Years of RE in Firecalc

I've observed this same tendency among all my older relatives, too. Life really seems to slow down to a snail's pace around 85 (or 80 for some, or even 75), with very little money spent on anything other than the basic necessities. Having said that, though, I still put in 95 when using the various retirement calculators, since that gives me greater confidence in the resulting SWRs.

There are always exceptions. My father has slowed down greatly at 89 y.o., but my mother still runs her part time business and takes spin classes at 86 y.o.
 
There are always exceptions. My father has slowed down greatly at 89 y.o., but my mother still runs her part time business and takes spin classes at 86 y.o.

Yes, of course. My great grandmother was healthy and active into her early 90s, but she spent almost all her time doing simple, low-cost stuff like cooking, going to church, watching TV, and tending to her house, yard, garden, etc. I've personally known no one 85 or older who spent much time (or money) traveling or pursuing expensive hobbies or doing much of anything other than very simple free or inexpensive things, for the most part. There are always exceptions, certainly, but they are (in my experience) very rare.
 
i

Sheesh... If I had known that, i shouldn't have retired in 1989.

Just shows to go ya... don't trust the statistics...:cool::)
Wow! You've been retired 30 years!!! And you've given this forum so much wisdom.
 
I use 100, two of my grandparents lived active lives into their mid 90s, and were still going strong when they died, so even though it is against the odds, that's what I'm aiming for. :)
 
I eat when I'm hungry,
I drink when I'm dry.
And if whiskey don't kill me
I'll live 'til I die.
 
90 for me, 30 years.
 
I started with 92 when I retired in 09 (51 at the time). I quickly bumped it up to 95. Now, I don't even use Firecalc anymore since it appears I can live forever without running out of money.
 
I started with 92 when I retired in 09 (51 at the time). I quickly bumped it up to 95. Now, I don't even use Firecalc anymore since it appears I can live forever without running out of money.
:)
 
I use age 90. But since we only spend about 2% of our assets on average I am not too concerned about it.
 
I started with 92 when I retired in 09 (51 at the time). I quickly bumped it up to 95. Now, I don't even use Firecalc anymore since it appears I can live forever without running out of money.

We are in about the same boat...

I retired at 53 in 2004 after using FIRECALC from time to time after its announcement in the Wall Street Journal. Before retiring I downloaded the FIRECALC data into a spreadsheet and multiplied each cell by the probability that either my wife or I might be alive. (After all, if we are both dead, we wouldn't need money.) I was looking for a 95+% chance of our not being simultaneously broke and alive.

So far, so good, and we left today on our sailboat going south for our 12th winter trip to the Bahamas. Dory36 is one of my heros.

Bill
 
I started out using Firecalc 10 years ago and would just reflexively leave it at 30 years. I still do that... But, lately I have wondered if I should at least look at shorter durations.

One thing that does complicate it a bit is that DH and I are 6 1/2 years apart in age so I have always tended to key it more to me (I am the younger). I do run it from time to time modifying SS and expenses for only one of us still being alive.

Figuring out individual life expectancy seems difficult. DH's father died at 79 and his mother died around 85. But, his father had serious heart problems which DH doesn't have and his mother had a disabling stroke in her 70's (high blood pressure which DH no longer has).

For me, I am adopted and never knew my birth father but I do know who he is and know something about his family. He died at age 70. My birth mother (whom I do know) is still doing well at 89 (she had a serious illness last year and almost died due to losing weight due to delirium after a broken hip...but she rebounded and is fine now). But her parents died in their mid-70s. Also my paternal grandparents both died in their mid-70s. But -- I am healthy so who knows.

Running it 30 years takes me to 95 and DH to 101. I will probably soon start also running to at 25 years and seeing what that does. Firecalc is really just a guideline....
 
Years ago I used to use age 93-95 most of the time, 100 at the most.

But now that we have had this bull market, and now that I have claimed my own SS at age 70 (last June), I feel pretty flush and I run it out to age 117. Apparently 117 is one year older than the age of the oldest living person.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_living_people


Great news, if you live in USA, 27% of the people listed are in the USA!! That gives us, roughly, 1/4 chance of living beyond 100 years old!



In all honesty, that applies for everyone. The mind is a powerful device.
 
I'm 52 now so I run it for 18 years ( age 70). The logic being that is when I plan to take SS which will dramatically change the cash flow needed from the portfolio. If there is an obvious flaw in doing it that way feel free to let me know. Thx.
 
I think you want to run it for 40 years. There is a tab that is other income. You can put in the year you will start SS

I think if you put in 18 years the Calc will expect that you are anticipating expiration (death) at age 70
 
I think you want to run it for 40 years. There is a tab that is other income. You can put in the year you will start SS

I think if you put in 18 years the Calc will expect that you are anticipating expiration (death) at age 70

Correct.
 
I think you want to run it for 40 years. There is a tab that is other income. You can put in the year you will start SS

I think if you put in 18 years the Calc will expect that you are anticipating expiration (death) at age 70

I have done that as well and it also give me 100% success which is great, but did the shorter time frame to just get an average of what I will have at 70
 
I'm 52 now so I run it for 18 years ( age 70). The logic being that is when I plan to take SS which will dramatically change the cash flow needed from the portfolio. If there is an obvious flaw in doing it that way feel free to let me know. Thx.

IMO, that's not how FC works and perhaps a very dangerous approach.

What your doing as asking FC is if you will run out of ALL your money in 18 years.

FC is designed to include your SS benefit and most likely will give you a higher spending number during those first 18 years as well as beyond. What you don't want is to be 70, have no money left and just be looking at SS as your only hope.

With no other insight on your situation YMMV
 
IMO, that's not how FC works and perhaps a very dangerous approach.

What your doing as asking FC is if you will run out of ALL your money in 18 years.

FC is designed to include your SS benefit and most likely will give you a higher spending number during those first 18 years as well as beyond. What you don't want is to be 70, have no money left and just be looking at SS as your only hope.

With no other insight on your situation YMMV

I hear what you're saying. I did it more to see what Firecalc would give as the average amount left over after 18 years.....
 
Back
Top Bottom