Life Expectancy

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw_fire and the associated thread? The idea didn't seem to be well received at the time.

On re-reading the threads, frankly it looked like a good fleshing out of options and ideas, until the very end when all that was left was people shouting their opinions past each other...which seems to happen a lot. While there is and was some feeling of hostility, most of it came from the classic "If you dont agree with my example, you simply must not have understood it, and if I explain it again and you still dont agree with it, then you're an idiot".

Hell, after I said several times that I thought annuities were worth looking into, people should run their numbers, and having a portion of assets invested in one might be a very good diversifier, that perspective was labeled "anti annuity, would never buy one". Certainly an interesting interpretation.

Heres a fun question though, and I dont know the answer but would like to find out...I hear an awful lot of people bringing up the annuities they bought 10-20-30 years ago and its usually accompanied with lamentations or comments like "stuck with" or "cant get out of".

Anyone had an annuity for more than a decade or two and feel it was a great investment decision? Would you do it again if you had the chance? If not, what would you have done differently?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny Anyone had an annuity for more than a decade or two and feel it was a great investment decision? Would you do it again if you had the chance? If not, what would you have done differently?

I've never bought one.

I don't think I'd be too interested in annuities if I was in 'Investing Mode'. My current attraction to them is a way to increase your SWR in old age.

Let me ask you a question. If a 70 year old came to you and asked for advice about how to increase his monthly income stream from his current 4% SWR on his portfoilo. And he was not interested in leaving an estate.

What would you recommend he do?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Depends. How much does he have and how much is he withdrawing now, how much would he like to withdraw and what he wants the money for, how long he wants it to go on for, what his tolerance for risk is, etc.

I might employ portfolio consumption, higher stock allocations, high quality junk, long term cd's, an annuity or any one of a bunch of things. Ten or thirty years, high or low risk, needing just a few thousand more or a lot more. Wanting to spend the money on durable things with resale value vs blowing the money at a slot machine.

Lots of things to consider.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny Depends. How much does he have (Let's say $1 Million) and how much is he withdrawing now ($40K), how much would he like to withdraw(as much as possible with a Cola) and what he wants the money for (Fun), how long he wants it to go on for (Until age 120), what his tolerance for risk is (Little or None), etc. I might employ portfolio consumption, higher stock allocations, high quality junk, long term cd's, an annuity or any one of a bunch of things. Ten or thirty years, high or low risk, needing just a few thousand more or a lot more. Wanting to spend the money on durable things with resale value vs blowing the money at a slot machine. (Blowing it on Travel, Wine, Dine and Recline) Lots of things to consider.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Who is the author and what is the title of this book?

Here, Cut-Throat, lemme get that for you:

"Die Broke: A Radical Four-Part Financial Plan"

and it looks like they're expanding the franchise...

[cute fuzzy bunny]

I would advise him to rethink his age requirement because he's 95% likely to be dead within 15 years and if he wants to spend crazy and leave nothing, he could easily take on a lot more portfolio risk and get a range of investing options that would produce high income with reasonable safety of making it to 90-95.

Certainly by figuring in an unreasonable age, most constructions would produce an inferior result on paper as you're effectively hogtying the options to an annuity or a 4% SWR. Since the 4% withdrawal is insufficient to meet the desired needs the only realistic option meeting the little/none limit is the annuity. Except the annuity wouldnt meet the requirements either as its not going to get a low risk assessment due to the length of the annuity - 50 years - some insurers would go under or lose the ability to pay, most annuities standard 10% inflation cap could, over 50 years, severely reduce income. Bunch of risk there, and your hands would be tied to change anything or solve the problem.

Tough to resolve the dichotomy between someone who will accept no risk but is concerned enough about outliving 99.99999% of the population to plan for it. His horizon is longer than mine and i'm 25 years younger.

In the presence of a more reasonable age cap of 90-95, I'd suggest investing in target retirement income or wellesley for about 40%, 10% in 6.25% cd's, 10% in brewers sallie mae bonds, and 20% in dividend paying large cap value and 20% in dividend paying small cap value.

