Hi! ...I am stressed to pull the trigger

[kgtest]

Just a fun fact... I googled "how many people live to 100"

The actual number reported in the 2010 census was less than half that amount at exactly 53,364 people. What happened to all the centenarians? The population of the United States in 2010 was approximately 309 million. Thus, today only 0.0173% of Americans live to 100.

 

[Bigdawg]

Agree or disagree but the OP spends money in a way that says they should not be asking questions on a forum like this.Just my humble opinion

+1

 

[Go-NoGo]

Just a fun fact... I googled "how many people live to 100"

The actual number reported in the 2010 census was less than half that amount at exactly 53,364 people. What happened to all the centenarians? The population of the United States in 2010 was approximately 309 million. Thus, today only 0.0173% of Americans live to 100.

That's not quite correct. What you have calculated is the ratio of people who are 100+ to the entire population, which is not the probability of living to 100.

The odds are much better than that.
Try this calculator at the UK office of National statistics:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ylifeexpectancyandhowmightitchange/2017-12-01

if you are Male and 55 years old, the odds of you living to 100 are 6.3%

 

[dirtbiker]

After reassessing the post here I will say the OP is someone who is clueless about money in terms of spending.The bills that are listed are ridiculous to how a normal person spends money.No concern here and if the OP is actually real I would say read a couple books about spending and saving.Right now you are a 1 percent poster child.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. He's saved over $5 million while still in his 50s. Whether you, almighty, deem his bills to be ridiculous or not, he has saved enough to support his estimated (maybe current?) spending. When I retire, I only hope that I can afford to spend more than "how a normal person spends money." Who wants to spend a normal amount of money in retirement? Really. I definitely want to be in a position to spend an abnormal amount of money in retirement, which it appears the OP is able to do.

 

[ncbill]

After reassessing the post here I will say the OP is someone who is clueless about money in terms of spending.The bills that are listed are ridiculous to how a normal person spends money.No concern here and if the OP is actually real I would say read a couple books about spending and saving.Right now you are a 1 percent poster child.

Doesn't seem out of line with high income posters (doctor, lawyer, etc.) over on bogleheads forums...over there there are plenty of posters claiming household incomes $300k-$500k...and their expenses are high as well.

With ~$6 million saved spending $160,000/year after-tax should be fine, even if most here at ER.org would never spend that much.

 

[Vacation4us]

I thought this was the early retirement forum. Open to everyone. Not the Lean Fire Retirement Forum.

The OP may be a one time poster, troll, or whatever but what’s sad is that clearly some on this forum don’t play well in the sandbox with children who have more toys than they do.

To amass 5.7 million the OP obviously saved and LBYM.

 

[Dtail]

I thought this was the early retirement forum. Open to everyone. Not the Lean Fire Retirement Forum.

The OP may be a one time poster, troll, or whatever but what’s sad is that clearly some on this forum don’t play well in the sandbox with children who have more toys than they do.

To amass 5.7 million the OP obviously saved and LBYM.

+1
Not rampant, but sometimes there can be an underlying jealousy of sorts of larger expense spending.
There are at least a few 10mm+ NW folks on this site who don't post frequently.
If we had ~6mm plus 2 SS checks, I could see budgeting and yes spending 200k.

 

[gwraigty]

I thought this was the early retirement forum. Open to everyone. Not the Lean Fire Retirement Forum.

The OP may be a one time poster, troll, or whatever but what’s sad is that clearly some on this forum don’t play well in the sandbox with children who have more toys than they do.

To amass 5.7 million the OP obviously saved and LBYM.

I don't have a problem with someone having more than us. I do have a problem with someone wasting my time. I was the first to respond to OP. My post was sincere. I spent some time on it. At that point, I wasn't thinking the OP was messing with anyone. I only seriously considered that to be the case after others mentioned the possibility, and I saw that OP hasn't checked back in since 10 mins. after starting this topic.

 

[Franklin]

+1
Not rampant, but sometimes there can be an underlying jealousy of sorts of larger expense spending.
There are at least a few 10mm+ NW folks on this site who don't post frequently.
If we had ~6mm plus 2 SS checks, I could see budgeting and yes spending 200k.

