U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-23-2016, 02:14 AM
 
Location: Houston
22,639 posts, read 11,663,875 times
Reputation: 9181

Advertisements

I budget 4% but expect 5%-7%.

I could actually go back to self employment in a year (my 59.5 birthday) if not for health insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-23-2016, 03:20 AM
 
72,227 posts, read 72,173,749 times
Reputation: 49747
i never considered future rates of return since decades were involved .

now being retired i am more concerned with the shorter term so yes valuations play a role in my draw rate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 11:03 AM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
3,220 posts, read 1,982,304 times
Reputation: 3364
Quote:
Originally Posted by nep321 View Post
Yeah i'm not going to concern myself with rate of return and inflation, etc. It's extremely hard to predict what will happen over the next 30-40 years (I'm 32 now). The strategy that I am taking assumes no growth/decay and no inflation/deflation. However, AFTER the fact of growth over the years, I may then decrease my contributions as I get older, in order to reach my target savings goal. I just hope I'm doing this right.
There's certainly nothing wrong with making conservative assumptions. You're assuming zero real return, which if you are investing in stocks is very conservative. Have you read Stocks for the Long Run by Siegel? He looks at the long-run returns from U.S. stocks and stocks from other countries. Looking at 30-year periods it's pretty rare for stocks to have done worse that 4% real annualized, at least in the U.S.

I wouldn't necessarily cut your savings rate regardless. Having more assets opens up more opportunities in the future. Maybe you will want to start your own business at some point, or work part time, etc? Or health issues could prevent you from working full time as long as you like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
10,504 posts, read 5,972,160 times
Reputation: 16295
Did I figure in rate of return as I set up my contribution levels? No, I simply contributed as much as I could. As I get closer and the planning kicks in of course I look at estimated future returns to try to get a handle on how much money we have. Who wouldn't?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2016, 05:37 PM
 
Location: Idaho
4,679 posts, read 4,511,339 times
Reputation: 9207
No, never consider rates. I'm like the container ship that at the beginning a cross-ocean voyage, upon leaving the harbor would set the auto-pilot and everybody goes down below for a couple of weeks to play cards and watch old movies. Slow and steady, without any deviation in course.


.
__________________


Moderator posts will always be Red and can only be discussed via Direct Message.
C-D Home page, TOS (Terms of Service), How to Search, FAQ's, Posting Guide
Moderator of Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Guns and Hunting, and Weather


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2016, 06:05 AM
 
Location: Alaska
5,356 posts, read 16,381,389 times
Reputation: 4024
My approach was to make a spreadsheet that had a range of returns during the accumulation and spending stages. They ranged from 1-8% and my goal was to have a positive investment balance at age 95. As long as 1% return kept investments above $0, I was good to go for retirement. Any higher return average just meant leaving a bigger inheritance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-24-2016, 11:22 AM
 
2,756 posts, read 1,568,619 times
Reputation: 2659
Did not consider rates for several reasons. 1. they tend to correlate with inflation, so become meaningless over long periods. 2. who knows how much I'll need in retirement since the number is so heavily influenced by inflation. 3. too many unknowns.
Retired now. What I did was always capture the match, and stepped up during my 50s to the max. have a decent nest egg now, but who knows what inflation will do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top