Flirting with my number


Just for the record, when I used the above calculator it told me I need about 1.5 million more that what all my other calculations have come up with, including FIRECalc. Is it me or are they trying to scare people into investing with them? If my number was as high as they say I'd have to work until age 70+. Although when I did retire I would be able to live like a king. At least for the 15 years I had left since I only said to use a life span of 85.
 
I use the manual spending model on Firecalc where you can change spending per year. I've found that for my portfolio the difference between 95% and 100% is a difference of about $5000 a year. I don't make any changes for the first 6 years and then in year 7 change it to reduce it $5000 a year. I think that is something very doable. I could get to 100% with fewer cuts if I instead made changes in the first 6 years.

W/O knowing the other inputs (SS/pension timing), and what %WR $5,000 represents, it's hard to comment. If SS/pensions provide a big % of expenses then a $5,000 cut could well be a 50% reduction in WR from the portfolio. That is why I presented my numbers in the generic sense.

But I'd suggest that people need to run these for their own scenarios before assuming minor cuts will provide major relief.

If a $5,000 cut in year 7 is very do-able for you, I could see spending that extra $5K the first 6 years, and then re-evaluate. If the portfolio is still in good shape, keep spending the original amount.

I guess this is a hot button for me personally, because I would find it difficult to cut spending. We spend on what seems to be the high side for most here, but that seems to be mostly due to our COL area, and a largish house (so high taxes). We don't take expensive vacations, don't eat out all that much, modest vehicles, no cable, cheap pre-pay cell-phones, etc. So I'm looking for a number that will likely work through the worst of times, w/o cutting.

Cuts for us would likely mean a big change in where we live. And that might incur added travel expenses to visit friends/family, and that might get more difficult as we age. So for me, a conservative flat level seems to make more sense. A non-COLA pension factors into that also.

-ERD50
 
I'm a little late to the thread, but yes - I hit my number and decided to ER. But then I went below my number and realized that "my number" needed to change. Why ? Because I see ER as a one way street. I will not get another job at my current salary, so I'd rather be prudent and wait a bit. My "new number" includes a 15% buffer over 100% sucess in FIRECalc. Is that crazy obessive-compulsive ? Maybe. BUT I know I will sleep at night when I finally do ER with my "new number".
 
Just for the record, when I used the above calculator it told me I need about 1.5 million more that what all my other calculations have come up with, including FIRECalc. Is it me or are they trying to scare people into investing with them? If my number was as high as they say I'd have to work until age 70+. Although when I did retire I would be able to live like a king. At least for the 15 years I had left since I only said to use a life span of 85.
Basically, they have a vested interest in you leaving as much money with them as long as possible.

One person I know was still working at 65 (or so) and had a minor stroke. He had a substantial portfolio and a good pension. He thought he could easily live on 4% of his portfolio. When he talked with his "financial adviser," he was told that he didn't have enough money and that they could look at things again when he was 70. He retired anyway. About 6 months later we traded emails. He had fired his FA when he realized that he was being charged 1% to be put into high fee funds. Up until then he had ignored my encouragement to look at index investing.

I think it's pretty normal in the FA business to be able to get away with the high fees when dealing with well compensated, busy people. When retired, they realize how badly they are being ripped off. Hence, a key reason to keep their busy client fully engaged in other activities.

I've seen articles from the big finacial houses that advocating retiring on over 100% of your prior income. My favorite had the theme of "Haven't you always wanted to spend a month in the south of France?" Just work until you're 80 or so and you too can spend a month pushing your walker around Nice.
 
Last edited:
I'm a little late to the thread, but yes - I hit my number and decided to ER. But then I went below my number and realized that "my number" needed to change. Why ? Because I see ER as a one way street. I will not get another job at my current salary, so I'd rather be prudent and wait a bit. My "new number" includes a 15% buffer over 100% sucess in FIRECalc. Is that crazy obessive-compulsive ? Maybe. BUT I know I will sleep at night when I finally do ER with my "new number".
I am a Bernicke model type. I've seen my in-laws and parents follow the pattern of reduced spending as they age. By the time my in-laws were 80 they ate modestly, hit an occasional early bird special, gave to their church and spent most of their time around the house. They hardly ever bought anything. My own parents were dead before 80. If someone thinks they'll need as much money for their lifestyle then as their 50's, they are delusional.
 
