# Hmmm 62 or 65



## lovemylittleboy

I read on the internet that it is better to get your Social Security at 62 instead of waiting till 65. I thought hmmm, that is not what I have been told for so long. They said it is beneficial because you would get more checks , though they may not be a much , but it said you will end up with more because you will get 96  checks instead of whatever it  was. And it said spouses will get more if they are taking care of children  . I forget the 3rd reason it said not to wait. They had comments on it and most people did take the 62 SS. I supposed it might be better for upcoming retirees to do so since they keep saying SS will be gone before our kids have a chance to get it.  What is true today we can never know I guess.....our government is too broken. And their pockets are too fat , they have no worries ever.:anyone:


----------



## AZ Jim

I took mine at 62 but wish I had waited.  I had income to sustain me during the period between 62 and 65 so I got along even though retired but I would wait.  As to SS being gone for the kids, I've heard that all my life.


----------



## QuickSilver

Of course if you still are working you are limited to earning only $15,720 a year if you start collecting before your full retirement age..  If you wait until age 66 you not only collect more, but if you still want to work there is no limit on your earnings.


----------



## ronaldj

took mine at 62......I figured it would be till the year I turn 78 before I break even....besides my brother said take it and  died at 67, my brother in law said take it he died at 67 my other broth in law said take it and he is 86.......you must decide what is best for you


----------



## lovemylittleboy

Well I am retired. And you all have good points. But we don't know when our last breath will be.  I just hate to give the government back something I worked all my life for. My pension is holding me fine for now but all the illegals are getting what they never put a dime into it. I just hate that. My husband still works so it is ok for now but we were talking the other day and it wouldn't that big a difference


----------



## Cinnamon

I was going to take it at 62, but when the person I spoke with at SS told me the monthly amount would never increase (other than piddly little COL increases) and that I'd get considerably more per month if I waited 'til age 66, I decided to wait.  Shoot, if I had taken it at 62, it would barely cover my rent.  I'll be 64 in a few months, and figure I can work at least another two years.  Of course, everyone's circumstances are different and everyone has to consider all the variables and make their own decision.


----------



## jujube

I started collecting at 62 because the time was right for me to retire.  At that time, I collected on my late husband's account because he was older than I and I received what he would have been receiving.  My social security just sat there "percolating" as if I wasn't collecting and when I turned 66, I switched over to mine and got it at the rate I would have received if I had waited until then......a modest increase.


----------



## lovemylittleboy

I think those people will always tell you to wait ..... be true or not. I don't trust them. If you google 3 Reasons why it is better to collect Social Security at 62....I think it was an article by the Washington Post I should have saved the article to pass along I just read it yesterday. But with my fading grey matter called a brain I can't remember all of what it said. Thanks everyone!!


----------



## rkunsaw

I waited until full retirement age. Both our monthly income and our investment account would be much less if I had taken it early. Social security isn't the only thing to consider. There are company pensions, 401k accounts and/or other sources to consider. There is also health insurance to consider. Will you have insurance to cover you until you can get medicare?

If I had retired early my social security would be less, my company pension would be less, and I would have less years to put money in my 401k account. 

Think about the whole picture before you decide.


----------



## QuickSilver

That was my thinking also...  I waited until 66... and I'm glad I did.  I'm still working.. and love it..  I have my full paycheck.. a bigger SS check.. 3 small pensions... and another 2 years of contributions to my 403B account.. (I work for a non-profit)...  plus another 2 years of growth in my other IRAs..   When I do retire next year it will just be a matter to turning on the spigots for additional income..

Of course all this depends on one's health and personal situation.  I am fortunate enough to be healthy and to have a well paying job that I enjoy and that gives me satisfaction... and doesn't create any more stress in my life than the commute to and from.


----------



## oldman

You will have to crunch the numbers for yourself and if you can manage, maybe decide to wait. I waited until 66 and began collecting last year. I was lucky enough in life to have been a Captain on a large jet for United, so I did well with my monthly retirement check. I was thinking like some others and taking it sooner, so just in case I bit the dust early, I would not give back to the Gov't. what I earned. I waited and have no regrets. MY SS check now goes in the bank because we have learned to live on our pensions. I may not ever need my retirement accounts, but that's another blessing waiting in the wings, if necessary.


----------



## Ken N Tx

The biggest problem of leaving 4 years early would be the health insurance until Medicare kicks in at 65..

