What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

The “I want to retire soon” thread (1 Viewer)

Buy a LTC policy. Takes that away.
I’ve been trying to decide but have plenty of time. Whether a LTC policy is worth having when my pensions plus SS will be around $13k / month (in today’s money, with COLA).
My parents are in a retirement center with care, paid for almost exclusively by his teacher’s pension (back then, Michigan took care of its teachers).
Well, everyone’s situation is different for sure. If you have a decent pension that will be there no matter what, and will be sufficient in size, that’s a huge plus. I have some folks on claim right now (I’m an insurance agent) who have around $14k per month in just LTC expenses - before taxes and other living expenses.

That said, the new way to go about LTC (in my opinion), is actually with a life insurance policy with an LTC rider. As an example, I recently quoted a 59 year old female. The policy has a single premium of $100k - quite a bit of money, I understand. It purchases from the outset $126k of a death benefit with another $126k of LTC benefits (so just over $250k total). Think of each as a “bucket”. If she needs LTC at any point, she starts pulling money dollar for dollar out of the life insurance/death benefit bucket. If she exhausts it, then she goes into the second bucket. If she never needs LTC, there is a death benefit to be passed on (tax free) to her beneficiaries. Even better, as the policy pays dividends (as it’s from a mutual insurance company), the bucket la grow - so if she makes it to 87 and never needed LTC, the death benefit has grown to over $250k.

It’s not for everyone (as not everyone has $100k sitting around in non qualified money, nor is everyone insurable), but it’s a good option for some.
That's what we did. Life insurance with the LTC rider. Our kids are in no position to take care of us if something happens. This insures our care, but if not needed , leaves a nice nest egg for them.
Leaves a tax free nest egg for them that is outside of probate. And it frees up your other assets as you no longer have to worry about leaving money behind or saving for an LTC need.
It serves a purpose for sure. It just seems an expensive tool.
Can be, but so is the alternative (needing LTC for an extended period). How I illustrate / explain it is that it frees up your other assets.

You’ve got two possible outcomes - 1) you die needing LTC before you pass, or 2) you die without needing LTC. With #1, even from day 1, you’ve 2.5x your money to use for LTC. With #2, you 1.26x your money from day 1 - and had peace of mind. Financially speaking, worst case is that you lived a long life without needing any LTC, and leave maybe 1.5x what you put in to your beneficiaries 40 years later - and that’s not too bad of a worst case scenario here.
 
I think there is definitely a "barbell" in the FIRE communities out there. On one end you have the types that are comfortable with a lower success rate and/or leanFIRE style of spending. On the other end you have folks that build in so much redundant conservatism that all but ensure they will end up with a much bigger portfolio when they die than when they retire.

The comment made about Bogleheads is similar to the feeling I had when I posted my situation on another forum. They were far to conservative for my views, despite the forums having a lot of helpful resources.

I think the important thing to focus on are the levers you have. If a bad scenario happens, what expenses are cut easily? How hard is it to make more income? How much does your terminal portfolio value really matter to you? If you don't have any levers then, yeah, you need to make sure you've dialed into the right withdrawal rate and strategy.
Bogleheads is very conservative. As noted, lots of folks there with 50x, no dependents, but still not feeling safe and choosing to stay working. My thought, though, on this is that they actually are having a hard time giving up the job and are justifying that decision. I'm having a very hard time with the concept of giving mine up (so I sympathize), even though there is plenty I want to do that conflicts with the limitations of PTO time. The way the market is going I should hit my designated number soon - so the uncomfortable decisions and discussions with work about at least dropping to part time are imminent.

My default line of thinking remains that many of the unfortunately small overall percentage of Americans who have managed to focus and save for retirement probably are oversaving, working longer than they have to (doesn't mean they may not want to continue), and/or underspending due to outdated and conflicted advice. So that is quickly becoming a passion of mine, no doubt, and one I'd like to start to act on in the next few years outside of posting in this thread too often!
I think the key there is that the outcomes are so dramatically different. If you oversave you end up giving your kids a bunch of money. If you undersave/overspend then you are then probably asking the kids to provide monetary and physical care at end of life. I'll take option A every time. I want my kids to forge their own life without having to worry about mine.
 
and leave maybe 1.5x what you put in to your beneficiaries 40 years later - and that’s not too bad of a worst case scenario here.
Obviously this isn’t the selling point. In 40 years, that $100k should reasonably double like 5 times for around $3.2 million. (9% returns)
 
Been poking around the bogglehead forums and when it comes to when to retire they are just as nuts as the FIRE community, but on the other end of the spectrum. A bunch are well to their 60's or even 70's with 50x annual spending. WTF?
I’ve been on there a lot recently. Great stuff. Getting convinced to go with Fidelity instead of Vanguard. Can still get almost all of the Vanguard funds/ETFs but much better website, mobile app, physical locations, access to advisors. Many longtime Bogleheads have made that switch. You’re right though. One guy posted has $7M just in his deferred taxable retirement accounts alone. Wild.
Thinking more on the $7m in taxable retirement account - how does that even happen? You’re limited on how much you can put in (currently $23k - though can be higher with employer match), and it’s only recently grown to over $20k a year (2000 was the first year it was over $10k). Yeah, you can also have catch up contributions.