Last edited:
I use the manual spending model on Firecalc where you can change spending per year. I've found that for my portfolio the difference between 95% and 100% is a difference of about $5000 a year. I don't make any changes for the first 6 years and then in year 7 change it to reduce it $5000 a year. I think that is something very doable. I could get to 100% with fewer cuts if I instead made changes in the first 6 years.

I use the manual spending model as well for projections. I frequently update my projected expenses as things change. I then re-run Firecalc with the new projected spending profile. I plan to do this at least annually.
 
If someone thinks they'll need as much money for their lifestyle then as their 50's, they are delusional.

You seem confident that your anecdotal evidence will hold and that your idea of a spending model will work for you. Congratulations.

My grandparents traveled actively in their late 80's, but they increased their spending to do so at higher cost places and with hiring drivers and such. In her 90's my grandmother finally retired to an elder care system with tiered care, that kept her active and engaged even as her health progressively failed. It wasn't cheap. My parents are retired in place, but they are largely able to stay in place (resort house that they love) because they can hire help for cleaning, gardening and general handyman jobs that would otherwise be too much for them.

If the decreasing spending model works for you, bravo. But my anecdotal evidence is that quality of life can be maintained by level or increased spending models. I don't think I am delusional since I have immediate family experience in doing so.
 
W/O knowing the other inputs (SS/pension timing), and what %WR $5,000 represents, it's hard to comment. If SS/pensions provide a big % of expenses then a $5,000 cut could well be a 50% reduction in WR from the portfolio. That is why I presented my numbers in the generic sense.

But I'd suggest that people need to run these for their own scenarios before assuming minor cuts will provide major relief.

If a $5,000 cut in year 7 is very do-able for you, I could see spending that extra $5K the first 6 years, and then re-evaluate. If the portfolio is still in good shape, keep spending the original amount.

Our situations is a little different than most people. There is no chance we would ever keep spending the original amount that we spend for the first 6 years, well the first 3 years actually. The next 3 years for us are very high spending, not at all sustainable for the long-term. This is because of 2 kids in college. We expect during that 3 years to see our portfolio decrease significantly. However, the key word in that sentence is expect. That is we know that the later withdrawal rate will be based upon a portfolio less than we have at this time. (Years 4 to 6 are a little higher in spending than years 7 and on mostly because I won't be on medicare until year 7 and my health insurance is much higher in cost than Medicare + supplement).

I guess this is a hot button for me personally, because I would find it difficult to cut spending. We spend on what seems to be the high side for most here, but that seems to be mostly due to our COL area, and a largish house (so high taxes). We don't take expensive vacations, don't eat out all that much, modest vehicles, no cable, cheap pre-pay cell-phones, etc. So I'm looking for a number that will likely work through the worst of times, w/o cutting.

Cuts for us would likely mean a big change in where we live. And that might incur added travel expenses to visit friends/family, and that might get more difficult as we age. So for me, a conservative flat level seems to make more sense. A non-COLA pension factors into that also.

I can see in your situation why cuts would be difficult. In our expenses though we do it differently. We plan for quite a bit of discretionary spending that it wouldn't really hurt that much to cut. We eat out a lot. Cutting, say, $100 a month from dining out is not a big deal. And for other stuff that is true as well. There certainly is a level below which making significant reductions would involve major changes (such as moving) but that level is well below the spending that would put us at 100% on Firecalc.
 
You seem confident that your anecdotal evidence will hold and that your idea of a spending model will work for you. Congratulations.

I don't think it is just anecdotal evidence that most people spend less in late old age. If you look at the following source you will find that mean spending of those 75 and older is well below those 65 to 74 and lower still than the population under 65 even if you adjust for household size.

I know there are exceptions and some people do spend as much or more in later life (particularly those with significant health problems where they need to hire care), but that that isn't most people.

www.bls.gov/cex/22012/midyear/age.pdf
 
Last edited:
Wee 33x is basically a 3% withdrawal rate. 25x is basically a 4% rate.



Wait a minute. What am I missing here. Your saying if you withdraw less (3%) you need more money (33x) and if you withdraw 4%, you need (25x) Or am I completely missing the meaning here.
 