I'd take the dividends and interest thrown off and spend it...i'm estimating that'd produce rougly 5-5.5% withdrawal. Then I'd withdraw whatever additional funds I wanted to spend from whichever bucket has shown the most appreciation in that year.

The 54% stock allocation would provide enough lift over the 20-25 year period to offset the higher rate of portfolio consumption while the portfolio overall would provide a decent level of nearly guaranteed income.

It should be possible for someone in that situation to spend a total of roughly 7-7.5% until they drop dead, with a decent lump laying around to provide very high quality, very comfortable care in their final years.

Too spooky? Trade in the target retirement/wellesley for total bond market. Cut about a half percent off the withdrawals. 70-75k is a pretty good chunk of change for someone who originally planned for 40k.

Might even make it to 120.

Since this was a Life expectancy thread.

Well, If I was that 70 year old person. I would not plan on anything less than age 100. I have had 3 Grandparents live over age 95. I would have at minimum a 30 year plan - Nords needs age 120!

Plugging in the numbers for FireCalc the SWR is only 3.7% with a 50/50 stock portfoilo - Anything more could deplete the portfolio to zero, which would leave nothing for long term care and nothing for the catfood he would have to buy to eat!

My advice today (with what I've learned so far) would be to buy an annuity with Cola Adjustment for $500K and get about $38,400 income per year guaranteed. Then with the other half, invest and continue to take about 4% which would give another $20K. I think it be far more comfortable for the 70 year old to spend $58,400 coming from $40K, especially since his $40K is now guaranteed! He is now spending an extra $20K ~ per year and reduced his risk in the process. remember he had little tolerance for risk at this stage in his life

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Well see, theres some new data and rules.

For starters, firecalcs 50/50 portfolio would look nothing like what I proposed, but then its tough to propose something thats workable in a no-win situation where theres only one accepted outcome and new data and rules keep appearing to make any alternative proposal undesirable.

What I proposed was some fairly high returning investments (far greater potential than the TSM component that Firecalc uses), coupled with some bond ballast and some cash equivalents that could be eaten in years when the stock component didnt do well.

It also seems you missed the part about the insurance company perhaps not paying out or existing in 50 years, and the inflation cap causing some problems in that time frame. Sort of defuses 'guaranteed'.

Since the original firecalc run you propose is 100% safe, you also likely didnt reduce the risk in the process either.

While I enjoy the banter and perhaps somebody learns something from these discussions, you really didnt pay much attention to what I had to say the last time and insanity IS defined as doing the same thing over and over while anticipating a different result...

Clearly your mind is made up and like the last time, you'll continue to either change the base parameters, eliminate other options or change the expected outcome to eliminate any other options presented.

Firecalc was a good tool until it produced results contrary to your plan, but now its good again because using it in an asymmetric fashion produces the 'right' results. Firecalc and the 25x rule are too conservative and leave too much money left over for people who will die before they spend it, but when considering alternatives to what you've decided to do, the 25x rule becomes paramount, as does life expectancies to 100-120. PICK ONE!

Heres my own worst case scenario to suit: guy buys his annuity, inflation runs to 18% for the following 10 years, with the 10% CPI cap reducing his buying power by 80%. The insurance company then goes bankrupt. Guy now has 20k a year income and his new downsized portfolio is non-survivable for more than a short period of time. In the meanwhile the stock market returns 30% a year for those ten years and the uncapped CPI bonds in the alternative portfolio keep pace with the 18% CPI. Bummer.

If that doesnt work, how about after the third year, all the guys arms and legs fall off, and the little used clause in the annuity that calls for it to suspend payments should the annuitant become armless and legless kicks in.



Good luck with your plan.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

By the way, looks like we're clumped in the 80-100 range, with the bulk on 90. It might have been interesting to cut the granularity into 5 year ranges to see if that would cause some of those 90's to slip to 85 or 95.

