Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
ebot
Posts: 17
Joined: Thu Nov 07, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by ebot »

Does anyone know of a reference for where to travel before 50, before 65, etc? Could be helpful in planning
JS-Elcano
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:29 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by JS-Elcano »

Patzer wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:43 pm I am writing this post from the perspective of a single 41 year old man with no heirs and no plans to change that.

On this forum, we often go on about how we need to plan to 85, 90, 95, or even 100!
My chance of living to 85 is 37.5%, 90 is 19.9%, 95 is 6.5%, and 100 is 1.1%.
So, it's clear that I am going to have a lot of excess money buried with me if I plan that far out, but it's actually far worse than these numbers.

It's worse, because even if I do live to 95, there is almost no chance that I am actually going to be living a life that is enjoyable at 95 years old.
Most people stop really enjoying and living their life well before they die. They also don't spend as much money later in life, because they simply are no longer up for doing things.

So, it seems risky to trade in healthy years in my 40s or 50s to make sure I am flush with cash in my 90s, when I won't be able to enjoy the money anyways.
For most of us we fear Sequence of Return Risk, where we spend too much early, and are broke when we are old.
I fear what I am calling "Sequence of Health Risk", where I give up healthy years in my 40s/50s, so that I can sit in a recliner and stare at squirrels out the window in my 90s, with a 7 figure bank account.

It's hard to get good data on quality of life, but for me the meaning of quality of life is being physically active, travelling, and engaging with other people at parties, tailgates, clubs, etc.

These activities all wane with age.
For hiking, Appalachian trail data shows lots of success from 18-65, a big decline from 65-70 and then pretty much no one older than that succeeding to complete it. I do occasionally encounter someone in their 70s on a trail, but it's exceedingly rare.
For travel, I found a study on travel to Europe and found that tourists, aged 45-64 more than doubled tourists who were 65+. Anecdotal data from my life suggests that people get most of their travelling in before 75, and then become more stationary.
For engaging with other people, my own life experience suggests that people stay pretty active in their community while working, and even in the first 5 years after retiring, but slowly disappear into the shadows.
Even something as simple as how much people dine out, drops 43% for people 75+ vs 65-74.
A US government study shows that those 75+ spend 36% less than those 65-74, and that includes the higher medical costs they incur.

I could give dozens of anecdotes of people I have known that have stopped enjoying their lives at ages ranging from 50s (health issues) all the way to a man who enjoyed his life up to 87, but is now 92 and hasn't been happy for 5 years. All this leads me to believe that even if I do get lucky enough to live a long life, there is a very good chance many of the years at the end of that life won't be as enjoyable and won't require as much money to fund.

So The BIG Question is...
What age is it worth planning living a full life to?
How old have the people in your life enjoyed a full life to?

If I retire at 50, am I really retiring for a 40-50 year retirement that requires a massive X spending number?
Or am I really retiring for 25 years of normal spending, from age 50 to 75, and then from 75+ I won't have much energy to do things and my social security will be enough to pay most of my costs?
It's a big difference too...
For a portfolio of 70% US Stocks, 15% 10 year Treasuries, and 15% 3 month T-Bills, with a 98% success rate at the monthly start date level of granularity in back-testing, looking at 1914-Present (Fed Era):
To fund a 50 year retirement, you needed 28X.
40 years, 26.5X
30 years, 24.6X
25 years, 23X

Really important to note that those were the 98% success rate numbers. 98% success rate also means that 98% of the time you actually ended up with more money than you needed.
The historical mid-point (50% Success) from 1914-Present (Fed Era), was as follows:
50 years, you needed 17.5X
40 years, 16.4X
30 years, 14.6X
25 years, 13.6X

I am not advocating for saving only 14X, but I certainly have a hard time seeing a need to save more than 25X even for someone retiring at 50.
Counter to the common idea of spending carefully in early retirement to avoid a bad sequence of returns, there seems to be a lot of value gained by retiring earlier and/or spending more early in retirement, when your health is more likely to allow you to enjoy it, and accepting a more modest life if you do survive well into old age.
It's a reasonable thing to consider, but my main goal for old age is to be comfortable and I am sure that will take a considerable chunk of money. Yes, I won't be spending money on traveling to Europe or hiking the Appalachian trail or anything else for that matter. But, I think I will spend that same money and probably more on home help or living in Assisted living or a CCRC, which probably have highest quality/rated nursing homes.
Topic Author
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by Patzer »

