Bad news re what I spend

Terron

zagfles wrote: »

Interesting - might be worthwhile looking into. Was the offer is based on pre-exsiting conditions, or was it a blanket disregard that would cover everyone no matter what their pre-existing conditions were?

It was a continuation of the existing cover, but with me paying rather than the company.

hugheskevi

Hugheskevi , while I agree with a lot that you say there are sides to it - one is that we all die and we all fall I'll and being " good" will not mean we are immortal and people usually die from illnesses which often last for long time before eventually resulting in death. So being good while statistically will improve longevity and quality of life is far from guaranteeing it.

Aye, I hope to die nice and quickly when the time eventually comes but who knows, we won't have much control over that.

What I can hugely influence are the odds about the onset of limiting illness. The odds favour suffering from this at some point between 70 and 80 (lower than 70 for those who are have a particularly unhealthy lifestyle), and putting effort into being as healthy and strong as possible will hopefully mean we remain fit and active well into retirement.

Another one is that I am afraid being able to pay although is better than not being able to pay is still not a solution without a very good in depth knowledge of medicine because if you are not given the options you will be non the wiser. If on finding high blood pressure the usual protocol is to put you on medication without digging deeper finding what is the reason for it in your particular case checking your blood pressure regularly os not going to give you the best outcome.

On of the things that worries me about old age is deteriorating abilities to research and address issues independently, especially if suffering with an illness. That and declining running ability, which is inevitable too :eek:

Have you thought about changing GPs?

I have changed GPs, but the choice in my area is between dire and poor - I carefully researched the original choice and the choice I moved to, but none were attractive. I live in south London, and there just aren't enough GPs to serve the population - my original GP surgery was taken over by the local Trust as they could not recruit GPs.

Fortunately I won't live here when I retire, so hopefully the services will be better in a more rural area.

I don’t agree with your assumption that you can control your health.
Sure it’s good to do exercise, eat the right foods and we should all be doing that, however healthy people do just get cancer and sometimes it’s not a result of behaviour.

It is a simple matter of probabilities. You cannot guarantee a particular outcome, but you can definitely make a huge impact to the odds as a result of your actions.

It is also about quality of life too, already I see many of my forty-something colleagues unable to climb more than a flight or two of stairs, and most couldn't even run a mile. Several are managing minor health conditions (high blood pressure, etc), with regular GP and even hospital appointments - most are overweight and several obese. Every Sunday I very much appreciate being able to go out and do a long run of around half-marathon distance without any difficulty, hopefully that will last for a long time yet, but you never know.

jamesd

justme111 wrote: »

Would not there be another option- to calculate drawdown with capital consumption? Leaving 800 k behind does not make much sense

Of course. That's how it's normally done. I started the topic Drawdown: safe withdrawal rates to introduce people to the field so I suggest that you take your time but gradually read up on it.

There are some worked examples linked from this post.

The percentage of a pot that can be taken depends in part on the drawdown rules used. For a 40 year retirement in the UK it's initially 5% after allowing for costs if the Guyton-Klinger rules are used at 90% success rate. Which means roughly that if the UK is in another world war additional reductions would be needed.

Once you reach 40-45 years of plan duration you're at an income level that in normal conditions would last indefinitely. It's the bad cases that set the limits.

Deferring claiming the state pension tends to be better value for money than buying annuities.

cfw1994

jamesd wrote: »

Of course. That's how it's normally done. I started the topic Drawdown: safe withdrawal rates to introduce people to the field so I suggest that you take your time but gradually read up on it.

There are some worked examples linked from this post.

The percentage of a pot that can be taken depends in part on the drawdown rules used. For a 40 year retirement in the UK it's initially 5% after allowing for costs if the Guyton-Klinger rules are used at 90% success rate. Which means roughly that if the UK is in another world war additional reductions would be needed.

Once you reach 40-45 years of plan duration you're at an income level that in normal conditions would last indefinitely. It's the bad cases that set the limits.

Deferring claiming the state pension tends to be better value for money than buying annuities.

5%? I’ve never seen that suggested.

I’ve read a fair bit about “the 4% Rule”...but that was very US-based...& even there is questioned now: for example, see this.
I’ve seen various suggestions that the UK could be as low as 2.5% upwards...see here or here for example.

