Music Lover
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Because you can't have greater than a 100% chance of success?
But...but what about all the athletes that say they give 110%?
Because you can't have greater than a 100% chance of success?
Because you can't have greater than a 100% chance of success?
I lost my job and the job search is not going very well. (That's for another thread )
We have no debt.
I've calculated our expenses at:
$53,000 essential (with ACA healthcare).
$9,000 discretionary expenses.
Social security at 67:
Me: $3200
Wife: $900
$370 month pension at 62
FIREcalc is showing $1,750,000 has a 100% success for a 35 year retirement.
Did you go to the first page & reduce your starting portfolio value?
.
What if you live beyond 35 years?
If I extend it out another 5 years to 40...
Looks like if you take SS at 62 you have a 99.1% success rate
@67 it's 97.1% success rate.
Curious why taking SS later would lower your chance of success?
You need a lower starting balance at 62. I ran both of them with the same starting portfolio instead of adjusting age 62 with a smaller balance.
Ok, I broke firecalc with real world numbers taken from SS earnings.
62 and 1 month in 2024 $2,336.00 28,032 annually
67 in 2029 $3,317.00 39,804 annually
I put in a portfolio of $300,000 with a annual spend of $39,804, retirement for 30 years.
If you take SS at 62 you get a 90% success rate
If you take SS at 67 you get a 0% success rate
This isn't right, because I know that you can make $300,000 last 5 years and after that point SS is generating ALL of your annual spend.
Same as your 90%FIRECalc looked at the 123 possible 30 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $300,000 and spending your specified amounts each year thereafter.
Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 123 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $-248,664 to $1,504,556, with an average at the end of $439,636. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)
For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 30 years. FIRECalc found that 12 cycles failed, for a success rate of 90.2%.
FIRECalc looked at the 123 possible 30 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $300,000 and spending your specified amounts each year thereafter.
Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 123 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $-237,420 to $1,332,069, with an average at the end of $442,063. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)
For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 30 years. FIRECalc found that 4 cycles failed, for a success rate of 96.7%.
You're doing something wrong.
With $28,032 SS annually starting in 2024:
Same as your 90%
With $39,804 of SS starting in 2029:
I'm guessing that when you input the $39,804 in SS that you included a comma and should not have included a comma.
It can't take commas
I still want to dig into this more but gotta get working on house today.
I'm just curious (and you don't have to answer) what you are calculating for medical expenses as you age. What's the size of your emergency fund? Will you be regularly adding to it through retirement?
As has been published many times, the average cost for retiree medical expenses NOT covered by Medicare totals over $280K/per person, lifetime, and medical costs increase faster than inflation, historically.
Assuming the spouse still gets 50% if taken at 62:
Reduced SS $26,316/yr =2033
Reduced SS $13,158/yr =2034
No COLA pension $4440/yr = 2033
$1,151,900 for 35 years = 100% success
$73,100 less than if taken at 67.
Not sure it's worth it if the spouse were to die early, the survivor will take a bigger hit on SS?