JS-Elcano wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:48 pm It's a reasonable thing to consider, but my main goal for old age is to be comfortable and I am sure that will take a considerable chunk of money. Yes, I won't be spending money on traveling to Europe or hiking the Appalachian trail or anything else for that matter. But, I think I will spend that same money and probably more on home help or living in Assisted living or a CCRC, which probably have highest quality/rated nursing homes.
In my experience, there is not much joy in LTC or CCRC facilities. Have a relative at one that costs 8K/month, and she absolutely hates it and asks if she can go home every time she has a visitor.
She would have been happier to have had another year of life at home even if that meant dying a little sooner, than being put in there.

I can't see working extra prime years to save money for that type of care.
JS-Elcano
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:29 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by JS-Elcano »

Patzer wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:26 pm
JS-Elcano wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:48 pm It's a reasonable thing to consider, but my main goal for old age is to be comfortable and I am sure that will take a considerable chunk of money. Yes, I won't be spending money on traveling to Europe or hiking the Appalachian trail or anything else for that matter. But, I think I will spend that same money and probably more on home help or living in Assisted living or a CCRC, which probably have highest quality/rated nursing homes.
In my experience, there is not much joy in LTC or CCRC facilities. Have a relative at one that costs 8K/month, and she absolutely hates it and asks if she can go home every time she has a visitor.
She would have been happier to have had another year of life at home even if that meant dying a little sooner, than being put in there.

I can't see working extra prime years to save money for that type of care.
I think it depends on the facility and the good ones cost more money than the bad ones. I don't know how you imagine dying sooner at home; starve or die of thirst? We don't just die when we want unless we deliberately take our life. If I need help I rather get it in a facility that is well staffed with qualified personnel than in a low-cost facility that neglects people and gets fined by the government. - Don't get me wrong, I will stay in my own home as long as I enjoy it. But then I plan to move into a CCRC. Here in FL there are many that are outstanding, but they all cost a pretty penny. If I never need it I will be more than happy to give all the money to my favorite charities. The thought of not being able to afford to pay for assistance and/or care in old age would not sit well with me now and I can only imagine it would get worse as I grow older.
balbrec2
Posts: 655
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:03 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by balbrec2 »

I'm using 90.
This is the number a lot of CFP's use.
Also looking at family history, it seems right.
Even if I make that far I won't be doing/spending much.
I'm currently 65 and in good health. Have 33x at current market valuations.
40/60 AA.
CloseEnough
Posts: 1290
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2021 7:34 am

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by CloseEnough »

An interesting and thought provoking thread. Thank you, OP.

For those who have more than enough, the planning around issues raised in this thread (like all planning) is easier. As some have pointed out, live your full life, do travel or whatever it is for you, when you are younger and healthy. And the health can change at any age, so live life always, don't wait. I will take that even more into account, having read the comments here, to not put off things I really want to do.

For those who have enough but maybe not more than enough, I think it is a much more difficult calculus. Do you spend more earlier, to take full advantage of good health and not having some of the limitations of old age, at the risk (risk, not certainty) of having less money than ideal to manage your later years? Of course, one thing also is that you can do a lot of living without money, but it may be time you don't have (while you are earning that money!). Easy for me to say, since I am not making that decision right now, but I would at least from a life philosophy standpoint say go ahead and add some risk to the tail end, it if improves the front end.
am
Posts: 4233
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:55 am

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by am »

CloseEnough wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 8:56 am An interesting and thought provoking thread. Thank you, OP.

For those who have more than enough, the planning around issues raised in this thread (like all planning) is easier. As some have pointed out, live your full life, do travel or whatever it is for you, when you are younger and healthy. And the health can change at any age, so live life always, don't wait. I will take that even more into account, having read the comments here, to not put off things I really want to do.

