Time Is on My Side.

[redduck]

Yes, it is (but perhaps in a perverse way).

Rolling Stone - Time is on my side - YouTube

If this link doesn't work, well...find your own Time Is on My Side link.

Anyhow, there is a current thread about favorite Rolling Stone songs. I always liked Time Is on My Side, but probably not a favorite--just kind of a favorite.

So, what does this have to do with Early Retirement and Fire and Money? A whole lot--or maybe not so much.

It seems that I've become rather confused about continuing to work (as per financial questions, such as taxes) which leads me to believe/wonder/hope/wish/pray that perhaps it will be easier to understand if I am financially set to retire.

Here is some information: (ERD50, if you need more information, just ask).

I will be 70 1/2 next year (here's where Time Is On My Side,). Being as old as I am I will have less time to deplete my nest egg (those of you who are consumed with jealousy right about now won't be invited to my retirement party. Well, if you promise to bring a cheese cake, you can come. No use for ME to be petty). ((I think I jumped the track)).

More info: I will still be 70 1/2 next year. I have $1.3 MM and some change. It's split about 50/50 stocks/bonds (except for the change). I receive $26,000 annually in Social Security. No debt, no mortgage. I'd like to buy $80,000 a year worth of stuff. However, let's include taxes in that $80,000 so the gov't. can also buy stuff.

FIRECalc says, "You go, girl." But that makes me a bit uneasy. It's like it really wasn't paying close attention to who I am.

Will some please tell me what FIRECalc says to you about me? Let's keep it about my financial ability to retire.

 

[NW-Bound]

Here's what I inputted to FIRECalc: $1.3MM split 50% stock, 50% long interest rate, with an SS income of $26K/yr. You are going to spend $80K/yr, which means the draw from the portfolio is starting out at $80K-$26K = $54K. That's 4.2% withdrawal rate, and FIRECalc says you will draw more than $54K in future years to keep up with the Jones, er, inflation.

The 4.2% initial withdrawal would be considered high, if you were a whippersnapper early retiree. However, you are a geezer with Time on Your Side, so it could be safe.

FIRECalc says that in the past, there have been times when someone with the above means went broke after as short as 23 years.

Assuming there will not be new precedent of economic calamities set in the coming years, you will only be broke if you live till 70.5+23 = 93.5 year old.

That seems pretty old to me, but then I have never expected to live that long. And that was when I was really healthy with no "pre-existing conditions" that now will cause insurance companies to run off screaming. Time is not on my personal side!

And about this song by the Rolling Stone, I have never heard of it (I have not listened to even one song by this band, though I know about them). So, I listened to it, but could not make out the lyrics. I will need to search for that on the Web.

PS. Yes, I found the lyrics. It says that given enough time, the song writer's girl will come back to him. Whether or not that's too optimistic, I would not know. But if the song writer was like this band, he would be surrounded by enough girls he would not miss his former girlfriend.

PPS. I knew several songs by the Beatles, but not a single one by Rolling Stone. I do not know why. Well, perhaps I might know a few songs by the latter, but without recognizing and giving them credit.


Rolling Stone - Time is on my side - YouTube

 

[redduck]

Here's what I inputted to FIRECalc: $1.3MM split 50% stock, 50% long interest rate, with an SS income of $26K/yr. You are going to spend $80K/yr, which means the draw from the portfolio is starting out at $80K-$26K = $54K. That's 4.2% withdrawal rate, and FIRECalc says you will draw more than $54K in future years to keep up with the Jones, er, inflation.

FIRECalc says that in the past, there have been times when someone with the above means went broke after as short as 23 years.

Assuming there will not be new precedent of economic calamities set in the coming years, you will only be broke if you live till 70.5+23 = 93.5 year old.

That seems pretty old to me, but then I have never expected to live that long. And that was when I was really healthy with no "pre-existing conditions" that now will cause insurance companies to run off screaming. Time is not on my personal side!

And about this song by the Rolling Stone, I have never heard of it (I have not listened to even one song by this band, though I know about them). So, I listened to it, but could not make out what the lyrics were. I will need to search for that on the Web.

Rolling Stone - Time is on my side - YouTube

OK, I will give you a clue: Time Is on My Side is part of the lyrics (lyric)?
And, I promise not to live to 93 1/2. Wow, living that long would really disappoint my children. They are angry with me enough already.

 

[2B]

OK, I will give you a clue: Time Is on My Side is part of the lyrics (lyric)?
And, I promise not to live to 93 1/2. Wow, living that long would really disappoint my children. They are angry with me enough already.

