The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
Greg in Idaho
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2016 11:59 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Greg in Idaho »

I only hope that there are more paths to a humane and compassionate death available when I'm facing my time...
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by JoeRetire »

Rdytoretire wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:10 pm I sense a lot of whistling past the graveyard on this forum and in our society in general. I am recently retired, relatively young and healthy. I may not have a lot compared to many on this forum but I am much more concerned about running out of life than running out of money.

Edit: Retired two years now, my only regret is that I didn't do it sooner.
If you're not concerned about running out of money, you should have done it a lot sooner.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
September
Posts: 265
Joined: Tue Nov 11, 2008 9:40 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by September »

Today is a good day, 20211202, symmetrical in one thousand years. But you guys talked about death :confused
User avatar
canadianbacon
Posts: 677
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by canadianbacon »

Once I am dead I won’t worry as much about my financial situation, so for this forum I primarily focus on my living years.
Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.
delamer
Posts: 17461
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by delamer »

willthrill81 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:42 pm
Faith20879 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:40 pm Anyway, my father passed at age 99, only 5 months short of 100 and my mother at age 87. Everyone says to me that I need to plan for a long retirement, meaning saving like a fiend. Then my very healthy brother died unexpectedly a few weeks ago at age 64. I am only a couple years younger. He was of my generation so probably shared more common genes with me than with my parents. Should I plan for my expiration to his age or to my parents'? Statistics are only just statistics.
For some reason, many seem to believe that their longevity will match that of their parents. But the objective data we have do not support that. Genes only explain 20-25% of one's longevity; the remaining 75-80% is due to other factors, many of them behavioral.
But if you also adapt the same behaviors as your parents — for good or for bad — that affect health outcomes, then there is more to your “health inheritance” than just genetics.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
UpperNwGuy
Posts: 9479
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:16 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by UpperNwGuy »

Blue456 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:57 pm Your life insurance company can probably pretty accurately calculate most likely year of death.
Has anyone here dared to ask their life insurance company for this information?
Blue456
Posts: 2152
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2019 5:46 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Blue456 »

UpperNwGuy wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:23 pm
Blue456 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:57 pm Your life insurance company can probably pretty accurately calculate most likely year of death.
Has anyone here dared to ask their life insurance company for this information?
Probably proprietary information.
User avatar
NAVigator
Posts: 2545
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:24 am
Location: Iowa

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by NAVigator »

The 1998 book, Die-Broke-Radical-Four-Part-Financial Plan has a strategy for finding that sweet spot between financial goals and longevity. This was followed by another book; The Die Broke Complete Book of Money in 2000. The authors were Stephen Pollan and Mark Levine.

[Edit] There are other books on the same topic; Die with Zero: Getting All You Can from Your Money and Your Life and Live Well, Die Broke
Last edited by NAVigator on Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I was born with nothing and I have most of it left."
finite_difference
Posts: 3633
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:00 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by finite_difference »

The ideal situation is to die suddenly, without pain.

The scary situation is to lose your memory/mind and die slowly and painfully. In order to prevent this one, save appropriately, have a strong network of good family and friends, and donate all the money you can to efforts to fight Alzheimer’s and dementia!
The most precious gift we can offer anyone is our attention. - Thich Nhat Hanh
User avatar
Sandtrap
Posts: 19591
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 5:32 pm
Location: Hawaii No Ka Oi - white sandy beaches, N. Arizona 1 mile high.

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Sandtrap »

celia wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:47 pm
Sandtrap wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 5:19 pm If not for mortality concerns, end and thru life, and the need to address all that that entails from providing for loved ones, self, etc. this forum would not exist.

This is the “elephant in the room” in nearly every post except perhaps plumbing leaks.
+1
I want my house plumbing to outlast me. If it gives out before I do, I’ll have a big problem on my hands, when I am least able to solve the problem. Besides, I want my heirs to be able to sell the house easily,
:oops:

So, are we agreeing that the forum’s most important financial concern is the plumbing, followed closely by caring for our survivors?
:D
Yes.
ShadowCat's book of rules says, always take care of hares.

j :D
Wiki Bogleheads Wiki: Everything You Need to Know
MHA556
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:01 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by MHA556 »

JBTX wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:12 pm
brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:09 pm
JoeRetire wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:52 am
brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am You are more likely to be dead before you become old and broke -- so quit worrying so much about that unlikely outcome.
The video is a lot of nonsense. "You are probably going to be dead so quit worrying." Does anyone actually make plans based on "you are more likely"?

The same line of thinking would pertain to "You are more likely not to have your house burn down. So quit worrying and spend the money for your homeowner's insurance on something else."

You can plan on dying by 80 if you like and not save any money for beyond that age. Maybe you won't be broke due to social security, or the kindness of your family.
For me, I'm going to plan on a long life and make sure I will never be broke.
I'm advocating a centrist position. Nobody is suggesting throwing caution to the wind. I'm suggesting that maybe this forum's posts are a bit over cautious.
The longevity of the highest 20%, which probably includes many Bogleheads, is materially longer than the median.


https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44846.pdf

Above shows on page 18 life expectancy, for those 50 years old for top 20% vs median 20% is a 5 year difference for men and almost 10 year difference for women. If true that is remarkable.

Gotta love how the summary page for this document laments that the lower socio economic groups get less money out of their SS due to a shorter average lifespan, while failing to also mention that they also contributed far less into SS via taxes than those who are in higher socio economic brackets.
TheNightsToCome
Posts: 955
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:48 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by TheNightsToCome »

JackoC wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:22 pm
Kenkat wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:32 am There was a discussion awhile back that included a calculator that took death into account - i.e., rich, broke or dead:

https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/

Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your perspective, we can’t plan for our death date so we have to have some sort of buffer built in for a long life. I think social security is probably the best way for most people to insure for this, so the common advice to delay as long as possible is good.

p.s. dang, terran beat me to the draw :wink:
But the problem with many cool tools like that, that show you a lot of stuff in color as a result of complicated calculations inside a black box...is if the assumptions of the black box are questionable. Sometimes a more simplistic and boring non-color exercise with better assumptions might be more useful. The two problems with that tool are:
1. The 'likelihood' of investing outcomes is based on the distribution of past returns. But now asset valuations are higher and expected returns therefore lower. It's doubtful to think what's a 90% worst case historically is only 10% likely now with the midpoint of the distribution, the expected return, shifted down a few % points from the long term historical distribution. When I've used that tool at all in the past I've inserted an extra 'expense' of 2% pa to try to correct for that, though I'm not sure 2% now is enough.
2. The longevity function is that of the general population. This is too optimistic (from the POV of saving enough) for higher educated upper middle class people of the backgrounds and group affiliations common here. Personalized LE calculators can easily return a LE well into the 90's for people like that already in their 60's, from white collar backgrounds with reasonably good health histories and habits (interestingly family longevity is a minor independent factor per multiple studies, many people think it's the leading factor), vs. mid 80's for gen pop. And it's hard to correct the tool for that. When I used the tool at all I turned that part off.
I agree, on both counts.
JBTX
Posts: 11228
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2017 12:46 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by JBTX »

MHA556 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:44 pm
JBTX wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:12 pm
brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:09 pm
JoeRetire wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:52 am
brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am You are more likely to be dead before you become old and broke -- so quit worrying so much about that unlikely outcome.
The video is a lot of nonsense. "You are probably going to be dead so quit worrying." Does anyone actually make plans based on "you are more likely"?

