PBS Frontline : The Retirement Gamble, sorta Must See (1 Viewer)

[eoMMan]

I somehow doubt all of you 100% equities people are prepared to lose 50% of your portfolio within a very short period

If you hit your mid-late 30s or on to your 40s, your portfolio now has to double to recover that 50% haircut you just took (it has happened before, and will happen again). Sure, you have time...but you don't have that much time

Contrast that with having 20-30% of your portfolio in bonds, and your haircut is now more like 30%, with only a 60% gain needed to recover (likely a lot less since bonds will likely do well in that environment).

I see a lot of bravado and lack of fear in the posts above, people professing to being a gambler, YOLO, etc. Either you guys weren't heavily invested in 2008 or you have very short memories. The market recovered fairly quickly after that, but there is nothing saying it has to (see the Nikkei for an obvious example http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/Oct/$nikk-monthly.png ). There is a reason why no Financial Advisor worth a damn would advise being 100% exposed in equities. Once you get into your 30s I would use 20% bonds as a floor, and as the hairline recedes and you start making actual projections / budget for retirement look to be more like 30-40%

Incorrect.

There are plenty of smart FA's out there who would advise being 100% in equities if you are looking at 30 plus years until retirement.

YOLO

 

[Steve Tasker]

I'm currently ~20% in bonds.

 

[wilked]

I guess I mean once you are in your 30s (re: earlier comment re FAs). In 20s - sure, go 100%

 

[lod01]

Go 100% stocks with the option to run screaming at anytime right up to and thru retirement. In retirement, my new job will be watching the markets. I'm addicted to it.

 

[pecorino]

I just turned 45 and have 20% allocated in a Real Estate fund and the other 80% in stocks I'm not moving into bonds at all until I hit 50. And if the markets are being pummeled around that time, I'm sure I'd double-down buying more equities. I did lose 50% in 2008 but I bought and bought some more, recouped within several years. It's just a matter of your risk tolerance and mine is high. In my 30s, I didn't even consider bonds for a second.

 

[Sand]

I'm currently ~20% in bonds.

25% Bonds, 15% cash, and 60% gold here. The cash is more about finding things I want to invest in. This year it really hasn't mattered - most asset classes did about 0.

(kidding about the gold).

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'm currently ~20% in bonds.

25% Bonds, 15% cash, and 60% gold here. The cash is more about finding things I want to invest in. This year it really hasn't mattered - most asset classes did about 0.

(kidding about the gold).

Is that you Len Penzo?

 

[Gachi]

A friend of mine claims that if you put ~500 a month into a retirement account for at least 30 years then you'll be good for retirement. Is this accurate?

Taking care of your folks can REALLY mess you up for retirement. My parents have been paying all of my grandmother's bills for almost 20 years. They're both late 50s and basically have no retirement.

I'm in my early 20s and still in college, so retirement isn't even a priority right now. But I really want to avoid their mistakes. If possible, I'd like to be semi-retired by 60. Maybe working part time if I get bored.

 

[kutta]

I somehow doubt all of you 100% equities people are prepared to lose 50% of your portfolio within a very short period

If you hit your mid-late 30s or on to your 40s, your portfolio now has to double to recover that 50% haircut you just took (it has happened before, and will happen again). Sure, you have time...but you don't have that much time

Contrast that with having 20-30% of your portfolio in bonds, and your haircut is now more like 30%, with only a 60% gain needed to recover (likely a lot less since bonds will likely do well in that environment).

I see a lot of bravado and lack of fear in the posts above, people professing to being a gambler, YOLO, etc. Either you guys weren't heavily invested in 2008 or you have very short memories. The market recovered fairly quickly after that, but there is nothing saying it has to (see the Nikkei for an obvious example http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/Oct/$nikk-monthly.png ). There is a reason why no Financial Advisor worth a damn would advise being 100% exposed in equities. Once you get into your 30s I would use 20% bonds as a floor, and as the hairline recedes and you start making actual projections / budget for retirement look to be more like 30-40%

I agree. I think another factor is the size of the portfolio. It's easy to say "Put it all in stocks" when you have $50k invested and if you lose half your money you only lose $25k. And if you get lucky and hit something, that's great too. But if you have $2M invested, losing 50% is losing $1M, and suddenly that's a bit of a different story.

