Life expectancy?

[Andre1969]

I use 100 for my planning. I'm 43 now, and have two grandparents who are still alive. One is 89 and the other is 98. The two that passed away died at 73. But, Granddad grew up on a tobacco farm, smoked all his life, dealt with a lot of dangerous chemicals, asbestos, etc during WW2, and a lot of farm chemicals through most of his working career. My grandmother who passed away had some disease, forget what it was, but she essentially shriveled away and simply expired. Scary thing is, nobody wants to talk about it, but I think we should, in case it's something hereditary!

With FireCalc, I discovered awhile back that sometimes if you use a shorter life expectancy, like 90-95, my chance of success is actually less than 100. IIRC, that's simply because for a shorter duration, FireCalc has more past scenarios to gather data from. Going down to a life expectancy of 85 or so, it goes back up.

[omni550]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andre1969 My grandmother who passed away had some disease, forget what it was, but she essentially shriveled away and simply expired. Scary thing is, nobody wants to talk about it, but I think we should, in case it's something hereditary!

Andre1969,

If no one will talk about it, you may want to consider spending $99 for the saliva test at 23andme.com which will provide:

• Reports on 240+ health conditions and traits
• Testing for 40+ inherited conditions
• Discover your ancestry composition
• Updates on your DNA as science advances

Nords started a thread on his testing results earlier this year http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ing-64479.html


omni

[clifp]

John Greaney,early retirement research pioneer, published an interesting article here which combines safe withdrawal rates and the mortality table. The good? news is that chances that you'll both run out of money and live 40 years after retirement are vanishingly small. A 4.26% withdrawal rate for a 57 year old living to 97 has a success rate of 95%, drop the withdrawal to 3.9% and the number increases to 98.3%

Now the study is 10 years old, life expectancy has climbed (the @65 expectancy increases roughly .8 years per decade) and safe withdrawal rates have probably decreased, but probably nothing has changed my more than couple of percent.

Beyond 40 years is basically a permanent portfolio which is what I've used.

[foxfirev5]

Planning for a max 30 year retirement from age 58 or 59. I figure I can't dial it in any closer so why try. If I get to 90 and realize I screwed up will I really care? Anyway I know my conservative nature will take over before I get too far off course.

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by foxfirev5 Planning for a max 30 year retirement from age 58 or 59. I figure I can't dial it in any closer so why try. If I get to 90 and realize I screwed up will I really care? Anyway I know my conservative nature will take over before I get too far off course.

+1

[Mulligan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover Doesn't Big Lots rely on buying ill conceived merchandise that can't be sold in a regular store?

Travelover...... That is a classic comment in my book, anyways.

[shotgunner]

I am a male and I look at the life span of my male family members who have departed this world. Fraternal Grandfather 52 (Heart), Maternal Grandfather 85 (Old Age), Father 79 (Dementia), Maternal uncle 76 (Parkinsons), Fraternal uncle 71 (Cancer).

To me planning for a life span of 100 is ultra conservative and insures a legacy. I have seen first hand the low quality of life brought on by Dementia, Parkinsons and Cancer. Something out there has my name it or vice versa. I don't want to cheat myself in being able to live and enjoy what my money can do in the years I have my health in such an extreme manner so as to insure a steady annual income with annual increases to 100 yrs. The probability of reaching that age is remote, especially for a man. I use 85 with the understanding that I will never run out of income, I will fall back to SS combined with a non inflation adjusted annuity if I live past that age.

[rodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerntz I take those here that have good health but use less than 100 are intent on making sure they die penniless. Guess that's fine if you need every bit of income a lesser LE provides. But me, I'd dial back a bit. This is self-serving as we can afford 100, probably 150, with our lifestyle, but even if not I think I'd take security.

I'm confused by this "100" - is that age 100, or 100% success rate?

100 is an arbitrary number for age. Sure, it's round... but it's not any better to pick than 99 or 101, from a practical point of view.

To answer the OP's question:
I plan for 40 years - which puts me at 91, and DH and 101. Since his dad turns 90 next week (and he's got an uncle who's 93) - it seems reasonable to plan for him to live longer. Only one grandparent of mine made it to 90, the rest died in their 60's and 70's. My mom died in her 60's. My dad died in his 70's. My brother died at 48... Cancer is a big factor in my family.

If we live longer, we can always sell our house. We don't include the value in our retirement planning, just the expenses (taxes, insurance, maintenance.) So selling that would drop about $800k in todays dollars into the asset pool again. (Southern Cal is obscenely expensive... not a good thing, IMO.) It's a good plan B in case we live too long and/or need to go into a nursing home or assisted living.

Someone mentioned 23andMe... We recently did it. Results showed no cancer risk for me... so I guess my family cancer cluster is coincidental, rather than genetic. Good news.

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodi I'm confused by this "100" - is that age 100, or 100% success rate? 100 is an arbitrary number for age. Sure, it's round... but it's not any better to pick than 99 or 101, from a practical point of view.

Age.

Yes, 100 is arbitrary but not at all unrealistic. Couldn't find USA data, but if you're 55 in England today, you have a 12% chance of reaching 100. UK's life expectancy is only 2 yrs longer than USA at birth & if you avoid death before age 1, gun fights, & traffic accidents, & have health insurance, I'd expect USA expectancy for 55 yr olds till death are similar if not longer.