I just did a real quick spreadsheet from 1990 to today (35 years total), putting in the max allowed for an individual, getting a dollar for dollar match on it all the way up to the cap - and getting a 10% annual return each and every year like clockwork and even that didn’t get to $7M.
Company stock matching that does real well will get you there pretty readily. I worked last 20 years for a not for profit, so sadly no chance for me to go down that road.
 
and leave maybe 1.5x what you put in to your beneficiaries 40 years later - and that’s not too bad of a worst case scenario here.
Obviously this isn’t the selling point. In 40 years, that $100k should reasonably double like 5 times for around $3.2 million. (9% returns)
It’s not the main selling point - but it shows what a worst case scenario would be. That scenario assumes the carrier never ever pays a dividend again (which wouldn’t happen - but the carrier has to illustrate non the less). Assuming they pay a dividend equal to this years rate each year going forward, and the 59 year old I illustrated lives to 99 never needing LTC and passes away - the death benefit would be about $350k.

And no, a person in their 60s-90s isn’t projecting an asset to be growing at 9% net after tax for 40 straight years.
 
and leave maybe 1.5x what you put in to your beneficiaries 40 years later - and that’s not too bad of a worst case scenario here.
Obviously this isn’t the selling point. In 40 years, that $100k should reasonably double like 5 times for around $3.2 million. (9% returns)
It’s not the main selling point - but it shows what a worst case scenario would be. That scenario assumes the carrier never ever pays a dividend again (which wouldn’t happen - but the carrier has to illustrate non the less). Assuming they pay a dividend equal to this years rate each year going forward, and the 59 year old I illustrated lives to 99 never needing LTC and passes away - the death benefit would be about $350k.

And no, a person in their 60s-90s isn’t projecting an asset to be growing at 9% net after tax for 40 straight years.
The 40 years comes from your worst case, not a projection. Obviously the insurance isn’t in the stock markets, it’s more akin to a bond I suppose. Even then, doubling twice in 40 years seems reasonable.

But yes, understood on the rest.
 
I think the key there is that the outcomes are so dramatically different. If you oversave you end up giving your kids a bunch of money. If you undersave/overspend then you are then probably asking the kids to provide monetary and physical care at end of life. I'll take option A every time. I want my kids to forge their own life without having to worry about mine.

100% agree with the last part. But it's not that binary. Option C is you have some flexibility in your spending plan so that you can adjust as market/portfolio conditions change. One of my major beefs with the usual line of thinking (not saying it's yours), especially around the 4% rule, is that in retirement we all become robots that spend 4% of our starting portfolio plus CPI adjustment every year, year after year, hell or high water. That's not what happens in reality. And if you put a plan in place that prepares you for any necessary adjustments be it guardrails, guaranteed income for your "minimum dignity floor ", or 3% to keep the lights on/1% for fun/1% for big trips/gifts/giving, then you should be ok. Add in for those that want to retire early the high possibility that you could go back to work at some level if you retire into a 1967 SORs, and we can empower ourselves to add resilience to our plans and keep our kids from having to put us up in their spare bedrooms when we're 90 and drooling on ourselves.
 

You’ve got two possible outcomes - 1) you die needing LTC before you pass, or 2) you die without needing LTC. With #1, even from day 1, you’ve 2.5x your money to use for LTC. With #2, you 1.26x your money from day 1 - and had peace of mind. Financially speaking, worst case is that you lived a long life without needing any LTC, and leave maybe 1.5x what you put in to your beneficiaries 40 years later - and that’s not too bad of a worst case scenario here.
Isn't it better to buy a QLAC deferred annuity that starts around 80 years old? That way if you don't need LTC, you can just use it for something else.
Sure, it you need LTC before 80 it's a gamble. But I feel like it makes sense.
 

You’ve got two possible outcomes - 1) you die needing LTC before you pass, or 2) you die without needing LTC. With #1, even from day 1, you’ve 2.5x your money to use for LTC. With #2, you 1.26x your money from day 1 - and had peace of mind. Financially speaking, worst case is that you lived a long life without needing any LTC, and leave maybe 1.5x what you put in to your beneficiaries 40 years later - and that’s not too bad of a worst case scenario here.
Isn't it better to buy a QLAC deferred annuity that starts around 80 years old? That way if you don't need LTC, you can just use it for something else.
Sure, it you need LTC before 80 it's a gamble. But I feel like it makes sense.
You never know that you’re not going to need LTC until you die without needing it.

That said, the life policy above has a cash value you can loan/borrow from or even cash out if desired.
 

You’ve got two possible outcomes - 1) you die needing LTC before you pass, or 2) you die without needing LTC. With #1, even from day 1, you’ve 2.5x your money to use for LTC. With #2, you 1.26x your money from day 1 - and had peace of mind. Financially speaking, worst case is that you lived a long life without needing any LTC, and leave maybe 1.5x what you put in to your beneficiaries 40 years later - and that’s not too bad of a worst case scenario here.
Isn't it better to buy a QLAC deferred annuity that starts around 80 years old? That way if you don't need LTC, you can just use it for something else.
Sure, it you need LTC before 80 it's a gamble. But I feel like it makes sense.
You never know that you’re not going to need LTC until you die without needing it.

That said, the life policy above has a cash value you can loan/borrow from or even cash out if desired.
We can let the readers decide which fits them better.
 
keep our kids from having to put us up in their spare bedrooms when we're 90 and drooling on ourselves.
I had to put up with my kids drooling and crapping themselves. They should have to put up with me doing that......hahahahah

I have told my parents when this subject comes up not to worry about leaving me anything. Take care of yourself and do what you want. I have also told my kids that we will help them try and get started and there may be something for them at the end but not to plan on it. I don't expect to spend to zero and hope to leave a decent something for them but it's not necessarily a goal. It's not going to stop me from taking a trip or enjoying the retired life. We also plan to spend on them for things we can all enjoy which I see as a much better use of the funds.