For those who have enough but maybe not more than enough, I think it is a much more difficult calculus. Do you spend more earlier, to take full advantage of good health and not having some of the limitations of old age, at the risk (risk, not certainty) of having less money than ideal to manage your later years? Of course, one thing also is that you can do a lot of living without money, but it may be time you don't have (while you are earning that money!). Easy for me to say, since I am not making that decision right now, but I would at least from a life philosophy standpoint say go ahead and add some risk to the tail end, it if improves the front end.
I agree about adding some risk to the tail end to improve the front end. While we’re making that extra money to make retirement more secure, we don’t know if we’ll make it as far as we think.
bob2019
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2022 7:24 am

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by bob2019 »

faanger101 wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 9:03 am
Ari wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 12:16 am You are assuming no significant advances in longevity. I’m 39, and I’d assign a far higher probability than 1% that I live to 100. Heck, I’d assign a higher than 1% probability that I live to 200. There’s a lot happening in the longevity field, and significant advances in health and life span are likely on the horizon. It’s hard to estimate probabilities for this, but I don’t think it’s wise to discount it, unless you plan to avoid any such technologies that become available.
"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." :mrgreen:
I was pulled over while driving through the center of town. When the cop looked at my license and saw that I lived in town he asked, Have you lived here all your life. I replied, not yet. :-)
prd1982
Posts: 1786
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by prd1982 »

Patzer wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:26 pm

In my experience, there is not much joy in LTC or CCRC facilities. Have a relative at one that costs 8K/month, and she absolutely hates it and asks if she can go home every time she has a visitor.
She would have been happier to have had another year of life at home even if that meant dying a little sooner, than being put in there.

I can't see working extra prime years to save money for that type of care.
I think many of us would make that trade. Unfortunately it isn't an option. I don't consider having money for LTC a benefit to me. Rather it is to benefit my family so they don't have to care for me at the expense of giving up their plans. I remember my mother and her 2 sisters caring for their mother.

I know Medicaid is a backup but i think it is wrong to expect the government to cover what i could cover.
User avatar
Lee_WSP
Posts: 10401
Joined: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:15 pm
Location: Arizona

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by Lee_WSP »

Your OP contemplates two different and not mutually exclusive issues.

1) Does different phases of our life require different resources for maximum enjoyment or quality of life? Yes.

2) Does it make sense to spend a little more while younger? Maybe. Economists would argue that equalizing your lifetime spending over time is going to maximize lifetime happiness. I’m not sure, but it sounds good.

3) How much should we actually plan for? A very good question and I don’t think there’s a right answer. I think a lot of people like to overshoot because any residue is passed on to our offspring or some cause we care greatly about. If OTOH, you truly have no one you wish to bequeath to, then planning to 75 or 80 and planning to die with nothing is probably a good cutoff age. You’ll never be destitute so long as you’ve got your home paid off, have enough to maintain it in full at age 80 (ie new roof, hvac, everything) for ten years and collect social security. If you need long term care, you can go into a CCRC after selling the home.

Patzer wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 10:26 pm
JS-Elcano wrote: Sun Nov 27, 2022 1:48 pm It's a reasonable thing to consider, but my main goal for old age is to be comfortable and I am sure that will take a considerable chunk of money. Yes, I won't be spending money on traveling to Europe or hiking the Appalachian trail or anything else for that matter. But, I think I will spend that same money and probably more on home help or living in Assisted living or a CCRC, which probably have highest quality/rated nursing homes.
In my experience, there is not much joy in LTC or CCRC facilities. Have a relative at one that costs 8K/month, and she absolutely hates it and asks if she can go home every time she has a visitor.
She would have been happier to have had another year of life at home even if that meant dying a little sooner, than being put in there.

I can't see working extra prime years to save money for that type of care.
While you are correct that there is not as much joy in a LTC or CCRC compared to life in your fifties, it is frankly both relatively less safe and socially isolating to age at home. Cutting yourself off from social activities has a markedly negative effect on mental health and I do believe studies show it can accelerate dementia.

So, while it is probably the best bad option, it’s still the best option in most cases. Dignity of choice, notwithstanding.
broncocountry25
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by broncocountry25 »

This is a great thread! I think members on this website think more intentionally then some other investing forums where "get rich" is the only idea.

I have always been seeking financial security since I did not grow up with it. I have reached it and am grateful.

This has allowed me to shift my focus to investing outside of retirement accounts to pay for more experiences, buy more free time, or purchase items I enjoy (although I don't love things).

I had a lot of friends tell me how jealous they were that I took a gap year at 18 and travelled to Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Indonesia, and Hawaii. This was my first experience with realizing you just have to go for it sometimes in life if you want to do something that is important to you.

