What are you using for your longevity number?

[omni550]

I'm wondering what number people here are using for their longevity (life expectancy) when doing calculations for drawing-down their portfolio during their retirement? (If you're married, you likely may be using the life expectancy of whichever person you expect to outlive the other.)

I early-retired in 2007 and used to use age 102 as my 'expiration date' for my portfolio calculations. This was based on something I'd read a while ago that said to calculate the average of the death ages of your parents and their siblings and then add 10 years to that number (to allow for the expected improvements in longevity due to healthcare advances). This is how I arrived at 102.

Now that I'm 'older and wiser', I'm wondering if perhaps 102 is a bit overly-optimistic. Perhaps I should pick a lower number, which would allow for a much higher spend rate? I don't have a spouse nor any heirs to worry about, so leaving a large estate is not a major goal. Charities will be my beneficiaries. I'm wondering if perhaps I'd enjoy loosening-up the purse-strings a bit while still ensuring that I won't be destitute in my later years.

FWIW, a quick google search says current U.S. life expectancy is around 78.6 (76.1 for men and 81.1 for women). I know Covid resulted in a drop of a year or two which may not yet be factored-into this number.

omni

 

[disneysteve]

I use 90.

 

[tmm99]

I'm female and I use 95.

 

[HenryD]

I use 95. I don't see either of us making it much past 85.

 

[Gumby]

...
FWIW, a quick google search says current U.S. life expectancy is around 78.6 (76.1 for men and 81.1 for women). I know Covid resulted in a drop of a year or two which may not yet be factored-into this number.

omni

You can't use life expectancy at birth for this purpose, because the longer you live, the longer you can expect to live. This social security actuarial table shows life expectancy at every age, so that would be a good basis for a decision.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6_2004.html

It tells me that I can expect to live to 81, on average. Having no current chronic health conditions and being wealthier than average, I would guess I'll go a few years longer than average. Whenever I have run FIRECalc, I use 90 just to be conservative.

 

[SecondCor521]

You can't use life expectancy at birth for this purpose, because the longer you live, the longer you can expect to live. This social security actuarial table shows life expectancy at every age, so that would be a good basis for a decision.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6_2004.html

It tells me that I can expect to live to 81, on average. Having no current chronic health conditions and being wealthier than average, I would guess I'll go a few years longer than average. Whenever I have run FIRECalc, I use 90 just to be conservative.

Agree with the above, but I use the 2019 version:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

 

[MichaelB]

Another age 90 here. I don’t expect to live that long but that’s what I use for FIRECalc and it seems prudent to keep a conservative plan.

 

[ERD50]

In my view, this isn't worded correctly. It would be better to say "What life span do you plan for?"

IOW, I plan for longer than my expected lifespan, because there is a range around one's expectation. So even if I expect I'll live to, 92, I plan for 102+, because I (or DW) may live that long, and I want to have resources, just in case.

At some point, it doesn't matter much - a conservative WR becomes a 'forever' portfolio.

-ERD50

 

[silvor]

89. But if I used the parents + 10 years rule I’m not even close.

I figure if I’m still alive in my mid 89s my knees and back will have me in a home anyway.

 

[corn18]

I used the SSA tables and several other online calculators that take into account current health. They all seemed to point to 83. I don't do much with it other than added it to my chart. That was quite chilling. I still plan to 95 for finances but plan to max my living between now and 83.

 

[Jerry1]

I use 100. However, it really doesn’t matter what I use. The most common points of failure, if they occur, will likely wipe me out whether I make it to 90 or 100. The most likely issues, IMO, are high inflation and long term healthcare. Healthcare may be somewhat self balancing in that if I find myself in a full time care setting, I probably won’t live long anyway. But obviously, that type of care can easily wipe out a portfolio. The more likely is inflation.

I thought I was being conservative in my modeling by using the same number for my inflation assumption as my investment return number. I think the last time I modeled (a couple years ago) I used 3% for inflation, which seemed reasonable, and 3% for investment returns, which seemed pretty conservative. Time will tell, but if we don’t get inflation under control and get some average returns back, at 61, I’m a bit worried. On average, the market has done better than inflation in the few years I’ve been retired so my base assumptions have not yet been violated.

 

[street]

I use 95 but I believe it will be around 90 to 93 where my parent passed away.

 

[Souschef]

My dad died at 92, and mom at 102. I took the average and came up with 97.

 

[NW-Bound]

I stop using any number for retirement calculation because my WR is so low it is nearly certain that I will run out of life before my stash runs out. Actually, I stop doing any real retirement calculation.

Well, I don't know if some economic calamities can happen that wipe out every asset, but if that happens, everybody will be scratching the earth for something to eat and there will no longer be any retirement to worry about.

The above said, when I am curious to see what FIRECalc says, I just run with the default of 30 years of retirement just for kicks. Way too optimistic for me to live another 30 years, but as I said it did not matter.


PS. I cannot vote, because there's no choice suitable for me.

 

[Dtail]

I use 95 for the retirement calculators.
Dad passed at 92 and mom still kicking with full faculties at 89. All grandparents and their families lived past 80.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I plan for over 100. We're still saving money in retirement and growing the portfolio most years. The money really shouldn't run out, no matter how long we live.

 

[foxfirev5]

DW and I are realistically in the 75-85 range. Our plan extends to 95 for unknown unknowns and legacy reasons.

 

[rk911]

100, actually.

 

[CardsFan]

I stop using any number for retirement calculation because my WR is so low it is nearly certain that I will run out of life before my stash runs out. Actually, I stop doing any real retirement calculation.

Well, I don't know if some economic calamities can happen that wipe out every asset, but if that happens, everybody will be scratching the earth for something to eat and there will no longer be any retirement to worry about.
.......

^^ This

 

[MC Rider]

The default of 30 years in the calculator + I am 63 = 93.
I could probably reduce that. Then again Dad is 86, mows his lawn, drives his car.

 

[skyking1]

I use 25 years rather than the default 30, because nobody got into their 90's anywhere that I can find.
dad was 63 and so were most of his brothers and sisters. Mom and her sisters 86.
I am certainly going to be BTD right out of the gate

 

[levindb]

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.

 

[latexman]

Fidelity retirement planner gave me warnings until I increased to 93 for me and 95 for DW. This seems consistent with a lot of folks here.

 

[Gumby]

Agree with the above, but I use the 2019 version:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

Yes, it would be best to use the most current table. I retired in 2019, so all my planning was using the 2004 table. In any event, under all reasonably foreseeable circumstances, we will never run out of money, no matter how long we live. Indeed, FIREcalc says we'll leave an 8 figure estate if we take the dirt nap at 90, and it will only grow from there.

 

[kcowan]

In addition to the extending life the longer you live is the fact that retiring young will extend your life assuming no diseases.