Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
even worse than bonds did as the returns are worse and negative real return years are far greater. it was so bad it wasn't even a consideration for the study.
you would need inder a 2% withdrawal rate and good luck with that .
The smile shapped spending patters identified both by the sun life study and ty bernicke only holds true when you have a fair amount of decretionary spending going on.
if everything is a need and few things are wants in your budget there is nothing to cut back on as you age.
Absolutely. If you retire on too little, the curve looks more like L in reverse: low early, low mid, and then up, up, up later (and you wind up like Thinking-man's relative, counting on Medicaid to cover all the medical bills Medicare won't touch, and living impoverished during your final years on Earth because the little money you have is going to medical bills).
Not true. she was living independently in sunny california in her own apartment a year or two into her illness. she somehow managed to live a good, yet simple life, with more than she needed.
She might have been living an independent life, but you have to pretty damn poor to qualify for Medicaid/MA. This is a real life example of how sickness at the end of life can wipe you out if you're not prepared.
we just pot our long term care policies in place a few months ago. they took months to apply for and have both physicals and mental tests by the insurer.
the time to get this is before things start to happen. in fact our policy is a state partnership plan that eventually gives you medicaid to pay the bills and keep your assets without transtering them.
we have no look back period and most important no cap on income for the stay at home spouse.
here are the results a hypothetical retiree would have had using different allocations over every rolling 30 year time frame since 1926.
you can see the riskiest allocation with the most failures is no equities ,while even 100% equities has done very very well.
this is the results from the updated trinity study.
You are more forgiving and have far more patience than I do. You (and others) repeatedly told the individual why he was wrong and how and where he could find the info that would have disabused him of his misguided views. Yet he obstinately and steadfastly refused to go to the appropriate site(s) to read the research himself. He continued to whine that he wanted you to c&p the info for him and you ultimately did so. Bravo. (That said, I would have just let him remain stubbornly ignorant on the subject and continue to have others chuckle at his responses.)
it is like bringing fire to the natives sometimes ha ha ha. few actually understant what goes on when you are trying to develop a safe ,secure ,consistant income stream you actually need to live off of.
there is a big difference between trying to pull 4-5% year after year vs just supplementing a pension that covers most of the bills.
retirees actually need more equities as they age to make that retirement more secure ,not less.
but the method used is important. since the first 5 years are very important to the entire retirement time frame and all is decided in the first 15 years of a 30 year retirement.
Last edited by mathjak107; 02-26-2015 at 05:57 PM..
Okay guys, interesting discussion. So I have another comment/point of view for you guys.
- For the record, you guys are taking the stance that a guy should remain in the market forever and never pull out, this is so that the person will be able to afford things such as inflation and living expenses (including healthcare) during retirement.
- My stance is that the guy should have already earned his peak (through income and investments) throughout the age of 21 - 59, and at 60 be looking to move totally into conservative investments.
- Just wanted to once again make our two stances very clear, because with some of your responses some of you guys are trying to flip the notion that I'm telling people to never invest in higher risk vehicles. I'm saying that you should do it for a certain time period and pull out, but you guys believe you should never pull out....okay.
Now, numerous reports are showing that over half of Americans in 2014 (today) aren't saving anything for retirement, and about 36% - 40% have saved a collective total of less than $1,000 for retirement.
This chart below is a very good indicator of how people today are addressing and have been addressing their retirement situation:
The chart shows that people approaching the age of retirement (55-64) have only $103,000 in retirement and savings, with those 65-74 have $148,900. People in my age group have less than $12,000 saved. I'm 31 and have more in savings/retirement right now than any of these age groups and I have more than 12- 13 times the average amount for "my age group".
Based on this information, my question to you guys is how are the MAJORITY of retired Americans making it during retirement if they have no where near even the $350,000 number that I throw out there? You guys have all jumped up and said the $350,000 number is too low, yet, the vast majority of retirees don't even have HALF that amount saved up and are depending TOTALLY on Social Security but yet, still the average retired person has a expectancy to live until about 85-90?
Also a lot of you guys don't understand the concept of Minimalism.
You are more forgiving and have far more patience than I do. You (and others) repeatedly told the individual why he was wrong and how and where he could find the info that would have disabused him of his misguided views. Yet he obstinately and steadfastly refused to go to the appropriate site(s) to read the research himself. He continued to whine that he wanted you to c&p the info for him and you ultimately did so. Bravo. (That said, I would have just let him remain stubbornly ignorant on the subject and continue to have others chuckle at his responses.)
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
Dude please, NOT ONE PERSON in this thread has proved me WRONG on anything because for one, you need to set the bar for what WRONG is. What's WRONG is to be at retirement with nothing saved and not enough to truly have a chance to make it during retirement in combination with Social Security.
The argument is investing in this vehicle set v.s. this vehicle set and for HOW LONG. My argument is to go conservative at age 60 plus to not be a victim to any market crashes which would hurt the amount of fixed income you have to live on. These guys here claim that you need to STAY IN THE MARKET FOREVER and that you will NEVER have a situation where you have significant losses (which is bull____).
check the census financial survey , according to that retirees have 3x that amount and likely way more by now.
these numbers go back to 2010 before things even recovered. i see a whole lot more than 103k.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
