Catch 22 Should Be My Name

awww...geeeee...
I could not respond to the very nice responses to my post (below) without registering, so I have now twice attempted to register, and have twice received this response:
The letters you typed don't match the letters that were shown in the picture.

Now admittedly, the letters are wavy, and all, but gee, whiz, maybe I have problems that transend lack of investing accumen, and I should seek the services of a professional. (M.D. or D.O. rather than C.F.P. 8)) I apologize for my failure to register.

I would like to thank the people who leaped in to help me, and if you folks would read the original post and responses below, the following just mightmake sense. Your mileage may vary A special thanks to Don Heff for the handkerchief.
______________________________________
Okay, so I won’t cry. How could I cry when so many smart and handsome people rushed in here to help me?
But ya gotta explain this “Catch 22” to me.

A couple of years ago, I realized that the “brass ring” might be within reach. I dared to begin hope that I could retire at the age of 56. I set out to prove or disprove this theory. Along the way, I sharpened my pencil, and took every risk tolerance questionnaire there was. I hit the net, and filled out every calculator that asked “Are YOU on track for retirement?” (This actually made me kind of queasy, as I am old enough to remember Mr. Daly asking “Would YOU like to be Queen for a Day?!” And I did. And I do. And for me, retiring at 56 would fit the bill. I don’t need the Maytag washer and dryer. Sorry for the digression.)

Sooooo...up until I hit this FIRECALC a couple of nights ago, every one of those on-line calculators said: “Go for it, Rita! You are golden!!” So I have continued to sock away money like the Mad Woman of Chaillot, keeping my eye on the prize.

Now, FIRECALC, says “whoa there, girl! Waddya think you’re doin’?” And I am brought up ‘short’, apparently.

First HUGE question: My AA is 50/50 because I was TOLD it needed to be more conservative, because I am within 3 years of retirement. But if it needs to MORE aggressive, because it will not tolerate the legendary 4% SWR at 50/50, isn’t this some huge “Catch 22”? Try telling the average investing mavens that you are within 3 years of retirement, and your AA is 75/25. They’ll walk away shaking their heads.

Now, my eccentric habit of behaving like SS will not exist is because I want to retire at 56, and do not want to feel like I should only compute my needs to the earliest possible date for SS, at the risk of taking reduced benefits when I do not have to. (If that makes any sense at all.)

Rita<---not crying, cause some very smart people here have taken an interest in my plight, and will help me out. (thank you very much!)

[JohnEyles]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lovely Rita Now, FIRECALC, says “whoa there, girl! Waddya think you’re doin’?” And I am brought up ‘short’, apparently. First HUGE question: My AA is 50/50 because I was TOLD it needed to be more conservative, because I am within 3 years of retirement. But if it needs to MORE aggressive, because it will not tolerate the legendary 4% SWR at 50/50, isn’t this some huge “Catch 22”? Try telling the average investing mavens that you are within 3 years of retirement, and your AA is 75/25. They’ll walk away shaking their heads.

I can get FIRECalc to support 4% SWR at 100% certainty with 40yr payout, with a
60/40 AA. The main requirement is to select the "mixed portfolio" in the "How Is It
Invested ?" tab of Advanced FIRECalc. Asset allocation is:

large value 25%, S&P500 25%, US smallcap 10%
LT treasury 15%, LT corporate bond 15%, 1-month treasury 10%

It's still pretty conservative because there is 0% foreign. Unfortunately lots of
people think it's "data mining" because there is not data available as far back in time
as for the "total market" choice and thus some pessimistic scenarios are avoided.

Quote:

Now, my eccentric habit of behaving like SS will not exist is because I want to retire at 56, and do not want to feel like I should only compute my needs to the earliest possible date for SS, at the risk of taking reduced benefits when I do not have to. (If that makes any sense at all.)

As I explained in my post in the other thread (talking about a 10-year "period certain"
annuity to stand in for SS until it starts), you do not need to assume you'll take SS at
the earliest possible age or that it's not gonna get eroded a bit from what you're told
to expect now.