The same line of thinking would pertain to "You are more likely not to have your house burn down. So quit worrying and spend the money for your homeowner's insurance on something else."

You can plan on dying by 80 if you like and not save any money for beyond that age. Maybe you won't be broke due to social security, or the kindness of your family.
For me, I'm going to plan on a long life and make sure I will never be broke.
I'm advocating a centrist position. Nobody is suggesting throwing caution to the wind. I'm suggesting that maybe this forum's posts are a bit over cautious.
The longevity of the highest 20%, which probably includes many Bogleheads, is materially longer than the median.


https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R44846.pdf

Above shows on page 18 life expectancy, for those 50 years old for top 20% vs median 20% is a 5 year difference for men and almost 10 year difference for women. If true that is remarkable.

Gotta love how the summary page for this document laments that the lower socio economic groups get less money out of their SS due to a shorter average lifespan, while failing to also mention that they also contributed far less into SS via taxes than those who are in higher socio economic brackets.
I didn't get into the politics of it, didn't even read that. The point was to show the applicability to many Bogleheads and standard median based calculators may not be representative. But yes, those with higher income contribute more vs what they get on an annual basis, but that is somewhat offset by longer lifespan. The widening dispersion is very likely one of the reasons for long term program solvency shortfalls, as higher payout rates are extending longer. Also as a greater percent of income is earned over the earnings cap, the lower percent of taxed earnings, leading to greater shortfall.

But the point was really about the longevity tables. I just randomly found that source.
Last edited by JBTX on Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
shess
Posts: 2165
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 12:02 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by shess »

brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am In countless posts on this forum, I read about "do I have enough money" or "what is the safe withdrawal rate"? Folks on this forum tend to be extremely cautious and analytical --- about running out of money prior to a long retirement life. Sometimes to be extra safe, people even exclude Social Security in their retirement calculations. Or they hit their goal for X number in savings, but then feel the need to pad that number by a few additional "X" numbers, just in case!

Yet the same analytical people are minimizing a much more likely scenario: The realistic chance that they will be dead (or even extremely disabled?) before any of the bad financial outcomes can ever happen. So they spend extra prime-health years working, to try and minimize a non-likely outcome.
In practical terms, I have lots of experience with people who had problems with finances in their old age complaining about it, and their kids complaining about it. I don't have all that much experience with people who died with plenty of money left complaining about it, and mostly their kids don't complain about it, either.

I mean, it's not complete. I've heard complaints about a relative who lived long and died with a lot of money, the complaints being along the lines of "This money is nice, but it would have been a lot more useful 20 years ago, when you kids were hitting college age". Unfortunately, realistically, saying "I wish you weren't such a skinflint" isn't the same as saying "I'm not going to be such a skinflint". At least in this case, it was because the deceased grew up during the Depression, and holding the money tight was a reasonable form of self-soothing.

And, of course, there's the old canard about someone dying at work, though AFAICT that isn't that common. Yes, anyone who dies with excess money suddenly wonders whether they should have worked less, but realistically most people worked too long, then switched to watching too much television, so I'm not sure where the lesson is. Retiring early to spend time with your loved ones only helps if you actually follow through on spending time with your loved ones (or running for city council, or taking up hobbies, etc). Most people aren't going to follow through, and work gives them purpose.

As far as "extremely disabled", that literally IS the bad financial outcome, in many cases.
TheNightsToCome
Posts: 955
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:48 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by TheNightsToCome »

nisiprius wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:27 pm
sureshoe wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:56 pm And for what it's worth - I literally just had this conversation with a relative at Thanksgiving. I encouraged them to take Social Security as early as possible and spend their money. They're a smoker, so the odds of them getting much past 79 aren't fantastic.
I don't think that's accurate. The first thing that popped up in a Google search was "Life expectancy for smokers is at least 10 years shorter than for nonsmokers." "At least" is vague. It might be appropriate to have the accurate numbers.

But on the face of it, a smoker living past 79 is comparable to a random member of the population living past 89, and there is plenty of ink past 89 on my chart above.
If the relative was a 62 yo male in average health currently then his life expectancy varies as shown below. Joe, the smoker, has a 37% chance of living to 80 yo. Joe, the non-smoker, has a 70% chance of living to that age.

Age joe
65 91%
70 74%
75 55%
80 37%
85 20%
90 8%
95 3%
100 1%

Age joe
65 97%
70 91%
75 83%
80 70%
85 53%
90 33%
95 14%
100 4%

These figures according to this calculator: https://www.longevityillustrator.org/
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 32250
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by willthrill81 »

delamer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:12 pm
willthrill81 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:42 pm
Faith20879 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:40 pm Anyway, my father passed at age 99, only 5 months short of 100 and my mother at age 87. Everyone says to me that I need to plan for a long retirement, meaning saving like a fiend. Then my very healthy brother died unexpectedly a few weeks ago at age 64. I am only a couple years younger. He was of my generation so probably shared more common genes with me than with my parents. Should I plan for my expiration to his age or to my parents'? Statistics are only just statistics.
For some reason, many seem to believe that their longevity will match that of their parents. But the objective data we have do not support that. Genes only explain 20-25% of one's longevity; the remaining 75-80% is due to other factors, many of them behavioral.
But if you also adapt the same behaviors as your parents — for good or for bad — that affect health outcomes, then there is more to your “health inheritance” than just genetics.
That may well be.
The Sensible Steward
User avatar
AnnetteLouisan
Posts: 7263
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:16 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by AnnetteLouisan »

I guess I’ll toss in here that, in addition to economic and lifestyle factors mentioned, living in a place with state of the art private hospital medical care may increase your chances of living longer than if you lived in an area without that vital amenity. I hadn’t factored in regional differences in the quality and funding of local medical into my location planning, but was informed that quality is far from uniform even in my area.

Having just had the privilege of touring such amenities last week (ER, pulmonary wing and a critical care unit for what turned out to be merely an asthma flare but could have been much worse), I have a new appreciation for the sense it makes to stay close to access to that.

