Dtail
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
While it is easy to say because we are at 100%, I would be a-ok with 95%. If you look at the graph of lines at 95%, there are less than a handful of failures and the failures are all in the last few years of the projection period... one after 23, 24, 25 and 29 years, respectively..... and once you factor in the liklihood of living to the point of failure the likelihood of failure is infintesimal.
So if you retire at 60 with 95% success/5% failure with the first failure is at 23 years and the probability of a 60 year old living to 83 is 50%, then the real failure rate is more like 2.5% rather than 5%. Presumably if one was headed towards failure there are actions that they could take to avoid it... the smallest failure is negligible, then three that are $150-300k.
I agree in general.
What do you think of the following concept intertwined within your statement? (95% vs. 100%)
Since a 95% success rate translates to roughly 6 failures, wouldn't one want to feel like they can survive those worst 6 cases which would logically include the Great Depression, 1966, 1965, 1937, 1906 (from memory)?
Or would your above mentioned statement effectively strongly diminish this thought process?