William Schmonsees from OR posted over 12 years ago:

I suggest that conventional financial advice is too conservative. I have been retired (unwillingly) since age 58 (2005) and have been 90% invested in stocks since then. I took SS at age 62; suffered through the market collapse; regaled in its rebound. My net income is about the same as it was in 2006; net worth down about 20%, mostly due to home depreciation. We live comfortably. I see no reason to invest in CD's or similar low yielding vehicles.

D Monchil from WA posted over 12 years ago:

My long term care company went bankrupt and my wife's raised the premium a staggering amount. Long term care insurance is a gamble. Will the company be there when you need it and will they be able to pay anything?

Phil Morgan from VA posted over 12 years ago:

I also agree that conventional advice is too conservative. I was watching an interview with Warren Buffet last week and he was asked how he would invest for his wife for when he was no longer alive. Without hesitation he said 90% in SP500 stocks and 10% short term bonds. That way, if the market was down, Warren's wife could use some of the bond money to get by until the market regained it's upward direction, which Warren claims it always does.

James Leever from MI posted over 12 years ago:

I've never personally owned bonds. I keep 2-3 years of cash available to ride out the bumps in the market and invest the rest in stocks - SSR and Shadow Stock Portfolio. It has served me well. I earn much more than I take out, so my heirs may live better than I do. The "Withdrawal Plans, How Long Will My Money Last?", issued by AAII in 2003 gives me confidence that I am on the correct track and needn't loose sleep worrying about money.

Bill Gottdenker from NJ posted over 12 years ago:

I mildly disput the point about taking Social Security too early. While I really didn't need it, I choose to take SS at 62 because it would have taken me 15 years to recoup the payments I would have forgone had I opted to begin at age 66. This calculation didn't even take into consideration cola increases or the possible( probable ) decline in the value of the dollar.

Bill Gottdenker from NJ posted over 12 years ago:

I mildly dispute the point about taking Social Security too early. While I really didn't need it, I choose to take SS at 62 because it would have taken me 15 years to recoup the payments I would have forgone had I opted to begin at age 66. This calculation didn't even take into consideration cola increases or the possible( probable ) decline in the value of the dollar.

Steve Laube from GA posted over 12 years ago:

Agree, the Monte Carlo simulations that lead to the recommended 4-5% withdrawal typically withdraw from stocks even when the market is down, use a less than 50% allocation to stocks, and also put running out of money in 29 years and eleven months into the "bad column." Monte Carlo "random sampling" removes the business cycle, allowing say 4 "down big years" in a row to be counted when it has never happened. Last, for many retirees (if you belong to AAII you are one of them) inflation is overstated as your relatively high lifestyle will unfortunately diminish with age; lowering your personal inflation.