Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-24-2017, 12:13 PM   #41
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Southern Maine
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobandsherry View Post
That's not a 5 year period. I had asked about a drop in a 5 year period in response to this:

Within 2000-2009 the market actually increased and then experienced a double dip.
March 5, 2004: 10,295.55
March 5, 2009: 6,594.44
Percent change: (37.76%)

In 2004 there were 33 days where the 5 year Dow return has been lower than (25%).
ChiliPepr is offline  
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 10-24-2017, 12:21 PM   #42
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Spanky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 4,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ready View Post
I do not plan on taking SS until 70 because I don't need the money, and I'd rather use it as longevity insurance. And my calculations suggest I will come out ahead if I live past about 82 years old, which is a bet I'm willing to take.
Life expectancy for females is 81.2 years and for males, it's 76.4 years. You might be able to beat the stat, however.
__________________
May we live in peace and harmony and be free from all human sufferings.
Spanky is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 12:23 PM   #43
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,594
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Here's a link to the post I mentioned earlier:



http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ml#post1604411

The reason is by delaying SS till 70, you get a return on your SS...7+%, then you assume you made nothing on your investments.
So delaying SS wins, now assume it was a bull market instead of flat(15%), by taking SS earlier, giving up the 7+%, you got 15% return...would have been better to take it at 62.

Y'all do the same things pundits do...make assumptions...if change the assumptions, you change results.
You allow me to make the assumptions I can prove any strategy was brilliant or stupid.
teejayevans is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 12:34 PM   #44
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 632
Turned out better for us if I took SS at 62 since my spouse had low SS and was 5 years older. Once I filed at 62 she got 50% of my FRA amount which gave us more income until about age 92 compared to me waiting until FRA or 70.
homestead is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 12:37 PM   #45
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 23,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanky View Post
Life expectancy for females is 81.2 years and for males, it's 76.4 years. ... .
That's not applicable. Those look like "LE at birth" stats. You need the stats for your gender and current age. For a 67 YO couple, they each have a LE > age 83. That is available here (poke around to find the 50% values for each):

https://personal.vanguard.com/us/ins...etirement-tool

(edit/add): And in fact, there is a > 50% chance that one of the 67 YO couple will make it to 89 YO.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanky View Post
... You might be able to beat the stat, however.
Half the people in your stat do beat it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by teejayevans View Post
The reason is by delaying SS till 70, you get a return on your SS...7+%, then you assume you made nothing on your investments.
So delaying SS wins, now assume it was a bull market instead of flat(15%), by taking SS earlier, giving up the 7+%, you got 15% return...would have been better to take it at 62.

Y'all do the same things pundits do...make assumptions...if change the assumptions, you change results.
You allow me to make the assumptions I can prove any strategy was brilliant or stupid.
The market is unknown, your LE is unknown. There is no 'answer', only a process to use to make a decision.

-ERD50
ERD50 is online now  
Old 10-24-2017, 12:39 PM   #46
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanky View Post
Life expectancy for females is 81.2 years and for males, it's 76.4 years. You might be able to beat the stat, however.
Those numbers are life expectancy at birth. The more relevant numbers are life expectancy at age 65, which is 84.3 for men and 86.6 for women.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.html

Statistically speaking, if a man or a woman lives to age 65, it is likely that they will live to at least age 84.
JustCurious is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 12:43 PM   #47
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Ready's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 3,833
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spanky View Post
Life expectancy for females is 81.2 years and for males, it's 76.4 years. You might be able to beat the stat, however.
Thatís my plan and Iím sticking to it!
Ready is online now  
Old 10-24-2017, 01:03 PM   #48
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
skipro33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Placerville
Posts: 1,599
The OP has one other benefit by drawing SS early and not taking a bigger hit on his personal savings; that he'll leave a bigger inheritance to his family. By not drawing down his savings, there's more left for his estate. Might not matter to some, but matters to me; I'd like to know my estate helps out my grand kids or great grand kids pay for their education than to die with little or no inheritable estate.

That is a BIG deal; SS is lost money if you don't collect. Your savings is passed along after you die.
skipro33 is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 01:22 PM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 23,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by skipro33 View Post
The OP has one other benefit by drawing SS early and not taking a bigger hit on his personal savings; that he'll leave a bigger inheritance to his family. By not drawing down his savings, there's more left for his estate. Might not matter to some, but matters to me; I'd like to know my estate helps out my grand kids or great grand kids pay for their education than to die with little or no inheritable estate.

That is a BIG deal; SS is lost money if you don't collect. Your savings is passed along after you die.
That would depend on when the OP dies. That is where the "break even" comes into play, but it is an unknown, so nothing that really works into planning.

IOW, if OP lives well into 90's (like so many), his heirs would likely have benefited by the higher SS leading to less draw down of portfolio over the age of 70-90+.

-ERD50
ERD50 is online now  
Old 10-24-2017, 01:36 PM   #50
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Red Rock Country
Posts: 1,242
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustCurious View Post
Those numbers are life expectancy at birth. The more relevant numbers are life expectancy at age 65, which is 84.3 for men and 86.6 for women.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.html

Statistically speaking, if a man or a woman lives to age 65, it is likely that they will live to at least age 84.
And of course, those are over the entire population. An individual's circumstances may push their life expectancy far away from those values. For example, here's a calculator that allowed me to input more details and wind up with an age of 92 for life expectancy Lifespan Calculator ‚Äď Test Your Life Expectancy || NM
Ian S is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 01:44 PM   #51
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rianne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Champaign
Posts: 3,455
And that's why I love the minutia of this forum.
__________________
"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.
Rianne is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 01:50 PM   #52
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 953
I don't understand why there is so much confusion. I just ran a random calculator on the internet and it said that I am going to live to age 86, and my wife is going to live to age 90.