I left at 64 and the wife and I had 2 years of Cobra!!!! $$$$$


----------



## QuickSilver

Ken N Tx said:


> The biggest problem of leaving 4 years early would be the health insurance until Medicare kicks in at 65..
> 
> I left at 64 and the wife and I had 2 years of Cobra!!!! $$$$$



Well, now we have the option of the ACA... (Obamacare) to cover the period between 62 and 65 when Medicare kicks in.  That's a good thing for Seniors as there is no longer the threat of being denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions.  It also provides a lot of screenings like mammograms and colonoscopies free of charge.  We were going to enroll my husband as he is only 63, but I decided to continue working... but that was MY choice..  I have group insurance and my husband is covered, but it was not necessary for me to continue working if I didn't want to..  He could have picked up Obamacare to cover him.


----------



## ClassicRockr

I got my SS at 62 because I was out of work, had been applying for jobs, but no interviews coming in. I had use up all of my UI benefits, so wife and I decided that I should go ahead and get the Early Retirement SS. It's was better than having no money coming in for me it all.

Now, as for my wife, she would like to wait and get her SS as Late Retirement at 70. She will get an added $7k a year, if her health holds up. She has 3 more years to work. Unfortunately, she was informed last week that the Department she works in is going to shut down completely by the end of this year. She was hoping this would never happen, but it has. She will have to decide what to do about her SS, because Florida UI benefits are pretty low. Lately, the banking/mortgage industry isn't the most stable.


----------



## QuickSilver

ClassicRockr said:


> I got my SS at 62 because I was out of work, had been applying for jobs, but no interviews coming in. I had use up all of my UI benefits, so wife and I decided that I should go ahead and get the Early Retirement SS. It's was better than having no money coming in for me it all.
> 
> Now, as for my wife, she would like to wait and get her SS as Late Retirement at 70. She will get an added $7k a year, if her health holds up. She has 3 more years to work. Unfortunately, she was informed last week that the Department she works in is going to shut down completely by the end of this year. She was hoping this would never happen, but it has. She will have to decide what to do about her SS, because Florida UI benefits are pretty low. Lately, the banking/mortgage industry isn't the most stable.



Fortunately most  States let you collect SS AND UI if a senior gets laid off.. so she will be entitled to both..  There are only two states that do not allow that and reduce UI if a person is collecting SS... those are Illinois and Louisiana.


----------



## ClassicRockr

Yea, she knows this. Her and one other lady can do this, but none of the others who work in the Department can........they are all much younger than her, including her Supervisor. Funny, we know a guy who was retired from Ford Motor Company in Mich., got another job, but got laid off from that one, so, was collecting his Ford Motor Company retirement, Michigan UI and SS at the same time. None of them could touch the other concerning money. 



QuickSilver said:


> Fortunately most  States let you collect SS AND UI if a senior gets laid off.. so she will be entitled to both..  There are only two states that do not allow that and reduce UI if a person is collecting SS... those are Illinois and Louisiana.


----------



## LogicsHere

I am choosing to wait till age 70 to take mine for one reason and that is that there were 7 members in my family who reached the age of 88 and older. My dad passed at the age of 90 and my mother is hanging in and going on 95. The two oldest in the family (her cousins) passed away last year at the ages of 98 and 100. I know there are no guarantees in life that my life expectancy would be the same, but like anything else it's a gamble you take.


----------



## lovemylittleboy

yes I have health care under my husbands job.  Thank You for your response


----------



## lovemylittleboy

Wow God has Blessed you and the family to live such long lives. May He keep all in His care always.  My dad was 58, my oldest brother was 45, my mom early 70's.


----------



## Butterfly

I waited until I was 66 to collect SS, and I worked another year after that.  I had planned to work until 70, but my hips deteriorating make it impossible to keep on working.  Now that I have new hips (thanks Medicare), I could go back to work, but I doubt I will.


----------



## Lon

Consider this------I am 80 and have been drawing SS since age 62. It's more than $1,000 monthly, but let's just use $1,000  a month for 28 years (336 months)=$336,000 that I have already received, and I plan on living into my 90's.Now let's just say that I had waited until 65 to start drawing and let's use $1,500 monthly benefit but I up and died at age 78---That's 13 years (156 months) = $234,000 WHATCHA THINK?


