What are you using for your longevity number?

[CRLLS]

For the calculators, I use 100 for us both. Coincidentally, that is 30 years out, just like the Trinity Study and so many others since. We currently are well under the 4% rule and our need for this WR onward will be even less when I claim on my SS benefits later this year. I know that the odds are not in our favor of reaching that age. I'd rather have some assets left over when we pass than run out 5-10 years before that time. We have run various scenarios with one of us passing too. I think it is only good planning practice to do that.

 

[GravitySucks]

92 - For no other reason than Fido RIP defaulted to that age.
The online health and longevity calculators say I'll be lucky to hit 82.
Seems like most people I know in their 80s spend very little. Better safe than sorry though.

 

[RunningBum]

Seems like most people I know in their 80s spend very little. Better safe than sorry though.

Not true of the people in their 80s I know best, my parents. In their 60s and early 70s, they withdrew about $24K/yr on top of SS. Sometime in their 70s they stopped traveling because of my mother's arthritis, but also moved into independent living with all meals provided, so I think spending remained about even.

Then at 84 Mom had to go into memory care and they had to pull $84K/yr on top of SS. A couple weeks ago (18 months later) she broke her hip and will have to move to a place that can handle both dementia and her very limited mobility, so it looks like that number jumps to $133K. Fortunately it seems they take Medicaid once the money runs out, so as soon as she's settled we'll figure out when and how to qualify her while keeping some money from my father. They are also fortunate to have family resources (me) if they did run out and didn't have a good Medicaid option.

So, yeah, better safe than sorry. I know some people here have said they don't care what conditions are like if they have to go to assisted living. Not me, and not for my parents.

 

[Lsbcal]

A lot depends on
1) how close to the financial edge you can tolerate
2) how many years of decent spending you have
3) how many liberal or conservative financial assumptions you make

For us, I have used the VPW tool (see Bogleheads site) and used 110 years as the terminal age. This tool uses historical returns. I just set it to 1966 which was about the worst time to start withdrawals and something like a 70/30 or 60/40 portfolio.

Regarding our financial edge, I want to have a very low probability of drawing down to less then 1/2 of what we have now (inflation adjusted). Then we can happily spend and sleep well.

 

[Winemaker]

Dear Dad died of leukemia at 70, but healthy as a horse. good BP, blood readings, good BWI. Dear Mom just passed at 86, took BP meds, was overweight, survived breast cancer, dementia showed up about 3 years ago. I take after my DM genetically more so than my Dad. I plan for 90, but doubt if I will realize it unless there are some medical breakthroughs for memory loss.

I've used Fidelity's tool, i-ORP, and the Retiree's Portfolio Model through Bogleheads, and my own custom spreadsheet.

 

[6miths]

I don't really use one. The living to 100 calculator says I am going to live to 95 which would be a record in my family. Interestingly, there is not much I can do to alter it by much.

 

[flyingaway]

My father just crossed the 90 year mark, so it makes sense for me to us 95.

 

[Andre1969]

I started running various scenarios with FireCalc, and plotting them on an Excel table, back in 2012, when I was 42. Back then, I used the age of 100.

However, that would give 58 year spans, which meant the most recent cycle meant starting around 1953 and ending in 2011. So, just to test a bit further, I'd also run shorter spans, to see what might happen. For instance, around 1965-66 wasn't such a great year to retire. And as the front page of FireCalc shows, neither was 1973. And I also have a feeling that around 1999-2000 might have been a bit iffy, as well.

Now I'm 52, which means I only have to worry about a 48 year span. So the most recent span backtested would be 1973-2021, roughly. But, I still run the numbers based on shorter spans, just to see what happens.

As for my family history, I've had plenty of family members make it into their 90's, but they've all been women. However, my paternal Granddad made it to one month shy of 102. While that sounds good, my Dad died 3 days after his 71st birthday! One of his brothers died at 82. And the last remaining brother is around 82 now, but on oxygen and in very poor health. Now in the case of my Dad, he smoked like a chimney and drank like a fish, and rarely went to the doctor. And his one brother who recently died, was also a heavy drinker/smoker.

