Should I have Quit? Is it too late for a sanity check?

[pixelville]

Somewhat similar situation to OP and cardude. ER in early 40s. No kids.
My advice -
As dtbach put it, make hay while the sun shines.
If you are burnt out, take a break for a few months. Consult or work part-time. Figure out what you want to do in life.
Your friends/social circle get limited when ER very early.
Health Insurance can be a big factor in the long-term (keeping fingers crossed for Obamacare). We saw ~50% increase in 2 years!
Moving insurance across states after you have you had any claims/pre-existing can be a challenge.
Watching the market & your spending on a "fixed income" stops becoming fun after a few years, when you realize you have do it for another 40-50 years. We want to experience a lot of different things and we were holding back.
After a 5 year experiment in ER (which was enjoyable & relaxing), we will probably get back to work for a few years for a variety of reasons, incl those mentioned above.
Of course, YMMV

[Fermion]

Can we get a few responses from people who had 2 mil at age 42, didn't retire, and died at age 50 of heart disease? Would like their input as to if one should always make hay while the sun shines...

[FinanceDude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Can we get a few responses from people who had 2 mil at age 42, didn't retire, and died at age 50 of heart disease? Would like their input as to if one should always make hay while the sun shines...

How could they post about it if they are dead?

[noone]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude How could they post about it if they are dead?

Noone believes you missed the point...

[eytonxav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha I think the main thing this is in short supply on the board is negativity. I do what I can to remedy this, but I can be classified as a crank. So keep you ideas flowing; they come from experience and the realism that comes out of that. It is very easy for humans to confuse infrequent with impossible. They are different things. Ha

+1, my portfolio assets are quite a bit greater than OPs, fully paid for house (~$500K), mega corp subsidized healthcare, max ss for me, DW has small pension at 65. Right now I'm 63 and DW is 58 (both retiring in next several months) That said, as a point of reference, I'm still nervous about the future, as I don't want to end up penny pinching.

[MichaelB]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICNTR Don't let this post keep anyone from providing other insights. I am very open minded and appreciate everyones time and input. I'll send out resumes tomorrow if convinced that it is appropriate.

What would you gain by working a few more years? If you are comfortable with your finances, ready to use all your newly found free time in other ways, and your spouse is committed to the same objectives, what else matters?

[Fermion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW_M5 +1, my portfolio assets are quite a bit greater than OPs, fully paid for house (~$500K), mega corp subsidized healthcare, max ss for me, DW has small pension at 65. Right now I'm 63 and DW is 58 (both retiring in next several months) That said, as a point of reference, I'm still nervous about the future, as I don't want to end up penny pinching.

my god, what do you people do? bath in dom perignon?

paid house, paid healthcare, max ss, pension, more than 2 mil in assets....worried about pennies

you could put your whole portfolio in a TIPS ladder and take a cruise every month and never run out of money with those assets and income sources.

[eytonxav]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion my god, what do you people do? bath in don perignon? paid house, paid healthcare, max ss, pension, more than 2 mil in assets....worried about pennies you could put your whole portfolio in a TIPS ladder and take a cruise every month and never run out of money with those assets and income sources.

Far from that, but living reasonably well for another 30+ years, and leaving a legacy for the kids, in world we have today vs what I see in the rear view mirror, is not a slam dunk certainty. Sure I'm conservative, and quite far from some of the risk takers on this site.

[gauss]

ICNTR,

Several posters have been concerned about unknown events in the future.

You say you don't want to plan on needing SS and it has been left out of the discussion, but have you analyzed the value you and your wife have accrued under current law?

I am in my upper 40s and DW and I have both been working MegaCorp jobs for between 20 and 25 years. At this point, our accrued SS is worth almost $1M each (this assumes that we delay taking payments until age 70 and live to 102).

Even if I discount this by a 1/3 to account for any "reforms", that is still over $1.2M combined.

If your are in a similar situation then mine, this could make a significant difference in the survivability of your portfolio due to uncertainty.

-gauss

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude How could they post about it if they are dead?

Survivorship bias is a bitch!

[Fermion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DFW_M5 Far from that, but living reasonably well for another 30+ years, and leaving a legacy for the kids, in world we have today vs what I see in the rear view mirror, is not a slam dunk certainty. Sure I'm conservative, and quite far from some of the risk takers on this site.

Ah, ok, you have kids. We don't, but if I did, my attitude would be "here is a paid education, now go make your own money, I am spending mine"

[FUEGO]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ICNTR I understand the unknowns about Healthcare, Politics, US Deficit/Economy, and my 58 year retirement projection. All legitimate concerns. However, I came to realization that these were out of my control and they were likely to not become any more certain within the foreseeable future. There will simply always be some unknown or "what if" that will be hanging out there. I suspect none of us would ever retire if we waited for certainty. I guess I was just comfortable with the "worst case scenario" of the fact that maybe I will someday have to go back to w*rk! I am ok with that because the other side of the coin is that nobody is guaranteed tomorrow. We only have today and I feel like I've spent enough todays working for someone else. I am now ready to spend whatever time I have left learning what else this world has to offer.

