Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Longevity
Old 05-24-2015, 07:35 PM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Longevity

What number do I put into FireCalc? Should I defer Social Security?

Life expectancy, or life span, or 10% survival ages, often comes up in our discussions. When people quote numbers, I always wonder what mortality table they used to get those numbers. After all, mortality data comes from groups of people. If I’m going to use that data, I should probably have some notion that I’m kind of like that group.

But, that’s theoretical. I don’t know if this is a big deal in practice. Are the differences between tables big enough to matter?

So, I thought I’d run some numbers for a few tables and see what I got for a 62 year-old male.

Male - Age 62 in 201550%.10%.50%.10%.
SS 2010 Period20318293
RP-2000, Period21318393
RP-2014, Blue, Cohort24368698
RP-2014, White, Cohort..27378999
IAM 2012, Period25358797
IAM 2012, Cohort27368998

The first row says that if we start with a large group of 62 year-olds, slightly more than 50% of them will be alive 20 years later, but slightly less than 50% will make it 21 years.

Similarly, slightly more than 10% will survive for 31 years.

The next two numbers are just the ages that correspond to 20 and 31 years.

I’m showing six tables. There’s a range of 7 years in the 50% column and 5 years in the 10% column. I’m not sure if that’s “significant”, but those are the numbers.

The first table, SS 2010, is probably the most quoted. It’s the top response if you Google “mortality table social security”. This table represents the experience in 2010 of the population covered by Social Security. I don’t think it’s the best choice for posters here. This table includes people who have stage 4 cancer, or are living in nursing homes, or even living in hospices. I’m claiming their mortality rates aren’t particularly relevant to people deciding whether to put 30 or 35 into FireCalc.

RP-2000 is the experience of people with private pensions in 2000. I included it because Vanguard has a nice calculator that allows the user to pick two different ages for last-survivor numbers. That calculator happens to use the RP-2000 table, so I thought I’d include it for people who might be using that calculator.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/ins...etirement-tool

RP-2014 is again the experience of people who are collecting on private pensions, but it’s somewhat more recent. I included it because I wanted an example of some other grouping rule. In this case, it’s “collar”. No, the word “blue” does not refer to these guys, https://www.youtube.com/bluemangroup , it means retirees who had blue collar jobs when they were working. The next row is people who had white collar jobs. As expected, the white collar group lives a little longer.

IAM 2012 is Individual Annuitants Mortality. This includes people who bought private SPIAs, or took life settlement options on life insurance policies, or life settlements in lawsuits. I’d expect these people to have the lowest mortality among the choices here. Most of them self-select. If you’re in any sort of poor health, you probably won’t buy a private SPIA.

Some of these tables say “Period”, others say “Cohort”. If I construct life expectancy for a 62 year-old from a 2012 period table, I’ll use the 2012 experience for 62 year-olds, and attach it to the 2012 experience for 63 year-olds, and then the 2012 experience for 64 year-olds, etc.

For a cohort table, I’ll use the 2012 experience for the 62 year-olds, but I’ll use projected 2013 rates for 63 year-olds, projected 2014 rates for 64 year-olds, etc.

Since I believe that the trend in slowly dropping mortality rates is likely to continue, I would use a cohort table instead of a period table for my own planning. In fact, since we were both in fine health when I retired, I would have used the IAM cohort table (if it had been available).

Of course, only a minority of us are single males. We’ve got some single females, and a lot of couples. More numbers follow.

Female - Age 62 in 201550%.10%.50%.10%.
SS 2010 Period23348596
RP-2000, Period24358697
RP-2014, Blue, Cohort273889100
RP-2014, White, Cohort..293991101
IAM 2012, Period27378999
IAM 2012, Cohort283890100

This table is the last-to-die for a couple, both age 62.
Joint - Both Age 62 in 201550%.10%.50%.10%.
SS 2010 Period27358997
RP-2000, Period27368998
RP-2014, Blue, Cohort314093102
RP-2014, White, Cohort..334195103
IAM 2012, Period303892100
IAM 2012, Cohort324094102


Of course, all this comes with the usual caveats:
I'm been known to make mistakes before, there could be some here.
I checked a couple numbers against published sources, but most of this is strictly my calculations.
The cohort tables are particularly tricky to work with.
etc.
__________________

__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
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 05-24-2015, 09:50 PM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
What number do I put into FireCalc? Should I defer Social Security? ...