I hope that I have taught my kids how to handle money and build for the future so they don't need to rely on an inheritance. We have had quite a few discussions about this topic (kids are now 23 and 18). I think they get it. They aren't big spenders anyway so i think it will stick.
 
Last edited:
Been poking around the bogglehead forums and when it comes to when to retire they are just as nuts as the FIRE community, but on the other end of the spectrum. A bunch are well to their 60's or even 70's with 50x annual spending. WTF?
I’ve been on there a lot recently. Great stuff. Getting convinced to go with Fidelity instead of Vanguard. Can still get almost all of the Vanguard funds/ETFs but much better website, mobile app, physical locations, access to advisors. Many longtime Bogleheads have made that switch. You’re right though. One guy posted has $7M just in his deferred taxable retirement accounts alone. Wild.
Thinking more on the $7m in taxable retirement account - how does that even happen? You’re limited on how much you can put in (currently $23k - though can be higher with employer match), and it’s only recently grown to over $20k a year (2000 was the first year it was over $10k). Yeah, you can also have catch up contributions.

I just did a real quick spreadsheet from 1990 to today (35 years total), putting in the max allowed for an individual, getting a dollar for dollar match on it all the way up to the cap - and getting a 10% annual return each and every year like clockwork and even that didn’t get to $7M.
Yeah I agree and several people asked the same question. It was multiple accounts that allowed him to invest what seems over the maxes. Think they were both college professors.
 
So, I havnt read through the 100s of threads or this thread very well.... I will though...

I plan or working part time making $60-$70K forever. Son will eventually run business and I plan on keeping salary.

To live on $10K a month (take home), how much do I need saved? assuming caution investments, like american funds.... ((I know Im know for my gambling in stocks and crypto, but assuming not that))

number 1 thing is health care. I think due to great employment/retire stuff, we can get that for under$500 a month.

Like 1.5MM?

Do you need the $120k a year on top of the 60-70k you will earn in retirement or does the $120k include the 60-70k?
100k total
 
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.
Thanks for posting this. I only just skimmed it, but I find this kind of thing interesting, because there are so many "policy variables" at person's disposal (e.g. the withdrawal rate, asset allocation, inflation adjustments, dynamic spending changes, etc.).

That said, it seems to me that a lot of the literature on retirement planning glosses over the issue of what happens if your retirement plan "fails." In other words, let's say that the monte carlo simulations say that I have a 95% chance of success. What does "failure" look like? How worried should be about rolling a natural 1 here?

Many of these articles seem to be written from the standpoint of someone who is more or less 100% reliant on their nest egg to sustain them in retirement. For those folks, I guess "failure" means being forced to rely on your kids to support you, working as a greeter at Wal Mart, checking out the nutritional content of pet food, etc. You really don't want to fail if that's what failure means. In my case though, my pension plus SS (which I plan to take at age 62, as soon as possible) will cover about 60% of our planned spending. So our downside risk is pretty limited. If our nest egg collapsed, it would definitely affect the quality of our golden years, but we'd just be doing more shopping at Costco and travelling less. We wouldn't be destitute. So we should rationally be a little less risk averse. But we're not. Our plans are still based on a 4% withdrawal rate, which I know is probably over-conservative for a couple in our position.

Just musing. Not arguing.
 
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.
Thanks for posting this. I only just skimmed it, but I find this kind of thing interesting, because there are so many "policy variables" at person's disposal (e.g. the withdrawal rate, asset allocation, inflation adjustments, dynamic spending changes, etc.).

That said, it seems to me that a lot of the literature on retirement planning glosses over the issue of what happens if your retirement plan "fails." In other words, let's say that the monte carlo simulations say that I have a 95% chance of success. What does "failure" look like? How worried should be about rolling a natural 1 here?

Many of these articles seem to be written from the standpoint of someone who is more or less 100% reliant on their nest egg to sustain them in retirement. For those folks, I guess "failure" means being forced to rely on your kids to support you, working as a greeter at Wal Mart, checking out the nutritional content of pet food, etc. You really don't want to fail if that's what failure means. In my case though, my pension plus SS (which I plan to take at age 62, as soon as possible) will cover about 60% of our planned spending. So our downside risk is pretty limited. If our nest egg collapsed, it would definitely affect the quality of our golden years, but we'd just be doing more shopping at Costco and travelling less. We wouldn't be destitute. So we should rationally be a little less risk averse. But we're not. Our plans are still based on a 4% withdrawal rate, which I know is probably over-conservative for a couple in our position.

Just musing. Not arguing.
When u say fail, u mean beyond cutting out spending with disposal income bc I'd imagine most folks have a lot of that baked in that could just be axed. It wouldn't be the retirement you'd dreamed of but you'd certainly be OK.
 
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.
I like the guard rails, except I’m not Steve about “The Guyton-Klinger method scraps the cutback rules (following portfolio declines) during the final 15 years of retirement” - do any of us really know the final year of our retirement?

We’re planning to Basically follow the follow the Spending declines in line with historical data plan by planning more expenses during the go-go years. SS and pensions will cover slower years easily.
 
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.
Thanks for posting this. I only just skimmed it, but I find this kind of thing interesting, because there are so many "policy variables" at person's disposal (e.g. the withdrawal rate, asset allocation, inflation adjustments, dynamic spending changes, etc.).