 

[Fennis]

A friend of mine claims that if you put ~500 a month into a retirement account for at least 30 years then you'll be good for retirement. Is this accurate?

Taking care of your folks can REALLY mess you up for retirement. My parents have been paying all of my grandmother's bills for almost 20 years. They're both late 50s and basically have no retirement.

I'm in my early 20s and still in college, so retirement isn't even a priority right now. But I really want to avoid their mistakes. If possible, I'd like to be semi-retired by 60. Maybe working part time if I get bored.

After 30 years that investment would be worth about $500,000.

 

[Sand]

I'm currently ~20% in bonds.

25% Bonds, 15% cash, and 60% gold here. The cash is more about finding things I want to invest in. This year it really hasn't mattered - most asset classes did about 0.

(kidding about the gold).

Is that you Len Penzo?

Sad that I know exactly who you're talking about. He gets on a podcast I listen to a lot (Stacking Benjamins).

And for the record I hate gold as an investment. IMO there is absolutely no reason to own any.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I'm currently ~20% in bonds.

25% Bonds, 15% cash, and 60% gold here. The cash is more about finding things I want to invest in. This year it really hasn't mattered - most asset classes did about 0.

(kidding about the gold).

Is that you Len Penzo?

Sad that I know exactly who you're talking about. He gets on a podcast I listen to a lot (Stacking Benjamins).

And for the record I hate gold as an investment. IMO there is absolutely no reason to own any.

Agreed. I like Len though, he's kind of a strange guy who thinks the exact opposite about investing that I do so it's nice to get that perspective. I listen to that podcast as well, and his blog is actually pretty information.

 

[Gachi]

A friend of mine claims that if you put ~500 a month into a retirement account for at least 30 years then you'll be good for retirement. Is this accurate?

Taking care of your folks can REALLY mess you up for retirement. My parents have been paying all of my grandmother's bills for almost 20 years. They're both late 50s and basically have no retirement.

I'm in my early 20s and still in college, so retirement isn't even a priority right now. But I really want to avoid their mistakes. If possible, I'd like to be semi-retired by 60. Maybe working part time if I get bored.

After 30 years that investment would be worth about $500,000.

Wow that's it? When you deduct taxes and fees that's not sustainable at all.

I want to retire with at least a million in retirement dollars.

 

[Fennis]

A friend of mine claims that if you put ~500 a month into a retirement account for at least 30 years then you'll be good for retirement. Is this accurate?

Taking care of your folks can REALLY mess you up for retirement. My parents have been paying all of my grandmother's bills for almost 20 years. They're both late 50s and basically have no retirement.

I'm in my early 20s and still in college, so retirement isn't even a priority right now. But I really want to avoid their mistakes. If possible, I'd like to be semi-retired by 60. Maybe working part time if I get bored.

After 30 years that investment would be worth about $500,000.

Wow that's it? When you deduct taxes and fees that's not sustainable at all.

I want to retire with at least a million in retirement dollars.

Invest more money (when you can) or invest for a longer period of time. After 35 years that same $500/mo is worth $700,000. FWIW, I assumed 6% annual return.

Also remember when you are ready to retire your investments will continue to grow, even while you start withdrawing money, so it can last much longer.

 

[RUSF18]

A friend of mine claims that if you put ~500 a month into a retirement account for at least 30 years then you'll be good for retirement. Is this accurate?

Taking care of your folks can REALLY mess you up for retirement. My parents have been paying all of my grandmother's bills for almost 20 years. They're both late 50s and basically have no retirement.

I'm in my early 20s and still in college, so retirement isn't even a priority right now. But I really want to avoid their mistakes. If possible, I'd like to be semi-retired by 60. Maybe working part time if I get bored.

After 30 years that investment would be worth about $500,000.

Wow that's it? When you deduct taxes and fees that's not sustainable at all.

I want to retire with at least a million in retirement dollars.

You're going to want/need much more than that. A million dollars today is going to be worth much less in 40ish years when you're 60 and want to be semi-retired.

You have plenty of time so just do some basic research on retirement planning so you don't make those mistakes you're referring to, or depending on someone's advice like $500/month and "you'll be good". Obviously you're going to want to put away more money as your career grows and your salary increases...that's why most people discuss their retirement contributions as a percentage of their salary.. If the company you eventually work for offers a 401k where they match a certain portion of your contributions, always contribute enough to get as much as they will match. That's FREE MONEY.

