audreyh1
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I too am amazed that such a small minority of us have no pension at all. I thought it would be at least half the group!
it irritates me when the 100% equity people claim superior knowledge while many of them have their ***etts covered with a pension.
This is just an observation but it irritates me when the 100% equity people claim superior knowledge while many of them have their ***etts covered with a pension.
Sorry for the vent but let's keep it honest. 100% of 10k does not equal 40% of 2.5m with no pension when it comes to investment advice. Thank-you
No question about your being right, but I really haven't seen much of that. I think most of us who have pensions tend to disclose the fact. But there are also a fair number of us who still maintain a good diversified and balanced AA despite our good pensions, just because we're chicken!
As a counter-point to this, for someone who has a decent pension I am mostly left out of all the AA discussions, the SWR debates, etc. They mostly don't apply. One day it dawned on me that our mostly-pension-based retirement was, in effect, a fixed-income asset, so that all other monies should be in equities in an attempt to properly balance things out. If we do a net-present-value calculation we're probably 99.5%/0.5% fixed income to equities AA. Pensions kinda get forgotten in many retirement planning discussions...
Chose LSD vs. annuity which I would consider a pension. How do you count that here?
I calculate ours as % of income, not budget. Non-cola, so we will invest a hefty portion to create income to offset. All amounts using 100% survivor benefit.First, I will disagree with the many comments about trying to make something of the data. This is a self-selected poll, people! It really has almost no meaning.
Second, I wonder how people are calculating the significance of their pension? If it isn't COLA'd, it is likely worth ~ 1/2 its original amount over the long run (at least that's what my experiments using FIRECalc have shown). And what about survivor benefits? That changes the value for many of us.
My pension, if I took it w/o survivor benefits, and cut it in half to adjust for non-COLA, would be roughly 20% of my "SWR" number.
-ERD50
First, I will disagree with the many comments about trying to make something of the data. This is a self-selected poll, people! It really has almost no meaning.
-ERD50
That's actually not correct.Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
First, I will disagree with the many comments about trying to make something of the data. This is a self-selected poll, people! It really has almost no meaning.
-ERD50
Defining our active E-R.org population as those who've contributed since 1 Jan 2016 (well over a year), and using the sample size from the poll (currently >200), we can say with 95% confidence & a 7% margin of error that the poll results represent our community views.
I'm not sure how you got the number of "those who've contributed since 1 Jan 2016", but even so, the poll has little/no meaning. The stats numbers only apply to a random sampling in the survey. Once it is a self selected group, it's all thrown out the window.
-ERD50
Agree.I'm not sure how you got the number of "those who've contributed since 1 Jan 2016", but even so, the poll has little/no meaning. The stats numbers only apply to a random sampling in the survey. Once it is a self selected group, it's all thrown out the window.
-ERD50
Non-random samples mean confidence intervals are larger, not smaller to reach the same confidence level.I understand that "random" samples are superior but, that does not mean that "non-random" samples are meaningless and cannot be used to make meaningful inferences about the total population. A non-random (self selected in this case) sample just means that the confidence interval of the results is smaller so, a larger sample size is required. The current sample size of our poll (215) is already large enough compared to our population (2137 if you accept my definition) that a non-random sample can be used to reach conclusions on a meaningful confidence level (95% in this case).
Non-random samples mean confidence intervals are larger, not smaller to reach the same confidence level.
Perfect disclosure. It makes sense and provides an excellent evaluation of AA with your overall situation. I can see where the pension vs non pension can put you on one side of the fence or the other. However with all the facts, most of us should be able to arrive at a financial conclusion we can facilitate.
40/50/10 because it works for me. Thanks