That said, it seems to me that a lot of the literature on retirement planning glosses over the issue of what happens if your retirement plan "fails." In other words, let's say that the monte carlo simulations say that I have a 95% chance of success. What does "failure" look like? How worried should be about rolling a natural 1 here?

Many of these articles seem to be written from the standpoint of someone who is more or less 100% reliant on their nest egg to sustain them in retirement. For those folks, I guess "failure" means being forced to rely on your kids to support you, working as a greeter at Wal Mart, checking out the nutritional content of pet food, etc. You really don't want to fail if that's what failure means. In my case though, my pension plus SS (which I plan to take at age 62, as soon as possible) will cover about 60% of our planned spending. So our downside risk is pretty limited. If our nest egg collapsed, it would definitely affect the quality of our golden years, but we'd just be doing more shopping at Costco and travelling less. We wouldn't be destitute. So we should rationally be a little less risk averse. But we're not. Our plans are still based on a 4% withdrawal rate, which I know is probably over-conservative for a couple in our position.

Just musing. Not arguing.
When u say fail, u mean beyond cutting out spending with disposal income bc I'd imagine most folks have a lot of that baked in that could just be axed. It wouldn't be the retirement you'd dreamed of but you'd certainly be OK.
Yes. In most cases “failure” is deviation from the plan. Not catastrophic for most.
 
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.
Thanks for posting this. I only just skimmed it, but I find this kind of thing interesting, because there are so many "policy variables" at person's disposal (e.g. the withdrawal rate, asset allocation, inflation adjustments, dynamic spending changes, etc.).

That said, it seems to me that a lot of the literature on retirement planning glosses over the issue of what happens if your retirement plan "fails." In other words, let's say that the monte carlo simulations say that I have a 95% chance of success. What does "failure" look like? How worried should be about rolling a natural 1 here?

Many of these articles seem to be written from the standpoint of someone who is more or less 100% reliant on their nest egg to sustain them in retirement. For those folks, I guess "failure" means being forced to rely on your kids to support you, working as a greeter at Wal Mart, checking out the nutritional content of pet food, etc. You really don't want to fail if that's what failure means. In my case though, my pension plus SS (which I plan to take at age 62, as soon as possible) will cover about 60% of our planned spending. So our downside risk is pretty limited. If our nest egg collapsed, it would definitely affect the quality of our golden years, but we'd just be doing more shopping at Costco and travelling less. We wouldn't be destitute. So we should rationally be a little less risk averse. But we're not. Our plans are still based on a 4% withdrawal rate, which I know is probably over-conservative for a couple in our position.

Just musing. Not arguing.
When u say fail, u mean beyond cutting out spending with disposal income bc I'd imagine most folks have a lot of that baked in that could just be axed. It wouldn't be the retirement you'd dreamed of but you'd certainly be OK.
Yes. In most cases “failure” is deviation from the plan. Not catastrophic for most.
Which is different than the failure Ivan is painting.
 
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.
I like the guard rails, except I’m not Steve about “The Guyton-Klinger method scraps the cutback rules (following portfolio declines) during the final 15 years of retirement” - do any of us really know the final year of our retirement?

We’re planning to Basically follow the follow the Spending declines in line with historical data plan by planning more expenses during the go-go years. SS and pensions will cover slower years easily.
I always take the conservative approach that in those later years you could be looking at similar coats but spent more on something like in home care.
 
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.

Thanks for posting, some interesting stuff in there. Just buzzed through it and will revisit later, but a couple of initial thoughts:

  • "....retirees may want to consider other approaches depending on whether they want to prioritize maximizing the starting withdrawal rate, lifetime withdrawals, cash flow stability, or leaving behind a legacy for loved ones or charity." Totally agree, this is key, to understand what you actually want out of this. Are you a Die with Zero person, want to leave a large legacy when you die, or value stability?
  • Guardrails is great for a higher initial SWR, but the swings in withdrawals year by year can be brutal, and downright crushing in a prolonged downturn. This article only touches on the standard deviation of the final portfolio value, which doesn't necessarily show how deep the cuts can be. Kitces did a good study on this, and it showed that the income risk can be huge - in historic worst-case scenarios (GFC, dot-com bubble, Great Depression), spending can be cut 30-45% for years on end! How many people could stomach that? If you can, then of course your risk of "failure" is low. But this just doesn't seem like a great approach.
  • Per the above Kitces study, none of these account for the "retirement distribution hatchet", where your need to withdraw from your accounts may be highest early on, and then diminish when you start taking social security.
  • I like that I'm seeing more and more an approach tied to research into how retirees actually spend. It's just not "X% + CPI" each year, which is still the standard approach. That just suppresses the initial SWR and is misaligned with how people move through retirement. I just came across this study, and while I haven't read the whole 45 pages I did read the synopsis which found:
    • Real spending declined for both single and coupled households after age 65 at annual rates of about 1.7 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively.
    • Real spending declined for all initial wealth quartiles, although with some modest variation.
    • The fact that spending declines broadly, including among those in the highest wealth quartile, suggests that the decline is not related to economic position.
    • The view that the decline in spending is not related to economic position is supported by an analysis of budget shares, the fraction of total spending devoted to subcategories of spending.
    • The budget share for gifts and donations increases with age, which suggests that economic position on average does not deteriorate with age, even as spending declines.
 
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.
Thanks for posting this. I only just skimmed it, but I find this kind of thing interesting, because there are so many "policy variables" at person's disposal (e.g. the withdrawal rate, asset allocation, inflation adjustments, dynamic spending changes, etc.).