I think my maternal grandmother's older brother made it to around 86 or 87. I believe my stepdad's father made it to around 85, but he's not a blood relation, so I don't use him as a reference point. I think I had a few male relatives on my maternal Granddad's side of the family, down in southern Virginia, who made it to their 80's.

 

[Luvtoride]

There are a few things that we have built into our financial planning:

1. We will live to age 105
2. Our last check will bounce...we actually plan to run out of money at 105.
3. Investment returns will be 3% above inflation

...any funds left over will go to the children if we do not make it to age 105.

DW's mother lived to 97 and grandmother lived to 101, so we are not being totally unreasonable. My parents were heavy smokers and lived to 80, and the range of blood relatives goes from 55 to 98.

If we pick a younger age, we would need to build in a cushion to make sure we get clean diapers every day...so the WR is about the same either way.

I love the philosophy….Die with Zero! Great objective but hard to achieve. Hope you reach your goal!

 

[djsander]

DW decided to use 40 years for retirement which if we used when I retired last year would put us at 104 and 101. She still hasn’t moved the plus 40 when we were looking at our numbers. I said we need to drop to 39 years. She said no. MIL is 93 or 94 and still going my mom is 90 and dad was 88. No matter what we use we don’t spend a lot so we should be able to make it to whichever age. DW has always been a saver and will be until the day we are gone.

 

[Koolau]

I have enough chronic conditions that I gave up "guessing" a certain age. It would seem I'll be lucky to reach the average of my parents ages (84). But, for planning purposes, I used to use a 30 years from now number - IOW FIRECalc as if I just retired and planned on a 30 year retirement. Eventually, it seemed silly thinking I'd live 30 years beyond, say 75 (current) so I simply picked the number 99 as a practical number to use in my roughly yearly revisit to FIRECalc. Amazingly, you can spend a LOT more money when you are old and still make FIRECalc come out 100%. Maybe I should have put this in the epiphany thread. YMMV

 

[timbervest]

all my scenarios solve to age 100.

 

[FLSUnFIRE]

I know past performance is no guarantee of future results but based off of the first 47 years I expect to keep breathing... as the sample size grows each year I'll probably become more confident in my prediction. I plan on perpetuity.


Seriously, I have a long time so my WDR is pretty low and I do not plan to draw down as I age and chose >93. I expect expenses will go up but if the markets are friendly over the next 4-6 decades I should die "rich" and have plenty to leave to family/charities of my choosing. For now, I just need to get through the first decade intact!

 

[Retired Expat]

I use 93 for me which means 98 for my wife. Her mother lived to 97 so ….. using 93 there is still going to be millions left according to Fire calc so not going to worry. Also I fully expect our spend is going to drop quite a bit if we make it to that age. Not traveling or maintaining 2 homes, 2 cars and for sure I won’t be buying clothes and new iPhones.

Not to over generalize but Seriously older folks just stop caring about that stuff!

 

[ncbill]

90 for me...wildly optimistic...dad made it to his early 80s, but all other male relatives on his side, around age 70.

100 for spouse since she is the spitting image of her maternal grandmother who died at age 97.

 

[Golden sunsets]

I plan for 100.

 

[cyber888]

I run simulations to 100 years old - 103 years old .. I plan to live to 150 years old, but I'm too lazy at this point to work 10 more years for that so hope Social Security will continue to pay me big money.

 

[Koolau]

all my scenarios solve to age 100.

Heh, heh, we recently helped to celebrate the 106th BD of a dear friend. We (and she) just lost another friend at age 96. It seems we know a lot of folks in their 90s, which is encouraging. We do live in the state with the highest longevity. Don't know if it translates to transplants such as ourselves. I'll believe it if you will.