While the country is blessed with many fine medical centers, the idea of retiring at 60-plus to a rustic LCOL with low population density area where EMS response times are longer and medical practice less competitive, less specialized and well funded seems riskier to me now than I ever considered.
Last edited by AnnetteLouisan on Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:35 pm, edited 3 times in total.
randomguy
Posts: 11295
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 9:00 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by randomguy »

shess wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:53 pm I mean, it's not complete. I've heard complaints about a relative who lived long and died with a lot of money, the complaints being along the lines of "This money is nice, but it would have been a lot more useful 20 years ago, when you kids were hitting college age". Unfortunately, realistically, saying "I wish you weren't such a skinflint" isn't the same as saying "I'm not going to be such a skinflint". At least in this case, it was because the deceased grew up during the Depression, and holding the money tight was a reasonable form of self-soothing.
The problem is that it isn't just because you were a skinflint. It was that given the distribution of results and your need to plan for the worst case you can accept, you need to be conservative. You don't know if you will be getting say 2% real or 8% or if the money needs to last 10 years or 35 years.

I am unaware of a good way to exploit the case 5% case when you live to 95 versus dying at 85. An aggressive longevity annuity (i.e. one that doesn't payout til 85) is close but locking up your money for 20 years getting the poor returns that the annuity gets from investing your money really cripples the benefits of mortality credits.
Jaymover
Posts: 214
Joined: Wed May 12, 2021 8:19 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Jaymover »

Most older people, even those well off ones, are on antidpressants. Sickness and death sucks whether you are a carer or recipient. Not sure if money is everything, more about community family relationships etc. My 104 year old granny has no money, benefits most from her daughter living near by. Says she just spends her days reminiscing about the good times (and skipping reminiscing about the bad times). That doesnt cost much.
surfstar
Posts: 2853
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 pm
Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by surfstar »

langelgjm wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:58 pm
etfan wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 6:06 pm So to summarize, some people would rather err on the side of dying young and leaving lots of unspent money behind, than living a long life in poverty.

While others prefer the opposite.
Well, it's not like those are the only two options. This is Bogleheads, a forum populated by wealthy people who live in a wealthy country at the richest time in history. I'm pretty sure retiring 5 or 10 years early isn't going to mean a life of poverty for most folks here...
If I could trade 10 years in a nursing home on SS and Medicare for 10 years earlier retirement - I sure would.


and as far as the other posts (sorry, don't want to individually quote/respond to each one)...

"do what you love, and you'll never work a day in your life" - that's a great line to feed the working class and turn their hatred of work into a shortcoming of their own fault. Its my fault that work sucks - I just need to find something I love doing and take whatever crap pay I can get - that'll make me happy for the rest of my days! :oops: I'll stick with complaining and counting down to FIRE.

Best way to turn a hobby you love into something you hate? Make yourself have to do it everyday for little money.
User avatar
canadianbacon
Posts: 677
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:04 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by canadianbacon »

Jaymover wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:21 pm Most older people, even those well off ones, are on antidpressants.
Really? That’s quite a statement.
Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered.
Parkinglotracer
Posts: 3949
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:49 am
Location: Upstate NY

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Parkinglotracer »

Few thoughts come to mind.

I’d rather have money than be broke.

Live now for you are a long time dead.

It’s a dam short movie, how did we ever get here? (James McMurtry)

As for planning a trip when I don’t know how far I will drive (live) I’m happier on that trip with some extra gas (money)

A basic concept for an ethical life is to live as to not be a burden on your fellow man/ woman

This is a post where definitely your mileage may vary
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by JoeRetire »

Jaymover wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:21 pm Most older people, even those well off ones, are on antidpressants.
:shock:
Do you have a source for that "interesting" statement?

This might help: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db377.htm
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
MHA556
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2021 8:01 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by MHA556 »

I don’t mind the possibility of dying with more money than needed. I do mind the possibility of spending it all early, then being too old and broken down to work if I run out early. So my kids or grandkids enjoy it- fine with me.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that if you set thing up so that you do have plenty, you can hopefully afford to enjoy retirement without being constrained by just getting by. Less worry, more overall enjoyment, longer life... Last thing I want to deal with is worrying during retirement that I might realistically run up short. That would cause stress, which would cause health concerns, maybe that balances out when it causes an earlier demise than a carefree retirement would have had. I don’t want to find out.

I had two grandparents exceed 90. Each had enough financial means to be OK and never destitute. My wife’s grandmother was not as well off and lived in a single wide on property owned by one of her kids. I know which path I would prefer to go down.
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Patzer »

iceport wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:16 pm Some randomly selected age ranges, and the probabilities of dying within that range for a 62-year-old:

62—69: 13%
65—74: 20%
62—74: 24%

86—90: 20%
91—110: 18% (eye-opening!)

It seems to me that the chance of dying within each one of those arbitrarily chosen age ranges is significant enough to warrant consideration.
But that's not randomly selected... you picked the dates, and you picked very misleading ones, grouping 20 years together as if that makes all years in that period equal likelihood.
It's 11.5% chance of 91-95, 6.2% chance of 96-100, 1.2% chance of 101-105, and 0.1% chance of 106-110.
So, no there is not a significant chance of living to 106-110, and no it doesn't make sense to save enough retirement funds to live to 110.

And the big problem is many people on this forum talk about trying to have a 95+% success rate out to a period of something ridiculous like 101-110 years old. So, their money has a 95+% chance of success to a period they have a 99% of being dead by, and they will still talk about working more to make sure they have enough.

Their is a real cost to that... and that cost is giving up prime years of health when they could be enjoying their life to cover a very low likely outcome that could be covered by spending a little less or doing a few side gigs if they get a historically terrible and unlikely sequence of returns.

MathWizard wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:56 am The other concern is long term care (LTC). Those of use who do not like LTC policies need to have extra money for LTC. By having money for living beyond an average lifespan, if that is cut short by health issues, that extra money can be used for LTC.
My biggest worry in that regard would be a long term disease which required a decade long LTC, but there will always be risks.
I see a few people saying, but what about LTC costs? From having seen in a few people I was close to live who lived in LTC facilities, I can say that I would rather live a little bit shorter, by having slightly worse care and die at home with family and dignity then squeeze an extra year out of life by spending my last few years in a long-term care facility, surrounded by strangers.
Is it really worth giving up health years in our 50s, to cover the chance we might have a horrible medical conditions in our 80s or 90s and will want to extend our life and suffering with that condition by living in a LTC facility for multiple years? It seems like a very bad trade.

The median stay in a LTC is 5 months and the median is 13.7 months. I saw a post talking about saving enough for a decade of LTC, which is just another example of over saving for an extremely low probability outcome.
sailaway wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:13 pm I have seen, up close and personal, what it means to be destitute at 85. It looks much worse than working extra time now.

Ideally, people are living their best life even while they are working, taking time to travel, if that is of interest to them, and spending time with loved ones. We bought a boat as soon as we started thinking about retiring on a boat, hoping to build skills while still working. DH had just turned 28 when we bought that boat and neither of us had heard of FIRE. A lot has changed over the last decade, but we both agree that buying that first boat was crazy, and completely the right decision for us.
The people who are destitute probably didn't retire with 25-30X.
Being a few X expenses short doesn't look like living under a bridge, it looks like buying chicken instead of steak, and upgrading your car every 8 years instead of every 6 years, or maybe working a few Saturdays at the hardware store and getting to meet new people.