The first table, SS 2010, is probably the most quoted. Itís the top response if you Google ďmortality table social securityĒ. This table represents the experience in 2010 of the population covered by Social Security. I donít think itís the best choice for posters here. This table includes people who have stage 4 cancer, or are living in nursing homes, or even living in hospices. Iím claiming their mortality rates arenít particularly relevant to people deciding whether to put 30 or 35 into FireCalc. ...
Very interesting, thanks for posting.

I almost skipped over this thread, thinking there wasn't anything more to be said on the subject (it always seems to break down to two camps, one conservative in their estimates, and another saying things like "you think everyone is going to live forever?!"). I have not absorbed it all yet, but the section I quoted really jumps out at me. It seems so obvious in hindsight!

Yet, I've used things like the Vanguard LE 'calculator' (reporter, actually), and sure - they are just reporting on the numbers. As you say, it includes people with known health problems, and they aren't among the group trying to determine how far they might make it to old age.

Maybe that can be parsed out with your other data, and it may be significant. But it makes me feel a bit less paranoid about planning to allow for a 100+ age for myself or DW (which is different from expecting it).

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2015, 11:48 PM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Obviously, there's lots of uncertainty about how well any of us will track the longevity averages. The good news is that the uncertainty doesn't seem to matter very much in many practical respects. Using the FIRECalc default asset allocation, the withdrawal rate for 95% success allows just 10% greater spending for a 30 year timeframe than a 40 year timeframe.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 12:00 AM   #4
Moderator
rodi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 8,817
I think it's good to be conservative (guess you'll live a long time) in doing financial projections... because who wants to run out of money.

But you also have to look at family history.

I plan for the "worst case" (living a long time)... but don't expect to live that long given my family history. So, I'm frontloading some of the pre-budgeted "once in a lifetime" experiences...
__________________
Retired June 2014. No longer an enginerd - now I'm just a nerd.
micro pensions 7%, rental income 18%
rodi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 02:18 AM   #5
Full time employment: Posting here.
martyp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 963
First of all, when it comes to estimating and forecasting you can't get too hung up on exact numbers. In statistics there are error bars and ranges.

As a practical matter you can always do a sensitivity analysis by looking at the effects of using the highs and lows of a range. Often the results don't matter that much.

As you've stated, these statistics utilize are large population with a lot of characteristics. Unless you are the ideal average Joe then you should use the tables as a starting point and then modify your estimates according to your on specific situation. What's your family history on life expectancy; what is your current health status; how is your access to health care; etc. For example: if you parents died in their 60's; if you are an alcoholic with diabetes and you don't have any health insurance then you are probably going to die sooner than the tables indicate.

How you use life expectancy estimates depends on some informed guesswork and your comfort level with risk.
__________________
Happy, Wild, and Free
martyp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 06:05 AM   #6
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,644
I do my financial planning based on a conservative joint expectancy. But that Vanguard calculator is pretty depressing when I look at the "John" bar dropping like a stone when I add a few years into the mix. Only 1/3 chance of being around in 20 years.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 08:10 AM   #7
Administrator
W2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 38,890
I don't pay a whole lot of attention to mortality tables, because I feel that the relevant number for me is my INDIVIDUAL mortality, not statistical mortality. It doesn't matter what the median age of death is for a woman who is now 66, if I live longer than that.

BTW, that median age of death for a woman now 66, is 86 according to SS. My mother lived to 98, but she lived a much healthier lifestyle than mine so I would think 98 would be a maximum for me, perhaps?

Realistically, my best guess is that I might live to age 90. But for financial planning purposes, my objective is to have no more than a negligible chance of living under a bridge and standing in soup lines in my old age, if I should live to be extremely old. The oldest woman in the US is 119 years old.