+1 as well. Ive been spending more than OP but routinely keep an eye on my investments verses spend rate. I got grief from many posters over my spending and called out as a troll as well. I think OP should feel very good about his accumulation of assets and his budget (while maybe high to some) can support his retirement. OP knows he has enough but just needs encouragement (I needed the same 2 years ago even though I knew I had the $ and tools to make it work). Enjoy your well earned retirement!

 

[pb4uski]

That's not quite correct. What you have calculated is the ratio of people who are 100+ to the entire population, which is not the probability of living to 100.

The odds are much better than that.
Try this calculator at the UK office of National statistics:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ylifeexpectancyandhowmightitchange/2017-12-01

if you are Male and 55 years old, the odds of you living to 100 are 6.3%

Last part is consistent with this calculator: https://www.longevityillustrator.org/

 

[Mdlerth]

Maybe there's some non-statistical talisman issued to newborns in Britain

Try this calculator at the UK office of National statistics:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ylifeexpectancyandhowmightitchange/2017-12-01

if you are Male and 55 years old, the odds of you living to 100 are 6.3%

I think the UK calculator has a gremlin in it. The higher the "current" age you enter, the lower it computes your odds of living to 100.

That doesn't make sense. Your odds of hitting 100 should get higher as you age, not lower.

Every year you stay this side of the dirt, the more shorter-lived people get weeded out of your birth cohort. The remainder, including you, constitute a subset which not only will have a higher average but also contain an upper tail of the distribution (those reaching 100 or more) which represents a higher fraction of the remaining population.

IOW, say 30 out of 1000 of your birth cohort will make it to 100. That's 3%. Those 30 individuals fated to hit the century mark are still alive when you hit 80, but by then half of the original class is already in the cemetery. Therefore, 30 of the remaining 500 will make it to triple digits; that's now 6%.

Survey the class again eight years later when the class has been further halved. All 30 of the future centenarians are still alive, along with 220 who won't make it all the way; 30 out of 250 is now 12%.

 

[Go-NoGo]

I think the UK calculator has a gremlin in it. The higher the "current" age you enter, the lower it computes your odds of living to 100.

That doesn't make sense. Your odds of hitting 100 should get higher as you age, not lower.

I noticed that as well, so when I run the numbers for a couple of age groups:

20 year old male: 87 avg life expectancy, 15.8% chance of reaching 100
40 year old male: 86 avg life expectancy, 9.7% chance of reaching 100
60 year old male: 85 avg life expectancy, 5.4% chance of reaching 100

My guess (and this is only a guess) is that it is modelling for increased life expectancy based on future advances in medical technology and this would benefit the younger cohorts more as they have a greater exposure to it throughout their lifespan.

Or it could be a bug.

edit: interestingly enough for a 100 year old male:
100 year old male: 102 avg life expectancy, 100% chance of reaching 100
- so it gets this edge case correct

 

[wazoomann]

Congrats on saving that amount of $$ - you live a very, very nice lifestyle. I could retire on one tenth that LOL. You have a lot of room to reduce expenses and I wouldn't worry so much. Enjoy! Plus...you can always do some part time consulting if you need $ or get bored in retirement.

 

[Flotuspa]

Hi, new member here. This post and the replies caught my attention.
As a professional living in a suburb of a big city in a middle of the road (no mansion) but comfortable home and (like in our case) 2 teens still at home, those expenses do not seem out of line. Everybody has a different view of what a comfortable retirement is. For me, it means not compromising my current standard of living and our expenses are in the same ball park of the original poster's.
My Mom is in her 90's and is frail but healthy and my grand-mother lived until 99. So, with those genes, I have to plan for a long and hopefully mostly healthy life.
My advice would be to go for it and enjoy life. You worked hard and now's the time to enjoy life a little. If you are stressed about $$, consult for the first few years at your leisure. This will ease you into your new routine and cover your discretionary expenses which will serve mostly to put your mind at ease.. Life is too short.

