals with a lifespan somewhere around 100-105 so that my nestegg lasts a few years longer.

That may not be necessary, though, depending on how much I actually spend between now and then. We'll see.

[GregLee]

80 doesn't seem very old to me, but then I'm already 68. My mother died two years ago at 89, and I really think I can do better than she did. She walked a lot, but never did other aerobics or weights (to maintain calcium uptake), which I do. And I expect some medical advances in the next 20 years to give me an extra couple of years. 80 is not nearly enough. 96 would be more realistic.

However, I don't have to settle on a figure, personally, since my retirement will be funded mostly by pensions which go on forever.

[kyounge1956]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan When calculating your retirement, what age cut off point do you use? Looking at the TSP calculators I see they go all the way to 115. I consider 80 the far point. I really do need to get all finances in order for 5 10 20 years.

I use 100, because I think there is a reasonable possibility I may live to that age, based on lifespan of close relatives, but I am not worried about running out of money even if I live longer than I expect to. I used an online Monte Carlo simulator to find a portfolio size with a 100% survival rate to age 100, and when I ran the simulations again using age 110 & 120, the portfolio still didn't run out. Now, I need to re-do the simulations using my updated pension estimate.

[traineeinvestor]

I use 100 - I'd rather be unrealistically optimistic about my life expectancy than unrealistically optimistic about my money's life expectancy.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan That includes a few who killed themselves.

Well, that's a different kind of survivor bias than we usually discuss, but it still skews the sample statistics.

You already know how you're going to feel in 10-20 years. Your longevity risk (the "risk" of living longer than your assets) rises slightly with every year you survive from now on. How would you feel if you survived those 10-20 years and realized that you could make it another 20? Do you want to add longevity risk to your list of worries? Or would you rather put a number on your plans that will minimize the risk of outliving your money, allowing you to do more philanthropy today?

I use age 115 or 120, depending on what limit the software allows. Spouse's Ashkenazim lineage has four centenarian grandparents to verify her longevity risk. She says she's going to nag me to stay with her, which will have the same relative time-dilation effect as living to age 115-120.

One option for you would be to see how Social Security at age 62/66/70 affects your longevity risk. Another would be to consider annuitizing what's not already covered.

[jebmke]

I used 90 last time I checked. By then I should be in enough discomfort to pull out the stash of pills hidden in the closet. The only risk is that my memory may be gone by then so I need a back up plan for someone to get them and mix up a good batch and open up a good bottle of wine to wash them down.

[old woman]

I plan to live forever pretty much. Age 97 seems to be when the women in my family died before but now grandma lived to 98 so that barrier is broken. Mom is 84 and her doctor says she doesn't have anything to prevent living to 120. She is in better shape now than she was the last few years. Exercising and dieting and looking and feeling great. She is worried because she could only afford assisted living for 12 years if she needed assistant living but she doesn't need it and probably won't for another 10 years or more. Grandma got assisted living at 97 because she broke her leg.

So I plan on much longer than I really think I will live because I don't want to get to 90 and see myself running out of money.

[dex]

Won't the 'Death Panels' answer the question for us?

[obgyn65]

I use 95.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan When calculating your retirement, what age cut off point do you use?

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Htown Harry The easiest charts to find are the ones social security administration publishes Actuarial Life Table Needless to say...YMMV

Be aware that those are average life expectancies. Half the people in each group live longer. I liked the one at Vanguard that gave % probabilities of living to X age.

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/ins...etirement-tool

Example - 60 YO Female has 13% chance to reach 95 YO; 31% chance to hit 90 YO.

What's the point of running FIRECALC for a 95% or greater success rate, and then using 50% "success rate" for Life Expectancy?

I voted > 90. Once your WR is good enough for 40 years, it pretty much approaches "forever" status anyway - more or less, no guaranties, etc.

-ERD50

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khan When calculating your retirement, what age cut off point do you use? Looking at the TSP calculators I see they go all the way to 115. I consider 80 the far point. I really do need to get all finances in order for 5 10 20 years.

It depends on the impact of being wrong.

If you have a higher percentage of indexed pension or annuity income it makes less difference because you’ re less likely to run out of money. If you depend mostly on portfolio, a more conservative number helps avoid the most undesirable outcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 What's the point of running FIRECALC for a 95% or greater success rate, and then using 50% "success rate" for Life Expectancy? I voted > 90. Once your WR is good enough for 40 years, it pretty much approaches "forever" status anyway - more or less, no guaranties, etc.

+1

[Retire2013]

I use 98. But my parents both passed on from illnesses in their 60s. My older brother is 70 and he still plays a really competitive game of tennis everyday so I expect that my siblings and I may live longer than our parents did.