 

[Dentist]

A friend of mine claims that if you put ~500 a month into a retirement account for at least 30 years then you'll be good for retirement. Is this accurate?

depends on what your friend means by "you'll be good"

like you can afford to shop at aldi's (nttawwt) and live in some type of cheap housing and watch tv and do crossword puzzles, sure.. probably will.

you're going to need 3x that to have a the type of retirement they showcase in money magazine

 

[NutterButter]

A friend of mine claims that if you put ~500 a month into a retirement account for at least 30 years then you'll be good for retirement. Is this accurate?

depends on what your friend means by "you'll be good"

like you can afford to shop at aldi's (nttawwt) and live in some type of cheap housing and watch tv and do crossword puzzles, sure.. probably will.

you're going to need 3x that to have a the type of retirement they showcase in money magazine

You might not even need the 500/month if you had a well paying job and therefore will be at the upper end of social security.

 

[wilked]

I just turned 45 and have 20% allocated in a Real Estate fund and the other 80% in stocks I'm not moving into bonds at all until I hit 50. And if the markets are being pummeled around that time, I'm sure I'd double-down buying more equities. I did lose 50% in 2008 but I bought and bought some more, recouped within several years. It's just a matter of your risk tolerance and mine is high. In my 30s, I didn't even consider bonds for a second.

what size is your portfolio?

REIT and Equities show decent correlation (especially short-term), it would not be surprising to see them both get knocked 50% simultaneously. So now you are 49, just saw your portfolio get cut in half, and have 10-15 years (when do you plan to retire?) to double it to get back to where you started pre-crash?

To me it seems foolish not to diversify and hedge against a market crash. This is the common wisdom of most books I read and other investing sites I frequent, for what it's worth (Malkiel's Random Walk Down Wall St, Bogleheads books and website, Eric Tyson's Investing for Dummies, Benjamin Graham - Buffett's mentor and person he modeled himself after - etc etc)

I doubt I will convince those who seem pretty steadfast in their decision above, but for the others who are unsure I encourage you to read one of those books or authors I just mentioned to at least consider their perspective and reasoning. Times have been good since 2008, but just like in all markets it will not last, and what the market has done for the last 10,20,50,100 years may have no bearing on what it will do going forward.

 

[NutterButter]

I somehow doubt all of you 100% equities people are prepared to lose 50% of your portfolio within a very short period

If you hit your mid-late 30s or on to your 40s, your portfolio now has to double to recover that 50% haircut you just took (it has happened before, and will happen again). Sure, you have time...but you don't have that much time

Contrast that with having 20-30% of your portfolio in bonds, and your haircut is now more like 30%, with only a 60% gain needed to recover (likely a lot less since bonds will likely do well in that environment).

I see a lot of bravado and lack of fear in the posts above, people professing to being a gambler, YOLO, etc. Either you guys weren't heavily invested in 2008 or you have very short memories. The market recovered fairly quickly after that, but there is nothing saying it has to (see the Nikkei for an obvious example http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2009/Oct/$nikk-monthly.png ). There is a reason why no Financial Advisor worth a damn would advise being 100% exposed in equities. Once you get into your 30s I would use 20% bonds as a floor, and as the hairline recedes and you start making actual projections / budget for retirement look to be more like 30-40%

YOLO

 

[pecorino]

I just turned 45 and have 20% allocated in a Real Estate fund and the other 80% in stocks I'm not moving into bonds at all until I hit 50. And if the markets are being pummeled around that time, I'm sure I'd double-down buying more equities. I did lose 50% in 2008 but I bought and bought some more, recouped within several years. It's just a matter of your risk tolerance and mine is high. In my 30s, I didn't even consider bonds for a second.

what size is your portfolio?REIT and Equities show decent correlation (especially short-term), it would not be surprising to see them both get knocked 50% simultaneously. So now you are 49, just saw your portfolio get cut in half, and have 10-15 years (when do you plan to retire?) to double it to get back to where you started pre-crash?

