The Myth of Outliving your Retirement Savings - EBRI

[Teacher Terry]

ncbill: my Dad had a big stroke at 59 which left him with brain damage and a very different personality that was quite unpleasant. He didn't even like himself after the stroke. My Mom cared for him for 14 long years. We bought the house next door and helped. It was a relief when he died.

[RAE]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unpaintedhuffhines Worrying about outlasting your money is one of the reasons most here won't outlast their money. We've all done mathematical models like Firecalc, played with all the options, and are comfortable with the odds.

+1. I have fewer assets than many others on the forum, but after 8 years of retirement, I can see that there is almost no need to worry about outlasting my money, considering my rate of spending. Doing what I can to keep myself in good health (so that I can have a LONG, enjoyable retirement) is what really motivates and interests me these days. I've seen too many people die far too young, or become sick/disabled at a relatively young age, and so never have adequate time to do all the things they always wanted to do in retirement (despite having the financial assets to do those things and more). That is my biggest fear........not running out of money.

[Lizcourt]

My aunt died at 85 and left about $200 in her bank account. She never changed her lifestyle one whit until her final illness, which lasted just a couple of months. While she left no estate for her adult children, they had never expected or wanted any. In short, she pretty much spent close to her last nickel on her last days on earth. I call that a success story.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by walkinwood Quote: Originally Posted by ERD50 I don't see where averages are meaningful at all to an individual. Are all aspects of your profile 'average' - average pension, average SS, average nest egg, average investment returns, average spending, average medical bills? Do you have 2.6 children? I'm reminded of the old saw of the 6 foot tall statistician drowning in a pool with an average 3 foot depth. -ERD50 Most of us don't want to be termed "average", but on the whole we are. I agree with you to a degree, but I think we all think we're more unique than we truly are. I think it is better to rely on average and median studies for planning than it is to rely on anecdotes. ....

I agree averages and (even better) medians are more useful than anecdote, but I think most planning should look at the distribution tails, not averages or medians.

If you plan for a median life span, half the planners will live longer. Far better to look at the tails and plan for something that feels 'comfortable'. What age do 10% or 5% or 1% make it to? That at least gives some feel for how far out from average or median you want to go. But the single number tells you nothing about the distribution.

-ERD50

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HNL Bill Please let me die quickly from an acute illness or accident. I have no desire to die in a protracted, expensive, drawn-out way, and consider this far more desirable.

We do not really have a choice in this matter. Or if we do, how do I choose between a quick death at 65, vs. a lingering death at 95?

Well, I may chose the slow death at 95, but then have a trump card in my pocket: a one-way ticket to a Netherlands clinic where they will put me out of my misery. Would the Grim Reaper be upset that I cheat him?

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumDay I've worked with actuaries for decades. I guess it's rubbed off.

I did too. My condolences. [emoji1]

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound ..... Recently, I quoted an article saying that many retirees were too frugal. Heh heh heh...

The authors obviously have not yet met Robbie. [emoji4]

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWras Sorry about your cousin, but you are right, go doing what you love. In the other thread, "Tips from a Cardiologist", there is a referenced article. The author contends that deer hunting is extremely risky, as risky has high intensity interval training. Quote: We have one case report showing a guy's heart rate standing next to a tree went from 70 up to 170 (beats per minute) simply by seeing a deer in front of him.

And your heartbeat can go even higher when you squeeze the trigger on a big rack buck and all you hear is a "click".... (misfire from the firing pin hitting a dead primer).

Of course, dragging that monster out to the rig can get your heart rate up too.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yarnstormer That article mentions retirees with only $29k in savings! Does anyone really deliberately retire with only 29k? Even with a pension that seems extreme. ....

A friend of mine might. Between the rent from the other side of his paid for duplex and SS and his tightwad ways he'll probably survive but he won't be living large.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HNL Bill Please let me die quickly from an acute illness or accident. I have no desire to die in a protracted, expensive, drawn-out way, and consider this far more desirable.

+1. If it has to happen, then let me be run over by a Bud Light truck. Dilly, dilly!!!

[easysurfer]

I really don't think I'd live past 75. Not a crystal ball thing but at family genes. Oldest immediate family member lived only until early 70's.

Yet, at the same time, I see planning like I'll live until 100 as another form of insurance against the unexpected.

Probably won't happen, but just in case. Like good idea to have umbrella insurance.

[RunningBum]

When I die, I want to go peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather...

not yelling and screaming...

like the passengers on his bus.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yarnstormer That article mentions retirees with only $29k in savings! Does anyone really deliberately retire with only 29k? Even with a pension that seems extreme. ...

Well, I know a married, retired couple and they each have a COLA pension in the $80,000 - $100,000 range. With an ~ $180,000 income stream, one can live pretty well w/o much of a cash buffer or portfolio.

I don't know what sort of portfolio they have, but from some comments they've made, I would not be surprised at all if it was very small. I was surprised at some comments they made about some things that they "would not be able to afford" once they retired.

Quote:

My mom never had to hit her nest egg but she had a sizeable ss benefit and paid cash for cars and her spot at a retirement community.

If someone like your Mom bought that as the last car they'll need (or maybe they don't need a car at all), and paid for that retirement community before they retired, it sounds like if they were left with $29K going into retirement, and they'd be fine, right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SumDay I've worked with actuaries for decades. I guess it's rubbed off.

That's the point, averages and medians are meaningful when you are looking at a large group. I see people keep making the mistake of over-stating how that applies to an individual in the group.

