Poll: Does a Pension factor into your FIRE Plans?

[audreyh1]

I too am amazed that such a small minority of us have no pension at all. I thought it would be at least half the group!

 

[foxfirev5]

Great poll. It really sheds some light. I have stated before that any pension should be disclosed when providing info regarding investments and AA.
While I have a small pension which was frozen in 1994 there are no sour grapes here. The company jacked up their contribution to our 401k and still provide retiree medical to those affected by the freeze (so far). By good fortune and staying the course I'm a little bit ahead of where I would be with the pension. However this is not repeatable for the majority of new members coming to this forum.
This is just an observation but it irritates me when the 100% equity people claim superior knowledge while many of them have their ***etts covered with a pension.
Sorry for the vent but let's keep it honest. 100% of 10k does not equal 40% of 2.5m with no pension when it comes to investment advice. Thank-you

 

[REWahoo]

I don't have a pension. DW has a very small one that really doesn't figure into our retirement budget - she spends it on the grandkids.

 

[braumeister]

it irritates me when the 100% equity people claim superior knowledge while many of them have their ***etts covered with a pension.

No question about your being right, but I really haven't seen much of that. I think most of us who have pensions tend to disclose the fact. But there are also a fair number of us who still maintain a good diversified and balanced AA despite our good pensions, just because we're chicken!

 

[Cat-tirement]

My non-COLA pension was frozen about 7 years before I retired. DW was able to continue earning credits for hers until retirement due to being grandfathered. When her employer took away pensions for new employees, they also made any credit after that non-COLA. So, about a third of hers is COLA and two thirds not. Kind of odd.

I will start taking mine at 60 with very minimal reduction. DW gets heavily penalized before 65, so she will wait until then. If we were taking them today, they would cover 40-50%, but by the time we are both taking them at her age 65, I estimate they will cover about 25%, so that's what I answered.

 

[dixonge]

This is just an observation but it irritates me when the 100% equity people claim superior knowledge while many of them have their ***etts covered with a pension.
Sorry for the vent but let's keep it honest. 100% of 10k does not equal 40% of 2.5m with no pension when it comes to investment advice. Thank-you

As a counter-point to this, for someone who has a decent pension I am mostly left out of all the AA discussions, the SWR debates, etc. They mostly don't apply. One day it dawned on me that our mostly-pension-based retirement was, in effect, a fixed-income asset, so that all other monies should be in equities in an attempt to properly balance things out. If we do a net-present-value calculation we're probably 99.5%/0.5% fixed income to equities AA. Pensions kinda get forgotten in many retirement planning discussions...

 

[foxfirev5]

No question about your being right, but I really haven't seen much of that. I think most of us who have pensions tend to disclose the fact. But there are also a fair number of us who still maintain a good diversified and balanced AA despite our good pensions, just because we're chicken!

Fair enough, I should clarify that the majority of the members here are very upfront regarding their situation. We should all be sure to avoid flippant opinions that may have an adverse effect. The majority of those statements appear with little prior posting and disappear after awhile.

Call it chicken if you must, I prefer conservative. Any plan or set of circumstances that get you to your goal works for me! Just don't let any one convince you to take a path without due diligence.

 

[foxfirev5]

As a counter-point to this, for someone who has a decent pension I am mostly left out of all the AA discussions, the SWR debates, etc. They mostly don't apply. One day it dawned on me that our mostly-pension-based retirement was, in effect, a fixed-income asset, so that all other monies should be in equities in an attempt to properly balance things out. If we do a net-present-value calculation we're probably 99.5%/0.5% fixed income to equities AA. Pensions kinda get forgotten in many retirement planning discussions...

Perfect disclosure. It makes sense and provides an excellent evaluation of AA with your overall situation. I can see where the pension vs non pension can put you on one side of the fence or the other. However with all the facts, most of us should be able to arrive at a financial conclusion we can facilitate.

40/50/10 because it works for me. Thanks

 

[Mulligan]

Fairly large semi cola'd pension, pretty modest lifestyle. Only spend about 60 -65% of it each month. Reinvest the rest to make up for my youthful financial stupidity.

 

[gerntz]

Chose LSD vs. annuity which I would consider a pension. How do you count that here?

 

[youbet]

Chose LSD vs. annuity which I would consider a pension. How do you count that here?

If you used the LSD to buy an annuity, count that income as a pension. If you used the LSD as a portfolio addition, then not a pension.

 

[ERD50]

First, I will disagree with the many comments about trying to make something of the data. This is a self-selected poll, people! It really has almost no meaning.

Second, I wonder how people are calculating the significance of their pension? If it isn't COLA'd, it is likely worth ~ 1/2 its original amount over the long run (at least that's what my experiments using FIRECalc have shown). And what about survivor benefits? That changes the value for many of us.

My pension, if I took it w/o survivor benefits, and cut it in half to adjust for non-COLA, would be roughly 20% of my "SWR" number.

-ERD50

 

[dixonge]

First, I will disagree with the many comments about trying to make something of the data. This is a self-selected poll, people! It really has almost no meaning.