To me it seems foolish not to diversify and hedge against a market crash. This is the common wisdom of most books I read and other investing sites I frequent, for what it's worth (Malkiel's Random Walk Down Wall St, Bogleheads books and website, Eric Tyson's Investing for Dummies, Benjamin Graham - Buffett's mentor and person he modeled himself after - etc etc)

I doubt I will convince those who seem pretty steadfast in their decision above, but for the others who are unsure I encourage you to read one of those books or authors I just mentioned to at least consider their perspective and reasoning. Times have been good since 2008, but just like in all markets it will not last, and what the market has done for the last 10,20,50,100 years may have no bearing on what it will do going forward.

There are many factors, of course, that complicate everyone's plan. Primary for me is that we have already diversified by buying a retirement home which we currently rent to bring some cash flow. House should be paid off in 8 or 9 years, all via rents. So having a safety net in place allows me to feel better about other risks. I plan to work to 66 or 67 if the markets remain favorable but I am wiling to work until 72 if I need to weather a 5-year financial storm. I plan to reduce my exposure to stocks over a 20 year period, starting at age 50. But even at retirement age, I expect to carry about 25% of my investments in stocks, mostly blue chip dividend payers. Bottom line is that everyone needs to be comfortable with their plan and what is too much risk for one person is just right for another. I feel good about my plan.

 

[Niles Standish]

I am 34 and 100% equity.

My theory is I want to be 50/50 when I retire at hopefully 70.

So I'll add 20% bonds at 40 and then 5% every 5th year after that. Might not be the optimal way to do things but seems good enough.

I figure as long as I have 30 years of working life to look forward to there's no reason to have bonds. But that's just me and I'm not a market watcher.

 

[NutterButter]

I haven't given too much thought on when I'll be incorporating bonds. I have a target retirement age of 55. I'll probably wait until 45 and start at say 20% and increase it a pace so that I'm around 50 or 60% by time I retire with a max of around 70% when I'm 70 and just stick with that until death.

 

[proteus126]

You're going to want/need much more than that. A million dollars today is going to be worth much less in 40ish years when you're 60 and want to be semi-retired.

RUSF18, that $500k was after adjusting for inflation. Same purchasing power as $500k today, in other words.

Coincidentally, I just put together a spreadsheet for a coworkers' kid that can be adjusted to show this kind of thing.

Assuming 3% inflation, 9% nominal return (6% real return):

$500/month starting in 2015 turns into an inflation-adjusted $508k in 2045.

$800/month gives you an inflation-adjusted $815k.

 

[xulf]

I don't think anyone is saying never to go into bonds, but 30 years or so out just seems like a really long time. My 401k is 100% stocks, but my ROTH (~10% of my 401k) is more diversified in a Vanguard "target" type fund. My wife's IRA and ROTH (combined to be ~50% of my 401k) is even more bond heavy as she is much more conservative. I also have a rental property with ~15% of my 401k tied up in equity.

 

[Dentist]

I don't think anyone is saying never to go into bonds, but 30 years or so out just seems like a really long time. My 401k is 100% stocks, but my ROTH (~10% of my 401k) is more diversified in a Vanguard "target" type fund. My wife's IRA and ROTH (combined to be ~50% of my 401k) is even more bond heavy as she is much more conservative. I also have a rental property with ~15% of my 401k tied up in equity.

i do the opposite.. 100% stock in my Roth since if that gets huge i don't have to pay taxes, and put my bond portfolio inside my 401k where I still have to pay the taxes on it.

 

[NutterButter]

I don't think anyone is saying never to go into bonds, but 30 years or so out just seems like a really long time. My 401k is 100% stocks, but my ROTH (~10% of my 401k) is more diversified in a Vanguard "target" type fund. My wife's IRA and ROTH (combined to be ~50% of my 401k) is even more bond heavy as she is much more conservative. I also have a rental property with ~15% of my 401k tied up in equity.

i do the opposite.. 100% stock in my Roth since if that gets huge i don't have to pay taxes, and put my bond portfolio inside my 401k where I still have to pay the taxes on it.

Good thinking

 

[xulf]

I don't think anyone is saying never to go into bonds, but 30 years or so out just seems like a really long time. My 401k is 100% stocks, but my ROTH (~10% of my 401k) is more diversified in a Vanguard "target" type fund. My wife's IRA and ROTH (combined to be ~50% of my 401k) is even more bond heavy as she is much more conservative. I also have a rental property with ~15% of my 401k tied up in equity.

i do the opposite.. 100% stock in my Roth since if that gets huge i don't have to pay taxes, and put my bond portfolio inside my 401k where I still have to pay the taxes on it.