I know there are exceptions and some people do spend as much or more in later life (particularly those with significant health problems where they need to hire care), but that that isn't most people.
My in-laws were both in some form of care facility (assisted, memory, skilled nursing) at the same time for about three years. That was definitely an increase in their living expenses during that period. After my MIL passed away, the care for my FIL was about their previous normal living expenses. They got a great income tax break because the cost of care was deductible if over 7% of gross (now 10%) so they effectively paid no income tax on their normal taxable income for about 8 years.

I would certainly like to think I'll be taking the kind of vacations I'm taking now when I'm 80 but I haven't seen any of my wife's or my relatives doing that sort of traveling. In most cases I don't think money is the issue.

Barring extraordinary circumstances, I have plenty of money to support my current lifestyle. My current Bernicke based plan still has my age 70+ allowable (safe:confused:) spending safely over what I normally spend in most years. That includes 3 or 4 weeks in foreign travel and several domestic trips. I can't imagine traveling that much when I'm near 80. Based on my family history, I'll be dead by then.
 
Wee 33x is basically a 3% withdrawal rate. 25x is basically a 4% rate.



Wait a minute. What am I missing here. Your saying if you withdraw less (3%) you need more money (33x) and if you withdraw 4%, you need (25x) Or am I completely missing the meaning here.

Maybe. What I am saying is that if someone wants to have a portfolio that is 33x what they are withdrawing then that is the same as saying they have a 3% withdrawal rate. If the person wants to have a portfolio that is 25x what they are withdrawing then they have a 4% withdrawal. Some people feel they need to have a 3% rate and others feel fine with 4%....
 
Wee 33x is basically a 3% withdrawal rate. 25x is basically a 4% rate.



Wait a minute. What am I missing here. Your saying if you withdraw less (3%) you need more money (33x) and if you withdraw 4%, you need (25x) Or am I completely missing the meaning here.
You have it backwards. This assumes equal spending. If you need $10,000 per year, you need a portfolio of $333,333 (33x) with a 3% withdrawal. For the same income at 4%, you need $250,000 (25x).
 
I've seen articles from the big finacial houses that advocating retiring on over 100% of your prior income. My favorite had the theme of "Haven't you always wanted to spend a month in the south of France?" Just work until you're 80 or so and you too can spend a month pushing your walker around Nice.

The average disposable annual household income in France is 28K. Two average US SS checks a month would be $29.5K per year. Plus France has a higher rated health care system, and the doctors make house calls.

See -
OECD Better Life Index

This is the kind of stuff I'd like my financial adviser to be pointing out!
 
The average disposable annual household income in France is 28K. Two average US SS checks a month would be $29.5K per year. Plus France has a higher rated health care system, and the doctors make house calls.

See -
OECD Better Life Index

This is the kind of stuff I'd like my financial adviser to be pointing out!
I won't get into the details of what you mean by disposable income but France is expensive even for the locals. I'd have trouble establishing a "normal" lifestyle even with my income. With French income taxes, I'm toast. Housing is unbelieveably expensive IMHO and people use all sorts of tricks to try to get deals. People will buy "survivor rights" from the elderly homeowners where they will own the house on their death. Non-residents don't get Frence health care unless they pay for service although for basic office visits it is cheaper than the US.

If you want to save money, try the Czech Republic.
 
I won't get into the details of what you mean by disposable income but France is expensive even for the locals.

Renting, EU country passport for health care, self insure or private insurance, only living there part of the year, and coming from a place even more expensive? My only point was it wouldn't be necessary to work until 80 to live in France for a month in retirement. Sorry I tried to support your post on the subject in a way that did not meet your standards.

There are expats from the US and UK younger than 80 who live in France and seem to make it work.
 
Last edited:
I am a Bernicke model type. I've seen my in-laws and parents follow the pattern of reduced spending as they age. By the time my in-laws were 80 they ate modestly, hit an occasional early bird special, gave to their church and spent most of their time around the house. They hardly ever bought anything. My own parents were dead before 80. If someone thinks they'll need as much money for their lifestyle then as their 50's, they are delusional.

I think many of those later costs are not discretionary, like healthcare and home help. Although certainly reduced travel would be. My mom doesn't travel much any more, but does get to Las Vegas a couple of times a year. That can take care of extra income fast.