Money is important I am not delusional. For many though on this forum you most likely have the money if not much more then what you need to do most of the amazing things that life has to offer.

I will continue to limit retirement dollars and let what I have grow. While continuing to invest in taxable, private investment, real estate, and most importantly personal enjoyment.
User avatar
WoodSpinner
Posts: 3505
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2017 12:15 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by WoodSpinner »

brian91480 wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:09 pm
nedsaid wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 11:55 am At 63, I am not all that old and my health has held up well. That being said, at my age roughing it is a night at a 2 star hotel. I did camping and backpacking as a youth and don't have a big desire for it now.
I talked to my aunt today on the phone. She is 72. She has always been pretty healthy... never overweight.

About 2 years ago she got pretty bad arthritis. It's so bad now... she told me today that she's afraid to go to the airport because she would have too much trouble walking to her gate. So she thinks that she's done traveling for good.

Our time to go on adventures is limited! But staying at 2 star hotels isn't that bad! 👍

--- Brian
You might send her some info on wheelchair availability at gates and TSA checkpoints. Generally pretty well done and can add travel back to her life.

WoodSpinner
WoodSpinner
delamer
Posts: 17455
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by delamer »

Have not read the other posts, but don’t underestimate the ability of a significant nest egg to mitigate some of the physical and mental issues that arise as you age.

Business class vs. economy class on planes is an obvious example.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
iamlucky13
Posts: 3527
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by iamlucky13 »

Patzer wrote: Sun Nov 20, 2022 11:43 pmFor a portfolio of 70% US Stocks, 15% 10 year Treasuries, and 15% 3 month T-Bills, with a 98% success rate at the monthly start date level of granularity in back-testing, looking at 1914-Present (Fed Era):
To fund a 50 year retirement, you needed 28X.
40 years, 26.5X
30 years, 24.6X
25 years, 23X

Really important to note that those were the 98% success rate numbers. 98% success rate also means that 98% of the time you actually ended up with more money than you needed.
The historical mid-point (50% Success) from 1914-Present (Fed Era), was as follows:
50 years, you needed 17.5X
40 years, 16.4X
30 years, 14.6X
25 years, 13.6X

I am not advocating for saving only 14X, but I certainly have a hard time seeing a need to save more than 25X even for someone retiring at 50.
Counter to the common idea of spending carefully in early retirement to avoid a bad sequence of returns, there seems to be a lot of value gained by retiring earlier and/or spending more early in retirement, when your health is more likely to allow you to enjoy it, and accepting a more modest life if you do survive well into old age.
Your first scenario emphasizes again why the 4% rule (25X expenses) is popular. It should have a very high success rate.

I'm personally a little less interested in the declining spending angle. It can be estimated, although I have not yet done so in my plan. I also have a lot of uncertainty about health care inflation that makes me hesitant to plan on declining spending.

The second scenario is one of my big frustrations saving for retirement. I'm using FIRECalc for some rough numbers just due to familiarity, but I think the results will be similar to what you got from EarlyRetirementNow, and to me, the outputs show how hard it is to try to optimize.

To be prepared for a 30 year retirement under the 10th percentile market conditions requires saving 1.5X as much as being prepared for the median market conditions, and 2X as much as being prepared for the 90th percentile market conditions.

Looked at another way, If I retire with $1 million and follow the 4% rule, then I'm looking at a range of results at age 90 from -$300,000 up to $5.5 million. This is presents far more uncertainty than my post-retirement expenses.

I don't want to delay my retirement by multiple years just to die at 85 with my initial 25X having grown to over 50X even my inflated expenses, but I also don't want to run out of money at 85 and be unable to even afford supplemental health insurance to help keep the next 5 years comfortable. Both of those scenarios are historically precedented, and I don't get to choose which scenario is really going to happen. I only get to choose the starting point.

Actually, I do also get to choose how much of my retirement budget is discretionary, so I can adapt to the worse case scenarios, so the realistic range is not quite so extreme. Yet it remains the fact that in order to be prepared for even a not at all unlikely 10th percentile scenario, I will have over-saved for even a median scenario, to say nothing of the 90th percentile scenario.

Because I tend to be conservative, my own judgement leads me to target at least 25X expenses, and just accept the likelihood that I "wasted" extra working years to reduce my risks.

