ESPlanner/Scott Burns

[2B]

Scott Burns states he isn't getting anything from his recent commercials for ESPlanner that pass for columns. If he isn't, he sure believes in it and waves the possibile benefits at his readers.

Has anyone bought or had their finances analyzed by this software? Does it tell you anything that isn't obvious?

[obryanjf]

I would like to try it, but they are crazy if they think me (people) will pay $150 to use it without a trial run. I doubt I would ever pay that much anyway, no matter how good it is. I do not use a FP, so no other opportunity to use it.

job

[kat]

Same here. It sounds like a worthwhile thing to try, but I'll wait until the free versions show up.

[Cb]

Burns was interviewed by a blogger a few weeks back and indicated that he and Kotlikoff are currently writing another book, coincidentally about lifetime consumption smoothing.

http://allthingsfinancialblog.com/20...-burns-part-2/

Cb

[2B]

I have to admit that I find the subject of lifetime consumption planning interesting.* I can't see how we will want to spend as much when we're 80 as when we were 30.* My "needs" have become so much less since my kids have left the nest.* Also, there is so much obviously self-serving information in the financial literature that I'm not sure what to believe.* Most of the financial industry is geared up to have us save everything we make for a retirement we'll never be able to afford.

[BUM]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B I can't see how we will want to spend as much when we're 80 as when we were 30. My "needs" have become so much less since my kids have left the nest.

Exactly. One of the very few things my ex-financial planner told me that turned out to be right was - There are 3 stages of retirement:

Early, where spending is highest
Middle, settling in
Late, drooling

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BUM Late, drooling

I still think this "lower late-in-life spending" phenomena is being used as a gigantic marketing campaign to seduce Boomers into thinking they can retire with smaller portfolios, thereby raising their morale over their pathetic consumerism savings while encouraging them to go to a financial adviser to pay a huge sum to learn how to achieve their goals.

I can't help seeing a society of 80-somethings dumpster-diving to cover their healthcare & prescription expenses... Medicare & Medicaid ain't gonna cut it.

[astromeria]

The drooling phase can be expensive, if you need hired help to wipe up the drool* :P

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords I still think this "lower late-in-life spending" phenomena is being used as a gigantic marketing campaign to seduce Boomers into thinking they can retire with smaller portfolios, thereby raising their morale over their pathetic consumerism savings while encouraging them to go to a financial adviser to pay a huge sum to learn how to achieve their goals. I can't help seeing a society of 80-somethings dumpster-diving to cover their healthcare & prescription expenses... Medicare & Medicaid ain't gonna cut it.

What I'm seeing is the exact opposite. The "Financial Planning Industry" throws out this 85%+ of your final salary. I've seen articles where you need more than your final salary for all those luxuries you've been deprived of for the last 50 years. They are keyed into the nominal 4% SWR but that works to their advantage. That says you need to save more than any mortal can save while still raising a family plus work until you're ready to drop -- 65 or later. Even then you won't have enough. All the while they're skimming their 1.5% off the top every year.

I'm only seeing Guyton toying with variations to the SWR and Burns & whoever pushing the spending decline while aging. I have seen this drop off with both my parents and MIL/FIL. The one wild card is that against the odds both MIL and FIL are heading to assisted / nursing homes. Whether it becomes significant or not depends on the number of years there. Fortunately, their spending had fallen so much that they have most of their assets intact and can easily pay for a decade for both of them and forever for one. How long can a pair of 85 year olds live?

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B How long can a pair of 85 year olds live?

In my grandfather's case, he started his long-term care residency at the age of 84 and lived to be 97½. In retrospect we think he was functionally demented around 80 or 81, but he didn't hit anyone's radar screen until he was 84...

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords In my grandfather's case, he started his long-term care residency at the age of 84 and lived to be 97½.* In retrospect we think he was functionally demented around 80 or 81, but he didn't hit anyone's radar screen until he was 84...

