Poll: Age of Death for Retirement Planning

[akck]

I used 95 for me, but I really don't think I'll go past my 80's. My wife alway assumed she'd die young (her mom died in her late 50's), but she's already passed them. Planning wise, while I only plan to 95, our funds can last much longer. I just don't look beyond that age.

 

[Dreamer]

I voted Male, 80-89. I have always used 84 for life expectancy based on questionnaires. I did die already on 7/13/2016 from cardiac arrest but wasn't dead for long. No brain damage, the cardiac issues are fixed so I'll stick with 84.

Glad to hear that everything went so well and that you are back to using 84 and posting here!

 

[Ted_Shepherd]

I use age 95 as the limit of my planning. I'm 76 now, happily retired since I was 53. I treat my retirement assets as being in trust for the next generation, though my ownership is sole and unencumbered. I could spend it all. For the first 22 years of my retirement, I managed the retirement assets with the aim of preserving their purchasing power, not growing it and no letting it decline. I overdid my caution. The assets grew significantly. Then, last year, inherited property I thought would not sell in my life time sold for a significant sum. (What did I do with the money? First, I paid federal and state income taxes on it. Then, I bought a house to be a second family home and put the rest in index funds and cash.) I manage the money now so that by age 95 I will have reduced purchasing power of the retirement stash to what it was prior to the land sale and the Bernanke bubble. I find it difficult to spend or give away the annual budget that this plan computes for me. I'm used to spending much less. Retirement is sweet but for the deaths of people I loved and my own imperfect health.

 

[bclover]

I used 90 for me but then my plan includes being a burden to my kids. Payback for their teenage years.

I also have a pension albeit a small one and an annuity

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[Bigdawg]

I plan on being shot and killed at the age of 95 by a 20-year-old jealous husband.

Oh, and I have a DB COLA'd pension.

Does that jealous husbands wife have a good looking younger sister?

 

[tmm99]

F, 95. I used to use 92, but I started using 95 a year before retirement.

 

[kaudrey]

I use 95 for both of us; mostly to be overly cautious.

 

[Andre1969]

I'm planning for 100, just in case. I have one Granddad who will be 102 if he's still alive in October. My grandmother died at 91, and I have one relative who's 92 and another who's 93.

However, as I'm only 46 right now, that leaves a duration of 54 years. So, just to play it safe, when I run the Firecalc simulations, I also run a few shorter durations, as there may be some 30, 35, 40, etc year cycles that failed.

 

[2017ish]

I voted "F - 100+," because DW is the driving force in our planning both on the input and drawdown side. Her family's life expectancy points in that direction, plus education to MD, consistent working out through her life, yada yada.

We are 56/55 and retiring next June or July.

For me, although far less important, I am currently positing 85--based solely on general stats for males my age with grad degrees. I have no male ancestors who didn't smoke themselves to death before 70.... (Worked to dissuade me from trying that particular vice.)

 

[rockyj]

For "when can I retire" planning purposes, during my early to mid fifties I used 40 year runs in various calculators to help determine when we'd reached the point for a reasonable amount to live on with a reasonable withdrawal rate. So I voted 90-99 in poll. In reality I was just looking for a scenario that I thought could last "a really long time". Since retiring two years ago at 58, we manage our finances as though they might need to last forever, using a 2.5% withdrawal rate (plus pension and anticipated SS), and loosely earmarking any late life reserves for uncovered medical/LTC, accelerated gifting, or other crisis or legacy items yet to be determined. I suspect we'll be adjusting periodically as things progress, we get more comfortable with the idea of gradual drawdown, etc.

 

[eta2020]

I plan for high age but as far as spending money I plan for 80.

We will manage just great from 80 on 2 maximum SS checks.

 

[NW-Bound]

But when one of you croak before the other, you are down to a single SS check. Is it enough to support a pool boy or a maid?

 

[eta2020]

But when one of you croak before the other, you are down to a single SS check. Is it enough to support a pool boy or a maid?

Well do not take me literally but main spending happens by the time we are 80.

Saving money for travel and fun after 80 is like saving up sex for your old age.

 

[Shanky]

I found if I croak at 70 along with my wife, I can increase our annual spend by nearly $200K! If I do that, it would likely lead to death by 70. I guess I have found the secret to FIRE success, 14 years of debauchery & excess followed by an untimely demise.

 

[redduck]

... I guess I have found the secret to FIRE success, 14 years of debauchery & excess followed by an untimely demise.

You are very, very close, but the real secret to FIRE success is an untimely death followed by 14 years of debauchery and excess.

 

[NW-Bound]

... an untimely death followed by 14 years of debauchery and excess.

You forgot to add "Rinse and repeat".

 

[redduck]

Yes, I forgot to mention "Rinse and repeat." I guess I got too excited about the prospect of 14 years of debauchery and excess. I imagine there would be quite a need for "rinsing and repeating" in such a situation--especially "rinsing."