 

[StuckinCT]

I am coming out sort of speak. I have followed so many of you on this forum and have read many informative threads. Seeking input to give us confidence to make the move. We have been lucky as hell but feel the time is up. Turning 58 and DW is 54 who retired last year. DW and I have been working since our teens and have been fortunate to always be employed by megacorps and avoided layoffs multiple times over 35 years. Sheer luck. Lived well but no big house compared to neighborhood outside of DC and thus saved a considerable portion of income over the years and invested like clock work from the age of 20. Never worried about money until I started to think about pulling the plug and DW and I are stressed out with decision to cut off income stream. We have no sources of income to come other than SS so what we have in investments has to feed us. Job is killing me , lost confidence in megacorp mgmt and want to leave by spring 2020. DW has good genes and will live to 100 and is worried about having enough to carry her for 45 year retirement horizon. I might be good till mid eighties based on family history.


Projected Expenses In Retirement

House
Insurance $1600
Taxes $7000
Electricity and Gas $3800
Sewer $900
Trash $1000
Water $900
Cable/internet $2400
Cell $2400
House cleaning $3600
House maintenance $4200

Food /Restaurants
Groceries /Liquor $9600
Dining Out $10800

Car Expenses
Gas for 2 cars $7,560
Insurance for 2 cars $4,728
Car maintenance $4,200
Car fund to replace one car every five years $9,600


Health Expenses
Health and dental insurance for family $6600
Out of pocket( copays and contacts and rxs) $4000
Liability insurance (umbrella) $1600

Entertainment /Travel /Pet
Entertainment (movies, Netflix, concerts ,lessons ) $4800
Fitness memberships $4800
Vacation $30000
Pet costs ( vet, food boarding) $3000

Other discretionary expenses
Dry cleaning $1000
Hair/nails/grooming $ 2000
Clothing $6000
Gifts /charity $ 17000


Total Year Budget= $160,000 ( after tax expenses)



Healthcare insurance costs between now and 65 are being subsidized ( 6600 cost to us ) from retirement package. At 65 and then receive subsidy of 3K per year for medicare coverage. Not sure what that will cost for 2 and keeping my daughter insured until she finishes 4 year college in 2028.


Nest Egg
DH IRA $1.1M
DH Lump Sum Pension rollover $1.2M
DW IRA $1.2M
Taxable accounts 2.2M

Portfolio 60 /30 /10 stock/bond /cash….total retirement assets =$5.7M

House value = 600K
529 Plan =300K for daughter college expenses to start in 2023

Social Security Estimates

DH =2400/month at 70
DW = 2000/month at 70

Tax assumptions

I am assuming the my effective tax rate until 70 would be about 20% until social security and RMD kick in and then effective rate might up. Not sure how to model this.

Assuming 160K of expenses annually, I would need to generate 200K before taxes for the first 12 years or so.

Firecalc

Ran model with $5.7M portfolio, 200K before tax income from portfolio and taking social security at 70 . This is about a 3.5% withdrawal rate until SS kicks in. Firecalc outcome is 100%.


Why are we stressed?

We are at the peak of the market and believe sequence or return risk is acute. I do not want to go back to work even part time once I am gone . We could cut back budget in many areas if needed . Do not replace cars every 5 years and do it at 10 years . Cut back on entertainment / travel and restaurants. We have not accounted for long term care insurance but think we can fund long term care with assets . We would appreciate comments and advise on plan for a 45 year retirement …at least for DW. What have we missed? Are we silly to be stressed at this point?

I know exactly how you feel, as we are in a similar 3.5% 100% firecalcl situation but feel stressed like you about pulling the plug. I am a little younger at 48. If I were in your shoes, I would not hesitate to call it quits with a 3.5% WR.

I also have experienced others in this forum questioning my net worth sincerity etc based on what some may consider a high net worth. Some people are rich with $2mm, others with $20mm, so disregard the wealth comments- all that matters is that you have a sustainable situation.

Withdrawal rates, though important, are not the only factor IMHO. The fact that you have subsidized health insurance makes that 3.5% WR even safer. Congratulations on amassing a sizable portfolio and go ahead and retire as firecalc incorporates sequence of return risk, health is a factor that can always turn things upside down, but you have higher certainty than most with this cost.