SA Article on Retirement Mistakes

[Johanson]

The article is a pretty boring read but I thought folks might enjoy reading the comment section, specifically about retiring early.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4103499-avoid-5-retirement-mistakes

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

I used to enjoy Seeking Alpha, but in recent months it has become an absolute cesspool of click bait. I understand that these websites have to make money, but the "information" they are using to get people to click is ridiculous. Also, it looks like you have to "follow" some Colorado Investor "guide" to see these comments...so, yeah...I don't think so.

 

[target2019]

Yes, the article is free to read with a free SA account.

I usually read a handful of comments. What happens in those discussions is similar to what you experience in any free forum.

Thanks for posting.

Do you have any favorite authors at SA?

 

[imoldernu]

Totally coincidental, but being a little bored, typed in Early Retirement into Google and came up first with these three "easy to read" links...
Might be worth a peek...

This one is silly...

https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career/retiring-early-surprisingly-not-good-sounds.html/?a=viewall

This one you already know

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-montalk-20170903-story.html

http://host.madison.com/business/investment/markets-and-stocks/signs-you-retired-too-early/article_9fee677e-1df6-57bd-b7be-9f716a1f50e3.html

 

[jazz4cash]

I used to enjoy Seeking Alpha, but in recent months it has become an absolute cesspool of click bait. I understand that these websites have to make money, but the "information" they are using to get people to click is ridiculous. Also, it looks like you have to "follow" some Colorado Investor "guide" to see these comments...so, yeah...I don't think so.

I enjoy SA but it is very limited in terms of unbiased info. This piece is not typical of what I consume there so thanks for the link. You don't have to follow the author to read the comments. Actually I usually read the comments first which are frequently more informative than the article.

 

[Nightcap]

Pet peeve: Pundits and charlatans who use "life expectancy" figures without an anchor point.

Yes, in 1935, life expectancy was somewhere in the 62 year range. However, that's because of all the various things that carried you off in childhood. A man aged 65 in 1935 had an expectancy of a good thirteen more years. Nowadays, thanks mostly to modern medicine, it's about sixteen more years. Nice, but scarcely earth-shattering.

A similar trick is used to give the impression that we'll all be living to be over 100 soon. Why, in 1935, you'd be dead at 62 and now you 65-year-olds live to be 82. That's 30 years! Just extrapolate this curve, and you'll be blowing out a hundred candles soon.

Meanwhile, the mortality rate continues at an unchanging 100%...

 

[joeea]

Pet peeve: Pundits and charlatans who use "life expectancy" figures without an anchor point.

Yes, in 1935, life expectancy was somewhere in the 62 year range. However, that's because of all the various things that carried you off in childhood. A man aged 65 in 1935 had an expectancy of a good thirteen more years. Nowadays, thanks mostly to modern medicine, it's about sixteen more years. Nice, but scarcely earth-shattering.

I'm not sure where your figures come from. The most widely accepted US figures these days seem to indicate over 19 years remain for a 65 year old. That number is likely even higher for many relatively-wealthy readers of this forum.

You are correct that childhood causes of death have been significantly reduced, but improvements happen every day on the other end as well.

Finally, unless you plan something drastic, average life expectancy isn't the dominating factor for planning. You only live one life, not an average of many lives. You need to plan for what you want to happen should you (and perhaps your spouse) live a long, long time.

 

[Nightcap]

I'm not sure where your figures come from. The most widely accepted US figures these days seem to indicate over 19 years remain for a 65 year old. That number is likely even higher for many relatively-wealthy readers of this forum.

You are correct that childhood causes of death have been significantly reduced, but improvements happen every day on the other end as well.

Finally, unless you plan something drastic, average life expectancy isn't the dominating factor for planning. You only live one life, not an average of many lives. You need to plan for what you want to happen should you (and perhaps your spouse) live a long, long time.

Oh, I quite agree. I'm planning on leaving happy heirs.

The source was https://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html, but that might not be the most accurate assessment.

 

[JustCurious]

A similar trick is used to give the impression that we'll all be living to be over 100 soon. Why, in 1935, you'd be dead at 62 and now you 65-year-olds live to be 82. That's 30 years! Just extrapolate this curve, and you'll be blowing out a hundred candles soon.

Your point is well taken, and I agree...but I have to point out that the difference between 62 and 82 is 20 years, not 30.

 

[Nightcap]

Your point is well taken, and I agree...but I have to point out that the difference between 62 and 82 is 20 years, not 30.

My tongue was in cheek on that one. It's pretty much what I heard in my last "one-on-one" meeting with the representative of my last employer's 403(b) provider. So far as I could tell, his primary purpose was to sell me on a "balanced" portfolio of a dozen higher-load funds. He was not at all in favor of retiring early (Didn't I realize that I'd have to fund 80% of my income for 30-40-even 50 years!) or of low-cost index funds (Well, if all you want is to be *average*...)

Once I was no longer employed, I transferred my 403(b) to a Vanguard IRA. Much happier, and they don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.