Since I'm squarely in the middle of my accumulation phase, I have the additional uncertainty to contend with that my savings rate might not get me to 25X before age 67, or it might get me there by age 50. This is again just based on market returns that I don't get to choose, and it is another source of greater uncertainty than whether my post-retirement expenses will decrease.
User avatar
AnnetteLouisan
Posts: 7262
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:16 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by AnnetteLouisan »

What if we do this: assume an average life expectancy of 80.

For some of those decades, we may spend a lot and others not so much. It varies. We’ll get in some high and some low spending years. Life will have fun parts and challenging parts.

The definition of fun will evolve over time and perhaps become less costly. Or not. We may end up penny pinching frugalistas at 70 although we swung from chandeliers at 25. Or become big spenders at 50 because we never had the chance before then.

But we don’t have as much control over it as we think and a 25 year old can’t point to a Wordle-playing 70 year old and say that’s not a full life, if that’s what the 70 year old chooses to do.
User avatar
whodidntante
Posts: 13114
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:11 pm
Location: outside the echo chamber

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by whodidntante »

It is better to accept that one will eventually become frail, and to plan accordingly. I have earned enough in my life that could have retired wealthy, but have chosen to have a number of experiences instead of collecting all my lint. It seems to be the right decision. I have been an athlete and quite fit, but now age is catching up with me. Even my mind isn't quite what it used to be. If someone posts that I am drinking whiskey with sheepdog tomorrow, you heard it from me that it was a life well lived.

And I still have a decent amount of money. Far more than most of my peers, as far as I know. It's about balance. But if I had to chose, I would prefer a great life over riches. I've just been fortunate to make enough money for both.
afan
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by afan »

I am amazed by people who think they can predict what they will want to do decades into the future.

When I was 10, I did not formulate plans for my life as an adult. Too little understanding of the options to even try.

By the time I was 15, I had a good idea of what I wanted for a career. Turns out, my predictions were remarkably accurate on the professional side. However, I could not have been more wrong about where I would live, what I would do for entertainment, how important "having a good time" would be to me, what physical activities I chose... Wrong about all of that.

It was not that there were things I could do at 15 but not at 30. It was that, at 30, my interests had changed. The things that seemed so important as a teenager no longer could compete with my new interests. My favorite participatory sport was something I had never heard of at 15.

I had a similar shift from 30 to 45. Again, I could still do at 45 the things I could do at 30. But I had moved on to new desires.

My interests are not set in stone and new things come up.

I would not assume that people in their 80s would rather be doing what they did in their 20s but don't because they can't. At least my experience suggests that their activities change as their interests change.

There was I time when I could happily spend hours on the floor playing with toys. I don't do that anymore.
It is not because I no longer have the physical ability to do so.

I do not equate "enjoying life" with "spending money." Many of my favorite activities are cheap or free. I do not need a lot of spending to do what I like. Among the things I like are parts of my job and earning, saving, and investing money. I cannot imagine having days on end with no long term accomplishments to work on. The accomplishments that matter to me are not hobbies, or casual pastimes. They are substantial things that people get paid to do. I do not want to give those up.

That is how I feel now. I do not pretend to know how I will feel about entertainment in 20 years. I assume my feelings will be different than what they are now. At least I hope my knowledge and interests will continue to grow. It would be profoundly disappointing if I do not find new things that interest me over that long a time.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
User avatar
jjunk
Posts: 957
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 9:52 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by jjunk »

Man plans, God laughs is how I think about it. I just turned 49 this month. When I joined BH several years ago I was running 75-100 miles per week, no real health issues and a great career going. In fact, at one point my doctor ran tests on me because I was in too good of shape. Fast forward to today, I had my hip replaced a little over a year ago which hasn't taken well. I have major back issues to the point where I can barely leave the house any longer and I'm in constant pain. I have enough to retire if I want to but work for my health insurance since the ACA plans are not even close to my work plan. My guess is that I'll eventually get let go because I'm at the doctors office 1-2x week for one thing or another. My body simply failed me after 45yrs of no issues. I used to plan to 85 when we did planning because no one in my family has really lived past that age but now I think I'll be lucky to make it another 10-15yrs. If I'm honest, most of life isn't worth living to me in my current state. Sounds depressing but wanted to give you one perspective.