What a problem to wrestle with. And then, a lightbulb moment - - I will do my retirement planning right now assuming death at age 95, and then if/when I survive into my 80's, I'll RE-DO my planning using age 105 or so this time. I might even buy a lifetime fixed annuity to supplement SS and pension, because annuities would be really cheap at that age. That might take me to age 119 if necessary. At age 100-105, if my nestegg is suffering then I'll cut back a little more.

If I have a little surplus to leave to loved ones, then so be it. I know I'll have enough to be happy and content and I'll be happier without having to fret about impending poverty.
__________________
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall be lost in its unshored, harbourless immensities.

- - H. Melville, 1851
W2R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 08:15 AM   #8
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,183
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
I do my financial planning based on a conservative joint expectancy. But that Vanguard calculator is pretty depressing when I look at the "John" bar dropping like a stone when I add a few years into the mix. Only 1/3 chance of being around in 20 years.
What gets me is that some people seem to be looking at a number like that and saying don't worry about planning for over 20 years (almost always wrt to taking SS). Do these people retire with a 67% success rate? I want 90+% success, and these tables all show that I better be well prepared to go well into the 90s.

Whether the way to do this is taking SS late for the bigger payment, or taking it early and investing the difference or getting it before it gets cut is a topic for the other thread. But the argument that most of us won't make it to 90 are meaningless to me, because what if I am in the 10% or so who do? Odds are against it being me, but some will, and it could be me.
__________________
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 08:38 AM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Some quick thoughts:

(1) Surely some researcher has come up with a quantile regression model that gives better results than period/cohort table conditioned only on sex.

(2) Does it matter? Are you planning to spend down your assets to zero? As Samclem notes with a traditional SWR approach living a few years more might not change your failure probability much. This may be different for other withdrawal methods though.

(3) You have a lot of time to change course during your retirement years. You can always adjust later.

(4) Deferring SS seems like a no brainer if you are concerned about longevity. Even though I don't like annuities, it may be a good option once you're old enough for mortality credits.
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 09:10 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by donheff View Post
I do my financial planning based on a conservative joint expectancy. But that Vanguard calculator is pretty depressing when I look at the "John" bar dropping like a stone when I add a few years into the mix. Only 1/3 chance of being around in 20 years.
But, of course, the Vanguard site uses mortality rates in 2000 for everyone who was collecting on a private pension.

Mortality rates have gone down since then, and they are likely to fall further. And, you may look in the mirror and see someone who is healthy enough to be SCUBA diving, windsurfing, and snowboarding. If so, another table might be a better match to you.

If I apply the RP-2000 table to 100 males, currently age 67, I see that 33 are still alive 20 years later.
But, if I use the IAM 2012 cohort table, I get 60 still alive after 20 years.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 09:20 AM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by martyp View Post
First of all, when it comes to estimating and forecasting you can't get too hung up on exact numbers. In statistics there are error bars and ranges.

As a practical matter you can always do a sensitivity analysis by looking at the effects of using the highs and lows of a range. Often the results don't matter that much.

As you've stated, these statistics utilize are large population with a lot of characteristics. Unless you are the ideal average Joe then you should use the tables as a starting point and then modify your estimates according to your on specific situation. What's your family history on life expectancy; what is your current health status; how is your access to health care; etc. For example: if you parents died in their 60's; if you are an alcoholic with diabetes and you don't have any health insurance then you are probably going to die sooner than the tables indicate.

How you use life expectancy estimates depends on some informed guesswork and your comfort level with risk.
Yes, it's good to look at a range, not a single point. That was supposed to be the idea behind this post.

These tables don't come with 90% confidence intervals. But, you can look at different tables which reflect the experience of different groups, and get some feeling for the range.

The SS-2010 table includes some people who hit all four items on your list: "parents died in their 60's; alcoholic; diabetes; no health insurance".
OTOH, there's a good chance that even one of those would convince a prospect that he/she should not buy a private SPIA. So the IAM-2012 is more appropriate for people who can say "no" to all of them.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 09:26 AM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by W2R View Post
What a problem to wrestle with. And then, a lightbulb moment - - I will do my retirement planning right now assuming death at age 95, and then if/when I survive into my 80's, I'll RE-DO my planning using age 105 or so this time. I might even buy a lifetime fixed annuity to supplement SS and pension, because annuities would be really cheap at that age. That might take me to age 119 if necessary. At age 100-105, if my nestegg is suffering then I'll cut back a little more.
.
I'm like you. I hated to plan for the "maximum possible lifespan" coupled with "worst possible investment returns".

