If you're talking about in the media, I think it's very easy for journalists to find people who'll admit to busted retirements. It's a bit harder to find people who've been retired 40-50 years who'll understand that their retirement is jeopardized by inflation.Rock said:Perhaps, but time and again I see early market crashes identified as the primary cause of busted retirements (based on the worst periods defined by FireCalc).
If you're referring to FIRECalc, well, that uses historical returns & inflation. You can crank inflation a bit higher by selecting the PPI or by raising your expense ratio. You might also want to consider periods of 40-50 years, especially if you're in your 40s. Personally I'd rather plan an ER to age 120 and be proven wrong than to plan an ER to age 97 and find out that I'm healthier than my portfolio.
I understand that. My response is pointing out that there may be worse things to focus on and that managing risk during only the early years is a short-term approach.Rock said:My post adressed the idea of risk management only during the vulnerable early years...not for the duration of ones retirement.
If you haven't done it already, Dory will be more likely to see this suggestion if you PM him or put it in the FIRECalc section of the board.Rock said:If FireCalc accepted time variant asset allocations we could test this concept, instead of just speculating
I'd love to believe that, but I suspect that healthcare & long-term care will prove to be more expensive than advisors realize. Again, none of us are willing to wait until our 90s to find out whether the anecdotal evidence is correct.jeff2006 said:Expenses fall as we age, or so they say. If this is true, it would help counterbalance the effects of inflation long term.