I am glad you spent some money while you could enjoy it.
delamer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:26 pm I just don’t see that it is a frequent occurrence on the forum that people are encouraged to postpone their retirement for several years due to exaggerated longevity concerns.
28X(3.57% SWR) has a 0% historical failure rate for a 50 year retirement period with 70% Stocks, 20% 10 Year Treasuries, 10% Cash. If you retired at the end of any month(not just any year) between 1871 and 1971, you made it 50 years...
Yet I see people talking about 33X(3% SWR)-50X(2% SWR) fairly regularly for a 30-40-50 year retirement periods.
Last edited by Patzer on Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
AnnetteLouisan
Posts: 7263
Joined: Sat Sep 18, 2021 10:16 pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by AnnetteLouisan »

MHA556 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:55 pm I don’t mind the possibility of dying with more money than needed. I do mind the possibility of spending it all early, then being too old and broken down to work if I run out early. So my kids or grandkids enjoy it- fine with me.

Everyone seems to be forgetting that if you set thing up so that you do have plenty, you can hopefully afford to enjoy retirement without being constrained by just getting by. Less worry, more overall enjoyment, longer life... Last thing I want to deal with is worrying during retirement that I might realistically run up short. That would cause stress, which would cause health concerns, maybe that balances out when it causes an earlier demise than a carefree retirement would have had. I don’t want to find out.

I had two grandparents exceed 90. Each had enough financial means to be OK and never destitute. My wife’s grandmother was not as well off and lived in a single wide on property owned by one of her kids. I know which path I would prefer to go down.
Agree, not to jinx it but many of my relatives lived into their mid 90s and were financially comfortable.
delamer
Posts: 17461
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by delamer »

Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:03 pm
iceport wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:16 pm Some randomly selected age ranges, and the probabilities of dying within that range for a 62-year-old:

62—69: 13%
65—74: 20%
62—74: 24%

86—90: 20%
91—110: 18% (eye-opening!)

It seems to me that the chance of dying within each one of those arbitrarily chosen age ranges is significant enough to warrant consideration.
But that's not randomly selected... you picked the dates, and you picked very misleading ones, grouping 20 years together as if that makes all years in that period equal likelihood.
It's 11.5% chance of 91-95, 6.2% chance of 96-100, 1.2% chance of 101-105, and 0.1% chance of 106-110.
So, no there is not a significant chance of living to 106-110, and no it doesn't make sense to save enough retirement funds to live to 110.

delamer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:26 pm I just don’t see that it is a frequent occurrence on the forum that people are encouraged to postpone their retirement for several years due to exaggerated longevity concerns.
28X(3.57% SWR) has a 0% historical failure rate for a 50 year retirement period with 70% Stocks, 20% 10 Year Treasuries, 10% Cash. If you retired at the end of any month(not just any year) between 1871 and 1971, you made it 50 years...
Yet I see people talking about 33X(3% SWR)-50X(2% SWR) fairly regularly for a 30-40-50 year retirement periods.
Can you link to the study with 28X/3.57%?

Thanks.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
delamer
Posts: 17461
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by delamer »

Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:03 pm
iceport wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:16 pm Some randomly selected age ranges, and the probabilities of dying within that range for a 62-year-old:

62—69: 13%
65—74: 20%
62—74: 24%

86—90: 20%
91—110: 18% (eye-opening!)

It seems to me that the chance of dying within each one of those arbitrarily chosen age ranges is significant enough to warrant consideration.
But that's not randomly selected... you picked the dates, and you picked very misleading ones, grouping 20 years together as if that makes all years in that period equal likelihood.
It's 11.5% chance of 91-95, 6.2% chance of 96-100, 1.2% chance of 101-105, and 0.1% chance of 106-110.
So, no there is not a significant chance of living to 106-110, and no it doesn't make sense to save enough retirement funds to live to 110.

And the big problem is many people on this forum talk about trying to have a 95+% success rate out to a period of something ridiculous like 101-110 years old. So, their money has a 95+% chance of success to a period they have a 99% of being dead by, and they will still talk about working more to make sure they have enough.

Their is a real cost to that... and that cost is giving up prime years of health when they could be enjoying their life to cover a very low likely outcome that could be covered by spending a little less or doing a few side gigs if they get a historically terrible and unlikely sequence of returns.

MathWizard wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:56 am The other concern is long term care (LTC). Those of use who do not like LTC policies need to have extra money for LTC. By having money for living beyond an average lifespan, if that is cut short by health issues, that extra money can be used for LTC.
My biggest worry in that regard would be a long term disease which required a decade long LTC, but there will always be risks.
I see a few people saying, but what about LTC costs? From having seen in a few people I was close to live who lived in LTC facilities, I can say that I would rather live a little bit shorter, by having slightly worse care and die at home with family and dignity then squeeze an extra year out of life by spending my last few years in a long-term care facility, surrounded by strangers.
Is it really worth giving up health years in our 50s, to cover the chance we might have a horrible medical conditions in our 80s or 90s and will want to extend our life and suffering with that condition by living in a LTC facility for multiple years? It seems like a very bad trade.

The median stay in a LTC is 5 months and the median is 13.7 months. I saw a post talking about saving enough for a decade of LTC, which is just another example of over saving for an extremely low probability outcome.
sailaway wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 12:13 pm I have seen, up close and personal, what it means to be destitute at 85. It looks much worse than working extra time now.

Ideally, people are living their best life even while they are working, taking time to travel, if that is of interest to them, and spending time with loved ones. We bought a boat as soon as we started thinking about retiring on a boat, hoping to build skills while still working. DH had just turned 28 when we bought that boat and neither of us had heard of FIRE. A lot has changed over the last decade, but we both agree that buying that first boat was crazy, and completely the right decision for us.
The people who are destitute probably didn't retire with 25-30X.
Being a few X expenses short doesn't look like living under a bridge, it looks like buying chicken instead of steak, and upgrading your car every 8 years instead of every 6 years, or maybe working a few Saturdays at the hardware store and getting to meet new people.

I am glad you spent some money while you could enjoy it.
delamer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:26 pm I just don’t see that it is a frequent occurrence on the forum that people are encouraged to postpone their retirement for several years due to exaggerated longevity concerns.
28X(3.57% SWR) has a 0% historical failure rate for a 50 year retirement period with 70% Stocks, 20% 10 Year Treasuries, 10% Cash. If you retired at the end of any month(not just any year) between 1871 and 1971, you made it 50 years...
Yet I see people talking about 33X(3% SWR)-50X(2% SWR) fairly regularly for a 30-40-50 year retirement periods.
Someone gets dementia and their family circumstances are such that they can no longer be cared for at home. (People can become a danger to not only themselves, but to others.)

They are moved to a memory care unit and their doctor estimates that they’ll probably live another 2 or 3 years, given their overall health.

