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.
Not to me it doesn't. If it isn't needed then don't take it. Why would you want to fawk around with high risk investing during retirement?
If he enjoys gambling, recommend a trip to Vegas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
high risk investing ? a simple 50/50 mix using diversified funds has never lost money in a 10 or 20 year period .
in 118 30 year retirement cycles you ended with more than you started in 90% of them with 50/50.
want to know what is high risk ? fixed income by itself .. at a 4% draw rate inflation adjusted it went broke so many times it is actually unsafe .
it has only a 46% success rate as far as lasting ..50/50 a 96% success rate ...
facts show which one is really the risky gamble rather then myth and running on b.s..
Of course...but in the original post being referred to the guy was like, "instead of waiting to get an 8% SS increase I'll invest my (early) SS benefit to get that 8% return". That is clearly taking on more risk than what is needed to just break even as in "not losing money".
As in, waiting for SS is often compared to getting an annuity rather than relying on the vagaries of the market. And yes, you definitely need a healthy dollop (at least) of stocks in your post retirement portfolio - that's different than loading up on micro-caps and emerging markets.
there is no 8% return from ss ... they are confused as to what a return is ,...
8% growth is not an 8% roi when you are giving up checks , spend down invested assets , give up spousal benefits , and have uncapped medicare premium increases to get that growth rate ...
your actual roi can be zero when delaying ss , for as long as 22-24 years when all is considered... let me repeat that , roi is zero%
at age 90 you can see a 5% real return from ss and 6% at 95 which equals the roi on a balanced portfolio but you need to live that long , which statistically is not in your favor . ... so never look at the 6-8% growth in what you get from ss as an roi.
here it is only counting just the checks and nothing else.
here it is when comparing to a balanced portfolio , but not including spousal you are not getting or uncapped medicare premiums. you are looking at 22-24 years to first see a penny of roi .
Last edited by mathjak107; 06-15-2019 at 09:00 AM..
i guess you would just parrot mis-information , myth and old wives tales ..... but it is not me that is so smart ... i make it a point of knowing which researchers do quality work and all these things come from the brightest minds on the planet when it comes to this stuff , not my mind which is obsessed with drumming and i am lucky if i have my shirt facing the right way .
I hope he has all this copied somewhere so he can just cut and paste each time this comes up.
"If I wait I get more money" is firmly ingrained based solely on amount at 62 vs amount at FRA vs amount at 70.
I hope he has all this copied somewhere so he can just cut and paste each time this comes up.
"If I wait I get more money" is firmly ingrained based solely on amount at 62 vs amount at FRA vs amount at 70.
It is JUST as simplistic to say "I want my money NOW because I might die in x years". My how the conversation has turned! You used to be an idiot to wait because dontcha know SS will be gone in 5 years and I want all the money I'm owed NOW! Then it turned 180 degrees to "only idiots take their SS at 62 because they're greedy and don't know how much your benefit goes up over time by waiting".
Now the pendulum swings yet again (whiplash time) - it's not REALLY an 8% increase because (duh) you spend down your own investments. I'm still coming out ahead if I live to 90 and of course I'll be spending down my assets more quickly prior to taking my SS - how do people not take that into account? Actually that's why most are afraid to or just can't wait to take SS.
It's a balancing act but no one wants to figure out their own case they just want someone to tell them - "Do I take it at 62 or wait until 70? And please don't make me think about it, just tell me!".
Honestly, I think people accept whatever argument suits what they were already wanting to do before they knew anything and just call it good, relieved they don't have to change their plans.
Thanks again everyone for the responses. It sounds to me like it makes more sense to take SSI earlier rather than tap your retirement savings. I will let my friend know. Jay
ssi is welfare...stop using that term . it is not social security retirement
I don’t know that I agree with you on this. Welfare is a benefit given to the poor to prevent them from being completely destitute. They don’t necessarily pay for it. It comes from taxes paid by all. SSI is something people pay for over the course of their entire career so it is more of a forced savings for the future. In theory people pay for it themselves. To me that is not welfare in the true sense of the word. Jay
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.
