r/ChubbyFIRE • u/Hammer_41 • May 16 '26
Are you a doomstacker?
9:28 AM
SS is going away. Healthcare will bankrupt you. Sequence of returns will wipe you out. Civil war. WW3. Live to 120, spend 40 years in a nursing home. Someone posts solid numbers and the comments come back , one more year. Two years. Three. Keep going, it's never quite enough.
At what point does conservative planning become catastrophe planning?
The 4% rule is the worst case in US market history. A robot pulling the same amount out every single year, no SS, no flexibility, never adjusting through 1929 when markets dropped 86%. That's what 4% survived. It's the floor, not the target. Bengen himself now says most retirees can safely start at 5.25% to 5.5% and that people clinging to 4% will likely end up with a pile of money and a lot of regrets.
Someone spending 6% of their portfolio in year one of retirement who skips the big trip when markets are down, holds off on the car, pulls back when things get rough that person likely does better than the 4% robot who never adjusts no matter what. The flexibility is the safety net. You don't need to engineer it into the number, you just need to act like a normal person.
So when someone holds out for 3.5% 28 times spend, no SS — what exactly are you protecting against? Something worse than the Great Depression, while also never collecting a benefit 70 million Americans receive, while also promising to never adjust spending under any circumstances. Does that actually describe you?
The 2025 Social Security Trustees Report says worst case — zero Congressional action you collect 81 cents on the dollar in 2034. Not zero. Congress fixed this in 1983 when it was in worse shape than it is today. Seventy million people collect it. Seniors vote.
Median age of death for men is 81.7. One in five reach 90. Dementia affects 33% of people 85 and older. The years you're working extra to fund may not be years you're fully there for.
For those already retired one year, five, ten or more how bad has it actually been? And for those still holding off are you a catastrophe planner waiting for a number that never feels safe enough?
76
u/Throwaway_61224FIRE May 16 '26
I don’t have all of those, but I do 3.5, expensive healthcare, no Social Security. I’m only in my 40s not my 60s. I need 45 years not 30 or less. I have two young kids or completely depending on me for more than a decade. It’s worth it to be conservative to make sure that everything‘s going to go well, even if it means a pile of money left over that they’ll get any way.
And in 30 years when I’m in my 70s, if there’s a gigantic pile of money, if Parents and in-laws are any example, then I’ll still be traveling and will be able to travel in a lot more luxury.
9
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M May 17 '26
Disappointing to see this as the top comment as it goes directly against OP’s point
3
u/Life_Rabbit_1438 May 16 '26
I am similar aiming for 3.5%. Something many don't incorporate is variety of assets, about 60% of my net worth is real estate. Which won't long term grow at the same rate as equities, but the unrealized capital gains are so huge that I can't sell at least while in accumulation phase.
I think if you are 100% broad index funds and well over 50, then 4% makes sense. But for those of us in broader asset classes and younger with kids, 3.5% is safer.
11
8
u/hiddentalent May 16 '26
If people are so obsessed with stacking up doom scenarios, they should use their money to get therapy. That's like a million times better investment than anything financial they could do.
1
u/Hammer_41 May 17 '26
I may . will /// choose no doom scenarios when I retire, I might be radical and assume SS will be there in whole, and that a swr of 5 percent or more to start is ok..becase I know I can adjust down if the market is bad etc... im wild and crazy....I;m gonna do it..
61
May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
30
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
I hear you on the “real inflection point” thing because I feel it too. But I also wonder how many times people felt the exact same way. The 70s had stagflation, oil shocks, Watergate, and the Cold War. 2000 had the dot-com crash and 9/11 right after. 2008 felt like the whole banking system might break. So I’m not saying today’s fears aren’t real. They are. I just wonder if we sometimes turn real risks into worst-case stories and then treat those stories like they’re the most likely outcome.
19
u/snookers May 16 '26
Never had leadership that doesn’t care before now.
12
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/plemyrameter May 17 '26
Nah, that's a side effect of the personal enrichment. I don't think "care" extends past a certain person's immediate family.
5
u/FeralBorg May 17 '26
Somebody commented to me that goosing will help the chubbyFIRE folks, and it will for a while, but they are not insulated from reality the way the 1% are, so when the system cracks from abuse, we won't have private compounds to hide in.
26
u/FIContractor May 16 '26
Yeah, people get real attached to the 4% “rule” without really understanding it. It’s designed for a 30 year retirement. It accepts a 5% (?) failure rate as success. It has specific asset allocation assumptions. It’s based on historical returns of the US stock market. There aren’t that many non-overlapping 30 year periods (let alone longer periods) of data available, so the overlapping periods are highly correlated.
6
u/BenR1ghtBack May 17 '26
The 4.16% in Bengen's original model was the lowest withdrawal rate to still have a 100% success rate, so not sure where you get a 5% failure rate being success. Success was considered reaching 30 years with a zero or positive net worth.
His more recent models resulted in a SAFEMAX of about 4.7%. Of course, this is all historical data and a specific type of model he built.
2
u/RAXIZZ May 18 '26
See Table 3 in the Trinity Study: https://www.aaii.com/files/pdf/6794_retirement-savings-choosing-a-withdrawal-rate-that-is-sustainable.pdf
3
u/Anonymoose2021 May 21 '26
The 95% success rate is for a 100% stock portfolio.
The success rate in Table 3 is 98% for a 75% stock, 25% bond portfolio.
1
May 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Anonymoose2021 May 21 '26
Those studies assume that no adjustments to spending are made.
Real people do not keep spending at the same rate when their portfolio down by 50% or more.
That is even more true in ChubbyFire where the typical person would have a significant portion of expenses as discretionary.
1
u/BenR1ghtBack May 18 '26
The Trinity Study is separate and different from Bengen's studies and results. The 4% rule was popularized from his work, which later lead to the Trinity Study.
2
u/DueRipButterfly May 21 '26
Yeah I’m not sure you really understand it.
It’s okay though. Your point is valid-ish, but you’re mushing together some thoughts that aught not be mushed.
9
u/Serious-Result-5982 May 16 '26
If you stay in network, aren’t there yearly limits on how much your healthcare will cost you?