To the extent that there may be cost increases late in life that are non-discretionary, saying that "most" people have lower expenses late in life is like saying your SWR is 51% successful. Counting on reducing costs as you age is cutting any safety margin pretty slim in my mind.
 
I did not find France cheap at all and would not think people would choose it for cheap retirement. Perhaps if you live in a car, eat only baguettes and pee in the street.

wait a sec....maybe I did see some retired people there...
 
I saw a House Hunters episode of a former federal employee looking for a home near Cognac, France.

They noted that housing prices had barely moved there compared to a place like Paris for instance.

He found a nice home for $500k, a renovated townhouse building that goes back centuries.

Well one reason why prices aren't going up in that region is that it's a landlocked place which is at least 100 km from any airport that has international (including inter-European) flights.

So hard to draw foreign visitors or even buyers.
 
I think many of those later costs are not discretionary, like healthcare and home help. Although certainly reduced travel would be. My mom doesn't travel much any more, but does get to Las Vegas a couple of times a year. That can take care of extra income fast.

To the extent that there may be cost increases late in life that are non-discretionary, saying that "most" people have lower expenses late in life is like saying your SWR is 51% successful. Counting on reducing costs as you age is cutting any safety margin pretty slim in my mind.

What I think you are missing is that the lower expenses in later old age are pretty much across the board in most categories other than health care. (See the link in my prior post).

Some things that my mother in her late 80's spends less on than she did when she was younger:

Clothes - she doesn't have much need to buy new clothes. She has lots of clothes that aren't worn out. She has fewer occasions to go out. She spends more time at home with casual clothes. She may never have to buy any more clothes for the rest of her life, save for a few undergarments or shoes.

Food - She doesn't dine out as much. She does go sometimes but getting in the car and driving there is more of a chore than she likes. Also, her appetite is less now than it used to be. She doesn't eat as much food.

Housing - House is paid for. She doesn't do much refurnishing or redecorating. She does pay to have repairs made and she has an increased cost for paying for yard work and someone to clean her house, but she spends much less on discretionary household items.

Entertainment - Same as dining out. She doesn't enjoy going out to the movies or many other more entertainment oriented things. She might do a little occasionally but not a lot.

New technology - She saves a lot by not getting into newer technology. No internet, no smartphone (she does have a basic cellphone), no cable TV, etc. She never had these things so she doesn't miss them.

Auto - She still drives, but puts few miles on her car (which is almost 20 years old but still has low mileage). Her fuel cost is much lower than it used to be because she doesn't drive much. Not much cost for repairs or maintenance because she doesn't drive much. Your auto costs just are very much when you don't buy a new car in 20 years....

Yes, her prescription cost is higher than it used to be and she does have medical expenses. However, she is on medicare with a supplement and prescription drug plan so even her medical costs are relatively straightforward. If she needed long term care that would be a high cost, but unless and until she does almost every other category of spending has gone way down.

For most people the spending in virtually every category save health related go down during late old age. Again, I'm know there are exceptions but the data is clear that spending does usually go down.
 
What I think you are missing is that the lower expenses in later old age are pretty much across the board in most categories other than health care. (See the link in my prior post).

Some things that my mother in her late 80's spends less on than she did when she was younger:

Clothes - she doesn't have much need to buy new clothes. She has lots of clothes that aren't worn out. She has fewer occasions to go out. She spends more time at home with casual clothes. She may never have to buy any more clothes for the rest of her life, save for a few undergarments or shoes.

Food - She doesn't dine out as much. She does go sometimes but getting in the car and driving there is more of a chore than she likes. Also, her appetite is less now than it used to be. She doesn't eat as much food.

Housing - House is paid for. She doesn't do much refurnishing or redecorating. She does pay to have repairs made and she has an increased cost for paying for yard work and someone to clean her house, but she spends much less on discretionary household items.

Entertainment - Same as dining out. She doesn't enjoy going out to the movies or many other more entertainment oriented things. She might do a little occasionally but not a lot.

New technology - She saves a lot by not getting into newer technology. No internet, no smartphone (she does have a basic cellphone), no cable TV, etc. She never had these things so she doesn't miss them.

