Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Need a Longer Plan? Living to 100?
Old 04-19-2019, 09:55 AM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 261
Need a Longer Plan? Living to 100?

“You have to worry about getting unlucky and living to 100,” said Richard Thaler, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, during a Brookings Institution event Thursday."

"How long you’ll live and how much money you’ll need in retirement are unknown, he noted. “There’s nothing like ‘age 65,’” Thaler said. “You may know when you retire that you are in poor health and cash out and live it up, but no one knows that they are a high risk to live to 100.”

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/no...100-2019-04-18?
__________________

Tekward 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 04-19-2019, 10:10 AM   #2
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 733
Every retirement calculator I run, I put in for age 100 (or 99 if some don't allow for 100).
__________________

__________________
Give me a fish, I will eat for a day. Teach me to fish, I will eat for a lifetime.
pacergal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 10:15 AM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 20,946
The good news is, if you conservatively plan for a 40 year span (ER @ 60, plan for age 100), you are likely good "forever". It's pretty much a diminishing returns thing, and the calculators seem to level off at that point, and the portfolio will withstand the draw-downs "forever".

-ERD50
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 10:17 AM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 2,230
RIP will go higher. I've tested up the the end of RMDs (115)

The real wild card... how long should you plan for and how much will be left on the table.

I think most of us plan beyond the mean life expectancy, but not up to 99.9%.
bingybear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 10:24 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
flintnational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta Suburb
Posts: 1,230
A 60 yo woman has about a 3.9% probability of making it to 100. If she has a 25% chance her money will not last (75% success rate to 100), she only has a .975% chance of both reaching 100 and being broke (3.9% x 25% = .975%)

ETA: Corrected error in original post.
__________________
"Oh, twice as much ain't twice as good
And can't sustain like one half could
It's wanting more that's gonna send me to my knees" - John Mayer
flintnational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 10:38 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintnational View Post
A 60 yo woman has about a 2% probability of making it to 100. If she has a 25% chance her money will not last (75% success rate to 100), she only has a .5% chance of both reaching 100 and being broke (2% x 25% = .5%)
Where do you see 2% ?
The chart seems to indicate that the correct number is 3.9%

And of course that is just for the average woman. Women of means will have a higher percentage of survivors at every age.

If you are trying to concoct a number to justify not bothering to be prepared financially for a long life, then you can certainly do it. But remember that none of these numbers are actuals, that they are averages or estimates, and that multiplying these numbers makes accuracy even less likely.

My planning goes to age 100. I don't want my wife or I to run out of money and have to depend on others. I'd rather do that than depend on dying before 100.
__________________
Old enough to know better.
joeea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 10:57 AM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
flintnational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta Suburb
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeea View Post
Where do you see 2% ?
The chart seems to indicate that the correct number is 3.9%
You are correct. My vision missed it. I will correct my post to reflect. 3.9%. Thanks.
__________________
"Oh, twice as much ain't twice as good
And can't sustain like one half could
It's wanting more that's gonna send me to my knees" - John Mayer
flintnational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 11:02 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,346
I beleive it is something that may need to be planned for (100 yo) but that is something I'm not even concerned about. If I run out then I do, but I doubt it will ever happen.
street is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 11:05 AM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 3,436
Current plans only go to 92 y.o. Will tweak it along the way if living status appears to warrant as such.
__________________
TGIM
Dtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 11:07 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GravitySucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Syracuse
Posts: 1,914
Last year I spent a month in Myrtle and there was a very healthy active 90 year old man I played mini golf with three days a week. He lived well. Golf once a month, lunch out once a week, dinner out once a week, 10 year old Lexus with low miles.
He said he gets a small pension and SS but lives on less than the SS and gifts his young (60s) daughter the rest to help them out.
Pretty sure I'll be fine with just SS at 99, or will be unable to tell if I am. Hope I can convince myself to blow the dough in my 60s and early 70s instead.
__________________
“No, not rich. I am a poor man with money, which is not the same thing"
GravitySucks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 11:13 AM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by street View Post
I beleive it is something that may need to be planned for (100 yo) but that is something I'm not even concerned about. If I run out I do but I doubt it will ever happen.
So you have concluded that you don't really need to plan for it. I guess "if I run out I do" is a plan.
__________________
Old enough to know better.
joeea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 11:14 AM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dtail View Post
Current plans only go to 92 y.o. Will tweak it along the way if living status appears to warrant as such.
Interesting. How did you decide on 92? Seems like an odd ending point. How old are you now?
__________________
Old enough to know better.
joeea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 11:16 AM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
flintnational's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Atlanta Suburb
Posts: 1,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeea View Post
If you are trying to concoct a number to justify not bothering to be prepared financially for a long life, then you can certainly do it. But remember that none of these numbers are actuals, that they are averages or estimates, and that multiplying these numbers makes accuracy even less likely.
Not sure if "concoct" was directed at me. In this case, we are concerned about the probability of two events simultaneously happening, living to 100 and funds being exhausted. So, the correct way to calculate the numerical risk is to multiply the individual probabilities. I don't think I made any recommendations or gave any advice on what to do with the resulting number. I simply posted the math. Use as you deem appropriate.
__________________
"Oh, twice as much ain't twice as good
And can't sustain like one half could
It's wanting more that's gonna send me to my knees" - John Mayer
flintnational is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 11:28 AM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 2,274
I plan my retirement out to the age of 100, using FireCalc. However, I'm only 49, so that's just limiting me to historical 51 year time periods, the most recent of which would be 1967-2018, I guess?


