The product of the author's scenario and software has the couple running out of money at age 107.
Then the assumptions are revised to assume cuts to social security of 10%, 15%, 20% and 25% and has them running out of money at 91 with that 25% reduction in benefits. As I read, I wondered what about a cut of 100%?I've never thought the program was going to disappear but the payout for some of us will be zero. Things need to change radically with social security and medicare and I think that means zero benefit coming down the wealth scale and clipping some folks that actually aren't all that wealthy. While I have no idea what this will actually look like, I personally do not expect to accumulate mid-seven figures but I also don't expect to get much in the way of a benefit either.
By now it is fairly obvious that people below a certain age, maybe around 50 or so, should not count on the number they see on their annual social security statement. If it pays out as it says and you saved assuming there would be nothing then you'll have a pretty good margin of safety.
There are all sorts of other tips that people can do like not spending your raises (assuming you get raises) but saving them instead; really the list is endless. And while these sorts of money saving tips can help I will continue to bang the drum about finding your own innovative solution to creating some sort of income from something you love doing and keep that income flowing in as long as you can.
If you can get your mortgage paid off early, reduce or eliminate other debt, and ratchet down the lifestyle some then I think it would be pretty reasonable to have $3000-$4000 monthly lifestyle. Using the 4% rule a $48,000 income need would require $1.2 million assuming zero social security benefit. Obviously not all of us are going to accumulate that much. Delaying retirement and then generating $2000 from hobbies/things you love doing, which is not unreasonable with sufficient planning, brings the portfolio need down to $600,000. While that is not an insignificant number it is achievable for people who make decent money and are good savers.I want to stress that pulling this off will probably take years of planning. I would also stress the importance of being innovative. I've mentioned my neighbor with backhoe dozens of times. Another neighbor up here who is at least 75 is working on a highspeed internet service up here. I think it is WiMax but he is working for the entrepreneur who started the service. It will probably take them a year. It is a finite project, won't make him rich but would relieve some of the burden of his portfolio for the year (if he has a portfolio, I have no idea, this is just an example for an innovative income idea).





16 comments:
Roger, I have read you for years and you most often have very good thoughts to consider about investing. however, on planning for retirement, I think you miss the mark. Specifically, not because you are not knowledgable, but rather you don't have the life experience for the subject. Neither do many others who write on the subject. Why not ask the people who are retired and actually "eating their own cooking?" Seems they could offer a lot on what to do or not do.
Also, I'm surprised you capitulate to the notion SS will not be there. There is a political solution to SS so at least you might mention calling your congressman or voting in your article on suggestions.
Personally, I'm surprised the citizens find it okay to run trillion dollar wars around the world while retirees may not get the benefits they earned and were promised.
To re-iterate, I like your investing ideas-a lot.
Your comment is valid. I think that the social aspect of a blog invites comments from many people including people going through it now.
In fairness I do think the extent to which I have shared observations of lifestyle choices people I know goes some way toward asking people who are retired, I interviewed Mr. Backhoe and his wife last May for example.
As far as capitulation on social security; this site focuses on numbers and probabilities not political activity. We all come at this differently of course but my view on "capitulating" is that it is the more conservative planning approach.
Roger,
Why don't you ever mention low cost single premium immediate annunities as a method to mitigate longevity risk?
Granted you claim to be mainly a portfolio manager and not a financail planner.
Jim Otar's "Unveiling the Retirement Myth" is a great read.
My own biases; I don't believe in annuities.
I would be interested in your reasons for not liking annunities.
Dan
Roger,
Your bias is understandable. It would decrease the amount under management and probably the fees you can charge.
I wonder if your bias (whether rational or not) could cause someone harm by at least not considering it?
Unfortunately, for some this may be the only way to guarantee some sort of cash flow in retirement. Obviously, it won't be necessary for the retiree who is well prepared.
It is just another tool in the chest.
BTW, I am not an insurance salesman.
11:48,
Not sure why you need to question my integrity. The planners at our firm use them for clients when they deem it suitable.
As disclosed in our prospectus I am paid a flat negotiated wage.
Your aspersion is way off base. My mother had one (I had nothing to do with her buying it), the insurance company failed and got pennies on the dollars.
07:17 here:
IMHO, Roger is correct about annuities. I acquired one a little over 20 years ago. What seemed like a nice monthly then is modest now and it will be little more than "walkaround money in another 20 years even though I may live another 40. The key prhase in the response is ...guarantee some sort of cash flow in retirement... the key words being "some sort". Not a strategy for comfortable retirement living.
My own short story is one of long work hours, timely acquisition of income property, as well as growth stocks and divident paying stocks. Also a GREAT deal of thriftyness. Example, No attending NFL,MLB, or NBA for me considering the expense vs free entertainment that is out there.
Fair enough.
11:48
12:04,
That is an interesting train of thought. I tend to spend money on these sorts of things a few times a year. San Diego State (my school) is due to play on the smurf turf in November and I plan on going.
Assuming one does not go into debt for these extravagances then the decision to spend on them or not can boil down to how your doing financially.
What I mean is that if you are not adding to your debt burden then you can simply stop the activity if/when financial circumstances dictate.
Ditto with vacations. We spent a lot of money (for us) on our NZ trip, paying as we went. If our income changes we can simply not take a trip. Different story if we were going to be paying for the NZ trip for the next two years.
The same thing is happening in the UK with pensions. Yanks and Brits spend trillions on war, and the retirees eat dogfood. Sorry for the political commentary....
Hi RW,
By the time the means testing would need to be applied, couldn't there be enough computing power available to have the means test implemented with a really big spread sheet such the the administrative cost would not go up?
Roger, can't see my original comment now for some reason but, sure, a big, fast database could deal with some of the means testing cost issue but why add any more cost at all when the tax code can take care of the matter at no additional cost nearly automatically (and the government probably has too much information on citizens as it is so ...).
Clearly, your annuity bias is irrational. People lose life savings in the stock/bond markets for various reasons, insolvency and bankruptcy among them. Yet...you participate in those markets.
To each his own, but as someone is preachy about having enough it seems like you would be a bit more open minded about this topic.
Roger, how do on-going medical costs (especially in a case where Medicare is restructured) and other related such as long term fit in your retirement philosophy? Generating on-going income implies being healthy. Medical problems can wipe out a small fortune. Thanks. CC
I may not be understanding your question, it doesn't effect my philosophy; live below your means, keep your overhead low and work as long as possible in a job you love.
more tactically, for me (if that is what you are asking) I continue to save money that I hope I won't need to tap into until my 80s. If one of us needs experimental cuticle transplant surgery that is expensive and uncovered (trying to make light) I would hope our savings would cover it.
Post a Comment