This is a very unusual pattern for a man. Usually guys don't last long in LTC.

Ha

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaHa This is a very unusual pattern for a man. Usually guys don't last long in LTC. Ha

There's the rub. The statistics are correct. The problem is that there are points outside one standard deviation, or two or three. Just fewer.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaHa This is a very unusual pattern for a man. Usually guys don't last long in LTC.

Yeah, well, here's hoping it's not genetic...

[JLP]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B Scott Burns states he isn't getting anything from his recent commercials for ESPlanner that pass for columns.* If he isn't, he sure believes in it and waves the possibile benefits at his readers.

He probably isn't getting paid anything for the product sales but he is writing a book with the guy who is selling ESPlanner.

I'm considering purchasing the individual planner to test it out and post about it on my blog. I just don't want to part with the $149. Also, I don't like products that have annual renewals. They put code into the software program that renders it useless unless you fork over more money.

JLP

[rmark]

One of the "falling cost in late life" surveys I've seen did not include nursing home residents - exactly the group to raise late life costs. I suspect personal spending is slowly replaced by healthcare spending.

I had a great uncle who would check himself in and out of the nursing home for short trips and visits with friends, he also ran the pool hall when the owner went out of town.

[rs0460a]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords ... campaign to seduce Boomers into thinking they can retire with smaller portfolios

Sometimes, you don't tell a paitent that he/she are going to die.* You just tell them what they want to hear...*

- Ron

[2B]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmark One of the "falling cost in late life" surveys I've seen did not include nursing home residents - exactly the group to raise late life costs. I suspect personal spending is slowly replaced by healthcare spending.

That's not what I've seen. Healthcare costs do rise but as they do spending goes even lower on everything else. What has happened to my MIL and is about to happen to my FIL. Their only costs will be medical. They will have nursing and assisted living as their only expenses. They are also in precarious physical conditions so there isn't much chance of them outliving their assets.

[Airman99]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JLP He probably isn't getting paid anything for the product sales but he is writing a book with the guy who is selling ESPlanner. I'm considering purchasing the individual planner to test it out and post about it on my blog. I just don't want to part with the $149. Also, I don't like products that have annual renewals. They put code into the software program that renders it useless unless you fork over more money. JLP

I have ESPlanner. They do not hobble it when the subscription expires. It just precludes updates until you renew. Cheaper than buying it twice to get the new version. It's very detail oriented. There is a demo version good for 30 days but you have to ask for it

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2B The "Financial Planning Industry" throws out this 85%+ of your final salary. I've seen articles where you need more than your final salary for all those luxuries you've been deprived of for the last 50 years. They are keyed into the nominal 4% SWR but that works to their advantage. That says you need to save more than any mortal can save while still raising a family plus work until you're ready to drop -- 65 or later. Even then you won't have enough. All the while they're skimming their 1.5% off the top every year.

I respectfully disagree, all you have to do is LBYM, anyone can do it. Maybe "simple, not easy" but millions have done it, and continue today, lots of them on this forum. No matter what your station in life is, you can find loads of people getting by on 10% less than you have. If you live like they do and have some self discipline, you can easily achieve FIRE...

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack I respectfully disagree, all you have to do is LBYM, anyone can do it. Maybe "simple, not easy" but millions have done it, and continue today, lots of them on this forum. No matter what your station in life is, you can find loads of people getting by on 10% less than you have. If you live like they do and have some self discipline, you can easily achieve FIRE...

Back when people had pensions paid by their employers, 85% of salary was a more reasonable estimate.

But now, we are essentially paying our own pensions with 401K's so I think the intelligent way to interpret 85%, would be 85% of what's left after 401K and other retirement funds are paid according to plan.

Before my recent unexpected windfall, my ER income goal was to provide myself with 150% of my average expenses over the past five years. It looked like I would make it before my 2009-2010 ER if I really pushed the envelope. But that much would have been a very small percentage of my gross salary due to LBYM.