So, just for a sanity check, I'll run it for a few shorter time periods as well, just to see if there are any more recent scenarios that might have crashed. I think one recent scenario, that I would have had trouble recovering from, would be if I retired in 1999. I got hit kinda hard in the 2000-2002 timeframe, and then in 2008 I lost about 50% from peak to trough. I got through it just fine, because I was still working. But, if I was retired and had to draw on that money, it would have been dicey.
Andre1969 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 12:20 PM   #15
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 3,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeea View Post
Interesting. How did you decide on 92? Seems like an odd ending point. How old are you now?
59 male/58 female.
Some of the standard calculators use 92 as a reference point. She is on disability due to back issues, but otherwise okay. I am reasonably healthy.

Was thinking a bit of playing around with 95 y.o.
__________________
TGIM
Dtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 04:37 PM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeea View Post
So you have concluded that you don't really need to plan for it. I guess "if I run out I do" is a plan.
Exactly
street is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 04:54 PM   #17
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Teacher Terry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,356
My mom loved to travel but quit around 84 but it was too exhausted. She had a small pension and SS and she did everything she wanted to do on a weekly basis. She outlived her money but she was fine. Us kids would have paid for a vacation with us but she was done by then. Her nice lifestyle stayed the same until she died 5 years later.
Teacher Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 05:06 PM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry View Post
My mom loved to travel but quit around 84 but it was too exhausted. She had a small pension and SS and she did everything she wanted to do on a weekly basis. She outlived her money but she was fine. Us kids would have paid for a vacation with us but she was done by then. Her nice lifestyle stayed the same until she died 5 years later.
Could you please elaborate on "She outlived her money but she was fine" does this mean she was fine on a reduced income after she ran out of saved investment money other than SS and the small pension or perhaps you and or others in the family contributed to her support?
ejman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 05:15 PM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Teacher Terry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 3,356
Once her savings was gone she could pay all her bills and still had money for fun stuff every week. She could pay for car repairs, medical co-pays etc on her small pension and SS. None of us had to help her. By that time she didn’t want to travel. Too much of a hassle.
Teacher Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2019, 05:32 PM   #20
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 6,217
Our plan is to live off <= (SS + pensions + TIPS interest (or equivalent)) so per our spreadsheets and cross checked with the Fidelity planner we should have about the same net worth whatever age we live to as we have today. Not all the pension money is inflation indexed, but we have a fixed rate mortgage now that will be paid off eventually so our fixed expenses will decrease once that is paid off.
__________________

__________________
Even clouds seem bright and breezy, 'Cause the livin' is free and easy, See the rat race in a new way, Like you're wakin' up to a new day (Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether lyrics, Alan Parsons Project, based on an EA Poe story)
daylatedollarshort is online now   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
Yesterday market down a 100, now up a 100 Blue Collar Guy Stock Picking and Market Strategy 35 07-01-2017 08:05 PM
Living longer d0ug Health and Early Retirement 14 03-23-2016 05:54 PM
Old ACA plan no longer compatible HSA. teejayevans Health and Early Retirement 5 12-04-2015 08:45 AM
Living longer decreases probability of success? Racer X FIRECalc support 5 05-27-2015 06:03 PM
Olga's secrets on living longer....... Dawg52 Health and Early Retirement 11 12-31-2013 06:15 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:21 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.