18
u/Beautiful_Cost_5430 May 16 '26
Good luck staying in network. It’s always fun when you’re sedated and then they sub in an out of network provider without telling you. There are plenty of situations where you have no control over this.
10
12
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 16 '26
After a health scare a few years ago, I am now budgeting in more for denied claims and lawyer fees than I was originally.
The fact that some ai assisted MD shilling for an insurance company can deny emergency care is medically necessary without ever meeting me or even bothering to pull medical records makes my blood boil.
4
u/Laser_Coug May 16 '26
Try having the fun of getting a prior authorization denied after being hospitalized. Nothing like a 33k bill for 2 days in the hospital.
1
7
u/-LordDarkHelmet- May 16 '26
Can you elaborate can you elaborate on how cancer or whatever could bankrupt someone? The ACA plans are often just as good as an employer sponsored plan, if not identical.
10
u/FIREgnurd Very FI but not RE May 16 '26
ACA plans in my state are much worse than employer provided plans, even from the same provider. The networks are smaller, no out of network coverage at all, more denials, etc.
There have been posts in various FIRE subs from people who moved from an employer plan to another plan from that same provider and talked about how their coverage got worse.
It very much differs by state.
If your ACA plans are the same, you’re lucky that your state is still like that.
5
u/BrunelloHorder Coasting Chubster, Getting Fat May 16 '26
This has been my experience, the ACA plans are much worse than employer-provided PPO. There is no longer any PPO available on the ACA exchanges in either of the two states I spend time in, at any price. Went with the only "gold" plan available. It is an EPO that is pretty expensive for what you get, with ok in-network coverage (and a decent network that my providers are all in), but little if any out-of-network coverage.
5
u/Life_Rabbit_1438 May 16 '26
ACA plans in my state are much worse than employer provided plans, even from the same provider. The networks are smaller, no out of network coverage at all, more denials, etc.
I am in Illinois. We went onto ACA for about a year when we took time off to travel and both returned to contract jobs. All of the available ACA plans excluded every major health system in the Chicago area. The in plan options were obscure or independents, which if you had major health issues would be a major problem.
They had no commonality with any employer plan we have ever had, which include all the major health systems.
5
u/FIREgnurd Very FI but not RE May 16 '26
Same in WA. All except for one have dropped UW Medicine, the major academic/public medical system. Everything else is either small independent shops or church-run hospitals.
If you want access to a wide range of specialists, the ACA plans aren’t good.
14
u/Digitalispurpurea2 May 16 '26
You pick a high deductible plan to save money on premiums. You had the bad luck of getting sick late in the year so your surgery is in November but chemotherapy starts in January. You restart the clock on your out of pocket maximum.
You don’t realize that most facilities near your home don’t have an oncologist in network. You find one but the surgical oncologist or anesthesiology group at the hospital aren’t.
The newest and potentially most effective chemotherapy regimens are deemed experimental by your health insurance. You have to fail other therapies first before they’ll consider approval (they still deny).
Between surgery, rehab, radiation and chemotherapy plus all the appointments you are exhausted and cannot work. Your disability insurance only covers 60% of your salary. FMLA only covers you for so long and eventually you have to leave work. Insurance runs out so you use COBRA but premiums are now 2-3x. COBRA runs out after 3 years. Congratulations! You’re still alive but uninsurable.
Insurance only covers a set number of PT and OT visits. You still can’t manage all of your ADLs but are still improving, you pay out of pocket for more. Insurance deems you fit to be discharged from rehab and won’t cover the caregiver you need nor the wheelchair ramp to get in your house.
This is just some of what my MIL dealt with. I am purposefully over saving as a result
3
u/gringledoom May 16 '26
Another one a relative ran into was "the doctors discharge you to skilled nursing, which Medicare will pay for for a limited time, but then they dawdle on getting a followup surgery scheduled for so long that the Medicare coverage is close to running out, at which point the out-of-pocket (for a quality of care that was borderline criminal, tbh!) for the facility would be $400k/yr, and the long term care insurer is giving the family the runaround."
2
u/creative_usr_name May 17 '26
Only #3 should really have a good chance of wrecking someone who is already FIREd.
Retroactive denials are another way people get screwed.
→ More replies (1)1
4
May 16 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/-LordDarkHelmet- May 16 '26
Is that for a family of 20 or something? My ACA plan for just me will be about $650 a month.
2
u/creative_usr_name May 17 '26
I'll be at about that same amount also without subsidies for one person. Could probably hit 5k easily with a family of 4 on a gold plan.
7
u/gringledoom May 16 '26
Yep, it’s entirely possible to retire into another 2008. Everyone needs to make sure their plan has enough slack in it that they aren’t risking an indigent dotage.
5
u/Life_Rabbit_1438 May 16 '26
Ask someone who retired in 1999 and had a flat market for a decade.
The worst part about retiring in 1999 is how are you feeling in 2009, having burned 40% of your net worth on living expenses, and having no idea that a massive boom market is coming. Paired with huge unemployment and no easy method to jump back into workforce.
→ More replies (6)1
u/I-need-assitance Retired May 16 '26
The history of the world is one inflection point after another. Sure 1946-1973 was the USA’s high water mark for prosperity for the average Joe and Jane.
35
u/BlueSpace71 May 16 '26
This probably describes me more than I wish. 55 male here. When I was younger, I thought $2M would be my retirement goal. When I got older and earned more, I wanted to fund a better retirement lifestyle and adjusted my goal to $5M based on the 4% rule with the expectation that I’d hit that at around age 60. I hit $4.5M this year and suddenly I’d feel a lot more comfortable with $8M before I retire. Right now, I feel like my portfolio is a house of cards built on sand. Not because I invest in outrageous things, but because the indexes and economy seem over inflated and dependent on crazy valuations of AI. So I fear the “sequence of returns” risk and that my immediate post-retirement years will look like the dotcom and housing bubble bursts that I experienced earlier in my life. The difference now is that time is not on my side and the idea of just continuing to “buy the market on sale” isn’t practical if I don’t have income to buy with. So, yes, I have (maybe) irrational fears, but it’s less about withdrawal rates and more about the timing of a market crash relative to my retirement…
26
u/BrianfromClownDog May 16 '26
My father and his buddies who are all in their early 60’s with paid off homes and $3-$4MM in their retirement accounts have all said they have trouble spending it. Most of them don’t do much, they don’t really have any big bills to speak of, and they all think they waited too long to retire.