You need to plan on living long enough to be a burden to them. Be sure you let them know that is your plan.

The key to any strategy is to be able to adapt. Everything swings on the $80,000 pretax withdrawal rate. If your returns increase, you can find ways to spend the surplus. If returns wither, you can economize. At 70 1/2 it isn't as big a factor for you as others but FireCalc has an option to plot out your spending as you age. Bernicke has a paper that describes how retirees naturally spend less as they age even if they have the money available.

There is a tendency on this forum to want 95+% certainty for an event that may only have a 30% (or less) probablility of happening. Most (but not all) of us will die before age 90.

 

[Sarah in SC]

I think anyone with your awesome sense of humor should be allowed to live until at least 123. And I felt the need to post that, despite your request to only comment on your financial ability to retire.

 

[ERD50]

... Most (but not all) of us will die before age 90.

The Vanguard LE calculator says a 60 YO couple has a 44% chance of one of them living past 90. So OK, 56% is 'most', but I can't see not trying to account for something with a 44% of occurring.

-ERD50

 

[2B]

The Vanguard LE calculator says a 60 YO couple has a 44% chance of one of them living past 90. So OK, 56% is 'most', but I can't see not trying to account for something with a 44% of occurring.

-ERD50

The OP has not said anything that implies that there is a "couple."

A 60 YO woman has a 31% of living to 90. The OP is about 70 and has a 34% of living to 90 (20 years) but only a 4% chance of living to 100 (30 years). There's no reason not to consider the possiblility of living that long but it seems silly to have lower probability situations drive a retirement plan for a 70 YO.

 

[ERD50]

The OP has not said anything that implies that there is a "couple."

A 60 YO woman has a 31% of living to 90. The OP is about 70 and has a 34% of living to 90 (20 years) but only a 4% chance of living to 100 (30 years). There's no reason not to consider the possiblility of living that long but it seems silly to have lower probability situations drive a retirement plan for a 70 YO.

I think that in other threads he has referred to a "Mrs Redduck" (not formally married, but still a devoted couple, IIRC).

But yes, at 70 YO (with or w/o a 'couple') things change a bit from a more typical "ER". But I was responding to this comment from you:

There is a tendency on this forum to want 95+% certainty for an event that may only have a 30% (or less) probablility of happening. Most (but not all) of us will die before age 90.

which I thought was more general, not specific to a 70 YO. No big deal, just trying to clarify.


-ERD50

 

[redduck]

Below is from another thread. However, maybe it will help clarify the redduck situation for both 2B and ERD50 and for redduck as well. Anyhow, both 2 and 50 (if I can be casual here) are correct. We (Not-Really-Mrs. redduck (thanks to Bestwifeever and I haven't forgotten that I still owe you a book review dedication) are not formally married, but I have become much more devoted in the relationship since 50 suggested that Not-Really-Mrs. redduck could spend an extra $3000-4000 a year.

Questions:

Is that pension COLA'd?
How safe is that pension?
Is she happy with ~ $36-37K spending? Would she like to spend more, or any big recurring expenses to consider? If a new car in 10 years might cost $20K, that's $2K/year to set aside, etc...

If the pension is COLA'd, and let's just bump the spend up to $40,000 for round numbers, she only needs ~ $8K after pension/SS. Total accounts ~ $630K, that's just 1.3% WR. Just about any AA can handle that WR. The divs on that VTINX are 1.68%. That alone just about gets her there.
<snip>

-ERD50

 

[redduck]

I think anyone with your awesome sense of humor should be allowed to live until at least 123. And I felt the need to post that, despite your request to only comment on your financial ability to retire.

Thank you, Sarah. I've printed out your post and put it in my wallet-- just in case I have the need to use it before I hit 123. But, I'm not exactly sure whom I'm supposed to show it to.

 

[bmcgonig]

There is a tendency on this forum to want 95+% certainty for an event that may only have a 30% (or less) probablility of happening. Most (but not all) of us will die before age 90.

I have that tendency. It's sorta like Bernstein's deep risk. As a somewhat outthere analogy : If there a 35% chance of me being killed crossing a particular street then I want to plan the crossing when/where I have a 95% of successfully doing that. If the event that you speak of is a total disaster then it's ok to want much greater certainty in order to avoid that event methinks.

 

[Sarah in SC]

Thank you, Sarah. I've printed out your post and put it in my wallet-- just in case I have the need to use it before I hit 123. But, I'm not exactly sure whom I'm supposed to show it to.

The grim reaper, should he come a calling before then, don't ya know?