Then that being said, planning to run out of money at 85 or 90 or even 95 seems pretty risky vs. the likely change in lifestyle required to use age 100 - or 105. JMO.

[boatfishandnature]

I use 100 for planning purposes. A couple of those internet sites that use your medical history and personal habits did give both my wife and I a life expectancy in the low-mid 90s, so I threw in a few years' cushion for good measure.

By age 99, if nothing else happens, I plan to take up paragliding...

[kramer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gerntz Age. Yes, 100 is arbitrary but not at all unrealistic. Couldn't find USA data, but if you're 55 in England today, you have a 12% chance of reaching 100. UK's life expectancy is only 2 yrs longer than USA at birth & if you avoid death before age 1, gun fights, & traffic accidents, & have health insurance, I'd expect USA expectancy for 55 yr olds till death are similar if not longer. Then that being said, planning to run out of money at 85 or 90 or even 95 seems pretty risky vs. the likely change in lifestyle required to use age 100 - or 105. JMO.

I am very skeptical about those future life expectancy predictions put out by the UK Office of Work and Pensions.

In fact, their calculations assume that a new born has the same chance of reaching age 100 that a 96.5 year old does today. And that an 82 year old has a greater chance of reaching 100 than an 83 year old.

See:

Surprising Probability Estimate of the Day

Also, according to the last US census, 62.5% of centenarians were 100 or 101 years old and only 0.6% of centenarians were 110 or older.

I am an optimist on life expectancy but not that optimistic. . . me thinks they are using linear extrapolation on what actually should be an asymptotic estimate.

[Moscyn]

Originally 85 and now using 90. Have genetic illness from both dad and mom but with the advance in medicine and early screening, I think I have a good chance to live over 85 unless I die of any of those new diseases or sheer pollution or an accident.

[Badger]

I seem to take after my mother's side of the family. Mom died at 84. Her father at 63 and mother at 83. I hope to reach 85 without being in a nursing home and free of pain and dementia. That's 20 years. I will be greatful if that can be achieved. Everything else after that is gravy.

Cheers!

[eytonxav]

DW is 5 years younger than me, so I plan for 95 for her. As for me, I'll be lucky to make mid 80s.

[Meadbh]

When I was using FireCalc and other calculators to determine the sustainability of my portfolio, I used 95, because I have quite a few relatives who lived into their 90s and there was a centenarian on my father's side. Realistically, I will probably kick the bucket before then. Recently I had a detailed financial plan done and it goes to age 90. So many things will have changed by then that many current assumptions will be invalid. If I were 85, I would plan till 100. The longer you are around, the more likely it is that you will make it to 100!

[bbbamI]

I intend to live forever, or die trying.... Groucho Marx

[Lsbcal]

Quote:

Originally Posted by David1961 When planning your retirement and/or withdrawal rates after retirement, what age do you expect to live to? It's a balance between running out of money versus running out of life. Seems like the number you choose can have a big impact on your safe withdrawal rate. I am 51 and personally use age 100. If I had a chronic health issue, I'd use a lower number. Curious what number others use. Surprisingly

I have a somewhat different approach then others here. I run FireCalc out to age 85 and target a minimum portfolio value. That leaves an estate but also protects us against living even longer.

The main point: if our portfolio got too low I'd be worried sick. The 2008 down market did not take our portfolio down even as low as 50% but it was still very worrying as it was down to 68% of the beginning 2008 level.

I want to have enough in my 70's to be easily able to afford services (gardeners, fix it guys, etc.) as I reduce my do-it-yourself checklist items. So that's another reason to not spend too freely. Still we currently have enough to do plenty of travel and have fun.

[bUU]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meadbh The longer you are around, the more likely it is that you will make it to 100!

This is my philosophy... If I plan for 86 and I get to 75, I'll worry about the fact that I might run out of money then, and start more deliberately reducing my expenses (to aim for living to 90). For us, I think that's a more viable alternative, since when I'm 75, my spouse will be 85, and so I'll probably be spending the last six or seven years of my life alone anyway, therefore my expenses should be a little lower at that time.

[meekie]

Wow, I'm feeling pretty cynical, but I am looking for 100% till I'm 70. Too many health issues in my family, even though I had great grandmas on both sides live to 100, we've had a lot die much, much younger. I also plan to adjust as I go, if all goes well and I retire at 43-45, I should have a good idea how things are going after 10-20 years, and do some adjusting if needed.

[Texas Proud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bUU This is my philosophy... If I plan for 86 and I get to 75, I'll worry about the fact that I might run out of money then, and start more deliberately reducing my expenses (to aim for living to 90). For us, I think that's a more viable alternative, since when I'm 75, my spouse will be 85, and so I'll probably be spending the last six or seven years of my life alone anyway, therefore my expenses should be a little lower at that time.

I agree that planning to 100 is not wise.... and that if you reach 85 or 90 you can adjust... heck, if you reach 95 the likelihood is that you will not be doing much except be pushed around in a wheelchair.... you might or might not have good brain function... IOW, you might not really care....


As for your spouse... unless there is something in her family history.... she would probably live 7 years longer than you.... so I would say only 3 or so years alone...