When do you plan to die?

[ribonucleic]

(Attention-grabbing title, eh?)

I apologize for asking a question that has almost certainly come up before. But it wasn't clear to me what search terms would find it.

In planning to make your money last long enough, how do you define "enough"? Your actuarial life expectancy? Family longevity history? A round 100?

[bottlecap]

I think 100 is a good target, even though I'll never make it.

I mostly look at it as how much do I need to live off of 3% or so when I retire, without touching principal. That way I don't need to worry if I have or want to dip into principal. And I don't need a specific "expiration" date for planning.

JT

[Jack FFR1846]

March 11, 2042.

It's in my spreadsheet.

[sport]

Since you do not know how long you will live, you have to provide for a long retirement. It is acceptable to run out of life while you still have money. You don't want to run out of money while you still have life. The best way to answer your question, is to project how much money you will need to spend each year in retirement. This includes, needs, wants, taxes, investment expenses, etc. The amount you need to fund a retirement is 25 times that yearly expense. If you want to be more conservative, you cold use a number that is a little higher. The 25X number implies a 4% withdrawal rate. History has shown that 4% has been a successful minimum over even the worst economic conditions.

[The Wizard]

This seems like a rather morbid topic.

Nonetheless, I expect to see my assets grow somewhat in retirement.
They have so far after initial retirement startup.
So the longer I live, the more wealthier I become, though I have no particular annual percentage number in mind...

[Sandtrap]

From a personal viewpoint. My genetics show a history of negative longevity. (But, with my luck I will end up hanging around longer than I care to.) (kidding). But DW's genetics are very very long lived. So I have structured my trust and financial planning accordingly.

Yes. Financial planning would be a lot easier if one knew an "expiration date" or "use by date".

We are retired seniors, frugal, and with a low demand lifestyle. Like others, health expenses and future issues are always a concern. Also the dreaded, "Black Swans".

Actionably, per forum protocol: perhaps one should financially strategize with 60X+ in a "Bernstein"/"Swedroe" LMP that will far outlive one's longevity expectations.

[bligh]

The ideal goal should be for the portfolio to hit "escape velocity". ie. its returns outstrip your withdrawals.

This way it doesn't matter how long one lives. I imagine a 3% withdrawal rate should do it.

Anyway, in my case I put the date at age 95. It is marked on my spreadsheets with a red line. It serves as a great reminder for my wife and I that our time is limited.

If I end up living longer than that, my plan is to stop wearing seat belts, take up extreme sports and live recklessly.

[ribonucleic]

This seems like a rather morbid topic...

I turn 50 in a few months. I feel entitled.

[avalpert]

The ideal goal should be for the portfolio to hit "escape velocity". ie. its returns outstrip your withdrawals.

This way it doesn't matter how long one lives. I imagine a 3% withdrawal rate should do it.

Anyway, in my case I put the date at age 95. It is marked on my spreadsheets with a red line. It serves as a great reminder for my wife and I that our time is limited.

If I end up living longer than that, my plan is to stop wearing seat belts, take up extreme sports and live recklessly.

Why is that the ideal goal? If the goal is maximizing lifetime utility - then hitting escape velocity would suggest your forewent (don't use that everyday) too much in your earlier years.

Of course it is possible for those of extreme wealth that their is no benefit to spending more, but I assume we are talking about regular folk here.

[Traveller]

From a personal viewpoint. My genetics show a history of negative longevity. (But, with my luck I will end up hanging around longer than I care to.) (kidding). But DW's genetics are very very long lived. So I have structured my trust and financial planning accordingly.

Sounds like we have similar family trees. My people take care of themselves, but still usually fall short of the actuarial tables. My wife comes from a long line of people who do everything you are not supposed to do (to excess) and they are long lived as a rule... life's just not always fair.

For planning purposes, I run my plan out to age 100 for both of us. That should give us plenty of cushion.

[Atilla]

I don't remember dreams very often but I had one a few weeks ago that stuck with me. I was visiting my grandmother at her house (who died in 2005) and she commented how she hadn't seen me in x years.