 

[NW-Bound]

I have enough chronic conditions that I gave up "guessing" a certain age. It would seem I'll be lucky to reach the average of my parents ages (84). But, for planning purposes, I used to use a 30 years from now number - IOW FIRECalc as if I just retired and planned on a 30 year retirement. Eventually, it seemed silly thinking I'd live 30 years beyond, say 75 (current) so I simply picked the number 99 as a practical number to use in my roughly yearly revisit to FIRECalc. Amazingly, you can spend a LOT more money when you are old and still make FIRECalc come out 100%. Maybe I should have put this in the epiphany thread. YMMV

As mentioned in an earlier post, I always use the default 30 years of retirement when I run FIRECalc, starting from when I discovered the calculator and this forum. That was back in 2008.

Now, 14 years later, if I run FIRECalc for kicks, I will still use the default 30 years. Shortening that time is just too depressing! Just leave that field alone.

And FIRECalc says I can spend more money than ever. It's because my stash is now 2.7x what I had back in 2008. And I still have not drawn SS.

If I shorten the time to 16 years, who knows what FIRECalc will say? But why do I need to find that out?

So, I don't bother to run any calculator anymore. There's no reason.

 

[eyenitnoy]

Since I don't know exactly when I am going to die, I use the IRS life expectancy tables:

https://www.fidelity.com/building-savings/learn-about-iras/irs-single-life-expectancy-table


Thus, if you are 62, the table gives you 25 more years.

Yes, this could be wrong.

But for planning, you have to use something.

 

[swakyaby]

Planning for 90 for DH and 95 for me.

 

[2017ish]

DW was MD and is a fitness fanatic. She had great aunts make it to 99, and her folks are in good physical shape at 94/90.

When determining when to retire, I pegged her at 105. (Me, indeterminate because of male ancestors with "early death habits," but I'm basically irrelevant for these purposes.)

 

[old medic]

Picked 90, But in FC I use 35 years. Family longevity history I may need bump it to 100...

 

[Koolau]

As mentioned in an earlier post, I always use the default 30 years of retirement when I run FIRECalc, starting from when I discovered the calculator and this forum. That was back in 2008.

Now, 14 years later, if I run FIRECalc for kicks, I will still use the default 30 years. Shortening that time is just too depressing! Just leave that field alone.

And FIRECalc says I can spend more money than ever. It's because my stash is now 2.7x what I had back in 2008. And I still have not drawn SS.

If I shorten the time to 16 years, who knows what FIRECalc will say? But why do I need to find that out?

So, I don't bother to run any calculator anymore. There's no reason.

Yeah, I don't really worry about leaving money on the table. I just want to insure it goes where I want it to do. BTD from the grave(?) YMMV

 

[ERD50]

Since I don't know exactly when I am going to die, I use the IRS life expectancy tables:

https://www.fidelity.com/building-savings/learn-about-iras/irs-single-life-expectancy-table


Thus, if you are 62, the table gives you 25 more years.

Yes, this could be wrong.

But for planning, you have to use something.

Yes, you need to use "something", but not just "anything"!

You realize those tables are based on averages, right? For critical things, it is not wise to plan on the average condition.

If you need to drive 100 miles with no gas stations in between, and your car averages 25 mpg on that trip, do you feel that 4 gallons from empty is good planning? Most would not. They'd plan on having worse than average mpg, and maybe needing to make a side trip, or having to double back for some reason after being 75 miles out.

Plan for a more extreme case. Stuff happens.

Example:

The IRS table gives a 20.4 year longevity for a 68 YO = 88.4 years.

This site ( https://www.longevityillustrator.org/ ), gives a 68 YO male, average health, a 14% odds of reaching 95, and 4% odds of reaching 100. A female has a 22% and 7% odds of 95 and 100 age.

For a couple, the odds are higher that one of them will exceed those odds (the 'tails' add up).

Plan for the worst (best?) case.


-ERD50