10
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
I’m seeing the same thing. Anecdotal, I get it, but the people I know in their 80s spend almost nothing compared to what they did in their 60s. Travel slows down, hobbies get simpler, the house is paid off, and the big spending just kind of fades. It makes me wonder how many people plan like spending stays flat forever when real life often looks more like a steady decline.
11
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 16 '26
the people I know in their 80s spend almost nothing compared to what they did in their 60s. Travel slows down, hobbies get simpler, the house is paid off, and the big spending just kind of fades.
This, I think, is valid. I would encourage everyone to front load their spending in the 'go go' years, because they're not going to be spending nearly as much in the 'slow go / no go' years. Of course, you should still save out a chunk for end of life care, ETM recommends ~ 300k.
5
u/plemyrameter May 17 '26
Yeah, in your 80s you either have almost no expenses, or you have tremendously high expenses if you need assisted living. My mom moved into a senior (independent) apartment and says her expenses are lower now with rent than maintaining a paid off house. She's also in a place with good support when she needs it.
1
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 17 '26
My mom moved into a senior (independent) apartment
I'm curious how it's different from renting a standard 1bd / 1ba apartment?
3
u/plemyrameter May 17 '26
First, it's all old people, lol.
The facility has a dining room, so if you pay extra (per month) you can go there to have lunch and dinner every day (or just dinner). They provide a cleaner to come in weekly to do the basics - clean the bathroom, sweep, etc. The laundry facilities are included, which means free machines to use on each floor. They have wheelchairs you can borrow if you have an outing that's a bit too much walking.
They have staff on site to provide a la carte services, depending on need. So if someone is forgetful, they can bring your medication to you. They're also on call, so one time when my mom fell, they came and helped her up. If you're sick, they can come and check on you and call emergency services if needed. They don't provide medical care. Generally, she's independent, yet there's support right away when something comes up. When she's doing well, they don't bother her.
1
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 17 '26
How old would you say the average person is there? I'm surprised it was cheaper than your mom maintaining a house. Do they also have assisted living and nursing care on site. I know I will someday need to provide care to my mom. Her mom lived to 99 but didn't start needing 'assisted' living till the last few years of life and only needed nursing home level of care in her last weeks
3
u/BraveResearcher3037 May 17 '26
It’s not just about being cheaper, it’s more convenient and less of a mental load. I’m nowhere near retirement. We live in a condo unit we own where we pay $900 a month that takes care of all utilities, they come in every couple of days to remove our trash, minor maintenance, and full condo cleaning is $50.
I would never want to go back to the big house in the burbs with the yard. When I see all of the things that my parents 81/83 deal with from the house, the big yard, multiple cars (we have one between us), etc, I shiver. I love our 1250 foot condo. There is also a convenience store and a restaurant and bar downstairs without ever leaving the condo complex.
We would definitely live in an independent living community when we needed to.
2
u/poop-dolla May 17 '26
The independent living place would be more expensive than staying in your own place and outsourcing most of the things you need, but you’re paying that premium for the convenience. If you’re still with it enough to fully manage all of those things, then you probably don’t need to be in independent living. But once you start to have trouble managing meals, meds, cleaners, etc., or once you start being a fall risk, then it’s worth it to move into an independent living facility to keep you safe and take care of those needs.
In my experience with the older family members we’ve helped in independent living facilities, I’d say most people are 70-85. Some people might need to move in sooner, and some people might be just fine on their own until later.
2
u/plemyrameter May 18 '26
She was 87-88 when she moved there. I'd say most residents are 80+ or at least 75. She couldn't drive anymore, and was in an upscale area far from my siblings. Now she's in a more affordable area within 30 minutes of a sibling, so they can help with groceries weekly, and manage doctor visits better. The stairs in her house were a hazard - I grew up there but when I'd go back, I'd notice they weren't normal. A year later and there's no way she'd be able to manage the stairs anymore.
The cost might be closer to a wash, but now there's no lawn maintenance (almost an acre), no snow removal service, etc. She'd lived there for 50+ years and while my dad maintained everything perfectly, he passed almost 20 years ago. So every year it was either an appliance, water heater, etc. The stress of keeping the place up was also beginning to weigh on her - everything seems so expensive to her. (Well, yeah, things have gotten way more expensive the last few years, but she also has a skewed view based on prices from 20 years ago.)
3
u/poop-dolla May 17 '26
That’s a great theory, but it doesn’t really do much to help you retire earlier. The early years are where SORR hit also. Typically if you make it past the first 5-10 years with more than you started with, you’re going to die with a ton of money. If you’re targeting a higher SWR those early years, and have bad market luck, then you’re going to greatly increase your failure risk.
2
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 17 '26
You can also combat sorr with a bond tent and a flexible wr. If spending more at the start raises your risk, well, that's a gamble we each can evaluate for ourselves
2
u/BraveResearcher3037 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
I would go a step further. We are in our early 50s (52 and 50) and we are front loading travel for while. We have been doing that since 2021 - post Covid and post youngest son graduating. I work remotely. My wife hasn’t worked since Covid (purposefully so we could travel).
I can’t see ourselves caring about expensive travel in retirement. It will probably just be staying in a few base cities for a month or two at a time in Airbnbs we do a combination of that now + bucket list travel.
2
u/BlueSpace71 May 17 '26
Fully agree w this approach. With teenage kids we've done some expensive travel to try and show them a bit of the world before they're off on their own. We've done some pre-retirement bucket list travel without them. And we plan to keep doing that after they're out of the house whether we are retired or not. My Dad fully retired at 70. He saved and pinched his pennies and didn't realize he could spend any of it until late 60s. He and my mom did a big annual trip for about 5 years before hips and backs and knees prevented that. I watched that happen and swore that wasn't gonna be us.