My spreadsheet had SPIA purchase rates. My initial plan included deferring SS. But my Plan B, to be used if we (or, more likely, my wife) reached an older age with diminishing assets, was to buy the SPIA.
That improved my success rates.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 09:28 AM   #13
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoguy View Post
(4) Deferring SS seems like a no brainer if you are concerned about longevity. Even though I don't like annuities, it may be a good option once you're old enough for mortality credits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by W2R View Post
[In my 80s'] I might even buy a lifetime fixed annuity to supplement SS and pension, because annuities would be really cheap at that age.
Yes, an immediate annuity might start to look like a good option when I get to be 80+.
-- Mortality credits= a much higher "withdrawal rate". This is a biggie.
-- I'll have a better idea of my/our physical condition and how long we're likely to hold up.
-- There's less chance the insurer will go bellly-up or that the industry as a whole will have a calamity in a 5-20 year window than if I buy now and they have to be around for 45 years.
-- Inflation: While getting a payout linked to inflation would still be important, it's not quite as important for a shorter window.

I doubt we'd ever annuitize our whole stash, but a baseline "can't outlive this" check to supplement SS and other monthly cash streams might be good if it can be bought at the right price and if the risk factors are low. Getting old helps make that possible.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 09:47 AM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoguy View Post
Some quick thoughts:

(1) Surely some researcher has come up with a quantile regression model that gives better results than period/cohort table conditioned only on sex.

(2) Does it matter? Are you planning to spend down your assets to zero? As Samclem notes with a traditional SWR approach living a few years more might not change your failure probability much. This may be different for other withdrawal methods though.

(3) You have a lot of time to change course during your retirement years. You can always adjust later.

(4) Deferring SS seems like a no brainer if you are concerned about longevity. Even though I don't like annuities, it may be a good option once you're old enough for mortality credits.
1) The RP-2014 report talks about regressing on certain things that pension plans know about - "collar", size of benefit, salary, and years since initial payment. It turned out that collar was the most predictive. That's why I included it here.
The Social Security actuaries have looked at mortality by size of PIA, but the only published note I know of is "above average vs. below average".
I'm sure there are mortality ratios for certain medical conditions (eg diabetes, high blood pressure) and even multiple factor analysis. I didn't go looking to see if I could find a complete mortality table that lent itself to this calculation.
There are online sources that purport to show life expectancy impacts of various items. NW Mutual Life has one, for example. But, I wanted more than life expectancy - I was looking for these 10% probabilities that we tend to use. (And, the sites that I've found didn't seem to document their work very well.)

2,3,4) Right, I didn't really know what the range would be until I started crunching numbers. For some purposes, it seems that I'd get to the same result whichever table I use. For example, given our SS situation and my conservative estimate of investment returns, it seems that deferring was the right choice for me, even with the SS-2010 table. I can imagine other situations where people would get different results.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 09:56 AM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Live And Learn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by W2R View Post
What a problem to wrestle with. And then, a lightbulb moment - - I will do my retirement planning right now assuming death at age 95, and then if/when I survive into my 80's, I'll RE-DO my planning using age 105 or so this time. I might even buy a lifetime fixed annuity to supplement SS and pension, because annuities would be really cheap at that age. That might take me to age 119 if necessary. At age 100-105, if my nestegg is suffering then I'll cut back a little more.
Such a smart lady ! My Plan B also includes purchasing a SPIA to cover the nearby CCRC's ALS monthly costs if it looks like I'll be depleting my funds sooner than hoped.


