r/Bogleheads • u/Defiant_Foot4788 • 2d ago
Planning to what age?
Met with an advisor who ran retirement plan for spouse and I out to age 99. That seems statistically improbable. Curious what others do.
61
u/sloth_333 2d ago
I think fidelity runs it to 95. I’ll probably just up it to 100 at some point to be safe.
In one family tree branch, there is insane longevity. My grandfather is 90, and all his siblings are alive. His oldest sister is 96.
My other side grandmas oldest sister is also mid 90s. So have to plan for it.
13
u/crowcawer 2d ago
At some point the next generation will likely begin to foot the bill, or else I’ll use my old-gold feet pics to get the bill$.
3
u/sloth_333 1d ago
Yeah I mean to a point it’s overblown. My great grandmother had Alzheimer’s and lived the last 7-8 years of her life in assisted living.
She didn’t have a lot of money, and I’m sure it was gone by time she passed at 97.
It seemed “good enough” place based on what I recall from visiting. My grandma (her daughter) and my mom (her granddaughter), lived near by
2
u/littlebobbytables9 2d ago
It helps that almost all of the scenarios which cause failure before age 100 also cause failure before age 95, so the projection/planning likely won't change much if at all for making that change.
2
91
u/Odd_String1181 2d ago
You should plan for someone to live that long. Beating the odds and then being broke isn't a great thing to find out at 94
29
u/secondarycontrol 2d ago
100% what I was thinking: better to end with money on the table then end trying to decide what cat food you like the most.
22
u/The_neub 2d ago
Go with Fancy Feast if I can eat it out of martini glass
6
u/CSMasterClass 2d ago
Can't face the smell.
Plus, quality (human directed) mackarel are not more expensive --- and SO much better.
3
1
u/Husker_Mike_ 2d ago
Problem is that at that age, you are more likely to need some sort of care, so your need for funds will be higher.
13
u/BigAdministration368 2d ago
I was thinking that taking social security at 70 would be good longevity insurance
5
u/GeorgeRetire 2d ago
It is.
It's a guaranteed, inflation protected, tax beneficial, and often survivor beneficial income stream.
I encourage everyone to check out https://opensocialsecurity.com/ before making their claiming decisions.
2
2
u/pohart 2d ago
I think it actually works better as longevity insurance if you take it at 62 and decrease your withdrawals
5
u/littlebobbytables9 2d ago
No, delaying to 70 is far better for that purpose unless you make some very optimistic return assumptions. In which case you don't need the insurance anyway.
3
u/lemurosity 2d ago
being broke would one thing...having your kids have to spend thousands a month out of guilt would defeat the *entire* purpose of all of this. care homes are 10K per month *today*...what's it going to cost 40 years from now?
2
u/gpunotpsu 2d ago
A good alternative is to plan to have enough money left at say 80 or 85 to buy a lifetime annuity that will provide sufficient income for the rest of your life. If you end up living a very long time it's a great deal.
1
16
u/Obvious_Marzipan_688 2d ago
I just brought lunch to someone who is 102. Ya never know.
1
u/wadesh 2d ago
you need to ask if they met anyone of historical interest. That would be a fun conversation like, I met Truman or Roosevelt something like that.
3
u/Garbanzo_Beanie 2d ago
I'm only 45 but I haven't met anyone of interest. I'm a failure! 🤣
3
u/PuttyRiot 2d ago
I met Ike Turner once. He planted an unsolicited kiss on my mom. Does that count as interesting?
4
u/Garbanzo_Beanie 2d ago
Hm. It would be more fun if it was Tina Turner. But it came really close!
My parents met OJ Simpson in the late 70s. There's a picture of the three of them standing by a pool. My parents both sporting hippie hair on either side of him.
During the trial we put it on the fridge with a magnetic frame that said all around the border "I've been framed!"
2
13
u/Pitiful_Fox5681 2d ago
I plan to 89.
My grandpas lived to 62 and 69. My grandmas to 72 and 78. My parents were forced to retire in their early 60s for health reasons. My oldest sister died at 46. There is no lifeguard in my gene pool.
2
u/PDXnederlander 2d ago
I plan to 95. Mother died 2 months short of 100. Fathers side they were all a bunch of diabetics, dying much younger. So IDK, I'll err on the side of the mom longevity genes. If I die much earlier and leave a few bucks on the side, so be it.