Auto - She still drives, but puts few miles on her car (which is almost 20 years old but still has low mileage). Her fuel cost is much lower than it used to be because she doesn't drive much. Not much cost for repairs or maintenance because she doesn't drive much. Your auto costs just are very much when you don't buy a new car in 20 years....

Yes, her prescription cost is higher than it used to be and she does have medical expenses. However, she is on medicare with a supplement and prescription drug plan so even her medical costs are relatively straightforward. If she needed long term care that would be a high cost, but unless and until she does almost every other category of spending has gone way down.

For most people the spending in virtually every category save health related go down during late old age. Again, I'm know there are exceptions but the data is clear that spending does usually go down.

Again, "most people" is not everyone. Maybe it is you, but none of us can be sure until we get there. Will you take even a 10% chance that because of some disability you'll have to hire someone to run your house, hire cabs all the time to go anywhere, or enter assisted living?

My Mom (85) scrimps a bit to stay on a fixed annuity income and SS and leave her portfolio untouched. Her real income is slowly decreasing. It is adequate as long as nothing extraordinary happens. But she could spend more usefully, she's just self limiting. Without her portfolio I'd be very concerned, since there doesn't appear to be a lot of slack in her budget anymore. She has been eating out almost exclusively now so that she doesn't have to cook. Her car is newer than mine, she still travels (though she boarded as "disabled" for the first time this year).

My 88 year old "uncle" (family friend) just bought a new BMW M3 and gave me a ride in July. I actually wasn't afraid to ride with him, which is impressive. He worked through his 70's to be able to afford several new cars then and now. No perceptibly slower spending there.

But anecdotal evidence and averages aren't really that important. I want to preserve at least the option of having constant real spending. And I'll ensure that my portfolio remains a healthy size for self-insurance of long-term care should that be necessary. I have always planned for a relatively constant lifestyle, both before and after retirement. I saved enough so that I won't be screwing my 80 year old self out of it. He's welcome to it.
 
Last edited:
Again, "most people" is not everyone. Maybe it is you, but none of us can be sure until we get there.


I didn't say it was everyone. I didn't even say it was me. I said it was most people which the data clearly shows that it is. I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else how much to plan for. I consider that a personal matter that depends on the individual. However, it is important that decisions be made based upon correct information.

Will you take even a 10% chance that because of some disability you'll have to hire someone to run your house, hire cabs all the time to go anywhere, or enter assisted living?

That isn't the point. FWIW, in my own plan I don't plan for steep cuts in spending in later years. I don't need to in order for my current plan to work so I don't. Maybe I will at some point.

However, I do think you are missing my point. I agree that certain costs may indeed go up in later years such as health care and long term care. If I was going to take the time and trouble to project spending in each category for, say, my 80s I would personally look at the individual category to plan. I would plan that some categories would go down (travel, dining out, clothing, etc.) I would plan that some categories would go up (health care, long term care). Maybe I would end up overall spending going down and maybe I wouldn't. Don't know since I haven't actually done it for my 80s. The point is that it is entirely possible that someone can plan for the type of increases you are talking about while also planning for certain expenses decreasing. When this is done for individual person it may result in decreased spending in later life or for increased spending.

FWIW, in my personal experience, I personally have seen that except for the people I've known in their 80s they do indeed spend less than they spent when they are younger. I'm sure there are exceptions, most likely in those that are in a nursing home for an extended period of time. But I have overall seen that for those still living at home they spend less. I tend to believe this data because it is in accord with the data in the table I posted earlier. But, I also know that this isn't true for everyone. I make no projection whatsoever as to what a specific person's expenses will be in later life as this really depends on the individual. And, I really have fine with someone choosing to plan for level spending.
 
I didn't say it was everyone. I didn't even say it was me. I said it was most people which the data clearly shows that it is. I'm not trying to tell you or anyone else how much to plan for. I consider that a personal matter that depends on the individual. However, it is important that decisions be made based upon correct information.



That isn't the point. FWIW, in my own plan I don't plan for steep cuts in spending in later years. I don't need to in order for my current plan to work so I don't. Maybe I will at some point.

