Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-05-2016, 10:50 AM   #101
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,100
looking for the beating a dead horse gif....
__________________

__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is online now  
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-05-2016, 10:53 AM   #102
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
I previously posted this in another thread back in March, but it is relevant to this topic and the notion of delay being equivalent to buying longevity insurance:
pb4, good way to look at it. But...

don't you need to adjust the benefits paid 62-70 to NPV at age 70?
__________________

__________________
gerntz is online now  
Old 09-05-2016, 10:56 AM   #103
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
it could be longer than 22 years if spousal benefits are involved . as an example my wife does not get a 4500.00 dollar adder to her early benefit until i file .
As mentioned originally, I did use both our SS withdrawals @ 62 as a monthly investment input, but only looked to replace the difference between my SS @ 62 vs. @ 70. My objective was to evaluate if those earnings would make up the difference between those current SS figures (I'm dead and would my wife get a nicer amount than just my @62 SS). Our combined SS now is close to my @70 SS. It was a quick and simple estimate using calculators that don't allow for any variation like you'd find in retirement calculators with monte carlo scenarios (others state mixed results with these). Since neither we nor Joylush requires SS in retirement, we have the flexibility to explore this scenario. We went for it. If it isn't as successful as the calculators demonstrate, we can just leave it alone til it is, or not draw on it - ever (we don't depend on it for our retirement).

When I mentioned Kitches in #44, it was in reference to the 85 (actually 84) breakeven he demonstrated. I took it as confirmation that if a guy that teaches Financial Advisors is willing to show 22 years of success - that I wasn't too far off and it was a fairly decent gamble. We would be positive until at least 85 (make that 84).
__________________
fritz is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 10:58 AM   #104
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Midwest
Posts: 1,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
our results when spousal benefits were considered was opposite . assuming average life expectancy for a couple we had more left over of our own delaying ss . it also gave us a higher draw rate day 1 since the ss has no sequence risk to account for so no extra powder has to be kept dry . our budget is bigger day 1 delaying than taking ss since we can refill down the road with a check 69% bigger plus colas with no sequence risk to account for .
Funny you should say that. My original post was a couple paragraphs longer and included married couples "gaming the system" as it were to their advantage. As I do not have that option I edited it out
__________________
razztazz is online now  
Old 09-05-2016, 11:14 AM   #105
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Sunset's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
looking for the beating a dead horse gif....
__________________
Sunset is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 11:20 AM   #106
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunset View Post
thanks - I think i've counted about 23 threads on this subject js
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is online now  
Old 09-05-2016, 11:33 AM   #107
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,202
"Ignore Thread" under Thread Tools is a great resource for people who have had enough of a topic, and can't help themselves from clicking on a thread.
__________________
RunningBum is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 12:26 PM   #108
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,617
Folks who are modeling 7.5% or 5.2% real returns, or 3% for that matter, for a diversified portfolio in the near term (e.g. 8 years, the period affected by the "early or late SS decision") aren't viewing the investment world in the same way I am. Not that they are right or wrong. But it does impact the break-even point (which, again, is not an especially useful metric IMO).


But if one did expect something more like 1-2% real real returns for the next decade, followed by less predictable returns after that (e.g. possibly back to historical mean, or tanking for a period of a decade or more) . . . . the higher SS checks obtained by delayed SS claiming would be useful in the case of "tanking" and of no harm in the case of "portfolio growing to the sky."
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now  
Old 09-05-2016, 02:17 PM   #109
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
I previously posted this in another thread back in March, but it is relevant to this topic and the notion of delay being equivalent to buying longevity insurance:
Have you tried the calc including earnings on the 8 years of foregone SS so you'd get more useful results?
__________________
youbet is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 02:36 PM   #110
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,387
Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz View Post
Same here. Spending more of their money and less of your own money is always good. And the benefit piles up over the years.

Moral of the story: If you want to keep more of your own money: Take SS early.

I made the same observation a long time ago, maybe it was here or maybe on another forum I used to hang at. It was not well received.
Perhaps because there is no such thing as their money and your own money. There are many way to look at this, but their money and one's own money is not likely to be a helpful way IMHO.

Ha
__________________
haha is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 02:53 PM   #111
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
pb4, good way to look at it. But...

don't you need to adjust the benefits paid 62-70 to NPV at age 70?
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
Have you tried the calc including earnings on the 8 years of foregone SS so you'd get more useful results?
I did not include the time value of money only in the interest of simplicity since it doesn't change the decision but simply makes it slightly less attractive. If you want to be more precise about it, you could include the time value of money, but you also then need to include in the benefit calculation projected COLA increases.

If you include the time value of money at (a generous) 7%, the "premium" increases from $202k to $270k (ie, the fv of $2,102/month for 96 months at 7% is $270k). The benefit increases from $1,600/month to $1,950/month if benefits increase 2.5% annually for 8 years (historical is 2.7%). So the premium is $270k and the monthly benefit is $1,950 and the payout is 8.7% COLAed rather than 9.5% in the undiscounted example.