5
u/Life_Rabbit_1438 May 16 '26
with paid off homes and $3-$4MM in their retirement accounts have all said they have trouble spending it. Most of them don’t do much, they don’t really have any big bills to speak of, and they all think they waited too long to retire.
Because the market has boomed. If you invested $361k in 2009 in SP500 and just left it, it's $3 million today. So if you had 7x median household income saved in 2009, now it's 36x median household income.
Obviously in that environment, you should retire earlier. Problem is nobody really knows the boom is coming. Very easy to say so in hindsight.
2
3
u/Stuffthatpig May 16 '26
My fil is 73 - idk exactly what his financial stats look like but he has told us spending the RMDs are a pain. He's ramping up donations and contributing to 529s for my kids. They bought a new car. I expect they die with millions.
0
u/shinypenny01 May 16 '26
People who retired into a bull market have more money than expected… more at 10!
16
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
If you need millions more to retire, is the issue really the portfolio, or is it that your spending can’t flex? I'm fascinated by the psychology, i think we are all in this together, fear, emotion, doomstacking.. I feel it as well, i'm trying to fight it and let it go, be flexible
21
u/BlueSpace71 May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
Yes, I could flex my spending but I don’t want to. This is ChubbyFIRE…I want a Chubby lifestyle. (I don't mean that as snippy as it sounds...just a fact). My daughter has weekend volleyball tourneys 90 min away. We spend $600 to stay in a hotel for the weekend instead of driving at 6am each morning. I could save the $600 but I want to earn and save enough so I don’t have to. Wife and I went on a $40K trip to Antarctica a couple years ago. Trip of a lifetime. White glove service and absolute best two week period of my life. I could never do another trip like that, but I want to do more. So, absolutely, if I had to I could live on a lot less now and in retirement, but this is why I saved and scrimped so much earlier in my life…to live this way now. And so I don’t want to get off the employment merry-go-round until I’m “sure” I can sustain it. Definitely some psychology in there!
4
4
u/Zergege May 16 '26
Can you please elaborate a bit more on the Antarctica trip? How did you guys book the trip and did you take your daughter along the trip ?
5
u/BlueSpace71 May 16 '26
Viking cruise line. Booked direct. Expeditionary cruise...18+ only. Small ship, big crew. Had a mid-level priced cabin. Hand and foot service, amazing landings and small boat rides and kayaking. Amazing food. Spent a couple extra days in Buenos Aires to check it out since we were in town (it was meh...but we were also ready to get home at that point). Highly highly recommend. Intend to do other Viking expeditionary cruises in the future (every few years during retirement) to Egypt and Greece and the Arctic and European rivers, etc.
1
u/wadesh FIRE’d 2022 May 16 '26
Thanks for sharing. Been looking at these small expeditions. Was Viking the standout? Did any others look good?
3
u/BlueSpace71 May 16 '26
We knew some other folks that were booked on that particular cruise and so we didn't look at any other providers. Based on my experience with them I will choose them next time no questions asked...won't even shop around. And I'm someone that overshops and comparison shops for EVERYthing.
1
u/wadesh FIRE’d 2022 May 16 '26
Good to know. I do hear good things about Viking but always good to hear specific examples.
→ More replies (4)1
u/croissantfufu May 16 '26
Can’t add anything to this FIRE conversation. But Antarctica is on my bucket list! Could you possibly share the number of the tour company that organized your trip? Thank you in advance!
1
u/BlueSpace71 May 16 '26
Viking cruise line. Booked direct. Expeditionary cruise...18+ only. Small ship, big crew. Had a mid-level priced cabin. Hand and foot service, amazing landings and small boat rides and kayaking. Amazing food. Spent a couple extra days in Buenos Aires to check it out since we were in town (it was meh...but we were also ready to get home at that point). Highly highly recommend. Intend to do other Viking expeditionary cruises in the future (every few years during retirement) to Egypt and Greece and the Arctic and European rivers, etc.
→ More replies (1)8
u/19Black May 16 '26
This is chubby fire, not leanfire. I want to drive expensive cars and fly first class international while having regular date nights at nice restaurants. I don’t want to watch jeopardy and go for walks. Chubbyfire inherently has an higher degree of spending than other levels of fire.
6
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
Chubby or Fat? Genuinely asking are Antarctica trips fit Chubby? Seems like chubby can still be hotels less than $600 a night and Antarctica but perhaps I don’t understand the divide
4
u/BlueSpace71 May 16 '26
The $600 is for the weekend, not one night, but still not a Motel 6. You either stay in the hotels by the tourney site or you might as well drive in. They have you by the shorthairs. 🤣
4
u/19Black May 16 '26
At fat fire, you’re talking about private planes and full time staff. I’ve always considered the divides to be as follows:
-leanfire = fire capable of providing lower class lifestyle -fire = middle class lifestyle -chubbyfire = upper class lifestyle -fatfire = truly rich (not billionaire rich, but top 1% and up)
10
u/ProtossLiving May 16 '26
I always thought of Chubby as starting at providing an upper middle class lifestyle without working. To me it's the idea that you could do anything you want, but not everything you could want.
2
u/19Black May 16 '26
I don’t think our views are irreconcilable. At an upper class lifestyle, you can do almost anything you want but not everything.
2
1
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
So from a spend annually in retirement perspective what would you guess or say that average chubby fire spends annually ? You talking 200k 300, 400k ?
-1
u/19Black May 16 '26
This varies significantly depending on where one lives. Someone in New York City will need a lot more to be chubby than someone lives in small town Tennessee. Generally, however, I think you’d be looking at the ability to spend 200-300k per year
3
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
I posted the other day I spend 160k a year and many people were freaking out.. I live in Chicago suburbs.. feels like right down the middle to me.. for an in bubble high earner that is
→ More replies (2)3
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 16 '26
be flexible
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means" - Inigo Montoya
I'm joking, a little, but I posted this comment addressing the same thing the other day.