That said, it seems to me that a lot of the literature on retirement planning glosses over the issue of what happens if your retirement plan "fails." In other words, let's say that the monte carlo simulations say that I have a 95% chance of success. What does "failure" look like? How worried should be about rolling a natural 1 here?

Many of these articles seem to be written from the standpoint of someone who is more or less 100% reliant on their nest egg to sustain them in retirement. For those folks, I guess "failure" means being forced to rely on your kids to support you, working as a greeter at Wal Mart, checking out the nutritional content of pet food, etc. You really don't want to fail if that's what failure means. In my case though, my pension plus SS (which I plan to take at age 62, as soon as possible) will cover about 60% of our planned spending. So our downside risk is pretty limited. If our nest egg collapsed, it would definitely affect the quality of our golden years, but we'd just be doing more shopping at Costco and travelling less. We wouldn't be destitute. So we should rationally be a little less risk averse. But we're not. Our plans are still based on a 4% withdrawal rate, which I know is probably over-conservative for a couple in our position.

Just musing. Not arguing.
When u say fail, u mean beyond cutting out spending with disposal income bc I'd imagine most folks have a lot of that baked in that could just be axed. It wouldn't be the retirement you'd dreamed of but you'd certainly be OK.
Yeah, I know. A person would pull all sorts of rip-cords before their nest egg got driven to zero. That just isn't a realistic outcome for anybody who accumulated a nest egg in the first place.
 
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.
Thanks for posting this. I only just skimmed it, but I find this kind of thing interesting, because there are so many "policy variables" at person's disposal (e.g. the withdrawal rate, asset allocation, inflation adjustments, dynamic spending changes, etc.).

That said, it seems to me that a lot of the literature on retirement planning glosses over the issue of what happens if your retirement plan "fails." In other words, let's say that the monte carlo simulations say that I have a 95% chance of success. What does "failure" look like? How worried should be about rolling a natural 1 here?

Many of these articles seem to be written from the standpoint of someone who is more or less 100% reliant on their nest egg to sustain them in retirement. For those folks, I guess "failure" means being forced to rely on your kids to support you, working as a greeter at Wal Mart, checking out the nutritional content of pet food, etc. You really don't want to fail if that's what failure means. In my case though, my pension plus SS (which I plan to take at age 62, as soon as possible) will cover about 60% of our planned spending. So our downside risk is pretty limited. If our nest egg collapsed, it would definitely affect the quality of our golden years, but we'd just be doing more shopping at Costco and travelling less. We wouldn't be destitute. So we should rationally be a little less risk averse. But we're not. Our plans are still based on a 4% withdrawal rate, which I know is probably over-conservative for a couple in our position.

Just musing. Not arguing.
When u say fail, u mean beyond cutting out spending with disposal income bc I'd imagine most folks have a lot of that baked in that could just be axed. It wouldn't be the retirement you'd dreamed of but you'd certainly be OK.
Yeah, I know. A person would pull all sorts of rip-cords before their nest egg got driven to zero. That just isn't a realistic outcome for anybody who accumulated a nest egg in the first place.
That's really the extremely unlikely scenario and probably means most of the world is screwed. If for instance you gave yourself 40k annual fun money and that 5% scenario hit and you got knocked down to 20k, is that really so terrible? This is obviously very personal bc it all depends on how much cushion you've built in.
 
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.
I like the guard rails, except I’m not Steve about “The Guyton-Klinger method scraps the cutback rules (following portfolio declines) during the final 15 years of retirement” - do any of us really know the final year of our retirement?

We’re planning to Basically follow the follow the Spending declines in line with historical data plan by planning more expenses during the go-go years. SS and pensions will cover slower years easily.
I always take the conservative approach that in those later years you could be looking at similar coats but spent more on something like in home care.
Yeah. I think the "failure" that is worrying is ending up depending just on Medicare/Medicaid for any condition management or long-term care needed. A lot of the lifestyle stuff should be much more variable.
 
Which is different than the failure Ivan is painting.
Right. There are certainly some where failure means relying on kids or eating poorly, living in squalor. That risk is significantly more for the lean FIRE advocates.
Link

An interesting article on various withdrawal rate strategies.
I like the guard rails, except I’m not Steve about “The Guyton-Klinger method scraps the cutback rules (following portfolio declines) during the final 15 years of retirement” - do any of us really know the final year of our retirement?

We’re planning to Basically follow the follow the Spending declines in line with historical data plan by planning more expenses during the go-go years. SS and pensions will cover slower years easily.
I always take the conservative approach that in those later years you could be looking at similar coats but spent more on something like in home care.
Yeah, you need to account for risks like that. For us, it isn’t a major concern (pensions, VA, SS)
 
My current calculations are about what percentage of our current portfolio will my wife need in her final years. I'm 59, she's 53. I'm fine assuming I will go first. We have no children, so she may need full time care. I'm early in calculations, but am looking at what it would cost now for like 5 years in a nursing home, end of life care, hospice, etc. Then extending that out 30 years.
Don't quote me on these numbers, they are very basic, rough and probably conservative, but just say it would cost $500,000 right now for the final 5 years of the best care. Assuming 3% inflation for 30 years, that would be like $1.2 mil then. I'd rather be way over in my estimate and if she died with half that, so be it.

I'm definitely thankful for this thread! I hadn't even really thought about it even though we are currently at 30x expenses. My wife's company is looking like it will end in 2026. I've actually even gotten her to come around even if she does decide to do some bookkeeping work after they close. She knows now that she doesn't have to! We plan on talking to our investment advisors later this year or early next to get their thoughts.
 