Sadly, I am going to die on my birthday.

I also have found that the stock market is going to perform at a level of 10%.

So I know what my plan is!

As a side note, I have been asked out to dinner by a friend of a friend, who supposedly has some recent news on how SS is going to go away, and that the stock market is going to collapse. He has some kind of miracle product, I think my friend said it was a variable annuity or something like that. A sure thing! Can't lose! So maybe I will change my plans...

/s
Clone is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 01:53 PM   #53
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hzefam View Post



Does it show this or does it show that under a particular set of circumstances it is better to collect at 62?
It shows that for folks with good financial skills and a prudent outlook, it likely won't matter very much when you start SS. When you're 90 (let's hope!) and look back, you'll likely see that since you handled your finances optimally and in congruence with your SS decision, the results were similar either way.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 02:01 PM   #54
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 15,697
Missed this at first... but lots of responses.....

To OP...

Your analysis is very flawed... it is only one data point... and from that one data point you state that taking at 62 is the way to go for everybody (that is what I read)....

That is just plain false... if the market had tanked when you retired you might want a higher SS... if the market was flat, probably the same...

You also do not consider all the married people who have many different possibilities... what if you are married to someone much younger. (I believe it is NYexpat that is 20 to 30 years older than spouse).... if the older person does not receive a cent in payments but spouse gets the benefits there is no way taking at 62 makes sense...

Might put this in the pet peeve thread when someone wants to tell me what is best for me when they have zero idea what really is best...
Texas Proud is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 02:40 PM   #55
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Here's a link to the post I mentioned earlier:

http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ml#post1604411



-ERD50
This is very obviously true. Nevertheless, plenty of geniuses will come along to "prove" something else. Same ole, same ole.

As far as these posts being designed to prove that what the OP did was right only for him, doubt it. What use is "proving" that some action already taken was the obvious best thing to do? If someone went to Las Vegas and put his million on black, would his ~$2 million from a wining bet prove this was "the best thing to do?"

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 03:03 PM   #56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Florida's First Coast
Posts: 4,999
I was going to take mine at 62, but decided to wait till 65 (1 year before FRA) the reason is that I did not need the income, if I had it I could not qualify for ACA subsidies. That made the decision easy. I WAS going to take it at 62 as my longevity prediction is about the national average.
__________________
"Never Argue With a Fool, Onlookers May Not Be Able To Tell the Difference." - Mark Twain
ShokWaveRider is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 03:06 PM   #57
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 23,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
This is very obviously true. Nevertheless, plenty of geniuses will come along to "prove" something else. Same ole, same ole.

As far as these posts being designed to prove that what the OP did was right only for him, doubt it. What use is "proving" that some action already taken was the obvious best thing to do? If someone went to Las Vegas and put his million on black, would his ~$2 million from a wining bet prove this was "the best thing to do?"

Ha
Agreed, and I didn't intend it to "prove" anything, but to show one way the process can be thought through.

Even if we try to simplify some things just for analysis, and make assumptions about a few things that we can't (say we assume living into the 90's), there are still variables like market returns that come into play that could swing the decision one way or the other.

But given what we do know, I will plan to delay until 70, because I can, and because I feel that is the best longevity insurance for DW. Like a bet in Vegas, it may end up being a losing bet. But a choice must be made in this case. I'm trying to that with my eyes open.

I also doubt that taking it at 62 would a bad thing, it might all work out pretty close in the end. It's just the "this is the right thing to do", versus the "here are the things to consider" approach that kinda pushes my buttons.

-ERD50
ERD50 is online now  
Old 10-24-2017, 03:23 PM   #58
Recycles dryer sheets
Blueskies123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Miami
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShokWaveRider View Post
I was going to take mine at 62, but decided to wait till 65 (1 year before FRA) the reason is that I did not need the income, if I had it I could not qualify for ACA subsidies. That made the decision easy. I WAS going to take it at 62 as my longevity prediction is about the national average.
Are you picking one year before FRA because you will be medicare at 65 years old?
__________________
FIRE July 2015
Blueskies123 is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 03:29 PM   #59
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Florida's First Coast
Posts: 4,999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueskies123 View Post
Are you picking one year before FRA because you will be medicare at 65 years old?
Yup.
__________________
"Never Argue With a Fool, Onlookers May Not Be Able To Tell the Difference." - Mark Twain
ShokWaveRider is offline  
Old 10-24-2017, 03:36 PM   #60
Administrator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N. Yorkshire
Posts: 29,788
While reading this thread I am watching a documentary about people in their 100ís.

The program started by saying that in 1917 George V started a tradition of sending a card to everyone on their 100th birthday. That year he sent 24 cards. So far this year (October) the Queen has sent over 6,000.

We are both in our 60ís so as an insurance policy I, with the much larger SS benefits, plan on taking mine at age 70. If we both die before our mid 80ís then so be it, thatís life (or death).
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Enough private pension and SS income to cover all needs
Alan is offline  
Closed Thread


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
Started Social Social Security at age 62 but my break even date is well into my 80s Retired and Restless FIRE and Money 96 12-24-2016 12:49 PM
Earnings Test When Collecting Social Security Before FRA when Self Employed omysteve FIRE and Money 2 07-14-2015 04:21 PM
Collecting Social Security Early (Before 66) blueeyes88 Hi, I am... 8 05-12-2008 04:35 PM
collecting full social security and military retirement? miatagirl FIRE and Money 15 01-23-2007 01:58 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:38 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.