I don't disagree with this thinking. The adviser we use for our ROTHs and my wife's IRA likes to play the conservative nature of my wife versus me. Had I not gone in the fund I went in, my wife would have even gone more conservative. Figured it was a compromise

Plus, from a mental standpoint, I feel better seeing a large® number in my biggest retirement account.

 

[culdeus]

Hey, my parents are running some sort of deal where they are pulling from social security early. They broached this at dinner and I couldn't pin down the specifics of this thing to know if they are falling into a trap.

All I can really get out of them, without prying futher, is some deal where when my dad turns 65 my mom can get cut a check for like 2k a month if they get on this program.

WTF could this be and are they dumb for this? I'm not in a position to really just say it's a horrible idea and didn't want to be giving them a billion questions at a pleasant dinner otherwise.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

Hey, my parents are running some sort of deal where they are pulling from social security early. They broached this at dinner and I couldn't pin down the specifics of this thing to know if they are falling into a trap.

All I can really get out of them, without prying futher, is some deal where when my dad turns 65 my mom can get cut a check for like 2k a month if they get on this program.

WTF could this be and are they dumb for this? I'm not in a position to really just say it's a horrible idea and didn't want to be giving them a billion questions at a pleasant dinner otherwise.

May be doing File and Suspend.but that is being phased out soon if they haven't already started collecting

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/grab-key-social-security-benefit-110056304.html;_ylt=AwrBT7x0RIRWlRgARsZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T051-C000-S002-social-security-strategies-for-married-couples.html

 

[lod01]

Hey, my parents are running some sort of deal where they are pulling from social security early. They broached this at dinner and I couldn't pin down the specifics of this thing to know if they are falling into a trap.

All I can really get out of them, without prying futher, is some deal where when my dad turns 65 my mom can get cut a check for like 2k a month if they get on this program.

WTF could this be and are they dumb for this? I'm not in a position to really just say it's a horrible idea and didn't want to be giving them a billion questions at a pleasant dinner otherwise.

May be doing File and Suspend.but that is being phased out soon if they haven't already started collecting

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/grab-key-social-security-benefit-110056304.html;_ylt=AwrBT7x0RIRWlRgARsZXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTByMjB0aG5zBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw--

http://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/T051-C000-S002-social-security-strategies-for-married-couples.html

Sounds like file and suspend. If they are doing this, they are fine because they know what they are doing. This is the last time anyone gets this option.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Hey, my parents are running some sort of deal where they are pulling from social security early. They broached this at dinner and I couldn't pin down the specifics of this thing to know if they are falling into a trap.

All I can really get out of them, without prying futher, is some deal where when my dad turns 65 my mom can get cut a check for like 2k a month if they get on this program.

WTF could this be and are they dumb for this? I'm not in a position to really just say it's a horrible idea and didn't want to be giving them a billion questions at a pleasant dinner otherwise.

Not sure. Though you can start drawing from SS at 62 in full - at a discounted amount.

The breakeven point for the discounted amount and waiting for the regular full payment amount (66-67) is around 81 years of age for most people.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Just re-balanced my 401k and did my annual account maintenance. Up 1.37% for the year, pedestrian yet expected in this market environment. Put a few more bucks into government securities, reduced my exposure in short and intermediate bonds, and bought more into small caps as I think that is the sector most likely to yield the best intermediate returns. I don't shift a lot though, stay the course with a few adjustments based on what is happening right now in the world. Only check this account a handful of times per year, just for re-balancing and tweaking ever so slightly.

13.5 years until I can retire, 18.5 years until I retire for certain. My Roth returns were in the negative this year, stupid energy stocks weighed me down.

Interested in hearing what other people's 401k did, I think if you got 5% this year you killed it.

4.7% return YTD in my Vanguard accts which is the majority of what we have.

Pretty much 50/50 mix of stocks and bonds. Stocks are mostly Vanguard funds, but still have individual stocks from prior portfolio. Some individual muni bonds in addition to Vanguard bond funds.

Oops. Full admission of wrong here. I quickly hit the return report, looked and posted here.

This is my return since inception - which is early 2014 when most everything went into the Vanguard accounts. So I have 4.7% since inception about a year and 3/4s - Not this year.

This year is a 0.49% return.