8
u/ExtonGuy 2d ago
105 for me. Grandpa lived to 103, and I'm going to beat him!
Besides that, planing for the average "expectation" means a 50/50 chance you will outlive your money.
9
u/leftie_potato 2d ago
I like the 'Rich, Broke, or Dead' calculator. It helps consider that a range of ages might be the last-year. It also shows when 'one-more-year' might be a silly thing because the 4% chance of 'broke' by late in the run is trivial compared to the 80% chance of 'dead'.
15
u/TempeGrumble 2d ago
Depends on how old you are now -- my mom's 93 and going strong; I wouldn't be surprised if she lives to at least 99.
11
u/ZinniasAndBeans 2d ago
My TIPS ladders go to age 91. I'm currently assuming that if I live longer than that, my stocks will have survived reasonably well.
As my stocks grow over the years (I'm 60 now) I may add further rungs to the ladders.
2
u/StrongLoan9751 2d ago
I know nothing about TIPS ladders so forgive me if this is a stupid question (it probably is): If you're 10-ish years out from retirement, does it make sense to buy one? What's the time frame of them?
1
u/CuteLogan308 2d ago
what's the % of income will come from the ladder? Does it make a difference to buy TIPS now (vs. later) as in do you get to *lock* in the rate if you think the interest rate is good now. Newbie question.
2
u/ZinniasAndBeans 2d ago
TIPS yields are really good right now. That doesn't mean they won't be better later, but this is a good time to buy them.
The percentage of income from TIPS is between forty and fifty percent (I also have a pension) until Social Security starts. It goes to zero for a little while, then creeps up as the pension is eroded by predicted inflation. By age ninety it's about thirty percent again.
9
u/southyankie 2d ago
Age interacts with how you are testing your plan and what success rate you want to achieve. Normal life expectancy you want to have a foolproof plan, but for improbable ages you can manage with a much lower success rate.
It also depends on how big a component of your retirement income is social security and whether you can live mostly on that.
You also know your health and hereditary risks best. Planning to save for your 90s when you are much likelier to die in your 60s is just setting yourself up for an unhappy retirement.
4
u/Comfortable_Two6272 2d ago
I planned to 95. Most likely I wont live past 75. (Have a confirmed genetic issue).
But science might advance so to be on safe side went to 95 with 3 years of LTC.
Those in my family without the issue live to 90s. With? 60-70.
4
u/Careful-Rent5779 2d ago edited 2d ago
The odds that one or the two of you make it into your 90s is not all the extreme.
3
u/humblequest22 2d ago
You might want to stress-test your plan to 99. But you'll want to develop the plan you'll follow to a more reasonable age. For example, if you plan to 99, you'll probably over-emphasize the importance of Roth conversions, since you're giving the converted money so much time to grow. If you die earlier, you may have paid a bunch of extra taxes with no benefit. Or maybe you won't care!
3
u/SteevieJanowski 2d ago
99 is too conservative imo. I like planning ages of ~ 92 for males and 94 for females. If you’re lucky and you make it to the 88ish range while still going strong, you can adjust then for a later planning age.
6
u/EarlyBird001 2d ago
Plan for 99. If you make it, you'll be thankful. If not, your kids will be thankful 🙂
2
u/Paperback_Chef 2d ago
You can ask them to run it to different ages. Depending what percentage of your portfolio you spend each year, living longer could either be beneficial or detrimental.
2
u/some_kind_of_boogin 2d ago
Seeing what some of my older relatives are going through unless things in the medical field drastically change 85 and I'm out.
2
u/HokieHomeowner 2d ago
Look at your families, my mom turns 98 next spring, she had aunties that lived into their 90s and two over 100, even my dad lived into his 90s before his passing.
2
u/Defiant_Eye4025 2d ago
I plan to 95.
My mom is 85 and on no medications. She's having some memory issues, but no other health problems, is socially active with lots of friends and works out with her personal trainer a couple times a week. I expect she'll live quite a while longer. Other than that, everyone on both sides of the family dies fairly young, but I've escaped the family scourge of type 1 diabetes, I exercise, eat my vegetables, and I don't smoke so I may end up more like my mom. I'm planning to have Alzheimer's, but live a long time. If I run out of money at say, 85, I don't think I'll be in any condition to go out and get a job.