-ERD50

[Markola]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unpaintedhuffhines Worrying about outlasting your money is one of the reasons most here won't outlast their money. We've all done mathematical models like Firecalc, played with all the options, and are comfortable with the odds. But two things in particular make me less concerned about running out of money in retirement: 1. I know I can live on a lot less per month than I am budgeting (will I like it? Hell no, but it won't be eating cat food), and 2. If something starts to shimmy, I'll know about it a long way away. It's not like I'll wake up one day and say "damn, I thought I had $3M here, now I only have $847."

+1. There is a lot of ways to put distance between you and cat food. We rank our budget from wants progressively to real needs. It’s obvious there aren’t that many unmanageable real needs, especially after we pay off the house in a few years. We’re planning to live well, travel and enjoy life. But if at a bare minimum our current double comma savings can simply bridge us to taking SS at age 70 + a paid off house + something left invested, we’re going to be “rich” in relative terms. If that fails somehow due to health catastrophe or something, oh well, we will live like other Americans, either average or median or whatever, and will figure out how to muddle through to the end.

[athena53]

Anecdotally, I see quite a few people retiring or planning to retire, with little or nothing saved. Years ago when our newspaper actually HAD a Financial section, someone wrote to the Retirement columnist and asked why he didn't give advice to people who felt "blessed to have $50,000 or $100,000 in retirement savings" instead of addressing the readers who had much more. The columnist's reply: "Keep working".

According to the SSA, 23% of married persons and 43% of unmarried persons rely on SS for more than 90% of their retirement income. Given that the average monthly SS benefit amount is about $1,400 this is a more dismal picture than the EBRI paints.

Someone else mentioned that many retirees probably don't run out of funds but find themselves forced to reduce spending as they age. In many ways I was blessed to be married to my second husband, who was 15 years older than I. I saw the extra expenses of living comfortably in your 70s- hearing aids, good dental care, decreased ability to work around the house and the yard (especially on ladders), and more comfortable travel (Business Class on long hauls, cars to and from airports, fewer trips on public transportation dragging suitcases and backpacks with us, hotels closer to the action).

Even if you don't outlive your savings, not being able to afford good hearing aids or watching your house fall down around you because you don't have the money to get it repaired is a dismal way to spend your final years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unpaintedhuffhines But two things in particular make me less concerned about running out of money in retirement: 1. I know I can live on a lot less per month than I am budgeting (will I like it? Hell no, but it won't be eating cat food), and 2. If something starts to shimmy, I'll know about it a long way away. It's not like I'll wake up one day and say "damn, I thought I had $3M here, now I only have $847."

My feelings exactly. I have numerous large discretionary items I can change at will: funding the granddaughters' 529s, travel and charitable donations (although I would hesitate to reduce a church pledge once I made it, I could pledge less the next year). I could even file for SS earlier than planned- I'm 65 and collecting Survivor benefits and planning to wait on my own till age 70. Mid-course corrections are always possible.

[LARS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by athena53 Even if you don't outlive your savings, not being able to afford good hearing aids or watching your house fall down around you because you don't have the money to get it repaired is a dismal way to spend your final years.

And that is why I don't intend to get hearing aids or new glasses in my old age: if I can't hear or see the deterioration surrounding me is it really happening?

[golfnut]

I see alot of references to genes as a determining factor on how long one might live. However, I'm seeing more and more situations (sadly) where genes have been a poor indicator of longevity.

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by golfnut I see alot of references to genes as a determining factor on how long one might live. However, I'm seeing more and more situations (sadly) where genes have been a poor indicator of longevity.

Really? There are plenty of exceptions, but I think taking into account genes is probably more accurate than a generic "average person lives to 78 (or whatever)". Healthy eating and exercise can overcome bad genes sometimes. Bad habits can override good genes sometimes. Accidents are a wildcard. Bad luck happens and people who show every indication of living into their 90s with good genes and healthy living can die early. But aren't those more of an exception?

What is a good indicator if genes aren't, besides healthy living? I don't buy that it's all luck.

[golfnut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum Really? There are plenty of exceptions, but I think taking into account genes is probably more accurate than a generic "average person lives to 78 (or whatever)". Healthy eating and exercise can overcome bad genes sometimes. Bad habits can override good genes sometimes. Accidents are a wildcard. Bad luck happens and people who show every indication of living into their 90s with good genes and healthy living can die early. But aren't those more of an exception? Genes/lifestyle might be the best indicator but as I mentioned previously, the older I get (62 now) I have seen the exceptions becoming more frequent - friends passing away in their late 50s/early 60s who seemly had the gene wild card on their side and they were not overweight party animals. What is a good indicator if genes aren't, besides healthy living? I don't buy that it's all luck.

I did not say it was all luck but it's the ultimate indicator.

[SecondCor521]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum Really? There are plenty of exceptions, but I think taking into account genes is probably more accurate than a generic "average person lives to 78 (or whatever)". Healthy eating and exercise can overcome bad genes sometimes. Bad habits can override good genes sometimes. Accidents are a wildcard. Bad luck happens and people who show every indication of living into their 90s with good genes and healthy living can die early. But aren't those more of an exception? What is a good indicator if genes aren't, besides healthy living? I don't buy that it's all luck.

I know it's popular to look at one's immediate family's longevity to predict one's own, and I think RunningBum's perception above is the common wisdom these days.

But it's possible that the science says the common wisdom is wrong.

I recall reading somewhere a while back that only 7% of one's longevity can be attributed/predicted this way. That seemed surprisingly low, so I googled it again and found this, which says it's 6%:

https://www.sharecare.com/health/lon...ffect-lifespan

A little further down the Google results is this more scholarly-looking article from the NIH saying it's 25%:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4822264/