----------



## rkunsaw

Lon said:


> Consider this------I am 80 and have been drawing SS since age 62. It's more than $1,000 monthly, but let's just use $1,000  a month for 28 years (336 months)=$336,000 that I have already received, and I plan on living into my 90's.Now let's just say that I had waited until 65 to start drawing and let's use $1,500 monthly benefit but I up and died at age 78---That's 13 years (156 months) = $234,000 WHATCHA THINK?



Lon, you are figuring how to get the most possible total amount of money from the government. There's nothing wrong with that but 'standard of living' I think is a more important consideration for most people. You can live a better quality of life on $1,500 a month than you can on $1,000 a month. And your example doesn't include the extra you would get in a company pension and the extra years of contributing to a 401k or other such plan.


----------



## Bullie76

rkunsaw said:


> Lon, you are figuring how to get the most possible total amount of money from the government. There's nothing wrong with that but 'standard of living' I think is a more important consideration for most people. You can live a better quality of life on $1,500 a month than you can on $1,000 a month. And your example doesn't include the extra you would get in a company pension and the extra years of contributing to a 401k or other such plan.


Lots of people look at it like Lon. The way I look at it is if I'm on my death bed before my break even point, I doubt I'm going to be concerned with how much money I left on the table. 

I look at delaying SS as buying longevity insurance. Plus its the cheapest annuity one can buy by delaying. Those are my reasons for delaying. But there is no one right answer for everyone.


----------



## LogicsHere

Again, like I said previously, it's a gamble.


----------



## Lon

rkunsaw said:


> Lon, you are figuring how to get the most possible total amount of money from the government. There's nothing wrong with that but 'standard of living' I think is a more important consideration for most people. You can live a better quality of life on $1,500 a month than you can on $1,000 a month. And your example doesn't include the extra you would get in a company pension and the extra years of contributing to a 401k or other such plan.




I thought this discussion was about when to take SS, not other pensions or quality of life. In my case, I have other pensions, IRA's, & investments, but still glad that I took SS at age 62. I feel sorry for those that will have only SS when they retire.


----------



## rkunsaw

Lon said:


> I thought this discussion was about when to take SS, not other pensions or quality of life. In my case, I have other pensions, IRA's, & investments, but still glad that I took SS at age 62. I feel sorry for those that will have only SS when they retire.



When to take SS depends on what other income and/or investments one might have. It all comes down to will there be enough to live the best quality of life possible for each of us.


----------



## ClassicRockr

Well, they will have their SS, but also have their 401K as well. But, both the amount of both can depend on how many years of working/contributing was done. There are a lot of people that can't/don't retire from a job, for one reason or another. Just like there are those that retire from the military and then those who serve their "hitch" and leave. 
My wife works with a lady who has been working for the bank for 16 years and was looking very forward to retiring from that bank in 4 years. Unfortunately, the bank has decided to shut down the department, so, unless she takes a transfer, she will not see her 20 year retirement with this bank. 
I knew a lady that worked for the County of Orange in So California. She was with them for 10 years and a person can retire from them after serving 10 years. Unfortunately, the County declared bankruptcy and she didn't receive a single penny of retirement pay from them.  




Lon said:


> I thought this discussion was about when to take SS, not other pensions or quality of life. In my case, I have other pensions, IRA's, & investments, but still glad that I took SS at age 62. I feel sorry for those that will have only SS when they retire.


----------



## QuickSilver

The days of people working their entire careers at one company are over...  Things are too fluid.. Corporations have too much power over employees.  I think I read that the average time in one job is 3-5 years


----------



## DoItMyself

There really isn't a one-size-fits-all plan.  Everyone should sit down with a financial planner and decide what makes the best sense for you, given your goals, health, age, income and investments.  There are a lot of variables, and once you're locked into social security it won't change and doesn't reward extra work.


----------



## ClassicRockr

But, there are those that work City, County, State and Federal jobs that keep them for many years. Now, for private companies, this can be very true. 