Since 95% of people will be dead by 90, that seems a reasonable average planning assumption, barring a family full of long lived relatives and superior health.

CFB,

You changed the rules immediately from my example. I said Age 120, you knocked it down to age 90-95.

I actually was hoping that you had a better plan that was going to be safer than mine!

When you said you would invest in even higher returning investments, does that not entail even more risk? Remember low tolerance for risk!

All I did was ask you a question and I was hoping you would stay in my parameters. I don't have my mind made up at all. But your proposed 'plan' has more risk than I would want at age 70 and I stipulated that the 70 year old had little or no tolerance for risk

[rmark]

According to the IRS tables a married couple at age 62 has a joint life expectancy of about age 91, while by age 80 that has moved out to age 94. Several of my relatives have made it into that latter range.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat CFB, You changed the rules immediately from my example. I said Age 120, you knocked it down to age 90-95. I actually was hoping that you had a better plan that was going to be safer than mine! When you said you would invest in even higher returning investments, does that not entail even more risk? Remember low tolerance for risk! All I did was ask you a question and I was hoping you would stay in my parameters. I don't have my mind made up at all. But your proposed 'plan' has more risk than I would want at age 70 and I stipulated that the 70 year old had little or no tolerance for risk

Like I said, you didnt read or comprehend what I wrote, so very little point to this.

Your scenario has only one acceptable 'right' answer given its unlikely and unreasonable parameters. You will not live to 120, nor will very many other people. You cannot increase withdrawal without creating risk. You are simply denying the risk you've created, while magnifying the risk in other options.

Annuities are not risk free nor does including higher returning, higher volatility asset classes automatically create risk. In fact, the very act of portfolio diversification is to increase returns and dampen volatility and risk of loss. Sort of a pretty basic fundamental tenet of investing?

I expect no different result going further in this discussion, thus I'll stop and prove my sanity.

[jdw_fire]

CT,

CFB accuses you of doing exactly what he himself does

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny but then its tough to propose something thats workable in a no-win situation where theres only one accepted outcome and new data and rules keep appearing to make any alternative proposal undesirable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny Clearly your mind is made up and like the last time, you'll continue to either change the base parameters, eliminate other options or change the expected outcome to eliminate any other options presented.

Funny I got that impression about CFB in the thread I refered to earlier. He changed the inflation rate from CPI to his own personal inflation rate, he falsely stated that my example would not produce an inheritance, he falsely said it would produce less income, etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny Firecalc was a good tool until it produced results contrary to your plan, but now its good again because using it in an asymmetric fashion produces the 'right' results. Firecalc and the 25x rule are too conservative and leave too much money left over for people who will die before they spend it, but when considering alternatives to what you've decided to do, the 25x rule becomes paramount, as does life expectancies to 100-120. PICK ONE!

Funny CFB does exactly this. Again in the thread I refered to earlier he apparantly didn't like that my example used FIRECalc results (he wanted me to compare to Wellesley or himself) but he sure used FIRECalc to try and make his point when he was arguing with you on the thread where you suggested that taking SS at 70 would allow you to spend more in your 60s.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny you really didnt pay much attention to what I had to say the last time

Again I think CFB is describing himself here as when you look at the thread I refered to, you will see that I gave an example of buying an annuity and showed how it beat FIRECalc outputs but he compared it to Wellesley and his own investing ability (he also made false statements about my example). There he stated

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cute Fuzzy Bunny "My" "Plan" (also known as "investing") offered substantially higher income, an excellent prospect of better inflation protection and a likely ability to pass more money to your heirs, with the acceptance of some minor downside market risk that has not materialized during the last 30+ years for the specific fund I mentioned, and in aggregate hasnt been a problem for the term of the entire US stock market since 1871.

Which, by the way, also says he is able to beat the results produced by FIRECalc, and maybe he can. BTW if Wellesley beats FIRECalc results then what do we need FIRECalc for, all we all need to do is buy Wellesley right?