The bond funds are going to keep this return down from full market returns but I sleep better at night knowing I won't see my savings take nearly the hit if the #### hits the fan. Very happy with the individual muni bonds I brought into Vanguard with me - they are bringing 3.3% tax free income - just wish I had more. They keep getting redeemed early ...

I am really thinking of moving to a 60% stock amount, but it makes me uneasy. Totally agree with the guys here staying super heavy into stocks (using MPT to diversify) when having 10+ years prior to retirement. I am retired and not looking to work again and need to manage volitility, maintain cash flow and minimize taxes.

 

[ghostguy123]

Speaking of social security, I don't really know a great deal about how it works other than wait longer and get more per month. I know nothing is set in stone for when I retire regarding exactly how SS will work, but how can I figure out what I can most likely expect to get when I retire (depending what age I begin to draw of course)?

 

[lod01]

Speaking of social security, I don't really know a great deal about how it works. I know nothing is set in stone for when I retire regarding exactly how SS will work, but how can I figure out what I can most likely expect to get when I retire (depending what age I begin to draw of course)?

Sign into the social security website? It tells you how much you are going to get.

 

[ghostguy123]

Speaking of social security, I don't really know a great deal about how it works. I know nothing is set in stone for when I retire regarding exactly how SS will work, but how can I figure out what I can most likely expect to get when I retire (depending what age I begin to draw of course)?

Sign into the social security website? It tells you how much you are going to get.

I just did some SS calculator, gave me two numbers. Todays dollars and inflated dollars. Drastically different amounts for 30 years from now.

It is definitely more than I would have expected.

 

[FUBAR]

Speaking of social security, I don't really know a great deal about how it works. I know nothing is set in stone for when I retire regarding exactly how SS will work, but how can I figure out what I can most likely expect to get when I retire (depending what age I begin to draw of course)?

Sign into the social security website? It tells you how much you are going to get.

I just did some SS calculator, gave me two numbers. Todays dollars and inflated dollars. Drastically different amounts for 30 years from now.

It is definitely more than I would have expected.

same, I'm not counting on it for anything other than additional income when the time comes. IOW, it's not part of my retirement plan. I know Dentist and others think that's silly or overly pessimistic, but I figure if we can make it without, we'll be better off with whatever it brings.

 

[FUBAR]

I don't think anyone is saying never to go into bonds, but 30 years or so out just seems like a really long time. My 401k is 100% stocks, but my ROTH (~10% of my 401k) is more diversified in a Vanguard "target" type fund. My wife's IRA and ROTH (combined to be ~50% of my 401k) is even more bond heavy as she is much more conservative. I also have a rental property with ~15% of my 401k tied up in equity.

i do the opposite.. 100% stock in my Roth since if that gets huge i don't have to pay taxes, and put my bond portfolio inside my 401k where I still have to pay the taxes on it.

for our retirement, we're about the same. We also have an account for 2-7 years out (home and we'll probably use a fair bit for an adoption in the next year) that is mostly in bonds. I made the mistake of putting a few thousand into single stocks in this account but will sell off those losses soon.

My main retirement account is up ~2.3% for the year.

ETA: trying to decide whether to sell tomorrow or wait. We don't have any significant short-term gains this year and like most years we will probably get back more in a refund than we paid (oh the pleasures of having multiple kids, a stay at home wife, and maxing our Roths and my TSP).

 

[Fennis]

Speaking of social security, I don't really know a great deal about how it works other than wait longer and get more per month. I know nothing is set in stone for when I retire regarding exactly how SS will work, but how can I figure out what I can most likely expect to get when I retire (depending what age I begin to draw of course)?

Annually, I get a letter that explains how much SS I will get assuming it is funded.

Here are the max amounts: https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/examplemax.html

 

[wilked]

I don't think anyone is saying never to go into bonds, but 30 years or so out just seems like a really long time. My 401k is 100% stocks, but my ROTH (~10% of my 401k) is more diversified in a Vanguard "target" type fund. My wife's IRA and ROTH (combined to be ~50% of my 401k) is even more bond heavy as she is much more conservative. I also have a rental property with ~15% of my 401k tied up in equity.

i do the opposite.. 100% stock in my Roth since if that gets huge i don't have to pay taxes, and put my bond portfolio inside my 401k where I still have to pay the taxes on it.