ETA: I found the 10% possibility of DH or I living to 102 a little eye opening.
__________________
"For the time being no discipline brings joy, but seems grievous and painful; but afterwards it yields a peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it." ~
Hebrews 12:11

ER'd in June 2015 at age 52. Initial WR 3%. 50/40/10 (Equity/Bond/Short Term) AA.
Live And Learn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 11:10 AM   #16
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Lsbcal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: west coast, hi there!
Posts: 5,686
Quote:
Originally Posted by W2R View Post

BTW, that median age of death for a woman now 66, is 86 according to SS. My mother lived to 98, but she lived a much healthier lifestyle than mine so I would think 98 would be a maximum for me, perhaps?
.
I'd like to think that I've been able to improve on my parents lifestyle -- good exercise, able to avoid workplace environmental factors that can affect health, better foods, etc. At 67, I'm close to their final ages.

I'm curious why you cannot achieve a healthier lifestyle then your mother W2R? If you don't want to get into the details, you have a free pass to ignore this question.
__________________
Lsbcal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 12:21 PM   #17
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
What gets me is that some people seem to be looking at a number like that and saying don't worry about planning for over 20 years (almost always wrt to taking SS). Do these people retire with a 67% success rate? I want 90+% success, and these tables all show that I better be well prepared to go well into the 90s.

Whether the way to do this is taking SS late for the bigger payment, or taking it early and investing the difference or getting it before it gets cut is a topic for the other thread. But the argument that most of us won't make it to 90 are meaningless to me, because what if I am in the 10% or so who do? Odds are against it being me, but some will, and it could be me.
+1. Like so many things that get debated into the ground, this issue has a simple "as good as any other" answer. And that is, unless you are on death's door, be conservative and assume a long life. No one will blame you if you are wrong and die young. The tables posted by OP are excellent, and IMO longer life tables are the best guides for almost all of us. If you want to see what the lower lifespan tables reflect, spend a few minutes in a big city Social Security office.


In my case, I don't plane on ever deliberately spending down my capital. If the nursing home grabs some, I will be unhappy, but in today's world that is always a risk.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 12:27 PM   #18
Administrator
W2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 38,890
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lsbcal View Post
I'd like to think that I've been able to improve on my parents lifestyle -- good exercise, able to avoid workplace environmental factors that can affect health, better foods, etc. At 67, I'm close to their final ages.

I'm curious why you cannot achieve a healthier lifestyle then your mother W2R? If you don't want to get into the details, you have a free pass to ignore this question.
Ah, if only! But I fear that ACHIEVING a healthier lifestyle at age 66, almost 67, may have a lot different implications than LIVING it every moment since birth. I can't go back to my childhood to do that. My mother was a college athlete and lived an exemplary life, her whole life.
__________________
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall be lost in its unshored, harbourless immensities.

- - H. Melville, 1851
W2R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 02:02 PM   #19
Moderator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky Inlets
Posts: 24,458
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
+1. Like so many things that get debated into the ground, this issue has a simple "as good as any other" answer. And that is, unless you are on death's door, be conservative and assume a long life. No one will blame you if you are wrong and die young. The tables posted by OP are excellent, and IMO longer life tables are the best guides for almost all of us.
+1

The joint table is especially sobering, showing that a married couple has a 10% likelihood of one spouse living beyond age 100.
__________________
MichaelB is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-25-2015, 02:11 PM   #20
Full time employment: Posting here.
Calico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 921
The majority of folks on my maternal side die/died relatively young (60's and 70's) but that is/was due largely to lifestyle choices (alcohol abuse, smoking, lack of exercise) and the resulting (very predictable) health issues. My mother died at 62.

On my father's side there is a combination of extreme longevity and excellent genes. Both paternal grandparents and many great-aunts and great-uncles lived to their late 90's, and one of my grandmother's sisters lived to age 105 - and she was the "baby" of the family!

I take after my father's side in terms of lifestyle choices, so my financial plan is based on me kicking the bucket at 95-100. If I happen to encounter said bucket earlier than that, then my nieces and nephews are in for a nice financial windfall in their mid-40's. I can live with that. Or in this case, die knowing that!
__________________

__________________
Calico is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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
longevity: influence the outcome perinova Health and Early Retirement 3 12-06-2006 10:13 PM
Longevity of a cedar fence mickeyd Other topics 8 08-03-2006 02:10 PM
Scott Burns -- Longevity Risk intercst FIRE and Money 12 01-09-2005 11:54 AM
longevity insurance ats5g FIRE and Money 17 02-06-2004 08:28 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:39 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.