If I were you, once you feel good financially and no longer want to work, retire. You never know when your window is going to close so take advantage of the good while you have it. We saved hard in our 30s to retire early and now I feel that was all wasted. Truly hope you have better luck. :sharebeer
iamlucky13
Posts: 3527
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 4:28 pm
Location: Western Washington

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by iamlucky13 »

afan wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:45 pm I am amazed by people who think they can predict what they will want to do decades into the future.

....

My interests are not set in stone and new things come up.

I would not assume that people in their 80s would rather be doing what they did in their 20s but don't because they can't. At least my experience suggests that their activities change as their interests change.
I don't think anyone here is under the illusion that they're going to be doing the same things in the 80's as in their 20's. The considerations are more generically about how much money is needed, regardless of the activities. Assumptions will have to be made. The easiest assumption is to suppose you need the same amount after retirement as before, but as the topic author has suggested, it is common to not need quite as much, and some Bogleheads may be planning around unrealistic life expectancies or activity levels. In those cases, it might be safe to pull some spending earlier in life.
afan wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 9:45 pmI do not equate "enjoying life" with "spending money." Many of my favorite activities are cheap or free.
Same here, but I don't have time to do many of those activities. I could buy more time if I reduced my savings rate, but from my position, I see more risk pulling spending forward than maintaining my existing plan.

Having a target for what we need to save helps inform our spending decisions.

This month's big time vs. money decision is car maintenance. We're currently getting burned by Subaru's poor quality, and my wife and I have agreed to pay to have the latest issue fixed, but not to do the 120,000 mile maintenance. I will give up a weekend to do that myself rather than cut into our savings more.
afan
Posts: 8193
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 4:01 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by afan »

I think we may be agreeing with each other
I was replying to posts that said, in effect
"Right now, I live doing XYZ. I assume I will always love doing XYZ and that if I stop, it will be because I no longer have the physical capacity to do it. As I look at older people who do not do XYZ, I assume they would do it if they could. I reject the idea that they avoid XYZ because they no longer enjoy it, if they ever did.
Since all I want to do is XYZ and the ability to do this is time-limited, I should do as much as I can, while I can.
I assume that by the time I am too old for XYZ, I will be too old for any enjoyable activity. At that point, I would rather be dead."

The problem is, I know many older folks who are less vigorous than the used to be but who still enjoy life. They do the things they want to do. They are definitely happier than they would be if they had run through their assets chasing pleasure while young and were now struggling to get by.
We don't know how to beat the market on a risk-adjusted basis, and we don't know anyone that does know either | --Swedroe | We assume that markets are efficient, that prices are right | --Fama
brian91480
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2021 6:44 pm
Location: Minnesota

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by brian91480 »

There were many terrific comments on this thread. Thanks for posting OP (Patzer)

broncocountry25 wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 5:10 pm While continuing to invest in taxable, private investment, real estate, and most importantly personal enjoyment.
I am going to steal this quote in the future. Invest in personal enjoyment. :beer

WoodSpinner wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 7:59 pm
brian91480 wrote: Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:09 pm
I talked to my aunt today on the phone. About 2 years ago she got pretty bad arthritis. It's so bad now... she told me today that she's afraid to go to the airport because she would have too much trouble walking to her gate. So she thinks that she's done traveling for good.

--- Brian
You might send her some info on wheelchair availability at gates and TSA checkpoints. Generally pretty well done and can add travel back to her life.

WoodSpinner
I will give her a heads up about this. Thanks WoodSpinner. :beer

jjunk wrote: Mon Nov 28, 2022 11:47 pm I used to plan to 85 when we did planning because no one in my family has really lived past that age but now I think I'll be lucky to make it another 10-15yrs. If I were you, once you feel good financially and no longer want to work, retire. You never know when your window is going to close so take advantage of the good while you have it. We saved hard in our 30s to retire early and now I feel that was all wasted. Truly hope you have better luck. :sharebeer
Sorry to read this, JJunk! I hope things turn out better for you going forward. God Bless.

--- Brian
finite_difference
Posts: 3633
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by finite_difference »

TheNightsToCome wrote: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:59 am
Small Law Survivor wrote: Mon Nov 21, 2022 7:22 am My mother lived to 93. Father two months short of 90. Grandparents all at least 90. Aunts and uncles all late '80s or 90+.