But 10 years later, they are still alive. Not average, but it absolutely happens.

The point is that there are limits to how much you can control your end-of-life circumstances. The tradeoffs that we might make in theory often aren’t possible in reality.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
Dottie57
Posts: 12379
Joined: Thu May 19, 2016 5:43 pm
Location: Earth Northern Hemisphere

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Dottie57 »

willthrill81 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:42 pm
Faith20879 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:40 pm Anyway, my father passed at age 99, only 5 months short of 100 and my mother at age 87. Everyone says to me that I need to plan for a long retirement, meaning saving like a fiend. Then my very healthy brother died unexpectedly a few weeks ago at age 64. I am only a couple years younger. He was of my generation so probably shared more common genes with me than with my parents. Should I plan for my expiration to his age or to my parents'? Statistics are only just statistics.
For some reason, many seem to believe that their longevity will match that of their parents. But the objective data we have do not support that. Genes only explain 20-25% of one's longevity; the remaining 75-80% is due to other factors, many of them behavioral.
My Dad’s side of the family is littered with heart disease. His father, and two brothers died in their 50s and 60s. I’ve done genealogy on Dad’s family - death certificates for many generations show heart problems as the cause of death. My dad too had heart disease But lived to 90. We think it is due to a different diet than mch of his family.

My mom lived to 88 and dad 90. I hope I get to 85. Anything after that is bonus.
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Patzer »

delamer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:10 pm
Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:03 pm
delamer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 2:26 pm I just don’t see that it is a frequent occurrence on the forum that people are encouraged to postpone their retirement for several years due to exaggerated longevity concerns.
28X(3.57% SWR) has a 0% historical failure rate for a 50 year retirement period with 70% Stocks, 20% 10 Year Treasuries, 10% Cash. If you retired at the end of any month(not just any year) between 1871 and 1971, you made it 50 years...
Yet I see people talking about 33X(3% SWR)-50X(2% SWR) fairly regularly for a 30-40-50 year retirement periods.
Can you link to the study with 28X/3.57%?

Thanks.
I don't have anything academic for that allocation, but the data is solid and you can calculate it yourself for the allocation I stated.
https://earlyretirementnow.com/safe-wit ... te-series/
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

If you want something more academic, here is a study for 75% US Stocks and 25% 10 Year Treasuries, which gives a worse result, but is still very safe historically.
https://www.financialplanningassociatio ... down-paths
This study shows that: 75/25 has a 100% success to 30 years with 27.1X, 40 years with 28.9X, 50 years with 30.3X, and 60 years with 30.7X.

While the very worst retirement date for 30 years was 27.1X, the average retirement date only needed 18.3X and the best retirement date only needed 7.5X. So, when people talk about 30X+, they are already planning for the absolute worst case in history. Adding additional padding beyond that seems like a waste of healthy years of one's life.
User avatar
iceport
Posts: 6054
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:29 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by iceport »

Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:03 pm
iceport wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 1:16 pm Some randomly selected age ranges, and the probabilities of dying within that range for a 62-year-old:

62—69: 13%
65—74: 20%
62—74: 24%

86—90: 20%
91—110: 18% (eye-opening!)

It seems to me that the chance of dying within each one of those arbitrarily chosen age ranges is significant enough to warrant consideration.
But that's not randomly selected... you picked the dates, and you picked very misleading ones, grouping 20 years together as if that makes all years in that period equal likelihood.
It's 11.5% chance of 91-95, 6.2% chance of 96-100, 1.2% chance of 101-105, and 0.1% chance of 106-110.
So, no there is not a significant chance of living to 106-110, and no it doesn't make sense to save enough retirement funds to live to 110.
I don't know what point you are arguing against, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't trying to make it.

The only thing I wanted to convey is that there's a real big chance of living substantially less or more than one's estimated life expectancy. To me, it diminishes the value of a life expectancy estimate.

I picked the age ranges a while ago for my own use in considering when to claim Social Security, and I merely copied them here again for my own convenience. They make more sense (to me, anyway) when viewed in conjunction with a table of Social Security payout present values for various ages of death and SS claiming ages. The chances of dying relatively early in retirement or relatively late were large enough to convince me that focusing on a single expected age of death is not appropriate.

So the 91-110 age range is just a shorthand way of saying the chance of living past 90. (And that number could have been found easily as the chance of being alive at 91 in Column F in #Cruncher's spreadsheet.)

You are free to consider any other age ranges you find meaningful — as you've started to do. I think it's a worthwhile exercise.
"Discipline matters more than allocation.” |—| "In finance, if you’re certain of anything, you’re out of your mind." ─William Bernstein
Patzer
Posts: 701
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2015 10:56 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Patzer »

delamer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:20 pm
Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:03 pm
MathWizard wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:56 am The other concern is long term care (LTC). Those of use who do not like LTC policies need to have extra money for LTC. By having money for living beyond an average lifespan, if that is cut short by health issues, that extra money can be used for LTC.
My biggest worry in that regard would be a long term disease which required a decade long LTC, but there will always be risks.
I see a few people saying, but what about LTC costs? From having seen in a few people I was close to live who lived in LTC facilities, I can say that I would rather live a little bit shorter, by having slightly worse care and die at home with family and dignity then squeeze an extra year out of life by spending my last few years in a long-term care facility, surrounded by strangers.
Is it really worth giving up health years in our 50s, to cover the chance we might have a horrible medical conditions in our 80s or 90s and will want to extend our life and suffering with that condition by living in a LTC facility for multiple years? It seems like a very bad trade.

The median stay in a LTC is 5 months and the median is 13.7 months. I saw a post talking about saving enough for a decade of LTC, which is just another example of over saving for an extremely low probability outcome.
Someone gets dementia and their family circumstances are such that they can no longer be cared for at home. (People can become a danger to not only themselves, but to others.)

They are moved to a memory care unit and their doctor estimates that they’ll probably live another 2 or 3 years, given their overall health.

But 10 years later, they are still alive. Not average, but it absolutely happens.

The point is that there are limits to how much you can control your end-of-life circumstances. The tradeoffs that we might make in theory often aren’t possible in reality.
I am going through this exact situation with my significant other's mother right now and everyone is less happy with her in a long-term care facility, especially the mother and the father.
She was moved to a LTC, because she was a danger to herself from dementia, but now in the LTC facility she actually ends up in the hospital more than she did when she was at home and even if that wasn't the case, I truly believe she would be better off at home, being a danger to herself, than what is happening, which is that she is living her life without getting to see the people she loves and cares about regularly, and her husband sits at home alone feeling like his life is without meaning, because he only sees his wife an hour or two a week. Not just my opinion... he has said to me and others in the family that he doesn't see much point in living anymore.

It's hard for me to justify giving up years in my 50s that I could spend time with my loved ones, to be able to extend my life in a LTC surrounded by strangers.