Second, I wonder how people are calculating the significance of their pension? If it isn't COLA'd, it is likely worth ~ 1/2 its original amount over the long run (at least that's what my experiments using FIRECalc have shown). And what about survivor benefits? That changes the value for many of us.

My pension, if I took it w/o survivor benefits, and cut it in half to adjust for non-COLA, would be roughly 20% of my "SWR" number.

-ERD50

I calculate ours as % of income, not budget. Non-cola, so we will invest a hefty portion to create income to offset. All amounts using 100% survivor benefit.

 

[Huston55]

First, I will disagree with the many comments about trying to make something of the data. This is a self-selected poll, people! It really has almost no meaning.

-ERD50

That's actually not correct.

Defining our active E-R.org population as those who've contributed since 1 Jan 2016 (well over a year), and using the sample size from the poll (currently >200), we can say with 95% confidence & a 7% margin of error that the poll results represent our community views.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
First, I will disagree with the many comments about trying to make something of the data. This is a self-selected poll, people! It really has almost no meaning.

-ERD50

That's actually not correct.

Defining our active E-R.org population as those who've contributed since 1 Jan 2016 (well over a year), and using the sample size from the poll (currently >200), we can say with 95% confidence & a 7% margin of error that the poll results represent our community views.

I'm not sure how you got the number of "those who've contributed since 1 Jan 2016", but even so, the poll has little/no meaning. The stats numbers only apply to a random sampling in the survey. Once it is a self selected group, it's all thrown out the window.

-ERD50

 

[Huston55]

I'm not sure how you got the number of "those who've contributed since 1 Jan 2016", but even so, the poll has little/no meaning. The stats numbers only apply to a random sampling in the survey. Once it is a self selected group, it's all thrown out the window.

-ERD50

The number of contributors can be found by doing a search on our Community member list; use advanced search.

I understand that "random" samples are superior but, that does not mean that "non-random" samples are meaningless and cannot be used to make meaningful inferences about the total population. A non-random (self selected in this case) sample just means that the confidence interval of the results is smaller so, a larger sample size is required. The current sample size of our poll (215) is already large enough compared to our population (2137 if you accept my definition) that a non-random sample can be used to reach conclusions on a meaningful confidence level (95% in this case).

So, I think the poll results are meaningful; even though, per my earlier post, I'm surprised by the results. YMMV.

 

[Sniggle]

Military pension (Reserves) at 60 and company pension (22 years, closes at the end of 2019)

 

[bradaz2488]

no pension here.. Retired at 49. My ER plan assumes no SS as well since I'm still 15 years away from FRA and a lot can happen between now and then. I was able to roll over $50K into a IRA from former employer that was in a pension fund. I wanted to take control ...

 

[gerntz]

I'm not sure how you got the number of "those who've contributed since 1 Jan 2016", but even so, the poll has little/no meaning. The stats numbers only apply to a random sampling in the survey. Once it is a self selected group, it's all thrown out the window.

-ERD50

Agree.

 

[gerntz]

I understand that "random" samples are superior but, that does not mean that "non-random" samples are meaningless and cannot be used to make meaningful inferences about the total population. A non-random (self selected in this case) sample just means that the confidence interval of the results is smaller so, a larger sample size is required. The current sample size of our poll (215) is already large enough compared to our population (2137 if you accept my definition) that a non-random sample can be used to reach conclusions on a meaningful confidence level (95% in this case).

Non-random samples mean confidence intervals are larger, not smaller to reach the same confidence level.

 

[Eagle43]

Military pension: 36 years
Megacorp pension: 13 years
And then there's ss for several years (mine and DW).
I love checks. I probably would have worked 10 years more without the pensions.

Sent from my SM-T810 using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

 

[seraphim]

We could live sparsely but comfortably off our pensions. We use investment WDs to fund our lifestyle above and beyond that - travelling, etc. Should the economic situation drop off the cliff, we would reduce our lifestyle spending, and stop making WDs until things reversed themselves again. We were not participants of SS.

 

[Huston55]

Non-random samples mean confidence intervals are larger, not smaller to reach the same confidence level.

There are a couple of common uses of 'confidence interval.'

One is equivalent to 'margin of error', which is what you mean. In that case, the confidence interval would be larger with a non-random sample; IOW, more 'margin for error'.

The other common use of 'confidence interval' is "the range within which the true answer lies". With this meaning (the one I used & that is employed by the calculator I used), non-random samples have smaller confidence intervals; IOW, a narrower band in which we can infer from the results. I know it sounds counterintuitive but, it is what it is.

 

[kcowan]

DW1 got 46% and I have been receiving it for 14 years non-COLA so it is definitely becoming a less significant factor. Under 25% and dropping...

Fortunately it has been more than compensated by the equity portfolio.

 

[Hermit]

Perfect disclosure. It makes sense and provides an excellent evaluation of AA with your overall situation. I can see where the pension vs non pension can put you on one side of the fence or the other. However with all the facts, most of us should be able to arrive at a financial conclusion we can facilitate.

40/50/10 because it works for me. Thanks

I don't use my non-COLA pension to determine my AA, but I did use the current value of the pension in calculating my SWR at retirement. The effect was limiting the SWR to about 70% of an SWR without the pension. It makes sense if you consider the pension has no COLA.