You probably have a 5-10% chance that you will be dead or the world will have gone to $hit in the next 20 years regardless of how much money you have. Sure, you could keep working and have more money, but would that do anything to prevent you dying or the world going to $hit? No. There is always that 5-10% chance that life will not turn out optimally regardless of the amount of money you have.

I think you have summarized the risks and identified the worst case scenario in the paragraph I quoted. I have come to the same realization. Some things I just can't control. But I can always hustle for some cash at a job or in self employment in business for myself. You may never get your old job back or your old salary, maybe not even a job in your former field or a job you like. But you can always go back to working. In contrast, in 20 years you can't rewind and "unwork" to previous 20 years to get back time to spend with your wife, or pursue hobbies you have postponed, or travel, or sit back and contemplate things.

And if you find yourself worrying too much in a few years, or feeling constrained financially, pick up some work and make some more money! You obviously have enough valuable skills to make some serious cash the last ~20 years of your life, plus the valuable skills of not spending it all and instead investing it in a profitable manner, plus the added value of a wife who doesn't spend it all and can earn money as well.

You have identified the worst case scenario and it isn't that bad. Certainly having to go back to work in the future isn't any worse than continuing to work now and doing that year after year for "just one more year".

[FIREd]

Over the last couple of weeks, several very early retirees on this board have expressed regrets over their decision to quit the rat race in their 30s or 40s.

This is quite alarming for me (retired at 36) so it may be wise to question your decision.

[BigE]

I for one appreciate the healthy dialogue to include personal experience and anecdotes. My significant other has previously inquired as to the bias this site (which I reference frequently) might have toward "damn the torpedoes" early retirement is all good all the time for everyone, and this discussion has been very enlightening on the pros and cons of jumping ship in the early 40's, no kids category. I would have to agree with many other posters that the longevity risks really come into play here. While it is true that the original poster could be struck down by satellite debris or have a heart attack tomorrow, these risks are low. Most working persons in their 40s are in a job that is not easily replaceable. I'm not kidding myself, once I leave, there's a slim chance I could ever get anywhere near the income level I am at now. Thanks again for a good topic.

[FUEGO]

A 42 year old male has an 87% chance* of living till age 62 or older. Or in other words a 13% chance of dying before age 62 (ie within 20 years from now). Pretty steep failure rate.

13% chance of being dead within 20 years or 2-3% chance of having a portfolio shortfall if we see worse market conditions than we have ever seen in the last 100+ years? If you are dead, it means you are dead. Portfolio failure means you have to either spend less or get a job.


*for a male, the annual mortality rate is 0.30% at age 43, increasing to 1.33% annually at age 62. Cumulative probability of not dying for 20 years = 87%. Don't smoke and maintain a healthy weight, diet, and exercise and bump that % up a few points. Keep commuting to work by car and bump it right back down a percent or two.

[Fermion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigE Most working persons in their 40s are in a job that is not easily replaceable. I'm not kidding myself, once I leave, there's a slim chance I could ever get anywhere near the income level I am at now. Thanks again for a good topic.

If someone could give me a bond that guaranteed I could have enjoyable, energetic, healthy years from age 60 to 80, I would have no problem working until 59.

[Fermion]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO If you are dead, it means you are dead. Portfolio failure means you have to either spend less or get a job.

Best point of the thread!

If you are dead, you are going to have a really hard time enjoying life.

If you are alive and run out of money, there are options.

[truenorth418]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fermion Can we get a few responses from people who had 2 mil at age 42, didn't retire, and died at age 50 of heart disease? Would like their input as to if one should always make hay while the sun shines...

+1

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelB What would you gain by working a few more years? If you are comfortable with your finances, ready to use all your newly found free time in other ways, and your spouse is committed to the same objectives, what else matters?

Subsequent reality, perhaps? Events turn on realities, not perceptions thereof.

Ha

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FUEGO A 42 year old male has an 87% chance* of living till age 62 or older. Or in other words a 13% chance of dying before age 62 (ie within 20 years from now). Pretty steep failure rate.

But this really has nothing to do with it. Retiring will not extend life, or likely, cut it short. If you die, you die. Is your current way of going about living so bad that it is not considered life? Is emptying septic hoses while touring around the country a totally different realm of existence from going to the office, having colleagues, having lunch with work friends?

Judging from my own life, I was burned out. But I believe changes within the world of work might have worked as well or better than quitting- and I have had a pretty successful retirement of~25 years. It certainly would have been financially better and with greater scope for changing course.

My idea is do whatever you will, whoever you are, however much money you have and whatever your responsibilities are. That is what people will almost always do.

But the board is biased. How often has someone said, "this is an early retirement board after all". To me, this is a warning- don't go to a surgeon if you want advice to wait, and don't go to an early retirement board if you want advice regarding the desirability of retiring early. Most of us have crossed that bridge, and time has burned it behind us. Commonly, divorced people recommend divorce, people with kids recommend having kids, religious people recommend church-I think we all know about this. I just had the funny experience of googling "León, Nicaragua". A piece by Catherine or Kathleen Peddicord popped up. She definitely recommended retiring to León. Cheap, very safe, blah, blah. The very next article was from an Australian consular travel advisory "Exercise a High Degree of Caution".

Now let me see, who is likely to be more biased, a woman who works for a newsletter with many RE affiliates in lots of third world places, or an agency of the Australian government?

Ha