My current calculations are about what percentage of our current portfolio will my wife need in her final years. I'm 59, she's 53. I'm fine assuming I will go first. We have no children, so she may need full time care. I'm early in calculations, but am looking at what it would cost now for like 5 years in a nursing home, end of life care, hospice, etc. Then extending that out 30 years.
Don't quote me on these numbers, they are very basic, rough and probably conservative, but just say it would cost $500,000 right now for the final 5 years of the best care. Assuming 3% inflation for 30 years, that would be like $1.2 mil then. I'd rather be way over in my estimate and if she died with half that, so be it.

I'm definitely thankful for this thread! I hadn't even really thought about it even though we are currently at 30x expenses. My wife's company is looking like it will end in 2026. I've actually even gotten her to come around even if she does decide to do some bookkeeping work after they close. She knows now that she doesn't have to! We plan on talking to our investment advisors later this year or early next to get their thoughts.
Are you thinking of actually retiring from your work or just scaling back as you age?
 
My current calculations are about what percentage of our current portfolio will my wife need in her final years. I'm 59, she's 53. I'm fine assuming I will go first. We have no children, so she may need full time care. I'm early in calculations, but am looking at what it would cost now for like 5 years in a nursing home, end of life care, hospice, etc. Then extending that out 30 years.
Don't quote me on these numbers, they are very basic, rough and probably conservative, but just say it would cost $500,000 right now for the final 5 years of the best care. Assuming 3% inflation for 30 years, that would be like $1.2 mil then. I'd rather be way over in my estimate and if she died with half that, so be it.

I'm definitely thankful for this thread! I hadn't even really thought about it even though we are currently at 30x expenses. My wife's company is looking like it will end in 2026. I've actually even gotten her to come around even if she does decide to do some bookkeeping work after they close. She knows now that she doesn't have to! We plan on talking to our investment advisors later this year or early next to get their thoughts.
Basic rule of thumb for LTC - if you’re 65 in America today, you have a 50/50 shot of ever needing LTC in your remaining lifetime. Of those that do, 50/50 shot that it lasts longer than 90 days. Of those who need it longer than 9@ days, roughly a 50/50 shot that it will last longer than 2 years. So roughly a 12.5% shot of needing LTC services for longer than 2 years.

If it’s a big worry, and you have assets to protect, you may want to look into a single premium LTC policy on her (they are done now via a life policy). If she’s 53, and insurable, a single premium of $100k would buy $150k of life insurance and $300k of LTC benefit on day one. As she ages both of those grow - at her age 85 she’d have $328k of life insurance and about $470k of LTC benefit. May be worth considering.
 
My current calculations are about what percentage of our current portfolio will my wife need in her final years. I'm 59, she's 53. I'm fine assuming I will go first. We have no children, so she may need full time care. I'm early in calculations, but am looking at what it would cost now for like 5 years in a nursing home, end of life care, hospice, etc. Then extending that out 30 years.
Don't quote me on these numbers, they are very basic, rough and probably conservative, but just say it would cost $500,000 right now for the final 5 years of the best care. Assuming 3% inflation for 30 years, that would be like $1.2 mil then. I'd rather be way over in my estimate and if she died with half that, so be it.

I'm definitely thankful for this thread! I hadn't even really thought about it even though we are currently at 30x expenses. My wife's company is looking like it will end in 2026. I've actually even gotten her to come around even if she does decide to do some bookkeeping work after they close. She knows now that she doesn't have to! We plan on talking to our investment advisors later this year or early next to get their thoughts.
Are you thinking of actually retiring from your work or just scaling back as you age?
Good question!

Most of my voiceover work is in corporate VO. I have regular customers but AI is starting to really impact that area of VO. It's a constant hustle for work and I'm kinda getting worn down from it. OTOH, over that past year and a half, I've been doing more character work for animation and games. It's so much fun and I really feel I excel at it. I would do it for free and in some cases I do, especially for art students and amateur animators. I would probably continue in that genre, especially if I don't have to worry about how much I make. That's some priceless freedom!
 
My current calculations are about what percentage of our current portfolio will my wife need in her final years. I'm 59, she's 53. I'm fine assuming I will go first. We have no children, so she may need full time care. I'm early in calculations, but am looking at what it would cost now for like 5 years in a nursing home, end of life care, hospice, etc. Then extending that out 30 years.
Don't quote me on these numbers, they are very basic, rough and probably conservative, but just say it would cost $500,000 right now for the final 5 years of the best care. Assuming 3% inflation for 30 years, that would be like $1.2 mil then. I'd rather be way over in my estimate and if she died with half that, so be it.

I'm definitely thankful for this thread! I hadn't even really thought about it even though we are currently at 30x expenses. My wife's company is looking like it will end in 2026. I've actually even gotten her to come around even if she does decide to do some bookkeeping work after they close. She knows now that she doesn't have to! We plan on talking to our investment advisors later this year or early next to get their thoughts.
Basic rule of thumb for LTC - if you’re 65 in America today, you have a 50/50 shot of ever needing LTC in your remaining lifetime. Of those that do, 50/50 shot that it lasts longer than 90 days. Of those who need it longer than 9@ days, roughly a 50/50 shot that it will last longer than 2 years. So roughly a 12.5% shot of needing LTC services for longer than 2 years.