 

[whatnot]

I think NW makes a good point about impact of loss of SS when a spouse dies. I have DH taking SS @ 62 because he does not have family history of longevity and I will take mine @ FRA. When I run the Fidelity model - got a warning message re risk of underestimating longevity ( i used 70). So I increased input 75 or 78 - anyway, it increased my score from 111 to 118 (from what I recall).
So in this instance, I think that overestimating longevity for one spouse can actually be a less conservative estimate. Just my 2cents.

 

[harley]

You are very, very close, but the real secret to FIRE success is an untimely death followed by 14 years of debauchery and excess.

Gotcha! Finally pierced your online identity. I'm outing you, Sam Israel. Expect the police at your door any minute.

Oops, they caught him. I guess you're still safe.

 

[truenorth418]

I use 100. My parents died at 63 and 84, but who knows? I am 52 now. I figure 100 provides another element of safety in my planning.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Hutch111]

95

 

[audreyh1]

When the retired at 40, I assumed a 50 year retirement for planning purposes. I figured that would have enough wriggle room since adjustments could be made as I aged. Now I tend to use 95.

 

[redduck]

Yes, I forgot to mention "Rinse and repeat." I guess I got too excited about the prospect of 14 years of debauchery and excess. I imagine there would be quite a need for "rinsing and repeating" in such a situation--especially "rinsing."

Gotcha! Finally pierced your online identity. I'm outing you, Sam Israel. Expect the police at your door any minute.

Oops, they caught him. I guess you're still safe.

Dear Mr. Harley,

Impressive memory and good guess, However, Mr. Harley,you should have followed your first thought and not second-guessed yourself.

Yes, the authorities did catch some guy who claims to be Sam Israel. Fortunately (for me) I'm still running around loose. If you want to read more about the Real One and Only Sam Israel, Google Sam Israel, go to Huffington Post and also to the Marie Claire article. Even better, try dealbook.nytimes.com/.../a-con-man-who-lives-between-truth-a...
I would give you workable links and/or excerpts of the articles, but I'm limited by my computer skills (and by other things as well). But, if you read the articles, you will see that I've got better things to do than to learn yet another computer skill (and, I apparently do these other things incredibly well).

Thank you for thinking of me. I can't begin to tell you how flattered I felt.

I remain,
redduck

 

[ERD50]

I share your concerns, although my concerns are perhaps not so much for the general population as for myself as an individual. If I live to age 85, I am planning to re-do my retirement planning at that time with 100 or even 105 as the projected age of death instead of 95. To do this I might have to buy an immediate lifetime annuity (which I suppose should be fairly cheap at age 85), or cut back on my expenses.

Made me look!

I had thought that the insurance companies didn't offer annuities at that age, as there would be too few willing to purchase them, so too few to average into a pool.

But, looking at:

https://www.immediateannuities.com

A male at 85 (they go to 90!), would get Life & 5 Years Certain
$11,370/month on a $1M. So that's 13.6% (non inflation adjusted after 85, but still...). Hmmmm....

So considering an even not-so-conservative retiree drawing 4%, it would just take 1/3 of their portfolio (assuming it was still providing a current withdraw amount at 4%) invested in the annuity to provide that +4%, and the remaining 2/3rd could be funny money, or reserved for heirs/charity. That sounds pretty attractive.

And annuities are apparently at a low payout point, due to low interest rates. So future payouts could be even better.

I know there is a lot of anti-annuity feeling here, and there are some good reasons for that. I have always been in the camp that feels an annuity could be right under the right circumstances, and it would make more sense as I aged. But these numbers look very promising. Part of that is, with fewer years to our ultimate demise, the odds of the annuity company going broke, and not being covered by other means, are greatly reduced. A 15 year future is way different from a 40 year future.

Another reference point: If you accounted for reaching 105 when you are 85, that's 20 years, and a portfolio that just kept up with inflation would provide 1/20, or a 5% WR. That's not quite apples-apples, as the annuity would have no inflation adjustment, but that's still a large gap to backfill.

-ERD50

 

[W2R]

I have always been in the camp that feels an annuity could be right under the right circumstances, and it would make more sense as I aged. But these numbers look very promising. Part of that is, with fewer years to our ultimate demise, the odds of the annuity company going broke, and not being covered by other means, are greatly reduced.

That's my thinking on it, too. I think that annuities have a lot to offer the extremely elderly. One advantage of having an annuity in very old age, is that the monthly payments could be automatically added to one's checking account, for use in paying the bills no matter what the physical or mental challenges one encounters late in life. Even if one is a bit drifty, or blind, or even if the stock market tanked, the money would be there, month after month.

If I was 85 today and bought a $200,000 SPIA today, my monthly payments (according to that website you linked to) would be $2,214. I wouldn't do the 5 year certain. Anyway, that adds up to $26,568/year, in addition to SS and pension. Hopefully by the time I am 85, rates would have gone up and so would the monthly payment by the time I bought the SPIA.

After 20 years (if I should live that long), inflation would eat up quite a bit of that $26,568, probably somewhere between half and a third of it. My pension and SS have some inflation adjustment, though, so that would soften the blow somewhat. One might hope that spending really does go down as one ages.

The insurance company would profit considerably if I died at 86. But I'd be dead, so that wouldn't bother me. The rest of my nest egg (other than the $200K) would provide enough of an estate.