QuickSilver said:


> The days of people working their entire careers at one company are over...  Things are too fluid.. Corporations have too much power over employees.  I think I read that the average time in one job is 3-5 years


----------



## mathjak107

what if i die should never be  the primary consideration for whether to take ss or not  earlier .what if i live is the bigger question .

what if my spouse lives is the other question .

we are delaying because with the odds of one person in a couple living until 90 at almost 50% ( a coin toss )  that can mean a 5% real return , that is after  after inflation  ,  on what amounts to a gov't bond . there is a 74% chance one of us will see 85 and even at 85 the real return ends up being not to shabby .

but not only that  , for us only 85% of it is taxed unlike our market income and most important that money has zero sequence risk .

but statistics mean little to us humans . we only have two choices . things work out as expected  or they don't .

so while we are trying to delay to 70 it is not based on whether we die  early or live longer . .

by delaying we will see our draw rate from our portfolio  fall from 3.50% now to only about 2% once ss kicks in .

that means we are way less dependent on not only market returns but the sequence of those returns . for as long as one of us lives we will be drawing out less money from savings year after year , hopefully for decades of time .

because there is no sequence risk more can be spent and less powder has to be kept dry then when you are living off markets .

not only that but while delaying we can spend more then if we took ss early because we will refill later with checks 70% larger plus cola's .

over all delaying can have far more benefits then most folks realize.

survivor benefits are greater too . that can be very important to a spouse who is not only losing one ss check but now has to file taxes as single too .

what many do not realize is that once your draw rate drops from your portfolio because of the higher ss checks you no longer need to maintain as high of an allocation to equity's . that may ease your nerves greatly in a down market .

so when someone says take it early , what if you die , now you know the real question is what if i live ? but you need to have the assets to have choices  to delay . i hate to see more then 25-30% of assets spent down delaying .  if that is this case then you really can't afford to delay and do not have the option .

having money may not buy happiness but the one thing it does buy in life is choices .


----------



## Ray

Don't sweat the small stuff. Retire when you are financially and temperamentally ready - period.

There is no way to know which age is best without knowing how long you will live.


----------



## mathjak107

like i said dying early is really not much of a factor if you  have a spouse because  then she gets the bigger payment . if you both die , well dead is dead game over so dying is the least of the concerns compared to living so living is the biggest issue .

the biggest reasons for delaying are the 3 i mentioned above and none have to do with your life expectancy directly .

1- how dependent on markets and interest rates do you want to be for the rest of your life ? a 70% bigger check plus colas cuts draw drastically from your portfolio .  that is our main reason for delaying .

2-survivor benefits for your spouse who loses one check and files single now with increased taxes  . can she make due with not only a reduced benefit but a benefit that gets cut even more if she has to file before her fra .

3- do you want to be able to spend more early on since ss when you get it down the road has zero sequence risk and needs no dry power kept for poor markets . your own investing requires lots of dry powder since it is based on the worst outcomes to date .

as you see , the 3 biggest reasons are all about what you do know  and is not directly tied in to how long you live .


----------



## Bobw235

We're taking social security at 62, based on recommendations from our financial planner. When they looked at the math, it seems that in our case, taking it early provides a real benefit since we wouldn't get any advantage from waiting until somewhere into our 70s. 
I'll have to see if I can get my hands on the link to the original article in case anyone is interested.

View attachment 30713


----------



## mathjak107

i can't open that link .

one thing i will say about adviser's is you have to be very careful . many are well versed in the first 1/2 of the game , the accumulation stage but they are not well versed in the 2nd half , the decumulation stage .

most run on myth and old school thinking when it comes to how the 2nd half is played and what they tell folks to do is wrong and out dated based on what used to be thought . .

i read the study's of the likes of michael kitces , dr wade pfaue and bernstein and blanchette for up to the minute thinking .

then if your advisor differ's question them as to why . at least you will be able to test their knowledge and logic for doing what they do .

there are very few scenario's that would not be made better by delaying .  an exception might be where you have a nice pension and are not spending down your portfolio .  then taking ss early is fine .

but when spending down from assets to live there is rarely a scenario where earlier works out better .

basically you have to choose which one you prefer more .  market and interest rate risk or longevity risk . we are more comfortable with longevity risk since we are two horses in the race with one bet .

https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-del...ong-term-investment-or-annuity-money-can-buy/


https://www.kitces.com/blog/the-asy...cial-security-benefits-as-the-ultimate-hedge/


----------



## Bobw235

mathjak107 said:


