Do you rely on a non-zero 'real' return to make it thru retirement?

[rmark]

I've always assumed a 0% net real return during retirement after inflation, fund costs, volatility, adding bonds, badly timed withdrawals, and taxes. What I start with is what I have in real terms. Simplifies the math.

 

[aja8888]

My plan has DW working till 68 (I will be 96). DW is 32 and I have told her several times she needs to come up with a plan, but do women ever listen?

It sounds like you are the plan based on your age differences.

 

[Independent]

We can "make it through" retirement without any savings, just by deferring SS to age 70 and using a pension for the earlier years.

However, my initial spending plan involved spending both the earnings and some of the principal from savings. That provides "extra, nice to have" stuff.

 

[nun]

My monthly post 66 income looks like this

UK state pension = $2000
US SS = $2000
MA pension = $2500
UTC pension = $550
Rent = $2500

That will be in 14 years times I have to bridge the gap from 52 to 66 with savings. Spending from savings will decrease as the various fixed income sources begin; rental income is online now, MA pension starts at 55 and UTC pension at 59.5. At 66 I will be back in the accumulation phase.

 

[NanoSour]

My primary retirement calculation tool is ESPlanner. It has three Monte Carlo modes with one assuming "Conservative" spending. It this case, it assumes my portfolio real return is 0%. The results put me right at my current spending level, so I guess that's good.

 

[RetireAge50]

We are not "relying" on a positive real return. However, if I retired today and invested only to keep up with inflation our income would be $62,000. If I invested to get 2% over inflation then income would be $72,000.

We will live just fine either way but the difference might be me standing on the shore watching the boats versus being on the boat watching the shore.