If it’s a big worry, and you have assets to protect, you may want to look into a single premium LTC policy on her (they are done now via a life policy). If she’s 53, and insurable, a single premium of $100k would buy $150k of life insurance and $300k of LTC benefit on day one. As she ages both of those grow - at her age 85 she’d have $328k of life insurance and about $470k of LTC benefit. May be worth considering.
Is it possible to buy the LTC part without the life insurance? I don't have to worry about LTC right now, but I can see the benefit. I really don't see the need for life insurance at this point.
 
My current calculations are about what percentage of our current portfolio will my wife need in her final years. I'm 59, she's 53. I'm fine assuming I will go first. We have no children, so she may need full time care. I'm early in calculations, but am looking at what it would cost now for like 5 years in a nursing home, end of life care, hospice, etc. Then extending that out 30 years.
Don't quote me on these numbers, they are very basic, rough and probably conservative, but just say it would cost $500,000 right now for the final 5 years of the best care. Assuming 3% inflation for 30 years, that would be like $1.2 mil then. I'd rather be way over in my estimate and if she died with half that, so be it.

I'm definitely thankful for this thread! I hadn't even really thought about it even though we are currently at 30x expenses. My wife's company is looking like it will end in 2026. I've actually even gotten her to come around even if she does decide to do some bookkeeping work after they close. She knows now that she doesn't have to! We plan on talking to our investment advisors later this year or early next to get their thoughts.
Basic rule of thumb for LTC - if you’re 65 in America today, you have a 50/50 shot of ever needing LTC in your remaining lifetime. Of those that do, 50/50 shot that it lasts longer than 90 days. Of those who need it longer than 9@ days, roughly a 50/50 shot that it will last longer than 2 years. So roughly a 12.5% shot of needing LTC services for longer than 2 years.

If it’s a big worry, and you have assets to protect, you may want to look into a single premium LTC policy on her (they are done now via a life policy). If she’s 53, and insurable, a single premium of $100k would buy $150k of life insurance and $300k of LTC benefit on day one. As she ages both of those grow - at her age 85 she’d have $328k of life insurance and about $470k of LTC benefit. May be worth considering.
Is it possible to buy the LTC part without the life insurance? I don't have to worry about LTC right now, but I can see the benefit. I really don't see the need for life insurance at this point.
Sorta. You can still buy a “stand alone” LTC policy from a few carriers - but honestly right now, I wouldn’t want to. They don't have a single premium option, so you’re funding it every year and the premiums aren’t guaranteed - and I’ve had them over double for some of my clients. And of course those increases come when they are already retired so a $10k annual premium is now $20k, which can greatly impact retirement planning.

So a few years back the industry shifted to a LTC policy built on a life insurance chassis. This brought flexibility (like the ability for a single pay), but also made it so that you didn’t have to worry about #1 - an increasing premium in retirement, and #2 what happens if I die having never needed LTC (where before you’d have lost all those years of premiums).

The way I view these new types of LTC plans is like a Swiss Army knife. It’s doing a few different things all at once (life coverage, LTC coverage, and if needed even a cash value to borrow against or show on an asset statement). It may not do any one of those things at the greatest efficiency, but it’s doing each of them simultaneously. And if you think about it - it also frees up your other assets that no longer are needed for LTC, or to leave to the kids (at least as much).
 
One of my new favorite podcasts:

53% of retirees “don’t really love retirement”
What percentage of people “really love” their working years?
Fair question. But the point I take away, is to make a life you enjoy now and plan for the next step instead of running away from your current life.
 
One of my new favorite podcasts:

53% of retirees “don’t really love retirement”
What percentage of people “really love” their working years?
Fair question. But the point I take away, is to make a life you enjoy now and plan for the next step instead of running away from your current life.
You, me and duck and maybe a few other folks need a separate thread for that way of thinking.
 
One of my new favorite podcasts:

53% of retirees “don’t really love retirement”
What percentage of people “really love” their working years?
Fair question. But the point I take away, is to make a life you enjoy now and plan for the next step instead of running away from your current life.
You, me and duck and maybe a few other folks need a separate thread for that way of thinking.

I’ve not chimed in much in the thread because I’m a financial moron who has managed to make a decent amount of money for a while. I’ve always balanced saving with spending on trips and enjoying life now. Tomorrow isn’t guaranteed and retirement definitely isn’t.
 
One of my new favorite podcasts:

53% of retirees “don’t really love retirement”
What percentage of people “really love” their working years?
Fair question. But the point I take away, is to make a life you enjoy now and plan for the next step instead of running away from your current life.
You, me and duck and maybe a few other folks need a separate thread for that way of thinking.

I’ve not chimed in much in the thread because I’m a financial moron who has managed to make a decent amount of money for a while. I’ve always balanced saving with spending on trips and enjoying life now. Tomorrow isn’t guaranteed and retirement definitely isn’t.
Thankfully, we've traveled so much in our 30+ years together that there's not much left that we want to see. Now, its just exploring the PNW from here in Boise.
 
One of my new favorite podcasts:

53% of retirees “don’t really love retirement”
What percentage of people “really love” their working years?
Fair question. But the point I take away, is to make a life you enjoy now and plan for the next step instead of running away from your current life.
You, me and duck and maybe a few other folks need a separate thread for that way of thinking.

I’ve not chimed in much in the thread because I’m a financial moron who has managed to make a decent amount of money for a while. I’ve always balanced saving with spending on trips and enjoying life now. Tomorrow isn’t guaranteed and retirement definitely isn’t.
Thankfully, we've traveled so much in our 30+ years together that there's not much left that we want to see. Now, its just exploring the PNW from here in Boise.
Kind of a tangent to this thread but I’ve always wanted to travel the world in retirement - now started rethinking lately that as VR technology advances that seeing the world could be a lot easier and cheaper.
 