However, I posted my example in an attempt to help older people (CFB is 45, my example was for a 60 yo), who may not be as proficient at investing as CFB, may not have as big of a portfolio as he or may not have a desire to spend alot of time managing their portfolio, to feel better about retiring sooner rather then later by providing them with some level of "safe", CPI adjusted, non market invested income. It happens that at the same time it provides a higher level of CPI adjusted payout than FIRECalc says is "safe" for a portfolio invested in the stock/bond market.

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff You got me interested so I ran Rich's plan against a 3% adjusted annuity for DW and I starting immediately on Vanguard's calculator. It would take 27-28 to break even on the 3% adjusted. It looks like a reasonable bet would be calculate what you would want as the annuity income if you were adjusting at 3% and put the equivalent principle on a fixed. Then start out investing the difference in a fixed income fund that you could tap to cover living increase costs if needed. Only increase the amount you spend if your real expenses go up.

Interesting, for me the break-even point (where the 3%-graded payment catches up
with a flat payment from the same principal) is only about 13 years. I'm single and
54yo.

I did something similar to what you suggest, and put in the principal that gave the
same flat payment in year1 as the 3%-graded does. Invested the saved principal and
used it to make up the 3% increases. I'd have to earn 6% APY on the investment for
it to be able to cover the makeup payments for 35 years.

I also did EXACTLY what you suggested and invested the SAME principal in a flat-payout
SPIA, and invested the excess payments to makeup the shortfall after the break-even
year. Got EXACTLY the same result - investment must yield about 6% to remain viable
for 35 years.

So looking at it this way, the 3%-graded seems like a pretty decent deal to me, given
that it gives me the same effect as a guaranteed 6% return on that extra money.

I'm not commenting on SPIA viability in general - yes, I realize I can PROBABLY do better
than 6% in the market, that the SPIA isn't guaranteed if AIG fails, and that I probably
will not live for 35 more years. I am simply looking at putting a limited part of my egg
(probably about 10% and certainly no more than 25%) into a SPIA as a diversification
of income streams.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdw_fire Blah blah blah

You gave a one sided argument, weren't interested in the possible shortcomings, and weren't interested in other alternatives. Then you got mad.

And still are...

<insert some pithy yoda quote about anger, etc>

For anyone who gives a hoot (which is nobody except you), actually reading any of the threads in question should produce a pretty clear picture of what actually transpired.

jdw_fire,

I didn't see any anger on your part or my part. I am not attached to any 'side' of any solution here. I was actually hoping for a non emotional discussion. My current plan is to stop discussing this matter with sensitive prickley individuals.

I do plan on reading the book you recommended. on Dying Broke and would like to know the title and Author. Thanks!

[jdw_fire]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat jdw_fire, I didn't see any anger on your part or my part. I am not attached to any 'side' of any solution here. I was actually hoping for a non emotional discussion. My current plan is to stop discussing this matter with sensitive prickley individuals. I do plan on reading the book you recommended. on Dying Broke and would like to know the title and Author. Thanks!

CT,

Sorry, I thought Nords beat me to the punch on the title ("Die Broke A Radical, Four-Part Financial Plan") and author (Stephen M. Pollan). As for recommending it, I'm not sure I remember it well enough to recommend it. Taking a quick look at the back cover I see one of the 4 parts is Don't Retire, which, depending on his definition of retire, I don't agree with. I just brought it up because Rich's annuity buying plan reminded me of the book and I was wondering if he got his plan from the book.

Cheers,
jdw_fire

[bbbamI]

Wow...I just love this forum!

[JohnEyles]

I wonder if a SPIA would have been a good idea for Hitler ?

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RustyShackleford I wonder if a SPIA would have been a good idea for Hitler ?

For those new to The Google (as our fearless leader calls it), it is
traditional that a thread ends when Hitler is mentioned.

So I was just trying to do to this thread what I was hoping the friendly police
officer would do to the badly injured deer I found on the way home tonite.
(Alas, local police policy does not allow such interventions).