12-14-2012, 04:56 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
 Originally Posted by pb4uski I wasn't commenting on your post - I was commenting on the OPs post. I actually don't give a hoot about your "analysis'.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pb4uski One way I have looked alternatives is by having my baseline plan (which is SS at age 70) in Quicken Lifetime Planner - then you can easily do a what if to see how you nestegg would fare with the same assumptions other than changing SS to age 62 or FRA and see the effect of each scenario. While it is deterministic rather than stochastic, it can give you an idea of the effect on your nestegg. You could do something similar in Firecalc and compare the printed graphs, range of ending nesteggs, average ending nestegg, number of failures, etc.
why is it that you are so dismissive of my analysis but free to offer your own? open your mind a little.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by pb4uski It is well accepted that for singles that the decision is supposed to be actuarially neutral, so if that is the case and you have specific insights as to your longevity compared to average longevity, it would be a significant factor in the decision.
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bikerdude He has to do the math as it pertains to taxes. Whether he has a substantial amount in after tax account vs taxable IRA/401K accounts. He should look at how his SS is taxed in the State that he resides. He should make a realistic assessment on how much his investments earn and how that amount will extend his break-even date. Once that is done then look at how long he can realistically expect to live. Run the math then make an educated decision.
all this talk of actuarially neutral and break even dates have nothing to do with trying to maximize the amount spendable each year of your retirement. what matters when trying to maximize the amount spendable each year is how large the income streams are, how many income streams are available, what flexibility there is in each income stream and how much risk (and remember that there are multiple risks, eg. market risk, inflation risk, longevity risk to name a few) the retiree is willing to shoulder. the analysis that i provided earlier (that was poo pooed by another poster), increases the amount spendable many years while reducing market and longevity risk (inflation risk arguably stays the same). with those advantages who cares if you get to the "break even" point for SS? the only people i can think of who might are the ones who want to maximize their estate at their death, which is a different goal than the 1 my analysis set out to solve.
__________________

 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! Join Early-Retirment.org For Free - Click Here
 12-14-2012, 09:04 PM #22 Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)Give me a forum ...   Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL Posts: 24,745 So if someone has had chronic health issues and/or a family history of dying in their late 60s and early 70s then you think it is still best for them to delay SS until they are 70? __________________
12-14-2012, 10:58 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post

Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
 Originally Posted by pb4uski So if someone has had chronic health issues and/or a family history of dying in their late 60s and early 70s then you think it is still best for them to delay SS until they are 70?
lets explore that scenario, but first, to clarify, let me ask you some questions. how would you suggest they use their portfolio? specifically, assuming the person is 62 at the time of this decision would you recommend that the retiree use a WR of 10%+ per year since they arent likely to live longer than 10 more years? or maybe more to the point of my question, would you recommend that they spend 1/10th of the portfolio the 1st year, 1/9th of the remaining portfolio the 2nd year, 1/8th of the remaining portfolio the 3rd year and so on so that their portfolio is entirely expended in 10 years? if not what WR would you recommend and why would you not recommend the above?

also, my answer will depend on the size of their portfolio, their spending requirements, and the size of their SS, so i would need to know those values to be able to answer your question.

 12-15-2012, 06:58 AM #24 Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)Give me a forum ...   Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL Posts: 24,745 You're funny. It is a simple yes/no question. I ask you one simple yes/no question and in response you don't answer it and insist that I answer 4 of your questions.
12-15-2012, 07:05 AM   #25

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lumpen slums of cyberspace
Posts: 30,751
Quote:
 Originally Posted by pb4uski It is a simple yes/no question.
reminds me of a former President of Venezuela, famous for answering direct yes / no type questions by saying "neither yes nor no, but just the opposite" (ni si ni no, sino todo lo contrario)

 12-15-2012, 10:35 AM #26 Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)Give me a forum ...   Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL Posts: 24,745 Perhaps they are related.
12-15-2012, 10:48 AM   #27
Moderator Emeritus

Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 17,682
Quote:
 Originally Posted by pb4uski You're funny. It is a simple yes/no question. I ask you one simple yes/no question and in response you don't answer it and insist that I answer 4 of your questions.
You should come back with 16 questions .

I think even I could have come up with an answer to your single and simple question.
__________________
“Would you like an adventure now, or would you like to have your tea first?” J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan

12-15-2012, 11:14 AM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 24,745
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Bestwifeever You should come back with 16 questions . I think even I could have come up with an answer to your single and simple question.
I thought about that but didn't for two reasons. First, I couldn't think up 16 questions for a simple situation and more importantly, I was afraid I would get a response with 256 questions.

 12-15-2012, 01:24 PM #30 Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...   Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: No Country for Old Men Posts: 45,992 This thread is a wonderful example of why the forum installed "ignore poster" software. __________________ Numbers is hard Charter resident of the lumpen slums of cyberspace Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
 12-15-2012, 01:31 PM #31 Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)Give me a forum ...   Join Date: Mar 2011 Posts: 6,161 jdw_fire: OP here. It was a simple question within a "never touch the principal" context. Just wanted to know if the "NTTP" might mitigate the "(almost) always take SS at FRA or beyond" rule. After the posts/replies, it seems that I have my answer, which is "NO". It's all good. __________________ __________________ Living well is the best revenge! Retired @ 52 in 2005

 Tags dividends, social security, swr

 Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)