When I woke up I did the math in my head; and if I was visiting her house in Heaven in my dream, it puts my age of death at 67 years old.

I'm not going to count on it financially, but until I have evidence otherwise that's when I plan to die. I want to retire from my profession at 55, and you bet this makes the decision easier if I'm gonna die at 67.

[rob]

This seems like a rather morbid topic...

I turn 50 in a few months. I feel entitled.

You and me both... "bonus" is we can make catchup contributions this year

You have to plan with something and I just don't see the point of planning with 100 or anything close. In the long-run we are all dead I picked 80 for both spouse and I - I don't think either of us will get to that age personally but that is ample wiggle room IMO.... If either or both ends up on only welfare after 80, well it is what it is and there are worse things. Very likely we will still have funds anyway.

[bligh]

Why is that the ideal goal? If the goal is maximizing lifetime utility - then hitting escape velocity would suggest your forewent (don't use that everyday) too much in your earlier years.

Of course it is possible for those of extreme wealth that their is no benefit to spending more, but I assume we are talking about regular folk here.

That is a fair point. I do want to leave a sizable inheritance for my heirs (if I can) so it isn't just a matter of earning the perfect amount for my life time.

The second reason escape velocity *may* be a worthwhile goal is that, for someone who is say 30 to 40 years old today, she is about 60 years from being 95, it is important to consider the potential for technological progress. If you compare today's medical care with that of the 1960s it will give you some idea of the magnitude of change that is possible. Even more startling would be the difference in medical care between 1900 and 1960. A 35 year old today may end up finding out that if she manages to survive to be 95 her chances of making it to 120 are pretty good too.

[Sandtrap]

Why is that the ideal goal? If the goal is maximizing lifetime utility - then hitting escape velocity would suggest your forewent (don't use that everyday) too much in your earlier years.

Of course it is possible for those of extreme wealth that their is no benefit to spending more, but I assume we are talking about regular folk here.

That is a fair point. I do want to leave a sizable inheritance for my heirs (if I can) so it isn't just a matter of earning the perfect amount for my life time.

The second reason escape velocity *may* be a worthwhile goal is that, for someone who is 35 today is 60 years from being 95, it is important to consider the potential for technological progress. If you compare today's medical care with that of the 1960s it will give you some idea of the magnitude of change that is possible. Even more startling would be the difference in medical care between 1900 and 1960. A 35 year old today may end up finding out that if she manages to survive to be 95 her chances of making it to 120 are pretty good too.

Newbie question: Is "escape velocity" = "portfolio glide path" ??

[Toons]

107 Years Of Age

[bligh]

Why is that the ideal goal? If the goal is maximizing lifetime utility - then hitting escape velocity would suggest your forewent (don't use that everyday) too much in your earlier years.

Of course it is possible for those of extreme wealth that their is no benefit to spending more, but I assume we are talking about regular folk here.

That is a fair point. I do want to leave a sizable inheritance for my heirs (if I can) so it isn't just a matter of earning the perfect amount for my life time.

The second reason escape velocity *may* be a worthwhile goal is that, for someone who is 35 today is 60 years from being 95, it is important to consider the potential for technological progress. If you compare today's medical care with that of the 1960s it will give you some idea of the magnitude of change that is possible. Even more startling would be the difference in medical care between 1900 and 1960. A 35 year old today may end up finding out that if she manages to survive to be 95 her chances of making it to 120 are pretty good too.

Newbie question: Is "escape velocity" = "portfolio glide path" ??

escape velocity for me is that your portfolio is returning enough that, even after accounting for inflation, your portfolio continues to grow despite your withdrawals from it to pay for your expenses each year.

In other words, barring a catastrophe, you will never run out and your portfolio will keep getting bigger each year and your withdrawal will be a smaller and smaller percentage of the whole.

[rixer]

I'm thinking 85 at best. I will re-evaluate as time goes by and adjust if I feel its necessary. There is always the house that would provide a few more years in the worse case. Then we'll find out how much the kids love us. ...