However, after 85 their lives were greatly constrained by their health. When my mother was 90 she knew who everyone was, but could not control any aspect of her life (food, bills, clothing, personal care), and had to have a 24/365 home aid live with her.

A few years ago my primary care doctor told me that 85 was a good goal, and that anything beyond that life was not worth living. That is consistent with what I witnessed in my family.

My father's health was terrible the last five years of his life. I will never forget when he said to me, sometime in his mid- or late '80s, "I never expected to live this long." My father was an MIT-trained chemical engineer, WWII vet and a super smart guy. He planned everything very carefully - his business, finances, family .... He saw how long the generation that preceded him had lived, and he just never thought he would live to 89.10.

I visited him every weekend. More than once when I asked him what I could bring him he would say, "bring me a gun."

Food for thought .....
I am a physician caring for many patients with a limited quality of life due to health issues at much younger ages. Still, many of my patients do have a good quality of life in upper 80s and early 90s. A few have done well even beyond that. Given steady progress in medicine, it's reasonable to expect more of that in the future.

It's nuts to say life beyond 85 isn't worth living.
Our heroes Jack Bogle and Taylor Larimore come to mind.

If you exercise, eat healthy, don’t smoke, stay mentally active and don’t suffer injury or bad luck health problems, I think life expectancy is increasing. Being financially secure also is associated with adding almost a decade to one’s lifespan. Maybe some actuaries on here can chime in.

I would plan for 95. Never hurts to be a bit optimistic.
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh
SevenBridgesRoad
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 12:14 am

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by SevenBridgesRoad »

"Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?"

What does this even mean?

I've followed this thread with some interest, but can no longer keep quiet. I reject the very premise that there is an age at which life is no longer full. Much less, that one can plan for that age.

My life is a "full life" at age 66. It's certainly a different life than at age 41 or even 60. I no longer want to go work all day at my previous career, although I enjoyed an amazing career. I no longer want to hike all day and party at night (I do still tailgate!) I can no longer go to the Y and play pick up basketball. I no longer can run a sub 5-minute mile like I did at 40. But I'm happy. My wife and I are in social groups (square dance community...don't laugh...great mental and physical exercise) with folks much older than us (80's and even 90's), who are having a great time with life. These friends are happy. My father is 89. He enjoys life. He is not able to physically do what he did even a year ago. But he is happy. I could go on...

Happiness is a decision.

Financial planning and rational spending are different decisions.

SBR
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4880
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?

Post by Wannaretireearly »

SevenBridgesRoad wrote: Tue Nov 29, 2022 11:10 pm "Sequence of Health Risk: AKA What Age is it Worth Planning For a Full Life To?"

What does this even mean?

I've followed this thread with some interest, but can no longer keep quiet. I reject the very premise that there is an age at which life is no longer full. Much less, that one can plan for that age.

My life is a "full life" at age 66. It's certainly a different life than at age 41 or even 60. I no longer want to go work all day at my previous career, although I enjoyed an amazing career. I no longer want to hike all day and party at night (I do still tailgate!) I can no longer go to the Y and play pick up basketball. I no longer can run a sub 5-minute mile like I did at 40. But I'm happy. My wife and I are in social groups (square dance community...don't laugh...great mental and physical exercise) with folks much older than us (80's and even 90's), who are having a great time with life. These friends are happy. My father is 89. He enjoys life. He is not able to physically do what he did even a year ago. But he is happy. I could go on...

Happiness is a decision.

Financial planning and rational spending are different decisions.

SBR
Great post. Happiness is a state of mind. Any age, kid thru hospice care. I see this thread as how to financially plan.

It’s either, I plan to spend X when I retire and plan on X thruout my demise, or X when I retire and 0.5X in my last few years.

I think for most mature Bogleheads this is a mute point.
Conservative saving will lead to us saving 35-40X without ever factoring social security! Social security is rightly my backup. I will not go hungry with 2 post second bend point SS benefits.

I may not be able to afford good Japanese whisky at that point but Ce la vie. I My grandfather who loved a strong beverage, no longer desires any alcohol past age 95. Everything has a time, key is to do things on time. Including retirement.
“At some point you are trading time you will never get back for money you will never spend.“ | “How do you want to spend the best remaining year of your life?“
Post Reply