Jump to content
offroad

Waiting to 65 to retire - death risk versus finances

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, JimK said:

You can argue but it might make more sense to spend a few minutes online and learn about the 4% rule and how to use it.

Jim,  are you suggesting that as a woman I would not understand the 4% rule, or that my education is in some way lacking?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the math can get really complicated.  DiffyQ is what is needed but since the variables are so difficult to pin down, it is almost as bad as trying to determine orbital probability for any atom beyond hydrogen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been retired 12 years and with the exception of the year of the 'crash' we have made much more than the 4% on our different investments.  The key is to have a diversified portfolio and hopefully not have a huge amount in the traditional 'safe' investments for retirees.  

Edited by Barbaraok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Barbaraok said:

Jim,  are you suggesting that as a woman I would not understand the 4% rule, or that my education is in some way lacking?   

I didn't see where he said anything about what sex you are. He also never questioned your education, simply your understanding of the 4% rule. 

I'm curious why you believed it was necessary to throw your sex into the mix when no one (other than you) mentioned it at all. Obviously you both have differing opinions of the 4% rule but throwing your sex out there was kind of silly. Is there a term for that? Kind of like "playing the race card" only for gender? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the 4% rule doesn't fit everyone.  We left our full time employment in 1987.  At the time we were young enough that the probability we would live more than 30 years was high.  We were aware of inflation but the reality of it is very real.  Many of the things we buy are a lot more expensive today.   Double or more in many cases.  The loss of a spouse and their income or long term care can wreck a lot of budgets. The odds are good that we have many years left.  I am reasonably confident of our financial future but there are unknowns.   The 4% rule is an attempt to provide a reasonable probability that one's finances will last 30 years. We have to many variables to use this rule but it works for some of our friends. Any plan has so many variables and assumptions that reasonable people may not agree but inflation and medical must be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Randyretired said:

medical must be considered.

Even that part is hard since the rules keep changing.

Linda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, sandsys said:

Even that part is hard since the rules keep changing.

Linda

With medical costs soaring and politicians seizing control of it and a large chunk of the money to pay for it uncertainty is virtually guaranteed. For a time we had to deal with a prescription for some pills that cost $13,000 a month.  Luckily insurance picked up a large part of it.  About the same time I read an article that stated it is critical for most retirees to have a written budget.  Where does a prescription of that cost fit?  We didn't have a written budget then and we still don't. To many variables! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because of a lot of different medications that Dave takes, he has to be careful with interactions.  When his gastric reflux began interfering with his daily life, he tried different OTC remedies but he can't take  omeprazole  because it interferes with his Plavix.  However, there is a new (non-generic) drug called Dexalant that doesn't interfere with other medications and Dave was given a trial set of pills.  They seemed to help, but when we went to get the prescription filled, our Insurance denied coverage ($600/month) until the physicians wrote to justify the need to have that specific drug.     

Agreed that there is no way to have a written budget that can take into account what prescriptions you might need 6 months or a year from now!  We are lucky in that our Part D plan (paid for by our former employer) is very good and for most prescriptions it is $20 for 90 days worth of medication.    What is really galling is the pharmaceutical companies engaging in price gouging on generic meds, for example the cost increases for insulin! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As pointed out in the article, the 4% SWR is a guide that is especially useful when planning and at the start of retirement.  Because the 4% rule is designed to be safe, it is indeed often the case that portfolio performance is better and additional amounts can be withdrawn.  Also a great many people do not understand the 4% rule and do not apply it correctly. 

I don't understand why the Motley article did not mention there are well researched and easy to use tools for adjusting withdrawals as needed later in retirement.  I would guess they are trying to pretend that they have some special knowledge of this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 8:00 PM, Barbaraok said:

Jim,  are you suggesting that as a woman I would not understand the 4% rule, or that my education is in some way lacking?   

Absolutely not.  As pointed out by another forum  member, I made no mention of your lack of education or lack of ability to learn.  I certainly did not mention gender.

What is apparent is that you are just throwing opinions about the 4% rule and have never researched it.

Here is a quick summary.  The 4% rule is based on historical, Monte Carlo projections and other research.  The 4% rule allows an inflation adjusted 4% withdrawal each year with a high probability that the nest egg will last for 30 years.  In order for the rule to work, the annual returns on the portfolio need to be 2% plus the rate of inflation.  That is a sort of worthless number because returns are likely to vary considerably each year.  The Firecalc internet site provides a powerful tool for accessing outcomes for different time periods, different withdrawal rates and different investment allocations.  Firecalc projections also indicate that the stock allocations in the 30-70% range are advised.  With lower allocations, the risk of running out of money increases substantially.  Over 70% does not increase the safety and means hoping for higher returns with higher volatility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you know what I have researched?  Again, I was in academia for 40 yrs.  you think we didn’t do EXTENSIVE research when getting ready to retire?  Really?  As you noted, the 4% rule is based upon~a 2% return on VERY CONSERVATIVE investment s.  It has lead a lot of people into trouble when interest rates fell to unprecedented levels after the crash.  Are you suggesting that you’ve only gotten 2% or less returns on your investments.  Also rate of inflation has been very low the past few years.  Or are you advocating it for others but not yourself?

My biggest problem with your original statements that a $1.5M principal was required for retirees - which is always put forward by investment companies trying to get new investors.  If the average age  on these forums was in their 30s & 40s then that might be  a starting point.  But I would venture that a lot of us are (1) all ready retired, (2)  are not trying to maintain lifestyle similar to when they were working, and (3) have experiences as retirees that are worth exploring.  

 

 

Edited by Barbaraok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Barbaraok said:

My biggest problem with your original statements that a $1.5M principal was required for retirees - which is always put forward by investment companies trying to get new investors.  If the average age  on these forums was in their 30s & 40s then that might be  a starting point.  But I would venture that a lot of us are (1) all ready retired, (2)  are not trying to maintain lifestyle similar to when they were working, and (3) have experiences as retirees that are worth exploring.  

QED.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zulu said:

QED.

Quote

QED is an abbreviation of the Latin words "Quod Erat Demonstrandum" which loosely translated means "that which was to be demonstrated". It is usually placed at the end of a mathematical proof to indicate that the proof is complete.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×