Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 59,820+

Withdrawal Strategies Links Page

Top 90. Mar 6, 2005 8:02 PM

» bob90245 - Re: dca long term investing

In response to dca long term investing posted by diane48:

Hi Diana,

I have read different statistics on asset allocation in retirement. 20% stocks is just way to low. These are the numbers you need to examine for yourself and your portfolio:

1) What is my projected average rate of return on my portfolio?
2) What is my intial withdrawal rate?
3) What do I anticipate to be my cost of living increases due to inflation?

and I might add a fourth that you haven't mentioned

4) What are my other sources of income (pension, Social Security, rental income properties, etc)?

So if you have gone through all the numbers and are satisfied, Great! You've done your homework. Otherwise, I suggest to run all the numbers. Investing during retirement is very tricky. So having a good plan will give you a good chance for your nest egg to last your lifetime.

I have a few links to suggest for more research:

and

Retire at the Coffeehouse

-- posted by bob90245

Top 91. Mar 6, 2005 11:00 PM

» azxcvbnm - Re: Re: dca long term investing

In response to Re: dca long term investing posted by Kirk:

Kirk has given some really sound advice. You can wait for the market to go lower, but how low is low? It is almost impossible for an individual to time the exact lowest bottom of a market. One of my biggest past mistakes was to continue to wait for stocks to head lower and lower....until you realize that stocks aren't headed lower anymore! Also waiting for pullbacks can be a long wait indeed; when we'll see 1100 on the S&P (if ever) is anyone's guess. DCA is definately the best option.

Emerging markets are the last stocks at or near fair historical value (P/E of 14). Given your risk tolerance, these high risk/high reward stocks may not be for you, but these are the best bets still out there. I'd consider putting 10% of my stock portfolio in emerging markets.

-- posted by azxcvbnm

Top 92. Mar 7, 2005 6:22 AM

» JIMMY62 - Max SS check

Saturday I heard Bob say the maximum social security enefit is $18,000.

That is not right, is it?

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 93. Mar 7, 2005 7:06 AM

» JIMMY62 - Max SS check

In response to Re: Max SS check posted by Kirk:

Thanks, the birthday greeting I get annually from SS verifies your report.

I say again, Bob has not done the math on the costs and benefits of a bump in the max salary subject to SS tax for a person near 65 years of age.

-- posted by JIMMY62

http://www.finance.cch.com/text/c40s05d1...

Top 94. Mar 7, 2005 8:53 AM

» BrianMcG - Re: Max SS check

In response to Max SS check posted by JIMMY62:

"When figuring anticipated retirement income, the maximum Social Security benefit a retiring worker can expect to receive is $1,825 per month ($1,939 per month beginning March 2005). This amount is increased regularly by a cost of living adjustment (COLA). The actual amount of Social Security benefits you receive, however, is usually lower due to a number of factors."

$1,939 X 12 = $23,268.

-- posted by BrianMcG

Top 95. Mar 7, 2005 9:08 AM

» JIMMY62 - Re: Re: Max SS check

In response to Re: Max SS check posted by BrianMcG:

If Bob said $1,800 per month, then he is right.

To quibble on, is it rational to expect that the same ceiling would be in placew if the maximum amount of salary taxed was incresed to $120,000?
Or course not.

I think Bob is implies that it would be when he quotes the $1,800 per month figure.

As my calendar reads March 2005, I would think that $1,900 per month would be a better round figure.

-- posted by JIMMY62

Top 96. Mar 7, 2005 6:08 PM

» Normxxx - Re: Re: Max SS check

In response to Re: Max SS check posted by Kirk:

You are comparing apples and oranges. $18000 is for someone age 65 retiring now. If you continue working and paying in, you are entitled to more than the maximum.

First, you earn additional "interest" on your SS savings, then, you also get more because your life expectancy is less (it is not actuarially based, but set by law). Someone born in 1930 and retiring 6/2005 would be 75 years old, 10 years of accruing the above maximum rates. For someone with a later than 1940 birthdate, the max payout would not occur until sometime between 65 and 67, I believe.

The additional payin scarcely matters; only your highest 30 years are counted anyway. (I believe it's 30...It may be 40; I don't remember.)

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 97. Mar 7, 2005 6:55 PM

» Normxxx - Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check

In response to Re: Re: Re: Max SS check posted by Kirk:

You're being logical again (you know where that gets you with the government, don't you?) What you have said is logical, but the government defines 'max benefit' as the amount you earn when you retire at your age for max benefit (e.g., 65 currently). That's as opposed to the partial benefit you get if you retire 'early' (currently, age 62). If you retire later than your 'max benefit age,' you are said to be getting more than the max benefit!

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 98. Mar 8, 2005 1:46 AM

» azxcvbnm - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check

In response to Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Max SS check posted by Kirk:

The bottom line is it ain't gonna matter because we have to cut social security benefits anyway. The system is unsustainable, and there's currently no mechanism for the government to save the surpluses that are coming in right now.

I personally would like to see social security benefits severely cut rather than raise taxes trapping us further in a failed system. After driving the wrong way for 1 hour, you turn around and be glad that you didn't go futher. What you don't do is accelerate in the same direction in a futile attempt to drive around the world rather than turn back.

-- posted by azxcvbnm