But let's say you disagree and you want to be able to live in a LTC facility... most likely it's not going to require a huge number of additional X expenses to do so, because most likely you aren't going to be there very long. Sure there is a possibility you will be there longer, but planning for layer upon layer upon layer of contingencies, is saving to cover 99.99% of life outcomes, which means when you get a better outcome and you are very likely to, then you ended up burning a lot of good years working that you didn't have to.
Last edited by Patzer on Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Apathizer
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2021 2:56 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Apathizer »

For me it's fairly simple math. The average life expectancy for men is 78, women 83. I'm a male, so don't expect to live past about 80. Between my pension and SS I should conservatively have income of about $4K a month. I currently have about $300K invested. I'm almost 51 and would like to retire at about age 57. When I reach retirement age 65 I'll reasonably have about $100K left in my Roth. Between SS, pension, and Roth withdrawals my retirement income should be about $4500/mo.

I'm flexible with where I'll live in retirement. I'm willing to move to a less expensive area where I can live comfortably but not extravagantly on $4500/mo. When I die I don't want my net worth to be more than about $100K, which I'll leave to charity.

This is a morbid thought, but since my mid-20s my plan has been to commit suicide if I make it to 80. I don't want to risk a potentially debilitating health issue, so if I make to 80 I'll call it good, put the barrel of a loaded shotgun in my mouth, pull the trigger, thus sending myself back to the nothingness we were all excreted from.
ROTH: 50% AVGE, 10% DFAX, 40% BNDW. Taxable: 50% BNDW, 40% AVGE, 10% DFAX.
visualguy
Posts: 2988
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:32 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by visualguy »

Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:03 pm And the big problem is many people on this forum talk about trying to have a 95+% success rate out to a period of something ridiculous like 101-110 years old. So, their money has a 95+% chance of success to a period they have a 99% of being dead by, and they will still talk about working more to make sure they have enough.
I don't think many here are planning for age 101-110.
Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:03 pm I see a few people saying, but what about LTC costs? From having seen in a few people I was close to live who lived in LTC facilities, I can say that I would rather live a little bit shorter, by having slightly worse care and die at home with family and dignity then squeeze an extra year out of life by spending my last few years in a long-term care facility, surrounded by strangers.
Is it really worth giving up health years in our 50s, to cover the chance we might have a horrible medical conditions in our 80s or 90s and will want to extend our life and suffering with that condition by living in a LTC facility for multiple years? It seems like a very bad trade.
Not sure what you're proposing here... Going to LTC isn't about extending life. For example, when my Mom went to a nursing home, it wasn't to extend her life. Her Alzheimer's had advanced to the point where there was simply no choice.
Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:03 pm The median stay in a LTC is 5 months and the median is 13.7 months. I saw a post talking about saving enough for a decade of LTC, which is just another example of over saving for an extremely low probability outcome.
A decade does seem like a lot. I don't know the median statistics, but my Mom spent 3 years there, and my grandmother 5 years. Both with dementia. Caring for them at home wasn't a realistic option.
Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:03 pm 28X(3.57% SWR) has a 0% historical failure rate for a 50 year retirement period with 70% Stocks, 20% 10 Year Treasuries, 10% Cash. If you retired at the end of any month(not just any year) between 1871 and 1971, you made it 50 years...
Yet I see people talking about 33X(3% SWR)-50X(2% SWR) fairly regularly for a 30-40-50 year retirement periods.
People are building in a buffer. It's not just about not knowing what the SWR will be in the future. It's also about not being able to predict expenses exactly, particularly for big-ticket things that pop up in life on occasion in addition to regular expenses.
User avatar
colodane
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:32 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by colodane »

If we all died by being struck by lightning, the financial risk analysis would be much easier.

But the real FINANCIAL risk isn't so much when we die as it is how we die. The worst-case scenario is a lingering death after several years of expensive medical and personal care.

I don't have any answers, but think it is important to understand the true complexity of the problem.

In the meantime, I keep hoping for lighting ;>)
delamer
Posts: 17461
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2011 5:13 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by delamer »

Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:40 pm
delamer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:20 pm
Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:03 pm
MathWizard wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:56 am The other concern is long term care (LTC). Those of use who do not like LTC policies need to have extra money for LTC. By having money for living beyond an average lifespan, if that is cut short by health issues, that extra money can be used for LTC.
My biggest worry in that regard would be a long term disease which required a decade long LTC, but there will always be risks.
I see a few people saying, but what about LTC costs? From having seen in a few people I was close to live who lived in LTC facilities, I can say that I would rather live a little bit shorter, by having slightly worse care and die at home with family and dignity then squeeze an extra year out of life by spending my last few years in a long-term care facility, surrounded by strangers.
Is it really worth giving up health years in our 50s, to cover the chance we might have a horrible medical conditions in our 80s or 90s and will want to extend our life and suffering with that condition by living in a LTC facility for multiple years? It seems like a very bad trade.

The median stay in a LTC is 5 months and the median is 13.7 months. I saw a post talking about saving enough for a decade of LTC, which is just another example of over saving for an extremely low probability outcome.
Someone gets dementia and their family circumstances are such that they can no longer be cared for at home. (People can become a danger to not only themselves, but to others.)

They are moved to a memory care unit and their doctor estimates that they’ll probably live another 2 or 3 years, given their overall health.

But 10 years later, they are still alive. Not average, but it absolutely happens.

The point is that there are limits to how much you can control your end-of-life circumstances. The tradeoffs that we might make in theory often aren’t possible in reality.
I am going through this exact situation with my significant other's mother right now and everyone is less happy with her in a long-term care facility, especially the mother and the father.
She was moved to a LTC, because she was a danger to herself from dementia, but now in the LTC facility she actually ends up in the hospital more than she did when she was at home and even if that wasn't the case, I truly believe she would be better off at home, being a danger to herself, than what is happening, which is that she is living her life without getting to see the people she loves and cares about regularly, and her husband sits at home along feeling like his life is without meaning, because he only sees his wife an hour or two a week.

It's hard for me to justify giving up years in my 50s when I could spend time with my loved ones, to be able to extend my life in a LTC with no one around me that cares about me or that I care about.

But let's say you disagree and you want to be able to live in a LTC facility... most likely it's not going to require a huge number of additional X expenses to do so, because most likely you aren't going to be there very long.
Planning for layer upon layer upon layer of contingencies, results in people saving for the 99.99% of their life outcomes, which means when you get a better outcome and you are very likely to, then you ended up burning a lot of good years working that you didn't have to.
But again, your partner’s mother’s health situation overrode her ability to make choices.

That was my point. Whatever you say you’d want in similar circumstance, it may not end up being in your control.

I do agree that it is possible to oversave and end up working too long. And for those of us who are among the “mass affluent,” it’s a false sense of security anyway.

My original contention was that I don’t see being encouraged to work many extra years to reduce withdrawal rates as a big, recurring problem with the advice on this forum.
One thing that humbles me deeply is to see that human genius has its limits while human stupidity does not. - Alexandre Dumas, fils
Wanderingwheelz
Posts: 3145
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2019 8:52 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Wanderingwheelz »

willthrill81 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 3:55 pm Death is not a risk. It is a certainty.