I found that at one point I had priced a COLAed annuity issued at age 70 from AIG and Principal and the payout rate was 4.9%... so "buying" a COLAed annuity from SS with an 8.7% payout rate is still extremely attractive compared to commercial COLAed annuities available and even better than fixed annuities commercially available.

Another thing to consider is that for many of us $270k is not a huge part of our wealth so IMO using a modest portion of our wealth to buy an attractively priced COLAed annuity as longevity insurance is a smart move.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now  
Old 09-05-2016, 03:46 PM   #112
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Sunset's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,749
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
Folks who are modeling 7.5% or 5.2% real returns, or 3% for that matter, for a diversified portfolio in the near term (e.g. 8 years, the period affected by the "early or late SS decision") aren't viewing the investment world in the same way I am. ...........
+1

I'm an optimist most of the time, so I think 3% real return is probable.

I'd have to work for a Pension board to consider 7.5% real going forward
__________________
Sunset is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 04:38 PM   #113
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,400
I do not plan to wait until 70. Technically, I could "afford" to wait. DH and I have enough portfolio that we could cover the time from now (I'm 62) until 70 by drawing on the portfolio. But, I do not want to spend down the portfolio that much and feel more comfortable starting earlier (I will probably start next year). As mentioned by others, I think it is an individual determination.
__________________
Katsmeow is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 05:22 PM   #114
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by razztazz View Post
Same here. Spending more of their money and less of your own money is always good. And the benefit piles up over the years.

Moral of the story: If you want to keep more of your own money: Take SS early.

I made the same observation a long time ago, maybe it was here or maybe on another forum I used to hang at. It was not well received.
You called that one correctly.
__________________
fritz is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 05:31 PM   #115
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
Perhaps because there is no such thing as their money and your own money. There are many way to look at this, but their money and one's own money is not likely to be a helpful way IMHO.

Ha
the funny thing is we are delaying because we rather spend just 8 years of our own money and potentially need very little of our own money for decades with the much larger ss check .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 05:42 PM   #116
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,323
I find it puzzling that on an early retirement forum, which includes a lot of people that left a lot of unearned income on the table so that they could enjoy an early retirement, that so many people now find fault with those who only "might" be leaving money on the table by taking early SS or CPP.
__________________
Music Lover is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 05:53 PM   #117
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,490
Just because we've decided that we prefer free time over more money doesn't mean that we don't want to optimize the money side as long as it does not impede on our freedom. Whether we take SS at 62 or FRA or 70 or anywhere in between doesn;t change my freedom.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now  
Old 09-05-2016, 05:58 PM   #118
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,323
^^
I understand, but perhaps some people simply want to enjoy the extra money in their healthiest years when they are most likely able to make the best use of it??

For me, if I make it past the break even point for early CPP, I plan to celebrate that I beat the actuary calculated odds...
__________________
Music Lover is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 06:00 PM   #119
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
zinger1457's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by fritz View Post
I'm sure that when you plug your numbers in - you'll see results similar to ours, if you're married. Even if you were single and earned just 5% during the accumulation and withdrawal phases - you'd still match your age 70 SS rate until you're 90. Age 70 start SS would win over 90 then, but you'd be positive at just 5% earnings during those 8 years of accumulation and aro.20 years of withdrawals up until then. Remember, you don't have to take the funds at 70 - you can let them still grow until you need them, if ever (unlike SS which stops the age increases at 70).....
Not sure your situation is typical. It sounds like the numbers you came up with were based on saving your entire SS income (between 62-70) and paying no taxes on that income. I would think many on this board, probably the majority, will pay some tax on their SS income. In my case if I take SS at 62 it will also push be into a higher tax bracket and eliminate my ACA subsidy. My current plan is to wait until FRA.
__________________
zinger1457 is offline  
Old 09-05-2016, 06:10 PM   #120
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Indialantic FL
Posts: 1,202
Ever since DW turned 62 earlier this year I consider us "Winning" in the sense we have not started her SS yet. Every month we defer her SS start date adds at least another 5 bucks to her monthly SS check. Posted on one of the other 20 something threads some of the reasons why her waiting til age 70 may not be the best decision so once a year we will revisit the subject and go from there.
__________________

__________________
JimnJana
"The four most dangerous words in investing are 'This time it's different.'" - Sir John Templeton
jimnjana is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wait until 35 to save! traineeinvestor FIRE and Money 50 09-27-2011 09:18 PM
wait until after 2012 elections to retire? palomalou FIRE and Money 12 05-23-2011 04:46 PM
I'm Irish, but could not wait until St. Pat's day mickeyd Other topics 4 07-09-2007 08:02 PM
Wait to Age 70 to Collect SS? REWahoo FIRE and Money 77 11-27-2005 03:49 AM
Buy I-bonds now or wait until Nov? soupcxan FIRE and Money 16 11-01-2004 12:57 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.