I don't disagree with this thinking. The adviser we use for our ROTHs and my wife's IRA likes to play the conservative nature of my wife versus me. Had I not gone in the fund I went in, my wife would have even gone more conservative. Figured it was a compromise

Plus, from a mental standpoint, I feel better seeing a large® number in my biggest retirement account.

you and your wife have opposing investing strategies? Would it not make sense to have a unified strategy?

 

[ghostguy123]

Speaking of social security, I don't really know a great deal about how it works. I know nothing is set in stone for when I retire regarding exactly how SS will work, but how can I figure out what I can most likely expect to get when I retire (depending what age I begin to draw of course)?

Sign into the social security website? It tells you how much you are going to get.

I just did some SS calculator, gave me two numbers. Todays dollars and inflated dollars. Drastically different amounts for 30 years from now.

It is definitely more than I would have expected.

same, I'm not counting on it for anything other than additional income when the time comes. IOW, it's not part of my retirement plan. I know Dentist and others think that's silly or overly pessimistic, but I figure if we can make it without, we'll be better off with whatever it brings.

Yeah, I am planning as if SS won't exist when I retire. Or at least nowhere near what it projects to give me,

 

[lod01]

Speaking of social security, I don't really know a great deal about how it works. I know nothing is set in stone for when I retire regarding exactly how SS will work, but how can I figure out what I can most likely expect to get when I retire (depending what age I begin to draw of course)?

Sign into the social security website? It tells you how much you are going to get.

I just did some SS calculator, gave me two numbers. Todays dollars and inflated dollars. Drastically different amounts for 30 years from now.

It is definitely more than I would have expected.

same, I'm not counting on it for anything other than additional income when the time comes. IOW, it's not part of my retirement plan. I know Dentist and others think that's silly or overly pessimistic, but I figure if we can make it without, we'll be better off with whatever it brings.

Yeah, I am planning as if SS won't exist when I retire. Or at least nowhere near what it projects to give me,

It will be there. All you have to do is imagine what happens if it is not there. The overwhelming % of people do not have anything but that. Take it away and what happens to those people? That's when you realize it is not going away. Maybe something replaces it over time but it is impossible to just stop it.

 

[ghostguy123]

It will be there. All you have to do is imagine what happens if it is not there. The overwhelming % of people do not have anything but that. Take it away and what happens to those people? That's when you realize it is not going away. Maybe something replaces it over time but it is impossible to just stop it.

Probably true. Would be mass hysteria if it went away. But i am definitely anticipating that I will get far less than it projects.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Speaking of social security, I don't really know a great deal about how it works. I know nothing is set in stone for when I retire regarding exactly how SS will work, but how can I figure out what I can most likely expect to get when I retire (depending what age I begin to draw of course)?

Sign into the social security website? It tells you how much you are going to get.

I just did some SS calculator, gave me two numbers. Todays dollars and inflated dollars. Drastically different amounts for 30 years from now.

It is definitely more than I would have expected.

same, I'm not counting on it for anything other than additional income when the time comes. IOW, it's not part of my retirement plan. I know Dentist and others think that's silly or overly pessimistic, but I figure if we can make it without, we'll be better off with whatever it brings.

Yeah, I am planning as if SS won't exist when I retire. Or at least nowhere near what it projects to give me,

It will be there.

Yep, it has to be. The day it isn't this country is done.

 

[elbowrm]

But means testing will mean it won't be there for any of us.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

But means testing will mean it won't be there for any of us.

wut?

 

[Doctor Detroit]

But means testing will mean it won't be there for any of us.

wut?

Anti-socialism shtick, move on.

 

[lod01]

Potential replacement is some form if BIG.

 

[elbowrm]

A number of GOP candidates have raised the idea of "means testing" for social security benefits, pursuant to which people with a net worth or income over a certain threshold would not be eligible to receive social security payments. (Specific proposals vary, this is my synopsis). Simpson-Bowles suggested raising the SS retirement age for those "able to work", which would effectively do a similar thing.

 

[elbowrm]

Recent time magazine article mentioning the concept:

http://time.com/money/4092017/republican-presidential-debate-cnbc-taxes-social-security/

 

[Binky The Doormat]

Recent time magazine article mentioning the concept:

http://time.com/money/4092017/republican-presidential-debate-cnbc-taxes-social-security/

How old are you?