There is no harm if you die before you go broke.

There IS harm if you go broke before you die.
Most Americans die more-or-less broke, so I wouldn’t make a blanket statement that there’s harm done. Bogleheads as a group are far more likely to attach to money than the general population, so the thought of running out of money is more painful here than almost anywhere else you’d find it discussed. Go ask a random person how they’d feel about dying broke and it’s likely they’ll tell you they’re already broke.

What I think it true about Bogleheads, overall, is that there’s much higher concern about the idea of dying broke while working than there would be at the time If one grew old and mismanaged their retirement nest egg (that would include long-term care, since proper planning takes that into consideration). Almost everything we worry about doesn’t happen. Dying broke would fall into that category for most of us here, since we’re attached to our money and would take extreme measures to not run out of it.
Last edited by Wanderingwheelz on Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Being wrong compounds forever.
austin757
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2018 11:48 am

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by austin757 »

I’d be willing to bet that 99% of BHs would die before they came close to running out of money. Just the fact that you’re logging on to this site and learning about investing puts you in a great position.

Most BHs could probably adjust their spending if they saw a big decrease in income, unlike many people who do not save at all.
User avatar
baconavocado
Posts: 787
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2017 3:03 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by baconavocado »

In the neighborhood where I grew up, a surprising number of people in my generation are dying in their late 50s through 60s, even though their parents lived into their 70s, 80s, to early 90s. There are different health challenges facing the baby boom generation - obesity, for example.

This is an area where generations live within a few miles of where they were born, sometimes in the same house where they grew up.
Wannaretireearly
Posts: 4881
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:39 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Wannaretireearly »

If we exhaust the nest egg to near zero, SS should cover basic needs after age 90. There’s got to be some benefit we factor from SS, even though folks here generally discount it and we aim for 33 to 40X for ER.

Just seems most who retire with a good sized portfolio are happy, financially well and wish they retired earlier. See very few posts against this grain
“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?“
Gnirk
Posts: 1740
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2012 3:11 am
Location: South Puget Sound

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by Gnirk »

I seem to come from a family of statistical outliers:
Grandparents and uncles on my dad’s side dying in their early 50’s. Dad made it to 65, and thank God had retired at 54.
Grandparents and great aunts/uncles on my mom’s side living into the 100’s…but several living with Alzheimer’s in long term care for up to 20 years. Mom made it to 90, but was in LTC with Alzheimer’s for 8 years.

So I hope for the best and financially plan for the worst: self-insuring for the possibility of ten years of LTC.
phxjcc
Posts: 1329
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:47 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by phxjcc »

brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am I came across a video that got me thinking:

Do people on the Boglehead forum under-estimate the realistic risk of normal life expectancy?

The video -- linked below -- talks about the percentage chances that people have to live to certain ages, based on the general Social Security estimators. The overall point of the video is this:

You are more likely to be dead before you become old and broke -- so quit worrying so much about that unlikely outcome.

In countless posts on this forum, I read about "do I have enough money" or "what is the safe withdrawal rate"? Folks on this forum tend to be extremely cautious and analytical --- about running out of money prior to a long retirement life. Sometimes to be extra safe, people even exclude Social Security in their retirement calculations. Or they hit their goal for X number in savings, but then feel the need to pad that number by a few additional "X" numbers, just in case!

Yet the same analytical people are minimizing a much more likely scenario: The realistic chance that they will be dead (or even extremely disabled?) before any of the bad financial outcomes can ever happen. So they spend extra prime-health years working, to try and minimize a non-likely outcome.

So when we evaluate the word RISK on this forum... shouldn't the pendulum swing away from the small chance of ''what if'' that causes me to go broke, many years into retirement' --- and have the pendulum swing back towards ''there's a 40% chance I'll be dead when I am 80 years old!''

For a person who likes analytics, that seems like common sense to me? I read a few comments here and there about not wanting to be the "richest person in the graveyard" upon death. But overall, there is an imbalance in the discussions that I see.

As my friend on this BH forum, Patzer, told me:

"It's sad, because people will plan for 95-100% success rates, to life expectancies that they only have a few percent chance of living to, and then talk about padding that with a few more years of work. I would rather take a couple percent chance of having to go back to work for 2-3 years to fix an off course retirement, then take a 100% chance of working 2-3 extra years to try to mitigate that risk even more."

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV2IM-WE2qA

--- Brian

PS. I can be guilty about thinking about some of these things that I am saying should be more controlled. So I acknowledge that this topic is difficult to properly balance.
1. Is the " 100% " certainty scenario unlikely to be ultimately required?
Yes, by definition, 2 (3? 4?) SD's will fail to reach the 100% scenario.
2. There is, however, a fallacy in your argument. The "I'll just go back to work for 1-2 years" will not work, again--for a large part of the population. Office workers, tech workers, even thoracic surgeons skills will erode and be outdated in 10-20 years of unuse. (E.g., How many Blackberry platform jobs are there now?)
3. The internet tends to be an echo chamber...guilty of confirmation bias in each pool of special interest denizens. So, you will hear a resounding "NO!" here. Go to the end-state renal-failure message-board (for example) and ask there if they wished they would have saved more money and worked longer...and report back on their responses.

I worked with some sad medical cases early in my career, ultimately why I changed to tech from med.

Money is a tool, and that is ALL it is.
But also, as someone once said: "money can't buy happiness, but it can buy jet skis...and I have never seen a sad person on a jet ski."
smectym
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 5:07 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by smectym »

brian91480 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:25 am I came across a video that got me thinking:

Do people on the Boglehead forum under-estimate the realistic risk of normal life expectancy?

The video -- linked below -- talks about the percentage chances that people have to live to certain ages, based on the general Social Security estimators. The overall point of the video is this:

You are more likely to be dead before you become old and broke -- so quit worrying so much about that unlikely outcome.

In countless posts on this forum, I read about "do I have enough money" or "what is the safe withdrawal rate"? Folks on this forum tend to be extremely cautious and analytical --- about running out of money prior to a long retirement life. Sometimes to be extra safe, people even exclude Social Security in their retirement calculations. Or they hit their goal for X number in savings, but then feel the need to pad that number by a few additional "X" numbers, just in case!

Yet the same analytical people are minimizing a much more likely scenario: The realistic chance that they will be dead (or even extremely disabled?) before any of the bad financial outcomes can ever happen. So they spend extra prime-health years working, to try and minimize a non-likely outcome.

So when we evaluate the word RISK on this forum... shouldn't the pendulum swing away from the small chance of ''what if'' that causes me to go broke, many years into retirement' --- and have the pendulum swing back towards ''there's a 40% chance I'll be dead when I am 80 years old!''

For a person who likes analytics, that seems like common sense to me? I read a few comments here and there about not wanting to be the "richest person in the graveyard" upon death. But overall, there is an imbalance in the discussions that I see.