> i can't open that link .
> 
> one thing i will say about adviser's is you have to be very careful . many are well versed in the first 1/2 of the game , the accumulation stage but they are not well versed in the 2nd half , the decumulation stage .
> 
> most run on myth and old school thinking when it comes to how the 2nd half is played and what they tell folks to do is wrong and out dated based on what used to be thought . .
> 
> i read the study's of the likes of michael kitces , dr wade pfaue and bernstein and blanchette for up to the minute thinking .
> 
> then if your advisor differ's question them as to why . at least you will be able to test their knowledge and logic for doing what they do .
> 
> there are very few scenario's that would not be made better by delaying .  an exception might be where you have a nice pension and are not spending down your portfolio .  then taking ss early is fine .
> 
> but when spending down from assets to live there is rarely a scenario where earlier works out better .
> 
> basically you have to choose which one you prefer more .  market and interest rate risk or longevity risk . we are more comfortable with longevity risk since we are two horses in the race with one bet .
> 
> https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-del...ong-term-investment-or-annuity-money-can-buy/
> 
> 
> https://www.kitces.com/blog/the-asy...cial-security-benefits-as-the-ultimate-hedge/



Thanks, I'll check these out. Much appreciated. We're in the category of having a pension and some non-qualified savings that we can stretch. Not spending down the portfolio yet. As I talked to the advisor, he was clear that we'll look more closely at this next year when I turn 62, but he thinks there's an advantage for us, given our specific circumstances, of taking the payment early. I'll know more at the beginning of next year.


----------



## mathjak107

the work ups i have seen by what i call the amateurish financial planners  in the retirement arena try to do a strictly numbers comparison without looking at the 3 big issues above .

in fact most do not even compute the break even point right .

to do it correctly if you delay and do not have a pension you will be spending invested assets down and lose that growth rate forever , you also have spousal benefits and adders  that do not come in to play until the higher earner files .

figuring a balanced portfolio being spent while delaying can add years to break even . as an example of other things left out is my wife gets an adder of 4200.00 a year once i file since 1/2 my full is more then hers . so we can be looking at 22 years to break even so delaying ss unless you live until 90 is never about the money difference .  the 3 main reasons i listed above are really the reasons you may want to delay .

here is a nice work up by micael kitces that looks at the actual  real returns of delaying .  as you can see once you get past break even real return compounding because of inflation adjusting becomes pretty high .  by age 90 you are rivaling stocks . but break even can run 22 years once everything is included .


----------



## ClubMike

I am taking mine at 62, I am already semi-retired at 58 and doing pretty good with my pension and side jobs. I live a simple lifestyle which really stretches the dollars nicely. So I am taking it at 62 and I am never looking back. Mail box money, I love that idea. I do not count on living to an old age, of course I might have a different opinion as I get older. Heck I never thought I would be this age.


----------



## mathjak107

we all have our own preferences and needs . but you have to make sure the reasons you do take it early make sense .

in poll after poll in retirement forums  the biggest regret  most retirees have  is taking ss to early . what you really do not want to do is stuff that ends up being silly like taking ss early and then spending money on annuity products which cost you more in the end and give you less  then had you simply spent the same money delaying ss ..


----------



## Brookswood

There is no one  right or wrong answer to  when t take SS. If you need the money at  62 to put food on the table and pay the rent, then that's probably the best time to take it.

But, in reality each of us should have a plan for retirement of which SS is just one part. How SS fits into that plan should determine when you take it. 

In my case, I'm delaying SS to 70.  Why?  Two reasons.  One, my ancestors lived into their 90's so I should come out ahead in the very long run. Second, and more important, I do not have any type of LTC insurance and the current market for it is to costly, IMHO. So, I will use the extra SS money plus what *I am saving b*y *not buying LTC now *to help cover those expenses if I need LTC in the future.  If I don't need LTC, then I will spend the money on women and booze. Anything left after the women and booze I will waste.


----------



## mathjak107

the choices of when to take ss is really reserved for those who have the resources to have choices . obviously if you do not have the resources to delay it may not be an option .

i always say money may not buy happiness but it certainly does buy choices in life . the most uncomfortable feelings are when i have to do things because i have no choice.


just to play devils advocate  , if you need long term care would your spouse be left living on fumes ?
what if markets suck and lag and you can't keep up  with the inflation in long term care ?

worse yet , what if  you need care earlier than you planned for ? my co-worker , age 55 , fell off a ladder painting . he  broke his hip and wrist . he had a paralyzing stroke  during hip surgery . his wife is now impoverished and living on medicaid .

what if markets fell by 40% and now you need long term care ?

all these things are potential mind fields when trying to self insure 

.