[SamForMemories]

Up until it isn't enjoyable for me to do day to day activities and things become more painful. I imagine with modern medicine and everything that'll be around 90.

- joingy

[pennstater2005]

2088. Per my IPS.

[gilgamesh]

Forever with meager means....SS and SPIA bought at 80. But, most likely with my genetics I may not live to buy that SPIA

[S&L1940]

We have plotted out, monetarily, into our 90's; if we last longer we can always be a burden to the children
On another point, we hope to be mentally aware till the end
Have seen longevity with dementia or Alzheimer's, that is really a burden to others

[tennisplyr]

I'm not wildly conservative, so I don't worry very much....I figure 85-90 would cover it.

[FelixTheCat]

I had a Vanguard CFP run a plan for me a few years back. He used 100 as the age of death.

[Billionaire]

I'd like to hit 90. What I've seen in recent years is mid to late 80's things start going downhill FAST. Well at least in a couple of people who are close to me. So if I'm lucky enough to hit 90, I'm probably in for a couple of rough years. Once you're at the mercy of aides, nursing home staff, etc, you are basically ________.

Edit to add....this is why I'll be retiring in January 2018.

[bottlecap]

Up until it isn't enjoyable for me to do day to day activities and things become more painful. I imagine with modern medicine and everything that'll be around 90.

Aren't you the optimist!

Things are already more painful and I'm not yet half that age. I still do them, though...

[dwickenh]

I am figuring on 28 more years for both of us. That will make us 90. If we run out of money after that, the kids have agreed to feed us cat food in their basements.

[Will do good]

100 is a good round number for planning, my parents are healthy early 90's, DW's grandfather pass away at 102

[rec7]

No male in my family has lived past 77 so I don't have to plan as much as others.

[Trader/Investor]

Everyone tends to overestimate their longevity. Has anyone been to a nursing home lately. How many males over 95 do you see? My neighborhood is full of aged widows over 85 but zero widowers over that age. I take it a day at a time and try to enjoy life to the fullest. In my case that means hiking almost everyday and exploring off trail as much as possible.
I can tell you my former classmates that are now 6 feet under sure didn't expect to die so soon and thought they would live to 75 and beyond. If you are thin and active the odds are in your favor. If you have a gut you better reevaluate your fantasy of living to 90 or 100. Believe it or not, and you can look it up, genetics only account for 25% of how long we will live.

[Billionaire]

No male in my family has lived past 77 so I don't have to plan as much as others.

My condolences to you and your family.

[Billionaire]

If you have a gut you better reevaluate your fantasy of living to 90 or 100.

Oh, crap.

[whaleknives]

It's low on my to-do list.

I've used 30 years in FIRECalc since 63, so 93 is my minimum.
I actually had one grandfather who lived until then, but most of my forbears haven't.

[bligh]

Everyone tends to overestimate their longevity. Has anyone been to a nursing home lately. How many males over 95 do you see? My neighborhood is full of aged widows over 85 but zero widowers over that age. I take it a day at a time and try to enjoy life to the fullest. In my case that means hiking almost everyday and exploring off trail as much as possible.
I can tell you my former classmates that are now 6 feet under sure didn't expect to die so soon and thought they would live to 75 and beyond. If you are thin and active the odds are in your favor. If you have a gut you better reevaluate your fantasy of living to 90 or 100. Believe it or not, and you can look it up, genetics only account for 25% of how long we will live.

I had read a couple of articles on this a while back. The stats I remember are that about a 25% of those who make it to 21 years old, dont make it to 65. Of the people who make it to 65, 25% wont make it to 75 and 75% will not make it to 90.

In other words, I wouldn't bet on me making it to 90. lol

[fishandgolf]

I plan to live forever........so far I'm right on schedule

[tim1999]

No male in my family has made it past 72 except for one that passed back in the 1960s. Even if I last past that, I don't plan on sticking around much past the point where I can't drive or do anything other than sit in a chair all day.