It is a tricky one. I would avoid too much home (UK) bias in investments...& as an utter amateur here, my view is that 3.5-4% ought to work.

Perhaps :rotfl: (& I like the sound of a bigger number....you’ve clearly done some research on this!)

michaels

If you define it as 5% of current pot value rather than 5% of existing pot value then by definition the pot will last for ever.

If you shift between asset classes to underweight those that are high priced in historic terms then your pot is by definition going to have a smoother trajectory than if you keep market weights.

Basically these two principles underpin GuytonKlinger and based on historic experience allow the higher withdrawal rates with low probability of pot exhaustion.

Of course past performance is no guarantee of the future.

michaels

hugheskevi wrote: »

Aye, I hope to die nice and quickly when the time eventually comes but who knows, we won't have much control over that.

What I can hugely influence are the odds about the onset of limiting illness. The odds favour suffering from this at some point between 70 and 80 (lower than 70 for those who are have a particularly unhealthy lifestyle), and putting effort into being as healthy and strong as possible will hopefully mean we remain fit and active well into retirement.

On of the things that worries me about old age is deteriorating abilities to research and address issues independently, especially if suffering with an illness. That and declining running ability, which is inevitable too :eek:
I have changed GPs, but the choice in my area is between dire and poor - I carefully researched the original choice and the choice I moved to, but none were attractive. I live in south London, and there just aren't enough GPs to serve the population - my original GP surgery was taken over by the local Trust as they could not recruit GPs.

Fortunately I won't live here when I retire, so hopefully the services will be better in a more rural area.

It is a simple matter of probabilities. You cannot guarantee a particular outcome, but you can definitely make a huge impact to the odds as a result of your actions.

It is also about quality of life too, already I see many of my forty-something colleagues unable to climb more than a flight or two of stairs, and most couldn't even run a mile. Several are managing minor health conditions (high blood pressure, etc), with regular GP and even hospital appointments - most are overweight and several obese. Every Sunday I very much appreciate being able to go out and do a long run of around half-marathon distance without any difficulty, hopefully that will last for a long time yet, but you never know.

You clearly enjoy running but not everyone does. If it turned out that by doing more exercise I added the precise number of waking hours to my life that I had spent doing exercise that I didn't actually enjoy then where is the win?!

Snakey

You stretch it out more, thus giving you a higher chance of outliving your enemies?

lisyloo

fred246 wrote: »

So without the NHS you would be a cretin Lissyloo?

I don’t think so.
I was not physically deformed and did not had learning difficulties, so by that definition no.

Terron

cfw1994 wrote: »

5%? I’ve never seen that suggested.

I’ve read a fair bit about “the 4% Rule”...but that was very US-based...& even there is questioned now: for example, see this.
I’ve seen various suggestions that the UK could be as low as 2.5% upwards...see here or here for example.

It is a tricky one. I would avoid too much home (UK) bias in investments...& as an utter amateur here, my view is that 3.5-4% ought to work.

Perhaps :rotfl: (& I like the sound of a bigger number....you’ve clearly done some research on this!)

As your link says 4% is a good starting point.

Yes UK investments tend not to do so well as the US so maybe it shoudl be a bit lower here.
There are refinements such as Guyton/Klinger to push the number higher and ones to check whether the current year is one that is likely to be on the good or bad side to retire. There has also work been on on the right %age if you are retiring earlier than normal.

But unless you are getting close to when you want to retire the 4% figure seems good enough to me. Taking 4% of your starting funds means that 4% must be at least tthe amount you except to want to live off (your Number). So you need a fund at least 25 times that Number.So aim for that.Then when you are getting close look at the more sophisticated schemes.

michaels

Terron wrote: »

As your link says 4% is a good starting point.

Yes UK investments tend not to do so well as the US so maybe it shoudl be a bit lower here.
There are refinements such as Guyton/Klinger to push the number higher and ones to check whether the current year is one that is likely to be on the good or bad side to retire. There has also work been on on the right %age if you are retiring earlier than normal.

But unless you are getting close to when you want to retire the 4% figure seems good enough to me. Taking 4% of your starting funds means that 4% must be at least tthe amount you except to want to live off (your Number). So you need a fund at least 25 times that Number.So aim for that.Then when you are getting close look at the more sophisticated schemes.

Perhaps refining this by subtracting the state pension multiplied by the number of years you expect to live post SPA?