What are you using for your longevity number?

[RobbieB]

Mom 87, Pops 92. Planning on 90.

Pops dad and older brother went at 50, younger brother 89.

 

[Ian S]

Most of the longevity calculators I've tried put me living into my 90s so I'd plan for 100.

 

[Montecfo]

Longevity is not tied really closely to parent longevity.

I have outlived my parents at this point. My mother passed at 48, my father at 58.

I do not have their medical history or the same risk factors, praise God.

I don't have a number. I just have a low withdrawal rate.

I did not find a response that fit so did not answer the poll.

 

[street]

According to the poll a lot hoping for 90 plus years. We will see, we never know what tomorrow will bring.

 

[ERD50]

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

Mom 87, Pops 92. Planning on 90..

Those are awfully small sample sizes for such an important plan. Do you really think those #'s are relevant?

-ERD50

 

[RunningBum]

According to the poll a lot hoping for 90 plus years. We will see, we never know what tomorrow will bring.

No, that's not it at all. A lot of people are planning in case they live to be 90+. They may also be hoping for it, but that's got nothing to do with the poll.

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

According to the poll a lot hoping for 90 plus years. We will see, we never know what tomorrow will bring.

I am not hoping that I live very long. I hope I do NOT. I am just planning for it in case I do.

 

[RobbieB]

Those are awfully small sample sizes for such an important plan. Do you really think those #'s are relevant?

-ERD50

They are my family numbers.

 

[tmm99]

No, that's not it at all. A lot of people are planning in case they live to be 90+. They may also be hoping for it, but that's got nothing to do with the poll.

Exactly. I plan for 95 just in case. I don't want to end up running out of money in later years if I happen to live to be 95.

 

[Telly]

I used 95. I think someone pulled age 95 out of their arse years ago, and it became a common planning number.
No male in my bloodline has exceeded age 75. And the one who lasted to 75 was an upper-tail outlier. So going with age 95 gives $ protection to DW.
DW has longevity in her family, except for the ones that died early. Should be a Yogi Berra-ism.

 

[Act2]

I plan for 100. One grandma made 100, the other 98. I don’t expect the same, but neither did they. So I plan as if it will be 100.

 

[BuysToys]

I use 95 but there's a slim chance I will make it that long. Too many health issues already and I'm not yet 60. I'd rather be conservative, though, and not run out of funds if I do happen to break some kind of record for my family.

 

[DayDreaming]

Because my savings will never run out, I'm planning to live forever.

 

[street]

No, that's not it at all. A lot of people are planning in case they live to be 90+. They may also be hoping for it, but that's got nothing to do with the poll.

True, I understand that when I posted and same with my numbers I used also. My humor sometimes isn't taken the way I intend it too. Lol

Thanks for making that more clear.

 

[Midpack]

I use 95 because a) many sources recommend adding 10 years to ensure plan success ***, and b) my parents lived to 93 and 96...

Actually I hope I don’t live to be anywhere near 95, but I need to plan for it.

Of course there are many ways to "hedge" a withdrawal plan adding longevity years, overstating inflation, understating returns, higher probability of success, etc. IOW you can choose a more realistic longevity and hedge in other ways, no one factor tells the story.

*** so far the poll suggests many have read same

 

[Surewhitey]

All grandparents went before 80, pops at 71. Mom's still going at 74...optimistic at 90. DW is 6 years older, so she's hoping we go together apparently.

 

[ERD50]

Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Those are awfully small sample sizes for such an important plan. Do you really think those #'s are relevant?

-ERD50

They are my family numbers.

Still an extremely small sample size, and do we really have any idea of what kind of predictor this is?

I'd bet that if you looked up the data for people who reached the age of 100, you'd find that their siblings had a pretty wide range of lifespans. So are you the sibling that lived to 80, or the one that lived past 100? Who knows? Their parent's age was not a good predictor in that case, was it?

I'm not saying it's not a factor, but I do believe it's a small enough one that it can hardly be used in any meaningful way for this purpose.

That's why I plan for > 100. I don't know and don't want me or DW to run out of money before then.

Now, considering the small sample size and questionable correlation, and the impact of other factors, if you want to add a buffer of +-15 years on that, I'd say that might be reasonable. And that gets you in my range


-ERD50

 

[HarveyS]

My plan goes to 100. Spending grows at 3.5% per year until age 80. Then gets a 50% cut. Then grows at 3.5%/yr again from the 50% number.

To illustrate:
Spending budget today $100k
Spending next year $103.5k
Spending age 79: $178k
Spending age 80: $89k
Spending age 81: $92.1k

 

[corn18]

One thing to keep in mind if you have a significant other is to include the longevity of both partners. If I predecease my wife, her income goes down a lot. She has no SS on her own, so that gets cut in half. My military pension goes down by 45%. Expenses will go down, but not by that much.