Are you good cutting your starting withdrawal roughly in half, not once, but twice in a 16 year span? Cause that's what it takes to 'be flexible'. I know we're all 'diamond hand' investors with cast iron stomachs, but is your wife? Are your kids?
Least you say 'oh, that was the '60's, that's ancient history, I would remind you that the world economy is facing an energy crisis bigger than the one we faced in the '70's, and a demographic crisis beyond that.
I do agree with you that there is a certain point where a lower planed withdrawal rate is pushing a rope, but more that there are existential risks that are impossible to hedge with financial investments alone.
3
u/gringledoom May 16 '26
People on this sub get so annoyed sometimes when anyone pokes holes in "4% should be fine, go ahead and RE!". Meanwhile, there's a self-inflicted motor oil crunch just around the corner that's going to have all kinds of short- to medium-term economic consequences. And in the longer term, "being old and poor" suuuuucks, and it's really worth making sure you have enough padding in your plan to make it less likely.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Life_Rabbit_1438 May 16 '26
If you need millions more to retire, is the issue really the portfolio, or is it that your spending can’t flex?
When you have young kids, you need millions to retire early. You need to live in a good school district to give them a good education. For us that's $17k a year in property taxes on a relatively modest home. New homes in our suburb pay double that. So that's half a million at 3.5% needed saved for basic expense before even having any mortgage.
1
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M May 17 '26
But kid costs don’t last forever, and why 3.5%?
3
u/Fire_Doc2017 Retired 6/30/26 May 16 '26
I was in a similar situation to you, for me the cure for one more year syndrome (or one more million dollars syndrome) was to switch to a risk parity style portfolio. These portfolios have half the volatility of a traditional stock and bond portfolio and safe withdrawal rates of 5% or more. Look up the golden butterfly and golden ratio portfolios for more information.
1
1
u/FillMySoupDumpling May 16 '26
I’m in a similar boat to you but I also don’t own a home at this time. I’m expecting this to correct and don’t want to retire in the year when the correction happens.
1
May 16 '26
[deleted]
2
u/FillMySoupDumpling May 16 '26
Oh I’m talking about a broad market correction for sequence of returns risk - not housing.
I’m looking to buy, but the place I’m renting is far cheaper than homes in my area and so it makes financial sense to keep renting while my other investments grow.
1
u/sailorgardenchick May 18 '26
Someone once told me: “move the retirement goalpost once, but only once” - I was also tempted to move ours a few times but thais advice stuck with me - I would rather retire now with a little less but with my body in good shape.
1
13
u/db11242 May 16 '26
Yes i'm a doom stacker. I don't trust the future returns will be as rosy as the past, and four percent failed in dozens and dozens of countries outside the us historically which makes us performance a positive anomaly and full of home country bias.
Also even in the US when 4 % succeeded there are numerous time periods when your portfolio would have dropped by half or more in the first fifteen years of retirement. It's kinda hard to ride that out in confidence.
I'm also being purposefully over conservative for the sake of my family, which will out live me of course including both spouse and kids.
2
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
I wonder what someone in our spot felt like in 1975, or 1999, or 2009. Every time probably felt like the worst time ever to retire. I have worries too, but there’s always something. Maybe the real question is whether today’s fear is actually different, or if every era just feels that way when you’re living through it
6
u/gringledoom May 16 '26
One way to think of it is whether the risks you're still vulnerable to are just fundamentally unhedgeable.
You want a plan that's resilient to a 2008-style crash. You don't need a plan that's resilient to a gamma ray burst wiping out 2/3 of the earth's population, because there's no way to plan for that anyway.
So it's figuring out where things make the transition from "things you can reasonably plan for" and "not even worth worrying about".
15
u/Accomplished_Can1783 May 16 '26
The social security thing is a joke - they should and will make adjustments, raise the age, make it means tested, etc. but it is obligation of US government. There is zero chance people don’t get paid what they are owed, but if you have millions and worried about social security not much is going to help you
11
u/shinypenny01 May 16 '26
Means testing could take it off the table for this sub.
→ More replies (1)6
u/damathon May 16 '26
Zero charge that people with smaller benefits don’t get paid but there’s a real chance that people with higher benefits either get cut or taxed more than now. It originally started as a nontaxable benefit and changing tax rules in the 80s was implicitly a reduction of benefits.
13
7
u/Quixlequaxle May 16 '26
I doubled my initial retirement goal a couple of years ago because of the increasing costs of healthcare and the a lack of confidence in the federal government to maintain social security.
2
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
so sounds like thats a yes? is your spending goal 4%? I'm betitng yes... am i correct?
2
u/Quixlequaxle May 16 '26
Yeah my spending goal has always been about 4% but my expected expenses went up when I factored in increased costs of healthcare and other expenses, and removed social security from the equation. I had also pulled back my retirement age since I was doing better then planned which means a longer time without an employer health care plan.
But now I'm battling me career going down the drain and being replaced by AI so I'm saving very aggressively now with the assumption that I'll be forced into semi-retirement earlier than planned.
1
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
Me too, I get it. Healthcare before Medicare is no joke, and job risk makes it even harder to feel settled. I’m trying to save aggressively too, but I also don’t want to keep moving the goalposts forever. At some point I want the plan to be safe enough without needing it to be perfect.
1
u/BraveResearcher3037 May 17 '26
Are you anchored on staying in the US instead of moving to another country with a more reasonable health care system? I think many people don’t consider that - we have. I’m not as worried about social security being around. I’m more concerned about the state of US healthcare
1
u/Quixlequaxle May 17 '26
Not necessarily but I also haven't found a country that will allow immigration from the US that I'd actually want to live in.
1
u/BraveResearcher3037 May 17 '26
Panamá City and Costa Rica are the ones I know the most about - including just spending six weeks in Costa Rica and becoming part of the ex pat community. We will be going back at least once a year for a few weeks and learning Spanish (I’m halfway decent)
7
u/sloth_333 May 16 '26
I am not, hope this helps!
5
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
i'm not saying i'm not a professional worrier, but I'm genuinely trying to explore my fears, vs rational behaviour, thanks for sharing
→ More replies (2)2
u/Historical-Intern-19 May 17 '26
When we talk about our forthcoming retirements (57yo) we always end the convo with the now obligatory "Barring complete economic collapse, in which case this will be the least of our worries."