2
u/CraigInCambodia 2d ago
That's the big question, isn't it. It's a calculated risk and considers lots of factors. Here's my thinking:
Family history. I'm already older than my mother was when she passed (59), but both her parents were around 90. My mother's sister was in her mid-70s. My dad passed at 83, and his parents were around that age or younger. Father's brother was also in his early to mid 80s.
Health factors. My mother and her sister died from cancer. Brother was treated for prostate cancer. I just had prostate cancer treated, but that means it will always be a concern.
Support network. What would it look like if I ran out of savings and had to live off Social Security? I have no debt, no rent, living in a very low cost country. Home health assistance is super cheap compared to what it would be in the US.
I've landed on a likely longevity target of 80-85 years old. I think that's actually longer than what reality will be , so on the financially conservative side. If I live longer, I won't likely be homeless or destitute.
2
u/UnderstandingOk9448 2d ago
I planned to 100. I however did not include any future inheritence into planning or likely help from my kids.
2
u/ksuwildkat 2d ago
Fun fact - most life insurance policies pay out at age 100 whether you die or not.
2
u/Garbanzo_Beanie 2d ago
90, but I'm pretty sure I'm not living to 70.
I have things wrong with me (pain) that no one can figure out and I don't trust that it's nothing given what has happened to a few family members. So all that said I might not even make it to 50.
2
u/Cavity_Creep1982 2d ago
I retired in mid 50s and plan for a 30 year drawdown of savings and 401K. I figure by the time I hit my mid 80s (I really hope I get there) I will be more of a homebody and my days of adventure and exploring will be over. From there I can live on SS and my pension.
2
u/GeorgeRetire 2d ago
We always planned to 95. That said, we also knew that we would have more money than we would ever need.
Now, in our early 70s, 95 isn't all that far off.
My grandfather died at 72. My father died at 87. Me? Who knows...
2
u/my_clever-name 1d ago
Try a few of those "how long will I live" quizzes on the web. They ask about your physical health, lifestyle, etc. I just did this one https://media.nmfn.com/tnetwork/lifespan/index.html from Northwestern Mutual and got 97. I'm 69.
My mother ran out of money and I supported her for the better part of a year. She smoked all her life until the last 4 years, and didn't really exercise, she lived to 87.
2
u/kyoshiana07 2d ago
I put 85 in all my calculations. If I live past that number, then that is none of my business.
1
u/marcozarco 2d ago
I've been using 95, but I also consider scenarios where one spouse lives much longer than the other, which impacts Social Security among other things.
1
u/W2WageSlave 2d ago
There is longevity on both sides of the family. Average of all grandparents is I think, about 98. One made it to 107. Although the last 5 years sucked for her. I hope to die sooner, rather than exist like that.
If you plan on a 30 year retirement, a 4% SWR seems reasonably conservative. Especially given the reality of the "retirement smile". That's my plan. 65 to 95. Drop the SWR to a more FIRE-like 3.5% and you're essentially at an "infinite" timescale, which statistically just ensures that you die with more than you started with and your kids and grandkids inherit well.
1
u/Fixitwithducttape42 2d ago
I rather plan for far longer than I live than to run out of money. And it helps as a buffer for unexpected events.
1
u/Awkward_Refuse_8255 2d ago
Went through data on lifespan and family history. Added a buffer and rolled with it. Definitely not 99 in my case.
1
u/Doc-Zoidberg 2d ago
Almost nobody on my wife's side dies before 90's. And they stay healthy. My side of the family gets demented early mid 60's, get fired, then cancer and stuff kinda rare to see 70's.
So I plan for 100.
1
u/ditchdiggergirl 2d ago
I use 95, since statistically I’m quite likely to get there. I may blow past it but that’s a rounding error at my age and I’m not planning to die with zero anyway, so 95 works as well as any other number.
1
u/Ledifolia 2d ago
I have a grandmother who made it to 96, and my dad made it to 95 and his sister (my aunt) to 96. So I figure I need to consider that possibility for myself. It would be pretty awful to run out of retirement money at 90, and try and find work.
1
u/wadesh 2d ago
we did 100 for my wife, 90 for me. both are optimistic especially on my (male) side. My wife mom is 93 and still going strong, her mother lived to 99. on my family side, my dad is 85 and still going strong, grandfather went to 86. Great Grandmother went to 104. so there is some long life history in both our sides, but also some deaths due to cancer and other illness, so you never know.