[cheese_breath]

It's really when I plan for DW to die. She's younger than me, and I'm planning for her to be around until age 90. (I hope to be here too.)

She's currently 70, and I'm 76. Our assets are still increasing right now, but I project they will begin declining around 2023 and hopefully will last longer than we do.

[Doom&Gloom]

No idea, but by the time I get there I won't care.

[confused investor]

I generally calculate X number of years that the money needs to last until I'm probably too senile or ill to care.

[bigred77]

No male in my family has made it past 72 except for one that passed back in the 1960s. Even if I last past that, I don't plan on sticking around much past the point where I can't drive or do anything other than sit in a chair all day.

Yeah but don't all bogleheads want to make sure we can afford one heck of a chair

[flyingbison]

75, give or take a few years

[Raymond]

Might have to extend planning out to 200+ years old:

"Aubrey de Grey: A roadmap to end aging" - TED Talk

[eldinerocheapo]

Personally, I plan to run out of money and breath at the same time. That could be 15 years from now or 25. Men in my family die early, and a very realistic range is between the ages of 75 and 85. Nobody in my family has lived that long and it has dawned on me that my bucket list is not even half finished. Time to move on it.

[CyclingDuo]

(Attention-grabbing title, eh?)

I apologize for asking a question that has almost certainly come up before. But it wasn't clear to me what search terms would find it.

In planning to make your money last long enough, how do you define "enough"? Your actuarial life expectancy? Family longevity history? A round 100?

Glad this question was asked, mainly because all the chit-chat about retirement 10-12 years from now, reality of recent loss of parents, and planning does have us confronting the issue of mortality and how the next 2-3 decades unfold.

When it's your time, it's your time. "You can't take it with you brother Will, brother John..."

Ages at death for our parents have been 81/89/90/91. Hard to figure what that actually means for us. One day at a time, and when it happens it happens. Yet, one must plan. So...

Financial plans have been made. Our plans are to make it to 92 to make sure we're not short in funds and have some leftover to pass on to heirs.

[2comma]

Everyone tends to overestimate their longevity...snip... Believe it or not, and you can look it up, genetics only account for 25% of how long we will live.

Thanks for mentioning the genetics although I assume you meant it in the broader sense of ancestors. It drives me a little crazy how much importance people put on how long their _______ lived. There are just too many unknowns (known unknowns?) to make a good guess. This point was really brought home here a few months ago for me when someone with a debilitating disease asked for advice. Although it was a good guess that it could possibly shorten his life it wasn't a slam dunk that his life would be shorter - how does someone in that position plan for that? I think all any of us can do is intentionally overestimate even if we know that's only for planning purposes.

I heard something on the radio recently that the American Heart Association has some strong research about red meats and such and I've read some research about why belly fat is particularly bad. Both are hard to ignore. But most that had long lived ancestors, who live very clean lives, believe that medical advances will greatly improve lifespans, exercise a lot and take every supplement that purports have life prolonging qualities are probably kidding themselves that they'll make it to 101.

[livesoft]

I have made plans for anytime between now (immediately) and as old as 105, but those plans would still work longer than that.

So expect the unexpected.

[bta15]

My mother died at age 64, my father at age 70. Their parents all died before age 75. So I presume it will be around 70.

[bligh]

SPIAs would work great as longevity insurance. You may not be balling in your 100s, but atleast you wont be destitute.

[Twood]

This one stresses me. Family history is mid-90's, with 10+ years of dementia and needing high levels of care. But at least I know to plan ahead, I guess.

[S&L1940]

My neighborhood is full of aged widows over 85 but zero widowers over that age. I take it a day at a time and try to enjoy life to the fullest. In my case that means hiking almost everyday and exploring off trail as much as possible.
.

Always be prepared. For a start, how about changing neighborhoods?
Here in Medicare central plenty of guys - but still less than gals - not only beyond 85 but also hiking and playing tennis. Florida being kind of flat, hiking is easy, simply avoid the alligators. Good Luck

[Theseus]

Per my current projection I plan to die at 95. I run out of money then