However, I do think you are missing my point. I agree that certain costs may indeed go up in later years such as health care and long term care. If I was going to take the time and trouble to project spending in each category for, say, my 80s I would personally look at the individual category to plan. I would plan that some categories would go down (travel, dining out, clothing, etc.) I would plan that some categories would go up (health care, long term care). Maybe I would end up overall spending going down and maybe I wouldn't. Don't know since I haven't actually done it for my 80s. The point is that it is entirely possible that someone can plan for the type of increases you are talking about while also planning for certain expenses decreasing. When this is done for individual person it may result in decreased spending in later life or for increased spending.

FWIW, in my personal experience, I personally have seen that except for the people I've known in their 80s they do indeed spend less than they spent when they are younger. I'm sure there are exceptions, most likely in those that are in a nursing home for an extended period of time. But I have overall seen that for those still living at home they spend less. I tend to believe this data because it is in accord with the data in the table I posted earlier. But, I also know that this isn't true for everyone. I make no projection whatsoever as to what a specific person's expenses will be in later life as this really depends on the individual. And, I really have fine with someone choosing to plan for level spending.

Oh, I know even I may not spend as much in my 80's as my 70's. But I can't budget that with any great certainty. I could need more, I might be fine with less. I just don't know. And I have an extremely detailed current budget. At what age will I stop driving? When will I not want to travel much? Will I need a walker when I'm (only!) 80? When will that new tech that I just have to have start coming into its own?

If you deliberately plan on an extra $20k in travel or other one-time stuff in your 60's and 70's and not your 80's and 90's, I don't see that quite the same as cutting spending in your 80's. Even if it looks the same to an economist. I'm talking about my pre-retirement budget carried into retirement, with the near-term changes that requires.

Just like SWR success has its good and bad scenarios, I'm sure there is quite a distribution of spending scenarios. I don't have a lot of say in which SWR scenario I get. I probably have more control over spending, but I may still feel like moderate traveling or a new car or some new tech thing in my 80's. Or DW or I may need a hire a lot of extra help for stuff we can't do our selves. I don't have that much insight into my future.

I figure by planning for constant real spending I can better handle any problems in my 80's by making some of those normal aging budget cuts in order to help pay for the bad spending scenarios without cutting into the budget items that might hurt a bit more. Maybe it's just safety margin, maybe not.
 
Your post is a "spot on" topic in the back of the minds for so many baby boomers flirting with the - how much is enough question, when we could be living into our 80s and 90's. Man that is a long time to live off of your investments and 401k now matter how much money, and :confused: happens with inflation/deflation/health care/energy/terrorism etc...

Whether of value to you or not, my approach has been to think of my cash needs to support myself in retirement on a multiple thread basis, where hopefully one thread is not overly influenced by another thread. Kind of like making sure your investment portfolio is well diversified so while one area gets hammered by something happening in market, but other areas not so much, so average all in and you investments still do OK. Take this to next step. I got my 401k, got my after tax investments, got some rental property that I could live in if necessary, then there is social security, then there is a small pension from where I worked for a number of years, then there is the while not necessary full time, think that I need to keep my big toe enough in the water, so as I know I can earn money by working. The latter I expect to do less and less as I get older. All noted pretty much not impacted by others, so gives me flexibility to react to the "I don't know what I don't know aspect of what next 30-40 years brings to the game. Maybe I am too conservative and rest of people on forum with crucify me - but that's my play.
 
Renting, EU country passport for health care, self insure or private insurance, only living there part of the year, and coming from a place even more expensive? My only point was it wouldn't be necessary to work until 80 to live in France for a month in retirement. Sorry I tried to support your post on the subject in a way that did not meet your standards.

There are expats from the US and UK younger than 80 who live in France and seem to make it work.
I agree it can be done. I know some Europeans. They generally live with less square footage, buy less "stuff," eat out less, may not have a car and, if they do, usually don't have a second family car. Since I mostly meet engineers, they have a decent income by euro standards but they get paid sliglhtly less than their US counterparts or it seems so to me from the ones I met. Their taxes are even more so their disposable income is significantly less.

Most US citizens don't have EU passports but all it takes for the plan to work is money. That was really my point since the article I referenced was from a big financial firm. They were targeting the affluent retiree renting a villa (in season, of course) and living large. They weren't suggesting people rent a small studio apartment on the 3rd floor with no elevator.
 
Back
Top Bottom