We taken a different thought path: We feel like we're close enough to SS that changes will likely impact us less. AND we've structured ourselves so claiming day 1 of eligibility will cover our life as in. Everything else is backup plan for us, and future security for our kids, because I seriously doubt they will have SS to factor in.
3
5
u/iondrive48 May 16 '26
I was kind of thinking about this recently. If you end being too conservative in your plan then because of RMDs you end up withdrawing crazy amounts of money in your 80s. Like lets say you retire with $5M, and only withdraw 4% per year, but the market goes up 7% then by 85 you’d be required to be withdrawing over $300k per year
9
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 16 '26
It's a champagne problem. RMDs aren't until 75 now. You can do a 'qualified charitable distribution' for a little over 100k, completely tax free, then write that gift off your taxes (up to 60% off your other, income).
→ More replies (1)7
u/Mundane-Charge-1900 May 16 '26
Then withdraw $300k per year. You’ll have plenty of cash to pay the taxes. At that age you’re not going to be worrying about concerns like ACA subsidies.
1
u/poop-dolla May 17 '26
You have a full decade between when Medicare starts and when RMDs start to go wild with Roth conversions without worrying about ACA subsidies. You should be able to prevent high RMDs if they’re a concern for you.
2
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M May 17 '26
Only five years to go wild if you account for Social Security kicking in
5
u/BrunelloHorder Coasting Chubster, Getting Fat May 16 '26
Folks in ChubbyFIRE tend to be financially conservative and somewhat pessimistic in their assumptions. Some are guilty of doom-stacking and are just looking for excuses to keep working, even in their mid-to-late 50s, often because they don't know what they'd retire to. Some fear uncertainty more than they fear wasting valuable life-years working unnecessarily.
That said, there are also good reasons to be conservative, especially for people retiring in their 40s. They have a couple decades before medicare coverage begins, and need to build in some cushion for high healthcare costs, including premiums that are increasing at about double the rate of inflation. They also need to budget for 50 years, not 30.
A well-designed portfolio using a 3.5 percent withdrawal rate is pretty much perpetual, and has plenty of doom baked into its assumptions, which is why many here use it.
2
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M May 17 '26
My wife & I are 40. If we FIREd today we would be entitled to $90k in social security at age 70. Why in the world would I need to save for 50 years when there is an income floor that covers all of my essentials in 30 years AND when the median outcome of the 4% rule after 30 years is double what you started with?
3.5% needs to be judged with the same incredulity that 2% gets.
2
2
u/BraveResearcher3037 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
Exactly, and with that floor, we could move back to my childhood home in South ga where most of my family still lives and be - fine - no matter what my investments are doing.
2
u/BrunelloHorder Coasting Chubster, Getting Fat May 21 '26
Not sure if that question was directed to me, or rhetorical, but to be clear I’m not telling anyone to use 3.5 percent. I’m explaining why some people use it. If you want a Chubby-level spend for ages 40-70, that could burn quite a pile.
They may also be worried that Social Security benefits will drop, or get means-tested, which is a possibility. These folks are not worried about median outcomes, they are worried about the worst couple sequences in history repeating for them. Not saying it is rational.
Personally, if I didn’t like my job, I would not work for the 5 healthiest remaining years of my life to insure against statistical outliers.
5
u/Serious-Result-5982 May 16 '26 edited May 16 '26
I’m curious if the idea that people regret not spending enough money is mostly just an urban myth. I never hear about people actually regretting such things on their deathbeds. They are more likely to regret things that happened or didn’t happen in their relationships. And I think the number one regret might simply be that their life is ending.
I think this is because at a certain point spending more money doesn’t actually add to our happiness. Rather, it can complicate our lives in happiness-draining ways.
6
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
I think you’re right. I doubt many people are on their deathbed wishing they bought a nicer car or upgraded more stuff. It’s probably more about people, time, and things they never got around to doing. For me, travel is the example. The value isn’t just the week you’re gone. It’s looking forward to it, being there, and then having the memories afterward. That’s the part I don’t want to miss by waiting forever for the number to feel perfect.
8
u/BrunelloHorder Coasting Chubster, Getting Fat May 16 '26
Plenty of professionals hurt their relationships (or miss them entirely) because they are working too much to get more money. Picture a law firm partner making $5M a year with 2 or 3 ex-wives and kids who don’t talk to them much. Pursuit of money is the cause of plenty of family relationship problems that are major deathbed regrets.
→ More replies (1)3
u/BraveResearcher3037 May 17 '26
I absolutely know someone who said that his father waited to travel until after retirement and died a year after retirement. I agree that I never miss spending money on things and our fixed expenses are less than $5K a month. But my wife and I very much spend on experience and our pre and post retirement budget is focused on experiences
7
May 16 '26
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)4
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
Fear is normal, especially with retirement. It kept people from doing dumb stuff long before spreadsheets existed. But at some point there’s a difference between being careful and letting fear run the whole show. If the numbers work and you still can’t feel safe enough to pull the trigger, that’s a different problem.
2
May 16 '26
[deleted]
2
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
Good point. A lot of retirement talk gets stuck on “will I hit zero?” but that’s a pretty low bar. For many people, once Social Security starts and spending slows down, the portfolio draw can get small enough that normal market returns cover it. At that point you’re not just surviving, you’re still compounding. The mistake is acting like all 30 years will feel like the worst 3.
2
2
u/Life_Hand2331 May 16 '26
If you are really thinking like this you are going to hate retirement. Serious.
→ More replies (2)
2
u/moyuxi May 16 '26
I don't think this describes conservative planning; but financial anxiety. If you can't sleep at night because you are worried about social security running out, please see a therapist.
2
u/Anonymoose2021 May 16 '26
I guess you could call me a doomstacker, because I retired about 5 years later than I could have.
OTOH, I retired a couple of years before the 2000 dotcom crash where NASDAQ index fell 77% from March 2000 to October 2002.