As my friend on this BH forum, Patzer, told me:

"It's sad, because people will plan for 95-100% success rates, to life expectancies that they only have a few percent chance of living to, and then talk about padding that with a few more years of work. I would rather take a couple percent chance of having to go back to work for 2-3 years to fix an off course retirement, then take a 100% chance of working 2-3 extra years to try to mitigate that risk even more."

Link to video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV2IM-WE2qA

--- Brian

PS. I can be guilty about thinking about some of these things that I am saying should be more controlled. So I acknowledge that this topic is difficult to properly balance.
A fair point. But perhaps we should be more worried about the life expectancy of our 20-something loved ones. Tragically, the distribution of deaths along the age axis isn’t quite so uniformly clustered to the far right as it once was.

As to bogleheads approaching *final maturity*, the best strategy is to continue to stay the course—while taking due precautions re wills and estate planning, otherwise continuing to invest and still looking to the future, in finance as in other facets of life. The old sports cliche ‘it isn’t over till it’s over” is quite to the point for our older members. Or to cite the slogan of my J,D. alma mater: Fight On
smectym
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 5:07 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by smectym »

AnnetteLouisan wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 8:16 pm I guess I’ll toss in here that, in addition to economic and lifestyle factors mentioned, living in a place with state of the art private hospital medical care may increase your chances of living longer than if you lived in an area without that vital amenity. I hadn’t factored in regional differences in the quality and funding of local medical into my location planning, but was informed that quality is far from uniform even in my area.

Having just had the privilege of touring such amenities last week (ER, pulmonary wing and a critical care unit for what turned out to be merely an asthma flare but could have been much worse), I have a new appreciation for the sense it makes to stay close to access to that.

While the country is blessed with many fine medical centers, the idea of retiring at 60-plus to a rustic LCOL with low population density area where EMS response times are longer and medical practice less competitive, less specialized and well funded seems riskier to me now than I ever considered.
Hmm, A point well taken. But on the other hand, the more rural locale does mitigate certain other risks.

However, I agree, a 70+year-old couple needs to take *proximity of quality medical care* into account when planning their retirement dream home
smectym
Posts: 1530
Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 5:07 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by smectym »

UpperNwGuy wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:23 pm
Blue456 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:57 pm Your life insurance company can probably pretty accurately calculate most likely year of death.
Has anyone here dared to ask their life insurance company for this information?
What life insurance company? They hang up on me before I call
User avatar
LilyFleur
Posts: 3499
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:36 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by LilyFleur »

willthrill81 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:42 pm
Faith20879 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:40 pm Anyway, my father passed at age 99, only 5 months short of 100 and my mother at age 87. Everyone says to me that I need to plan for a long retirement, meaning saving like a fiend. Then my very healthy brother died unexpectedly a few weeks ago at age 64. I am only a couple years younger. He was of my generation so probably shared more common genes with me than with my parents. Should I plan for my expiration to his age or to my parents'? Statistics are only just statistics.
For some reason, many seem to believe that their longevity will match that of their parents. But the objective data we have do not support that. Genes only explain 20-25% of one's longevity; the remaining 75-80% is due to other factors, many of them behavioral.
My mother's parents lived to be 91 and 97. She was planning to live to be 110. She died at 80.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by JoeRetire »

Patzer wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:40 pm I am going through this exact situation with my significant other's mother right now and everyone is less happy with her in a long-term care facility, especially the mother and the father.
She was moved to a LTC, because she was a danger to herself from dementia, but now in the LTC facility she actually ends up in the hospital more than she did when she was at home and even if that wasn't the case, I truly believe she would be better off at home, being a danger to herself, than what is happening, which is that she is living her life without getting to see the people she loves and cares about regularly, and her husband sits at home alone feeling like his life is without meaning, because he only sees his wife an hour or two a week. Not just my opinion... he has said to me and others in the family that he doesn't see much point in living anymore.
So why is the mother still in LTC?
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
dcabler
Posts: 4544
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:30 am
Location: TX

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by dcabler »

LilyFleur wrote: Fri Dec 03, 2021 1:34 am
willthrill81 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:42 pm
Faith20879 wrote: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:40 pm Anyway, my father passed at age 99, only 5 months short of 100 and my mother at age 87. Everyone says to me that I need to plan for a long retirement, meaning saving like a fiend. Then my very healthy brother died unexpectedly a few weeks ago at age 64. I am only a couple years younger. He was of my generation so probably shared more common genes with me than with my parents. Should I plan for my expiration to his age or to my parents'? Statistics are only just statistics.
For some reason, many seem to believe that their longevity will match that of their parents. But the objective data we have do not support that. Genes only explain 20-25% of one's longevity; the remaining 75-80% is due to other factors, many of them behavioral.
My mother's parents lived to be 91 and 97. She was planning to live to be 110. She died at 80.
I'd rather make some sort of assumption than none. My Dad lived to almost 92 but my Mom to only 82. My Dad came from a large family and 3 of the 9 made it into their 90's and the rest "only" into their upper 80's. Mom's family was smaller and mid 60's was the norm for the men (obese/smokers) and somewhere in the 80's for the women. But my great-grandmother on my Mom's maternal side also made it to her 90's. Like my Dad, I have a lot of siblings (10) and we've lost 2 so far, neither of which passed due to old age or lifestyle choices. So keeping an eye on my older siblings who are in their late 70's to see how it goes.

I'd prefer to plan for longevity and leave my heirs pleasantly surprised, financially, if it doesn't work out that way. And the plan should be flexible based on current health, etc...

Re some of the posts regarding work, I've always thought of work as something to enable my life, but not to actually be my life. Of course, from a mental health standpoint, it's best if it's something I enjoy doing or can at least tolerate. I'm at the point where both enjoying or tolerating are in short supply and will pull the plug in 2022, since I also have "enough"...

Cheers.
abcdefg
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 8:00 pm

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by abcdefg »

To make this real in terms of opinions (vs.philosophical approaches). Here is a version of mine from https://engaging-data.com/will-money-last-retire-early/ with; (Married Cpl, Planned retire date of 45, 50 yr retirement, 4K/mo. SS across both taken at 65, Tax Rate 30%, Investment Fees 0.15%, Spend Threshold 20%, ~80/20 portfolio, using Male and Healthy actuarial table)

So you can see at age 80 it has;
- 29.4% chance of death
- 12.1% chance of broke
- 58.6% chance of having money
*final assumption this is based on 160K expenses

What would you do?

Image
andypanda
Posts: 2012
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2017 8:11 pm
Location: Richmond, Virginia

Re: The risk of DEATH ---- under-discussed on this forum?

Post by andypanda »

I think the site the OP needs is livefastdieyounggooutowingeverybody.com

This is the site for planning how to pay your bills if you live to be 100. And maybe your kids' bills and the grandkids' bills if you don't make it that far.
Locked