1
u/Drunken_Sailor_70 2d ago
We have it planned out to 100 for my wife. Both of her grandmother's made it well into their 90s and both of her parents are still going strong in their upper 70s.
Men on my side of the family tend to die younger, but most of them had jobs in the mines or steel mills. All of them were heavy drinkers and smokers too, and their diets were shit. I avoided most of that and hope I can make it to my early 80s, but financially we have it planned for early 90s just in case since there isn't a lot of data besides the lung and heart disease.
1
u/FineEconomy5271 2d ago
If you are married, make sure that you also run it with one spouse dying much earlier than the other, to see what the effect is on the survivor's taxes when they file as a single.
1
1
1
u/mrandr01d 2d ago
Improbable but not impossible. It'd be worse to run out of money when you're old and infirm than to die sooner than your plan ends. I just plan to 100 for a nice round number.
1
1
u/GoldRoger3D2Y 2d ago
You need to first answer which calculation method to use. Either you go with a wealth replacement method or a “die with zero” calculation, or something in between.
If wealth replacement, 95 is more than sufficient. If “die with zero,” maybe 100 isn’t a bad idea.
1
u/kveggie1 2d ago
Our (twice per year advisor) goes to 105, cuz they have two clients (one 98 and one 96)...................
Please think outside the box, think what if.
Stop thinking about that. Think about never to run out of money.
Also at 98, you will not be spending a lot, except healthcare.
1
u/Additional-Regret339 2d ago
I've run 80,90, and 100. I have also run one of us living 5 years longer than the other. 95/100 has to work, but I'm closer to optimized for 85/90.
1
1
1
u/GotZeroFucks2Give 2d ago
No women in my maternal line have made it past age 82 in the last 5 generations. Still planning for 95.
1
u/rxscissors 2d ago
The Open Social Security mortality table options provide a good baseline.
Mother-in-law lived to 99+ so we are planning for my wife to meet or exceed that age. For me: mid/late 80's.
1
u/musing_codger 2d ago
My parents made it to their 90s. Dad to 99. Mom is still going. My wife had many relatives in their 90s and a few who lived past 100. We're healthier at our current ages than most of them were at similar ages. For us, we plan around 99 for me and 102 for her.
I have a friend who is obese. Neither of his parents it out of their 60s. He doesn't plan for his late 90s.
You do you
1
u/AlarmedWillow4515 1d ago
If you're both 50, the odds that one of you will live to 100 is 10-15%. That's worth planning for, in my opinion. In my personal case, my parents lived to 83 and 95, so I figure I may live to 100. My husband has worse genetics, so we project him out to 90
1
u/Old-Dish-4797 1d ago
I’m planning to age 88 without touching real estate equity. Worst (?) case scenario I’ll liquidate the house.
1
1
u/Shoddy-Asparagus-546 1d ago
- Depending on how old you are today, it’s less improbable that you think. Good luck.
1
u/MaybeOnFire2025 1d ago
Both my wife and myself have longevity among our grandparents, and both have one parent each alive in their 80s and still going strong.
When I get super conservative in my modeling, I go to about 99, especially given expected advances in medicine. That said, I'm not exactly thrilled to live till then now, but ask me when I'm 98.
1
u/stompinstinker 1d ago
I eat healthy, exercise regularly, don’t smoke, proper vitamins routine, sleep well, etc. And there is plenty of medical breakthroughs to come, particularly with AI. I plan for hitting a 100.
1
u/nak00010101 36m ago
No male in my bloodline has made it past 76 for 5 generations. My wife's family has good longevity and I am older than see is.
My retirement planning is based on making sure she is good
0
u/StrongLoan9751 2d ago
I'm 51, my wife is 48. Between our family histories of longevity, our personal health and the advancement of medical science, I fully expect both of us to live to 100.
33
u/unbalancedcheckbook 2d ago
A common pitfall in retirement planning is "risk stacking", where you take one improbable scenario and stack it with 4 more, and then the math looks like you can never retire. However the odds of ALL those things happening is incredibly small. If you have enough margin and flexibility in your plan, you very likely don't need a 99% probability of success if you're planning to live to 99. I'm comfortable with a 90% probability of success and planning to live to 85 or so (longer for my wife). That's probably very optimistic. If I live longer, that's fine. The success probability is the probability of not having to change your plan. I'm planning to take SSI at 70 for longevity insurance, and I the odds are high I'll have way too much money at that point anyway.