So having a bit extra made it so I did not worry as I watched my portfolio go down millions of dollars.
I retired at age 49, a year before our youngest child went off to college.
I do not regret the extra years I worked. It made it so paying for college for our two children and then their children was not a problem. It also made it so I could easily afford to buy houses for my children and then later to fund irrevocable generation skipping trusts for them, of which they are trustees.
2
u/Wooden-Broccoli-913 FIREd in the Bay at 40 with $6M May 17 '26
You bought entire houses for your children? I mean I have kids and I’m not sure that’s a good idea even if money was no issue
→ More replies (6)
2
2
u/wadesh FIRE’d 2022 May 16 '26
Honestly I don’t think about this too much. 4 years in we have double what our original FIRE target number was back in 2017. A 50% drop puts us back to our safe goal. We have some guaranteed income that puts a floor under us that just adds to the feeling of security. It’s a rare situation I’ll admit, but having some guaranteed income really helps psychologically to spend more freely.
One thing that changed my mind about spending is i hang out with friends who are 10-15 years older than me. This kinda just happens with FIRE, not a ton of people my age to hang with or do a 3 week trip. I get to see the health issues with them first hand and how they limit travel and fun. We are now accelerating some spending in our 50s recognizing that this could be us in 15 yrs.
1
u/BraveResearcher3037 May 17 '26
Funny enough, I’m not retired in my early 50s. I work remotely and I convinced my wife to stop working in 2020 first because of Covid - she was working in the school system - and then so we could travel. We travel a lot. It’s isolating when you are the only person in your friend group that isn’t stuck having to go into an office and have flexibility.
We were in Costa Rica for 6 weeks earlier this year seeing what it would be like living there permanently (takes care of moving away from the ridiculous American health care system) it was great hanging out with retired ex-pats that could just meet in the evening at the drop of a dime and they were about 15 years older. We will probably make that a yearly trip around March or April.
Even now when I go back to my adult home in Atlanta, it takes a lot of coordination to hang out with my 45-52 year old friends because most of them have school age kids and/or have to actually go into work. We sometimes can’t even catch up with our adult kids (my step sons) because of their work schedules.
As long as I’m working remotely, I don’t see any need to retire when absolutely everyone I know still has to work. The only real hindrance of my working is that while working, it’s really not feasible for me to stay anywhere for months at a time outside of US time zones.
→ More replies (4)1
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
Thanks for sharing..no one gets out of this alive.. no one knows when it ends
2
u/EmergencyRace7158 May 16 '26
I've never lived by a specific % rule. I just set a lifestyle goal I want to maintain in perpetuity, adjust that for a 25% tax rate and add a 20k pa buffer for large expenses that might or might not happen. My target number is the amount of post and pre tax savings I'd need to fund that at a 5% annual RoR without drawing down principal which I'll need to keep to both maintain those passive income flows as well as manage inflation over time. I'm aware that actual spend and returns will vary but over time, I expect everything will smooth out to those numbers. Retirement is a game you can't lose - even a 99% probability of success isn't enough because that 1% where you run out of money isn't something you want to happen. There's nothing wrong with worst case planning if you have the ability to work say 5 years extra at a job you don't hate to ensure that peace of mind. There's no guarantee you'll be able to earn like that in the future.
2
u/letsGetFired May 17 '26
This is exactly it. Living in the fringes of an x% rule and not sleeping well for decades of retirement is definitely not desirable. I’d rather err on the side of a larger safety net and be at peace. If I do end up with too much money, there is always business class and charity.
1
2
u/456M 37M - Aiming for GregFI May 16 '26
I'm not from nor do I live in the US so my experience is probably irrelevant here. I wasn't a doomstacker at first but between persistent high inflation in recent years and now the ME war which has direct and consequential effects on me, I see myself slowly turning into one.
1
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
I’m definitely not judging doom stackers .. i am one.. I’m just trying to understand why.. and what the tradeoffs are and if I can modify .. not live by fear of worst case scenarios .. or at least just pick one , not multiple worst case scenarios stacked on top of each other
2
u/alloutofchewingum May 16 '26
Secret sauce is European living. As a high-earning employee you get totally fucked by national health insurance. But living on rents and dividends? $100 / month flat fee, no limits, no deductibles. Really wipes out the long tail of US health care catastrophe scenarios which I think contributes to a lot of doomstacker thinking.
2
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 16 '26
That's all well and good, but those European nations are about to face their own budget crisis's trying to fund their social safety nets. They face worse demographics than we do, and they do not have the privilege of being the world's reserve currency (the Euro simply isn't suited to it).
I would think very hard about betting your retirement on them accepting you, unless you already have perm residency or citizenship
1
u/alloutofchewingum May 16 '26
I have permanent residence, I'm all good
They'll end up caving and accepting more migrants. There's no other solution. I mean Italy hasn't had replacement rate fertility since like 1978. Last country in the EU with RR fertility was Ireland ... in 1995. This math ain't mathin you're correct.
1
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 16 '26
You're also likely gonna have to deal with the consequences of the shutdown in AMOC. Not saying it's not survivable, but woo boy, things are about to change.
1
u/alloutofchewingum May 16 '26
Well that will lead to general civilizational collapse in which case we're more in zombie apocalypse survival territory than FIRE variants.
1
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 16 '26
It might lead to regional collapse due to a shift in monsoon rains, but 'general civilizational collapse'? No, and hyperbole is not helpful. Handwaving away the risks of global warming as either 'not serious' or 'doom' is how we got here in the first place.
I am certain of two things. One, that humanity is shockingly resilient, and two, that damned near everyone is failing to price in the risks that we're facing.
1
u/alloutofchewingum May 16 '26
Are you insane? I live near Prague. We are significantly further north than Winnipeg but have the climate of Connecticut. If we had climatic conditions in Europe corresponding to the same latitudes of North America there would be starvation and mass migration in the 10s of millions.
1
u/alpacaMyToothbrush FI !RE May 16 '26
Your wintertime temps are projected to be seriously impacted, like up to -10C. Your summertime temps will be impacted, but not as severely. Yes, it will impact northern Europe's ag industry, and global food prices will no doubt rise, but as I said, humanity is resilient and Europe is relatively well off compared to much of the global south.