----------



## Carla

I am waiting a few years to collect my SS at age 70. Presently collecting widow's pension and since it isn't a huge difference, waiting seems to be smart. I didn't sit down with a calculator but things I've read say it's worthwhile. I think it's a personal choice, whatever best suits your needs. Take it when you need it, wait if you can. Sit down and use the calculator if you need to, especially if your funds will be really limited.


----------



## mathjak107

we want to be less dependent on markets and rates so we are delaying . what we spend down reduces rmd's and the social security is taxed on only 85% of it . all big pluses without even considering  what if we die . as far as we are concerned everything we do is based on what if we live


----------



## mathjak107

Brookswood said:


> There is no one  right or wrong answer to  when t take SS. If you need the money at  62 to put food on the table and pay the rent, then that's probably the best time to take it.
> 
> But, in reality each of us should have a plan for retirement of which SS is just one part. How SS fits into that plan should determine when you take it.
> 
> In my case, I'm delaying SS to 70.  Why?  Two reasons.  One, my ancestors lived into their 90's so I should come out ahead in the very long run. Second, and more important, I do not have any type of LTC insurance and the current market for it is to costly, IMHO. So, I will use the extra SS money plus what *I am saving b*y *not buying LTC now *to help cover those expenses if I need LTC in the future.  If I don't need LTC, then I will spend the money on women and booze. Anything left after the women and booze I will waste.



many years ago money magazine did a feature story on us . i pretty much did all my own planning and investing so money magazine wanted to see if their team of pro's could inprove on my plan .

the only place we differed was in  me self insuring  LTC .

they were against it for so many reasons , especially the reasons i listed above .

they were right and i was wrong .

to self insure you really can't just say it , you need a plan to do that and like any insurance that money has to be available day 1 , safe and secure .

the chunk of dough we would have to set a side to cover 120-140k a year ,which is what it is in ny was an insane amount . that money realistically needs to be kept secure and available and that means low returns .
for  the cost of just a small percentage of the long term gains  on that money keeping it invested normally we got a fabulous partnership plan with the state . the perks after the insurance runs out  are worth more than the 3 years insurance .

the problem was , we delayed taking the policy and in a years time i was diagnosed as diabetic  even though through diet and exercise , no meds the levels are high normal we got surcharged 500 a year for me additional . so waiting is not always a good idea . our broker can't even get a policy written because he is over weight . they are so strict .

it isn't about nursing home care either . we have it just so we can stay out of one . we are covered for 6 years in home care , 3 years nursing home or 6 years assisted living . they pay half the nursing home rate for in home care and assisted living .


----------



## OneEyedDiva

LMLB: The contrarian opinion is if you can take it at age 62 and invest well, you'll come out ahead or at least break even from income your investments generate. I took mine early for that reason plus not knowing if they would continue to up the age requirement or if I'd live to see 65 or 66. Also keep in mind that once you turn 65, Medicare payments will be taken directly out of your SS payments. Currently the lowest Medicare rate for many of us is $105 a month but according to your circumstance, may be more. That being said, here is the most comprehensive article I've read about when to take SS. I like that it's not one sided and gives specific examples of what you can expect when taking it at different ages. Hope this helps.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/social-security-timing-082013?opentranscript=true


----------



## mathjak107

in reality unless you have a pension that covers all expenses it is not a case of investing the ss money . it is more a case of leaving any money already invested as is and not spending it down to delay while living off ss. it would not make sense to pay tax on the ss  , invest it and pay tax on liquidating assets to live to .  so the more realistic way is you live off the ss and spend just that much less in invested assets ..

in my example above the chart figures a 6% return from a balanced portfolio being spent down .

the problem with investing is sequence risk . you have to keep so much powder dry just in case we have worst case scenario's that you cannot spend as high a draw investing vs delaying ss since delaying ss lets you spend more because it has no sequence risk.

we can spend more right now while delaying then we could if i took ss early and had to count on the markets and rates .

it all boils down to are you more comfortable with market risk or longevity risk ?

with two of us in the race with one bet longevity risk to us is the no brainer compared to markets , rates and black swans . if one of us makes it until 90 that is a 5% real return , after inflation , with zero risk .

that trumps tolerating the risk and volatility of a balanced portfolio for possibly less return . if we both die earlier-well game over dead is dead so we always view things from what if i live ?


----------