Last edited:
One of my new favorite podcasts:

53% of retirees “don’t really love retirement”
What percentage of people “really love” their working years?
Fair question. But the point I take away, is to make a life you enjoy now and plan for the next step instead of running away from your current life.
You, me and duck and maybe a few other folks need a separate thread for that way of thinking.

I’ve not chimed in much in the thread because I’m a financial moron who has managed to make a decent amount of money for a while. I’ve always balanced saving with spending on trips and enjoying life now. Tomorrow isn’t guaranteed and retirement definitely isn’t.
Thankfully, we've traveled so much in our 30+ years together that there's not much left that we want to see. Now, its just exploring the PNW from here in Boise.
Kind of a tangent to this thread but I’ve always wanted to travel the world in retirement not started rethinking lately that as VR technology advances that seeing the world could be a lot easier and cheaper.
Great thought. There are a few places I'd like to see but never wanted to travel to. It's cool to see the pyramids but there is so much more like Karnak, Saqqara and the tombs in the Valley of the Kings, etc. VR would be great for that.
 
One of my new favorite podcasts:

53% of retirees “don’t really love retirement”
What percentage of people “really love” their working years?
Exactly. Some people are going to be miserable no matter what they’re doing.
 
My current calculations are about what percentage of our current portfolio will my wife need in her final years. I'm 59, she's 53. I'm fine assuming I will go first. We have no children, so she may need full time care. I'm early in calculations, but am looking at what it would cost now for like 5 years in a nursing home, end of life care, hospice, etc. Then extending that out 30 years.
Don't quote me on these numbers, they are very basic, rough and probably conservative, but just say it would cost $500,000 right now for the final 5 years of the best care. Assuming 3% inflation for 30 years, that would be like $1.2 mil then. I'd rather be way over in my estimate and if she died with half that, so be it.

I'm definitely thankful for this thread! I hadn't even really thought about it even though we are currently at 30x expenses. My wife's company is looking like it will end in 2026. I've actually even gotten her to come around even if she does decide to do some bookkeeping work after they close. She knows now that she doesn't have to! We plan on talking to our investment advisors later this year or early next to get their thoughts.
Are you thinking of actually retiring from your work or just scaling back as you age?
Good question!

Most of my voiceover work is in corporate VO. I have regular customers but AI is starting to really impact that area of VO. It's a constant hustle for work and I'm kinda getting worn down from it. OTOH, over that past year and a half, I've been doing more character work for animation and games. It's so much fun and I really feel I excel at it. I would do it for free and in some cases I do, especially for art students and amateur animators. I would probably continue in that genre, especially if I don't have to worry about how much I make. That's some priceless freedom!
Yeah, it seems like you will have a great opportunity to work as much as you want as you age. That optionality will be a big help.
 
One of my new favorite podcasts:

53% of retirees “don’t really love retirement”
What percentage of people “really love” their working years?
Fair question. But the point I take away, is to make a life you enjoy now and plan for the next step instead of running away from your current life.
While I agree with the enjoy now sentiment, 53% not loving it is honestly a bit low to me. Considering that the median retirement savings for people in the 55-64 range is $185k and most people take SS at 62, 53% seems a little low. Half of all retirees don’t have fun money/large income streams so they aren’t doing much and it’s not because they didn’t plan. It’s because there’s not much to plan around. There’s also pensions but I don’t think I’d be off in saying that most people, who worked jobs for long enough to have a nice pension, are probably in the bigger than median retirement savings group.
 
One of my new favorite podcasts:

53% of retirees “don’t really love retirement”
What percentage of people “really love” their working years?
Fair question. But the point I take away, is to make a life you enjoy now and plan for the next step instead of running away from your current life.
While I agree with the enjoy now sentiment, 53% not loving it is honestly a bit low to me. Considering that the median retirement savings for people in the 55-64 range is $185k and most people take SS at 62, 53% seems a little low. Half of all retirees don’t have fun money/large income streams so they aren’t doing much and it’s not because they didn’t plan. It’s because there’s not much to plan around. There’s also pensions but I don’t think I’d be off in saying that most people, who worked jobs for long enough to have a nice pension, are probably in the bigger than median retirement savings group.
I think for a lot of people, you're doing the same things you're doing during retirement that you're doing pre-retirement. The big difference is that you're just not working anymore and maybe for some people, that's all that really matters.
 
One of my new favorite podcasts:

53% of retirees “don’t really love retirement”
What percentage of people “really love” their working years?
Fair question. But the point I take away, is to make a life you enjoy now and plan for the next step instead of running away from your current life.
While I agree with the enjoy now sentiment, 53% not loving it is honestly a bit low to me. Considering that the median retirement savings for people in the 55-64 range is $185k and most people take SS at 62, 53% seems a little low. Half of all retirees don’t have fun money/large income streams so they aren’t doing much and it’s not because they didn’t plan. It’s because there’s not much to plan around. There’s also pensions but I don’t think I’d be off in saying that most people, who worked jobs for long enough to have a nice pension, are probably in the bigger than median retirement savings group.
I think for a lot of people, you're doing the same things you're doing during retirement that you're doing pre-retirement. The big difference is that you're just not working anymore and maybe for some people, that's all that really matters.
This is my plan. I pretty much can do what I want now with some restrictions on limited vacation time because of work, but not limiting me on what I can do. It's not that I don't like what I do but I would much rather not have to do it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top