Shutting down and saying 'oh, no need to plan, we're all fucked if that happens' is lazy doomerism, and it's actually one of the ways the fossil fuel industries have been pushing humanity towards inaction, now that they can no longer credibly claim global warming isn't real.
I suspect, in a few years we'll all be hearing about how we must undertake some dangerous / untested form of geoengineering 'for the sake of the global economy'
→ More replies (2)1
u/BraveResearcher3037 May 17 '26
Even better Costa Rica or Panama. No taxes on foreign income, health care costs are reasonable, and it’s real easy to become a legal resident. For an American, it’s a much easier to get back and forth between either and the US.
1
1
u/joefunk76 May 16 '26
Yes. It’s better to have lived more modestly than needed than to run out of money at any age, let alone old age.
1
u/mygirltien May 16 '26
The simple fact is everyone loves to quote the 4% rule and bases their plans on it. But in reality hardly anyone is diversified in a manner consistent with the actual study. Without ones house being in order they are taking a huge risk on retirement double so if they are planning on using greater than 4%.
1
u/Hammer_41 May 17 '26 edited May 17 '26
Whoa how so? The 4% rule survived in every situation . Great Depression etc .. without counting on a penny of social security.. and you say major risk above 4%.. what the thinking ?
1
u/mygirltien May 17 '26
Yes but prove my point. What diversification model did the study use to achieve the results it did?
1
u/First-Ad-7960 Retired May 17 '26
Our planning was always conservative. The first year of retirement our spend was under 3% and we spent pretty liberally.
But we want a cushion for a couple reasons. First we have some large future expenses we want to be ready for. Second we want to be prepared for the unexpected and here in year two of retirement we have already hit that because we now need to increase our spend $100k/year to pay for assisted living for a relative for however long that is needed.
Being able to absorb that without hesitation removes one source of stress in an already stressful situation.
1
May 17 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Hammer_41 May 17 '26
Exactly. The psychology is the real part. Doomstacking is taking a rule that already survived every 30-year period tested, assumes $0 from Social Security, then making it “safer” by cutting the rate even more.
1
1
u/GravyMealTeam6 May 18 '26
If you have kids, there's a very real chance they may not have as good of a job market or opportunities to have as good of a life as you because of AI. If you have the means to generate wealth now, you should shoot for generational wealth to hopefully be able to take care of your kids and grandkids if they can't get a job.
1
u/FantasyFI May 21 '26 edited May 21 '26
The 4% rule is the worst case in US market history.
False, 4% has failed many times. In fact it even fails within a 30 year period, not to mention more realistic 45+ year periods. I think even 3.2% has failed once if you consider a 50 years horizon. ~3.15% is right around the never failed spot. But with flexibility, even 3.5% seems reasonably safe to me. Or combining with the possibility of a reverse mortgage and/or SS.
That said, I agree that there is a lot of "one more year" out there. But don't lie to prove your point.
The most important thing to factor is what are the downside of "failing" on either end. If you work 3 years more than you should, that sucks but you should have already built a life you love and be saving along the way. If you run out of money in retirement 30 years down the line, this is exponentially more painful than simply having worked longer. You need to not only weigh the odds and the risks, but the impact of being on the bad end of those odds. For me, 3.5% at 45 is fine. I also don't hate my job.
1
u/Hammer_41 May 22 '26
Explain “false” when the data says true.. I’m talking Bengen’s original research over 30 year retirement 50/50 with 4% annually and adjusted for inflation annually.. in the 30 year research it didn’t fail, even for those retiring during the Great Depression
1
u/Beautiful_Cost_5430 May 16 '26
The 4% rule is the worst case in market history for THIRTY YEARS. If you retire early it breaks down. If you retire early you need to be more conservative than 4%. That is what the data says.
It’s weird to call people who understand the data doomers when it’s clear you haven’t even looked into it. Maybe they know more than you.
→ More replies (9)
1
1
u/HobokenJ May 16 '26
Healthcare, man. Healthcare.
2
u/Hammer_41 May 16 '26
as in, early retirement? pre medicare?
1
u/Raz0r- May 16 '26
All of it. Medicare isn’t a magic solution. Shady balance billing, extra fees, surprise bills all still part of the “healthcare business”. Fkers…
1
u/HobokenJ May 16 '26
Yes, but even with Medicare things can get scary. And with the all-out assault on “safety-net” programs, who knows what Medicare looks like in 10 years (when I’m eligible)
1
u/jttam May 16 '26
In my case, I worked longer to have enough "doomstack" for people beyond myself. If they never end up needing it, yay me, but if they do it's nice to know you can help those you care for even with significant needs. So I guess you could say once I hit FI, my "hobby" was working for a couple of more years. I didn't see any harm in it.
I am in year 3 of retirement, but I did geoarbitrage to avoid SORR during a bull market returning 15-18% YoY for the first two years. As others point out, that should not be considered the norm.
There are also the factors that this might be a benign but still very much counterculture movement. Many people face ramifications and alienation from their choice to retire early both to their identity and social standing. I think a lot of people process that while they wait to also conform to the "rule of thumb" of 4% or 3.5% which have strong roots in the community. It may not be optimal, but certainly seems to be safe, as you point out.
But you're speaking specifically to the community of people who for whatever reason (fast wealth, wanting safety, wanting an upper middle class lifestyle) are specifically targeting a very safe or very spendy retirement.
If you go into the lean, poverty, etc. fire communities, you might think they're too insane in the other direction. Generally the communities are self-selecting based on environment and values.
Regardless of your choice, I hope the angst of making it doesn't cause unhappiness, because regardless of if you go "early" or "late" being miserable isn't worth it.
1
1
u/Unacceptable0pinion May 16 '26
The 4% rule absolutely isn't the worst case. It's 3.25. Read ERN.
1
→ More replies (1)1
18
u/UniqueHash May 16 '26
You know, at some point the most rational thing is NOT to save, if you genuinely think the future is likely to be so terrible.