If I plan to live to 95, life is great. In my model, I can pick any date for me to die and see how that impacts my wife. She's ok, but I need more than if it were just me.

 

[street]

One thing to keep in mind if you have a significant other is to include the longevity of both partners. If I predecease my wife, her income goes down a lot. She has no SS on her own, so that gets cut in half. My military pension goes down by 45%. Expenses will go down, but not by that much.

If I plan to live to 95, life is great. In my model, I can pick any date for me to die and see how that impacts my wife. She's ok, but I need more than if it were just me.

You are right the equation gets more involved with two. When it really comes down to making that educated guess of years of life or the projection for sustaining money vs life.

For us it really hasn't been something we have even considered what we will need or what we have to budget for x number of years.

Like many other here have said, their lives will run out before their money. It is because of not being stinking wealthy but that our WR is low and will sustain years beyond our time here on earth.

 

[FI_RElater]

...for my longevity... but longer for the "last to pass"

One thing to keep in mind if you have a significant other is to include the longevity of both partners. If I predecease my wife, her income goes down a lot. She has no SS on her own, so that gets cut in half. My military pension goes down by 45%. Expenses will go down, but not by that much.

If I plan to live to 95, life is great. In my model, I can pick any date for me to die and see how that impacts my wife. She's ok, but I need more than if it were just me.

I use 92 for mine (2xstd dev of average; parents gone at 52/62 and only one in any part of the lineage made it to 90 (and that was a distant aunt)... and my background employment wasn't exactly "kind" per the insurance actuaries for long term survival).....
so my plan first had to account for that for surviving spouse longevity (also we used a 3.5% max wr) and it's why I'll likely be filing next year for SS (already deferred and Medicare age, so thirty years more certainly isn't at all likely)... The total expectancy for last to pass is on the order of 34-35 more years.
If I pass before spouse is 70 (who has the slightly higher PIA) then spouse goes on survivor until 70 and starts their own higher SS. It's also why some Roth conversions were done on mine and will be done on spouse's in future, as it reduces the RMD requirement which would put the survivor at even higher bracket and higher IRMAA level.

If we're both past 70.... we'll be getting so much that we'll be adding to the nest egg for future (as if we aren't already not spending up to what we could) and, assuming LTC for each would be $120k/yr above SS and pension, that still gives over ten years each for the "home", not including home equity which would add further years. The likelihood of both needing over ten years of skilled assistance (not in our own house), while not zero, isn't high enough to further plan... the likelihood of one, with the other still in the house, is far more likely and is what our plan expects... and still survives with more typical outcomes (under 8 years).

 

[tmm99]

My dad died at 43, my mom has just turned 94. My dad's side tends to die young and my mom's side tends to live much longer, so who knows what will happen to me. I have a friend whose parents and their siblings had heart attacks and cancer in their 60s and died in their 70s, so she figures her genes are against her.

 

[pacergal]

I use 100 in calculators when I use them.
Various longevity calculators have us mostly mid 80's, one to early 90's.
AT 65 now, those next 20+ years are going by rather fast!

My Parents died ages 79 and 86
Grandparents: varied ages 42-100
DH: parents 35 and 56
Grandparents ages mid 50s-84
All died of natural causes except two accidents.
Most Aunts/Uncles seem to be following early to mid 80s in both our families.

We chose our pensions 100% for life for both, and that is what we use for base budget and 1-2 trips per year. SS and investments are for potential extra trips, unplanned expenses and LTC. Any leftovers to kids.

 

[Out of Steam]

I'm planning for an above 50% chance of living to 85, though I ran both 30 and 35 years from retirement at 60 in FireCalc with high success.

Once we both take Social Security, I don't expect to need more than a 2-3% draw. Anything under 2% seems like unnecessary deprivation, so I don't plan to go below that.

 

[youbet]

I don't think it's wise to look at only one time period. Currently, at age 74, I do runs for 15, 20 and 25 year periods. All have 100% success rates but the 15 year period has the lowest ending balance and the 25 year period has the highest. (Your outcomes will depend on your own AA and WR.)

You don't have to pick one number and go with it. Do several scenarios and note the outcomes. You'll be able to answer the question "gee, what happens if I live to X, Y or Z in terms of ending portfolio balances?"

This is different than just using a single time period, say 30 years, and looking at the outcomes along the X axis. When you do runs with various time periods, the shorter period includes more runs and has a higher standard deviation, the longer has fewer runs and a smaller standard deviation. All interesting stuff, especially for folks with 100% survival rates out to infinity.

And, as always, remember you're back-testing and not predicting the future.